HENSCHEL-STEINAU COMPANY, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY SCHORR, INC., D/B/A CENTRAL T.V. SALES & SERVICE AND GARDEN STATE MOUNTING & FINISHING COMPANY, 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.
Henschel-Steinau Company appealed the trial court's denial of its motions to quash and dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient jurisdictional facts to invoke Florida's long-arm statute. The court agreed, holding that a party must allege all requisite jurisdictional facts in the complaint to establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.
The trial court erred in failing to dismiss the amended complaints. To invoke Florida's long-arm statute, a party must allege in the complaint all requisite jurisdictional facts that establish applicability of the specific statutory provision involved.
[1] A complaint must allege sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring a party within the provisions of Florida's long-arm statute.
[2] To determine the applicability of the long-arm statute, a party must allege and prove all requisite jurisdictional facts bearing on the specific provision involved.
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“In order to determine the applicability of the long-arm statute a party must allege in his complaint (and prove) all requisite jurisdictional facts which have a bearing on the applicability of the specific provision involved.”
Establishes the standard that complaints invoking long-arm jurisdiction must contain all necessary jurisdictional facts
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenschel-Steinau Company, a nonresident defendant, was sued by Harry Schorr, Inc. and Garden State Mounting & Finishing Company through both an amende…
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 Florida Long-Arm Statute Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the record and briefs1 and after having heard oral argument by Henschel-Steinau Company, appellant2 (defendant and third-party defendant below) the court is of the opinion that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the amended third-party complaint and amended complaint as to appellant Henschel. The pleadings filed by the appellees (third-party plaintiffs and plaintiffs below) failed to allege sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the appellees within the provisions of Florida’s long-arm statute, sections 48.181 and 48.182, F.S. In order to determine the applicability of the long-arm statute a party must allege in his complaint (and prove) all requisite jurisdictional facts which have a bearing on the applicability of the specific provision involved.3 O’Connell v. Loach, Fla.App. 1967, 203 So. 2d 350. See also Gordon v. John Deere Company, Fla.1972, 264 So. 2d 419; Annotation: Products Liability: In Personam Jurisdiction Over Nonresident Manufacturer or Seller Under “Long-Arm” Statutes, 19 A.L.R.3d 13.
Accordingly, the order denying Hen-schel-Steinau’s motions to quash and dismiss is vacated and the cause remanded to the trial court with the respectful direction to enter an order dismissing the amended complaint and the third-party complaint as to appellant Henschel-Steinau with leave given to appellees to amend as deemed appropriate.
Reversed and remanded.
WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., and TURNER, WILLIAM ROGERS, Associate Judge, concur. . The reply brief of the appellant filed on the day of oral argument has not been considered by the court. See Rule 3.7, subd. c, F.A.R. . Appellees heretofore filed a formal waiver of oral argument.
.For example, the allegations are lacking as to the nature and date of appellees’ “wrongful conduct” or the nature of appellees’ transactions so as to ascertain the applicability of and compliance with Sections 48.181 or 48.-182, F.S.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Abner Wynn Gordon v. The John Deere Co., 264 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 1972)
- Pepper v. State, 203 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)