WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT IN AFFIDAVITS REGARDING PERSONAL JURISDICTION, THE TRIAL COURT MUST CONDUCT A LIMITED EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Cash v. Stoltenberg, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D2136 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 23, 2024):
To determine the appropriateness of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, the complaint must allege sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the ambit of Florida’s long-arm statute. Then the court must determine whether sufficient minimum contacts are demonstrated to satisfy due process requirements.
A defendant who challenges personal jurisdiction may contest the plaintiff’s assertions by filing an affidavit in support of a motion to dismiss. If the defendant sufficiently disputes the allegations, then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to present evidence establishing a sufficient factual basis for personal jurisdiction.
If the evidence and affidavits can be harmonized, the trial court may render a decision upon the undisputed facts.
However, if a direct conflict exists between the affidavits and evidence which cannot be reconciled, the court must hold a limited evidentiary hearing to determine jurisdiction.
Here, there was a direct conflict between the defendants’ and plaintiffs’ affidavits which could not be reconciled so the court remanded for a limited evidentiary hearing.