42 Fla. L. Weekly D1619c
Jurisdiction — Non-residents — Trial court did not err in denying motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction upon finding that complaint alleged sufficient jurisdictional facts to satisfy long-arm statute, and that non-resident defendant had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy constitutional due process concerns
FABRICA DE FIDEOS RIVOLI, S.A., Appellant, v. FAMEX INVESTMENTS LIMITED, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D17-10. L.T. Case No. 16-1333. July 19, 2017. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rodney Smith, Judge. Counsel: Dorta Law, and Matias R. Dorta, for appellant. Jones & Adams, P.A., and Matthew L. Jones, for appellee. (Before LAGOA, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.) (PER CURIAM.) Fabrica de Fideos Rivoli, S.A., the defendant below, appeals a non-final order denying its motion to dismiss the instant action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Concluding that the trial court correctly applied the two-prong test for determining whether personal jurisdiction may be exercised over a nonresident defendant, we affirm. See Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989) (providing that personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant exists where: (1) the complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts to satisfy Florida’s long-arm statute, section 48.193 of the Florida Statutes; and (2) the nonresident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy constitutional due process concerns). Affirmed.
* * *