Background
John Gregorian sued New Century Alhambra Automobiles in Monroe County small claims court, alleging that the company embedded “spy pixels” in marketing emails and shared consumer information with third parties in violation of section 934.27, Florida Statutes. His statement of claim alleged Florida jurisdiction based on tortious conduct in Florida and New Century’s asserted business activity, advertising, and Florida-focused website.
New Century moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, submitting an affidavit from its corporate representative stating that it lacked a physical Florida presence and continuous, systematic general business contacts with the state. Gregorian then served jurisdictional discovery, moved to compel after objections, and submitted his attorney’s affidavit describing the outstanding discovery and unsuccessful efforts to schedule depositions. The trial court dismissed the claim and denied the motion to compel as moot because Gregorian had not filed an affidavit contradicting New Century’s affidavit.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District granted rehearing, withdrew its prior decision, and reversed the dismissal. Under Gleneagle Ship Management Co. v. Leondakos, a plaintiff with good-faith jurisdictional allegations may obtain limited discovery to gather facts needed to file an opposing jurisdictional affidavit; that procedure does not conflict with Venetian Salami.
The court held that Gregorian’s unverified statement of claim nevertheless supplied a colorable basis for jurisdiction, and his failure to file a contravening affidavit did not itself preclude jurisdictional discovery. Because he timely pursued discovery and there was no evidence of delay, the trial court should have considered the merits of his motion to compel before dismissing the case. The matter was remanded for renewed consideration.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff may seek limited discovery to develop facts bearing on personal jurisdiction before filing an opposing affidavit.
- Failure to traverse a defendant’s jurisdictional affidavit is not automatically fatal when timely, targeted jurisdictional discovery is pending.
- Trial courts retain discretion to limit discovery that is broad, burdensome, merits-focused, untimely, or unsupported by a colorable jurisdictional basis.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that the affidavit framework for personal-jurisdiction disputes does not require a plaintiff to provide sworn factual rebuttal before obtaining narrowly tailored discovery needed to test the defendant’s jurisdictional assertions.
It also applies that principle in attorney-represented Florida small-claims cases, where the civil discovery rules govern and the goal of efficient resolution does not eliminate appropriate jurisdictional discovery.