Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: as to minimum contacts must file an affidavit 236 in support of the defendant's position; the burden then is placed upon the plaintiff to prove by affidavit the basis upon which jurisdiction may be obtained. In most cases, following the submission of affidavits from both parties over whether the court has personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, the court can harmonize the affidavits, and the court will be in a position to make a decision based upon facts which essentially are undisputed; however, when the court cannot harmonize the affidavits, the court will have to hold a limited evidentiary hearing to determine the jurisdictional issue. Evidence presented by car dealership in hearing on personal jurisdiction was sufficient to support conclusion that non-resident former employee sued by resident car dealership for alleged breach of non-compete agreement engaged in substantial and non-isolated activity within the state and committed a tortious act within the state, allowing court to sustain dealership's jurisdictional allegations under state long-arm statute; among other evidence presented, evidence showed that employee regularly communicated with and relied on dealership's in-state support staff, and employee used dealership's state-based email system to forward proprietary and confidential information. West's F.S.A. § 48.193. Trial court's error in determining that non-resident former employee sued by resident car dealership for alleged breach of non-compete agreement did not refute car dealership's allegations that employee committed tortious acts in the state was harmless, where trial court conducted a limited evidentiary hearing on the jurisdictional issue and found sufficient evidence to sustain jurisdiction over employee regardless of employee's refutation. In analyzing whether a non-resident has the requisite minimum contacts with a forum state to justify personal jurisdiction, courts should determine whether the non-resident's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. In determining whether...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online