Background
Shane DeFreest, a Florida resident, sued Jessie Pridemore and others for defamation. DeFreest alleged that Pridemore, a nonresident, posted defamatory statements about him on a website and that those statements were accessed by third parties in Florida. Pridemore moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Circuit Court for Duval County granted the motion, dismissing the case. DeFreest appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. The court held that DeFreest had adequately pleaded jurisdictional facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Pridemore under Florida’s long-arm statute. The allegations that DeFreest was a Florida resident, Pridemore posted defamatory statements on a website, and those statements were accessed by third parties in Florida were sufficient to satisfy jurisdictional requirements at the motion to dismiss stage. The court cited Estes v. Rodin, 259 So. 3d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), for the principle that such allegations support long-arm jurisdiction over nonresident defendants.
Critically, because Pridemore presented no sworn evidence rebutting DeFreest’s jurisdictional allegations, the motion to dismiss should have been denied. The court declined to address whether Pridemore had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida for due process purposes, as this issue had not been raised or argued in the trial court and might require factual findings on remand.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff adequately pleads jurisdiction at the motion to dismiss stage by alleging the defendant is a nonresident, posted defamatory statements online, and those statements were accessed in Florida.
- A defendant cannot defeat jurisdiction through a bare motion to dismiss without presenting sworn evidence contradicting the plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations.
- Nonresident defendants who publish statements online may be subject to jurisdiction in states where residents access those statements and claim injury.
- Due process minimum contacts issues not raised in the trial court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal if they require factual development.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that Florida courts have jurisdiction over nonresident defendants whose online statements are accessed by Florida residents who claim defamation injury. In the modern internet era, where geographic boundaries are functionally irrelevant to publication, the ruling prevents defendants from escaping accountability by simply residing out of state. For plaintiffs, the decision establishes a straightforward jurisdictional pathway: adequately alleging that defamatory statements posted online reached the plaintiff in Florida suffices at the pleading stage.
The decision also reinforces important procedural discipline: at the motion to dismiss stage, defendants must present sworn evidence to rebut factual allegations regarding jurisdiction—conclusory denials or procedural objections are insufficient. For future litigants, the case confirms that online publication creates genuine jurisdictional nexus in states where the plaintiff resides and where statements are accessed, shifting the burden appropriately to defendants to substantiate their lack of contacts through evidence rather than argument.