DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PACKAGING & DISTRIBUTION RESOURCES, LLC., GLOBAL BEAUTY 

GROUP, LLC., GT PARTNERS LIMITED LIABILITY USA, LLC., and

LANTIER USA LLC.

Appellants,

v.

DUKE REALTY LTD., D’ARCY ACQUISITION, LLC., and MARLENE 

D’ARCY, INC.

Appellees.

No. 4D15-2124

[June 8, 2016]

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

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Sandra Perlman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

CACE11009811 (04).

Howard D. DuBosar and Robert C. Sheres of DuBoser Sheres, P.A., 

Boca Raton, for appellant, Packaging & Distribution Resources, LLC.

William E. Calnan of Waldman Trigoboff Hildebrandt Marx & Calnan, 

P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee, Duke Realty Ltd.

CONNER, J.

Appellants, nonresident limited liability companies, seek review of a 

non-final order denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). For 

the reasons below, we reverse and remand for a limited evidentiary 

hearing.

In the case below, following nonpayment of rent, a landlord sued its 

commercial tenant for eviction and damages for past due rent, joining the 

appellants as defendants. The appellants were guarantors of the tenant’s 

performance on the lease. The tenant’s chief executive officer (CEO) was 

also CEO for each of the guarantors.

The complaint included the requisite allegations that each guarantor, 

as a foreign limited liability company, was duly authorized and conducting 
2

business in Florida. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 

502 (Fla. 1989). Consequently, the burden shifted to the guarantors to 

contest the court’s personal jurisdiction over them by filing a motion to 

dismiss, supported by a legally sufficient affidavit or other sworn proof to 

contest the complaint’s jurisdictional allegations. Id. The guarantors 

moved to dismiss the complaint alleging lack of personal jurisdiction over 

them and supported the motion with affidavits, thus shifting the burden 

to the landlord plaintiff to respond accordingly. The plaintiff responded by 

filing a transcript of the CEO’s deposition. The trial court denied the 

motion to dismiss after considering the parties’ arguments based on the 

affidavits and deposition, but the trial court did not articulate at the 

hearing or in its order the reasoning or the findings as to disputed issues 

of fact regarding the extent of contact each debtor has had with Florida. 

At the hearing, the court did not entertain any additional testimony or 

evidence.

In opposing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a 

plaintiff may use sworn statements, including depositions. See Teva 

Pharm. Indus. v. Ruiz, 181 So. 3d 513, 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (explaining 

that deposition transcripts submitted by plaintiff refuted the allegations in 

defendant’s affidavit, thereby creating a conflict in the evidence, and thus

the trial court was required to hold a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve 

the disputed issues of fact). As we have previously said, with regards to a

motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction where sworn proof is 

presented by opposing sides:

In most instances, the evidence presented by each side can be 

harmonized, and the trial court is in a position to make a 

determination based upon undisputed facts. However, if the 

evidence presented by the parties conflicts, the trial court

must then hold a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve the 

jurisdictional issue. Id. at 503. “[A]n evidentiary hearing 

under Venetian Salami resolves the factual disputes necessary 

to determine jurisdiction pursuant to section 48.193 as well 

as whether minimum contacts exist to satisfy due process 

concerns.” Dev. Corp. of Palm Beach v. WBC Constr., L.L.C., 

925 So.2d 1156, 1160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

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

original).

We reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct a limited 

evidentiary hearing on the issues of personal jurisdiction because the 

affidavits and deposition, particularly those of the CEO, cannot be 
3

reconciled with respect to the extent of each guarantor’s contacts with the 

debtor/tenant or with Florida generally. See Kotoura v. Stern, 183 So. 3d 

1245, 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). As in Kotoura, we decline to reach 

appellants’ argument that they lack sufficient minimum contacts with 

Florida to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process requirements 

as outlined in Venetian Salami. See id. Under that analysis, the trial court 

should consider the evidence presented at the hearing to decide whether 

each appellant’s “conduct and connection with the forum State [are] such 

that [it] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Id.

(citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 

(1980)).

We reverse without discussion as to the other issues argued in this 

appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.