Contesting Personal Jurisdiction in Florida
Contesting personal jurisdiction in Florida is a two-step process oftentimes referred to as the Venetian Salami analysis after a 1989 Florida Supreme Court case. See Kowalski v. Binance Holdings, Ltd., 50 Fla.L.Weekly D2582a (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).
The Kowalski case summarized this two-step process as follows:
[P]ersonal jurisdiction over a non-resident involves a two-step analysis: a statutory and a constitutional inquiry.
First, the court determines whether the complaint sets forth sufficient jurisdictional allegations to bring the action within Florida’s long-arm statute, section 48.193, Florida Statutes. Id. This is accomplished by either tracking the language of the statute without supporting facts or alleging specific facts that demonstrate defendant’s actions fit within the statute.
“The first step of the Venetian Salami analysis may involve a burden shift.” The plaintiff has the initial burden to plead the basis for personal jurisdiction. To contest personal jurisdiction, the defendant must either argue that the plaintiff failed to meet its initial pleading burden or “provide admissible evidence that refutes the essential jurisdictional facts set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint. If a defendant fully refutes the jurisdictional allegations, then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove the basis for jurisdiction.” If the plaintiff fails to rebut the defendant’s evidence, then the motion to dismiss must be granted. But when the affidavits or evidence cannot be reconciled, the trial court must hold a limited evidentiary hearing to determine jurisdiction.
If the first step is satisfied, the court then examines whether there are sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process. “To satisfy such constitutional requirements, a court must determine that ‘the defendant’s conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’ ”
Kowalski, supra (internal citations omitted).
In Kowalski, the trial court did not properly apply the Venetian Salami analysis. The plaintiff properly pled allegations in the complaint to support personal jurisdiction. The defendant challenged those personal jurisdiction allegations with an affidavit, which prompted the plaintiff to submit more evidence regarding personal jurisdiction. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but this was reversed directing the trial court to apply the Venetian Salami analysis:
But the trial court never considered this affidavit [from the defendant] and its effect on the burden-shifting framework. Indeed, this affidavit directly refuted the allegations in the complaint shifting the burden back to [plaintiff], who then submitted more evidence. When this occurs, the trial court’s duty is not to simply pick a winner from the pleadings. Rather, it must follow Venetian Salami Co. Thus, the trial court erred by not performing the burden-shifting analysis and fully considering the evidence submitted by the parties. This procedural omission requires reversal.
On remand, the trial court should consider the jurisdictional evidence to determine whether section 48.193, Florida Statutes, is satisfied. If the trial court finds that the affidavits and evidence cannot be reconciled, it must conduct a limited evidentiary hearing. If long-arm jurisdiction is established, then the trial court must determine whether there are sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process.
Kowalski, supra (internal citations omitted).
Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.
