DR.-ING. H.C.F. PORSCHE

v.

THE COLLECTION LLC

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 28, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D25-2148 Lower Tribunal No. 22-18640-CA-01

Dr.-Ing. H.C.F. Porsche, Appellant,

vs.

The Collection LLC, Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lisa S. Walsh, Judge.

Dentons US LLP, and Trumon J. Phillip; DLA Piper LLP, and Janelly Crespo, for appellant.

Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula and William D. Mueller; Burstyn Law PLLC, and Sean A. Burstyn, for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, MILLER and REBULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 352 (2021) (“To be subject to . . . [specific] jurisdiction, the defendant must take 'some act by which [it] purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State.' And the plaintiff's claims 'must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts' with the forum." (citations omitted)); Mazda Motor Corp. v. Triche, 365 So. 3d 403, 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (affirming exercise of specific jurisdiction over a Japanese foreign automobile manufacturer, Mazda Japan, finding it targeted Florida by "designing vehicles for, shipping vehicles to,” and ordering recalls for its vehicles owned in Florida: “If not Florida, what market were these actions of Mazda Japan intended to reach?"); see also Machtinger v. Inertial Airline Servs., Inc., 937 So. 2d 730, 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“Directing a conspiracy toward Florida establishes sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process."); Mazda Motor Corp., 365 So. 3d at 414 (holding the exercise of specific jurisdiction over Mazda Japan comported with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, reasoning: “[O]nce it is established that the non-resident defendant purposefully availed itself of the market (and therefore the laws) of a State, the interest of the State to oversee the safety of its residents within the State is obvious and compelling”).

LINDSEY and MILLER, JJ., concur.

Dr.-Ing. H.C.F. Porsche v. The Collection LLC 3D2025-2148

Rebull, J., concurring.

I unreservedly join the affirmance of the learned trial judge's decision to deny Porsche AG's motion(s) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. I write separately to briefly address its contention that the trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing.

This is what Porsche AG wrote in a footnote in its reply in support of its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction:

Even if The Collection had found some evidence to cite, that would not create personal jurisdiction: At most, it would warrant an evidentiary hearing so that the Court could resolve the com- peting evidence. See Estes v. Rodin, 259 So. 3d 183, 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ("If the material facts alleged in the opposing affi- davits conflict with one another, the trial court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the jurisdictional issue."). For- tunately, the Court need not waste its time with such a hearing given The Collection's failure of proof. Id. at 190 (where affidavits "can be harmonized," no evidentiary hearing is needed).

(emphasis added).

There is no reasonable contextual reading of this as anything other than a waiver by Porsche AG of its right to an evidentiary hearing. It rolled the dice and decided that it could win "on the papers," and that no evidentiary hearing was necessary. Moreover, an argument only made in a footnote is legally insufficient. Cf. Dixon v. Brown, 423 So. 3d 963, 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025); Shobola v. Shobola, 355 So. 3d 458, 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). "Proper preservation requires the following three steps from a party: (1) a timely, contemporaneous objection; (2) a legal ground for the objection and; (3) in order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below." State v. Johnson, 295 So. 3d 710, 714 (Fla. 2020) (emphasis added) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Beyond the footnote in the motion, the necessity of an evidentiary hearing before the trial court made any factual findings adverse to Porsche AG did not come up at all in the transcript of the hearing held on the motion on September 8, 2025.

Had Porsche AG wished to put The Collection to its proof and require it to prove its jurisdictional facts with admissible evidence, it should have expressly and clearly argued that to the trial court. At an evidentiary hearing, a plaintiff must prove jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Stonepeak Partners, LP v. Tall Tower Capital, LLC, 231 So. 3d 548, 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); see also AcryliCon USA, LLC v. Silikal GmbH, 985 F. 3d 1350,

1364 (11th Cir. 2021).1 Porsche AG did not elect to do that in this case. For this additional reason, I concur that the decision below is properly affirmed.