PIPISTREL ITALIA S.R.L., ETC.

v.

SUSAN L. CICCOLINI, ETC.

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 13, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1216 Lower Tribunal No. 21-CA-000154-M

________________

Pipistrel Italia S.r.l., a foreign corporation,

Appellant,

vs.

Susan L. Ciccolini, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Stephen Mark Fraysher, deceased, on behalf of herself and all potential beneficiaries and heirs,

Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones, Judge. Locke Lord LLP, Dale A. Evans, Jr. (West Palm Beach), and Eric C. Strain (New York, NY), for appellant.

Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and Stephen F. Rosenthal, Christina H. Martinez and Kristina M. Infante, for appellee. Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. GORDO, J.

Pipistrel Italia S.r.l. (“Pipistrel Italia”) appeals a non-final order denying

its motion to dismiss Susan Ciccolini’s (“Ciccolini”) second amended

complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). We affirm.

“A trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction is subject to de novo review.” Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP v.

Lamb-Ferrara, 388 So. 3d 1112, 1116-17 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). Where no

evidentiary hearing is held, “the facts presented by the plaintiff must be taken

as true and the plaintiff is entitled to all reasonable inferences from those

facts.” Mazda Motor Corp. v. Triche, 365 So. 3d 403, 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)

(footnote omitted). “Once the factual basis for the motion is established, the

legal question of whether the facts are sufficient to make a prima facie case

for jurisdiction is reviewed de novo.” Id. at 408-09.

On appeal, Pipistrel Italia argues the trial court erred in finding it was

subject to specific jurisdiction in Florida consistent with due process.¹

Because we conclude that Pipistrel Italia had sufficient minimum contacts

with Florida to satisfy due process requirements, we affirm.² See Mazda

Motor Corp., 365 So. 3d at 409-14 (“For due process to be satisfied by a

court's exercise of specific jurisdiction over a defendant located outside its

territory, the defendant's contacts must meet three conditions. First, the

contacts must involve some act by which the defendant purposefully avails

itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum . . ., thus

invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Second, the contacts must

be related to the plaintiff's cause of action or have given rise to it. Third, the

defendant's contacts with the forum must be such that the defendant should

reasonably anticipate being haled into court there . . . [W]e conclude that the

trial judge was eminently correct in finding that the jurisdictional allegations

and facts in this case support a determination that [the defendant] had

sufficient contacts with Florida for a Florida court to assert personal, case-

specific jurisdiction in this matter.”) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted).

Affirmed.