DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

TERUGOSHI KOTOURA a/k/a KATSURA KAN,

Appellant,

v.

TIBOR STERN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of SHARON 

STERN,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-1321

[January 20, 2016]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Mily Rodriguez Powell, Judge; L.T. Case 

No. 13-010284 CACE (03).

Terugoshi Kotoura a/k/a Katsura Kan, Sakyou-ku Kyoto, Japan, pro 

se.

Ronnette Gleizer of Gleizer Law, P.A., Hallandale Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse in part the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to 

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and remand for the trial court to 

conduct a limited evidentiary hearing on jurisdictional issues. 

Appellant, the defendant below, is a Japanese national, who has never 

been to the Florida. In the amended complaint, plaintiff has alleged long 

arm jurisdiction based on defendant’s communications with the decedent 

while she was in Broward County. See § 48.193(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2015). 

The law is clear that a defendant need not be physically present in Florida 

for long arm jurisdiction to exist. Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So. 2d 1252, 

1260 (Fla. 2002). A defendant can commit a tortious act in Florida through 

“telephonic, electronic, or written communications into Florida. However, 

the cause of action must arise from the communications.” Id. (emphasis 

supplied). 

Appellant filed an affidavit in support of his motion to dismiss asserting 

that he never spoke with decedent while she was in Florida and denying 
2

that he committed any tortious conduct in Florida. Plaintiff responded 

and filed affidavits with conflicting allegations, asserting that decedent’s 

parents observed defendant communicating with the decedent while she 

was in Florida. Plaintiff also submitted a number of e-mails. While a few 

of the e-mails appear to be from defendant to the decedent, the 

communications in those e-mails do not constitute the commission of 

tortious conduct in Florida for purposes of long arm jurisdiction. There 

was no showing that any of the causes of action in the amended complaint 

arose from those communications.

Pursuant to the procedure announced in Venetian Salami Co. v. 

Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 503 (Fla. 1989), when the affidavits submitted 

by the parties cannot be reconciled, the trial court is required to hold a 

limited evidentiary hearing to determine the jurisdictional issues. E.g., 

Balboa v. Assante, 958 So. 2d 573, 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). 

The affidavits submitted by the parties in this case cannot be 

reconciled. Plaintiff alleges that defendant committed tortious conduct 

through communications with the decedent in Florida, and defendant 

denies any such communications. Accordingly, we reverse and remand 

for the court to conduct a limited evidentiary hearing on the jurisdictional 

issues. 

We decline to reach appellant’s argument that he lacks sufficient 

minimum contacts with Florida under the second prong of the Venetian 

Salami analysis. The trial court should consider the evidence presented 

at the hearing, including the extent, nature and timing of defendant’s 

alleged communications with decedent in Florida, in deciding this issue. 

The inquiry should focus on whether the defendant’s “conduct and 

connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably 

anticipate being haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. 

Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). We affirm as to the other issues 

argued in this appeal without discussion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CIKLIN, C.J., GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.