Security National Bank of Omaha v. Corporate Computer Group, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Security National Bank of Omaha v. Corporate Computer Group, Inc.

847 So. 2d 573, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8815, 2003 WL 21360388

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 13, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-4494

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 847 So. 2d 573 (Security National Bank of Omaha v. Corporate Computer Group, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Security National Bank of Omaha v. Corporate Computer Group, Inc., 847 So. 2d 573, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8815, 2003 WL 21360388 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a non-final order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). On its face, appellee’s third amended com-[574]*574plamt (including exhibit) was legally insufficient to plead a basis for personal jurisdiction over appellant because it neither pled the alleged basis for jurisdiction pursuant to the language of section 48.193(1), Florida Statutes (2001), nor alleged facts which, if true, would be sufficient to support jurisdiction. See Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla.1989) (citing what is now Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(h)). Accordingly, the trial court should have granted appellant’s motion to dismiss. Because it did not, we reverse, and remand with directions that it enter an order vacating its prior order and dismissing, as to appellant, appellee’s third amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of a non-final order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). On its face, appellee’s third amended com-[574]*574plamt (including exhibit) was legally insufficient to plead a basis for personal jurisdiction over appellant because it neither pled the alleged basis for jurisdiction pursuant to the language of section 48.193(1), Florida Statutes (2001), nor alleged facts which, if true, would be sufficient to support jurisdiction. See Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla.1989) (citing what is now Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(h)). Accordingly, the trial court should have granted appellant’s motion to dismiss. Because it did not, we reverse, and remand with directions that it enter an order vacating its prior order and dismissing, as to appellant, appellee’s third amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

WEBSTER, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

847 So. 2d 573, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8815, 2003 WL 21360388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/security-national-bank-of-omaha-v-corporate-computer-group-inc-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack