Case Name: CORE INDUSTRIES, INC. and Cherokee International, Inc., Appellants, v. Nereo F. AGOSTINELLI, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-05-08
Citations: 591 So. 2d 207
Docket Number: No. 90-2905
Parties: CORE INDUSTRIES, INC. and Cherokee International, Inc., Appellants, v. Nereo F. AGOSTINELLI, Appellee.
Judges: GUNTHER and STONE, JJ„ concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 591
Pages: 207–211

Head Matter:
CORE INDUSTRIES, INC. and Cherokee International, Inc., Appellants, v. Nereo F. AGOSTINELLI, Appellee.
No. 90-2905.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 8, 1991.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 3, 1991.
Steven L. Schwarzberg and James B. Putney of Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn, West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Rebecca J. Covey of Rebecca J. Covey, P.A., and Diane H. Tutt of Diane H. Tutt, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, Core Industries, Inc. (Core) and Cherokee International, Inc. (Cherokee), seek reversal of the trial court's orders denying their motion to dismiss (quash) for lack of personal jurisdiction and their request for an evidentiary hearing on the jurisdictional issue. We affirm.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the amended complaint filed by Nereo Agostinelli (Agostinelli) contains sufficient "long-arm" jurisdictional allegations to establish in personam jurisdiction over Core and Cherokee. By alleging § 48.-181(3) and § 48.193(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989), inter alia, Agostinelli's amended complaint can be construed as putting the defendant Cherokee on notice that Agostinelli is alleging that Cherokee's activities in Florida are substantial and not isolated so as to satisfy the connexity requirement with regard to pleading § 48.193(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). Since we conclude that the affidavit in opposition filed by Cherokee does not sufficiently contravene the jurisdictional allegations contained in the amended complaint, the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss (quash) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Furthermore, because the affidavit filed by Cherokee did not sufficiently controvert the jurisdictional allegations of the amended complaint so as to create factual issues requiring an evidentiary hearing, the trial court did not err in failing to conduct such a hearing. See, Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla.1989) (in cases where affidavits cannot be reconciled the trial court will have to hold a limited evidentiary hearing).
Because Core neither denies the allegation that it is registered to do business and has appointed a statutory resident agent in Florida nor raises any "minimum contacts" issue, Core is properly subject to this suit in Florida. Thus, the trial court did not err with regard to Core.
We conclude the amended complaint contains "long-arm" jurisdictional allegations, uncontroverted by defendant's affidavit, which establish that Cherokee had sufficient "minimum contacts" with Florida to satisfy the tests of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) and World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980).
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER and STONE, JJ" concur.
FARMER, J., dissents with opinion.