MARTIN ACQUADRO, M.D., AND ROSE ACQUADRO, APPELLANTS,
v.
JANET BERGERON, BONNIE TOWING & RECOVERY, INC., JAMES R. BONNIE, PAUL M. WILLIAMS, CATHERINE BONNIE, AND ROY A. WOOD, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Massachusetts residents appealed an order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a Florida defamation and malicious prosecution case. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that because defendants did not deny making telephone communications into Florida that formed the basis of the tort claims, the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute.
The trial court properly denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because the defendants' affidavits did not deny the telephone communications into Florida that formed the basis of jurisdiction under Florida Statutes section 48.193(1)(b), which subjects non-residents who commit tortious acts within Florida to the state's jurisdiction.
[1] A non-resident who commits a tortious act within Florida is subject to the jurisdiction of Florida courts.
[2] When a defendant's affidavits in support of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction deny tortious conduct but do not deny the jurisdictional facts, the cour…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The purpose of affidavits in these circumstances is 'to contest the allegations of the complaint concerning jurisdiction or to raise a contention of minimum contacts.'”
Establishes the limited function of affidavits in jurisdictional disputes—they are not meant to resolve the underlying merits of tort claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants, Massachusetts residents, engaged in telephone conversations with persons in Florida. During these conversations, one appellant allegedly d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse False Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant defendants, who are residents of Massachusetts, appeal an order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.
Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges, among other things, that the appellants, while in Massachusetts, engaged in telephone conversations with persons in Florida, in which one of the appellants defamed plaintiff and both made statements which were the basis of claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution. Personal jurisdiction was alleged under section 48.193(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1999), which subjects a non-resident who commits a tortious act within Florida to the jurisdiction of the Florida courts.
Defendants filed affidavits in support of their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, in which they denied making the statements which were the basis of the tort claims, but did not deny their involvement in the telephone conversations with persons in Florida.
Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ failure to refute their affidavits denying the tortious conduct required the trial court to grant their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We disagree. The purpose of affidavits in these circumstances is “to contest the allegations of the complaint concerning jurisdiction or to raise a contention of minimum contacts.” Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla.1989). Where the affidavits are in conflict, the trial court holds a “limited evidentiary hearing in order to determine the jurisdiction issue.” Id. at 503.
In the present ease the trial court did hold an evidentiary hearing, but the purpose was not, as the court correctly recognized, to resolve whether the defendants had committed the torts. That would have required a full-blown trial, not the limited evidentiary hearing contemplated by Vene-^an Salami.
Because the defendants’ affidavits did not deny that the telephone, communication, which was the basis of personal jurisdiction, had occurred, the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss. Carida v. Holy Cross Hosp., Inc., 424 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)(committing defamation by telephone call into Florida constituted the commission of a tort in Florida and subjected defendant to personal jurisdiction); Silver v. Levinson, 648 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(same). Affirmed.
GROSS and HA20URI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2002)…la. 4th DCA 1994); Carida v. Holy Cross Hospital, 424 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), overruled on other grounds by Doe v. Thompson, 620 So. 2d 1004 (Fla.1993) (the latter statement being made in this case by the majority); and Acquadro v. Bergeron, 778 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA), review granted, 797 So. 2d 584 (Fla.2001), are distinguishable and do not expressly and directly conflict with Horowitz v. Laske, 751 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), as article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution requires f…1 / 2
-
Martin Acquadro, M.D. v. Bergeron, 851 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2003)…QUINCE, J. We have for review Acquadro v. Bergeron, 778 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which expressly and directly conflicts with the decisions of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Horowitz v. Laske, 751 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), quashed sub nom. Wendt v…1 / 3
-
Casita, L.P. v. Maplewood Equity P'rs L.P., 960 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)(mailing of defamatory letter into Florida); Achievers Unlimited, Inc. v. Nutri Herb, Inc., 710 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(defamatory statements over telephone to Florida residents by nonresident); Acquadro v. Bergeron, 778 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(telephone conversations made into Florida), approved, 851 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2003).) In this case, Maplewood is unable to offer any proof that the Casita entities published the injurious statements within Florida. Accordingly, Mapl…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)
- Silver v. Levinson, 648 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Robert v. Carida, 424 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)