Background
The Collection LLC sued Dr.-Ing. H.C.F. Porsche, also referred to in the opinion as Porsche AG, in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. Porsche sought dismissal of the second amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The circuit court denied the jurisdictional motion. Porsche took a nonfinal appeal and also argued that the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to resolve the jurisdictional issue.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed the denial of Porsche’s motion to dismiss. Citing Ford Motor Co. and its own Mazda decision, the court concluded that the exercise of specific jurisdiction was proper where a defendant purposefully avails itself of the Florida market and the claims arise from or relate to its forum contacts.
Judge Rebull concurred separately. He concluded that Porsche waived any right to an evidentiary hearing by arguing in a reply footnote that no hearing was necessary because The Collection had failed to establish jurisdiction. The concurrence also found that a footnote did not adequately preserve the issue and noted that Porsche did not otherwise raise the need for a hearing at the motion hearing.
Key Takeaways
- The denial of Porsche’s jurisdictional dismissal motion was affirmed.
- Specific jurisdiction turns on purposeful forum-directed conduct and a claim that arises from or relates to that conduct.
- A party seeking an evidentiary hearing on disputed jurisdictional facts must clearly request and preserve that relief.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that a foreign manufacturer may be subject to specific jurisdiction in Florida when its conduct is sufficiently directed at the state and connected to the plaintiff’s claims. It also underscores the preservation risk of treating an evidentiary-hearing request as unnecessary in the trial court and later asserting error on appeal.