CourtCases2010

The agreement provided that it was governed by

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: 4 235 Case # 23 HATFIELD vs. AUTONATION District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. Garrick HATFIELD, Appellant, v. AUTONATION, INC., Appellee. No. 4D05-2129. Dec. 21, 2005. Background: Car dealership operator brought action against former employee seeking injunctive relief and damages for employee's alleged breach of non-compete agreement. Employee moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. Car dealership filed and emergency motion to require specific performance of venue selection clause in non-compete agreement, and to enjoin misuse of its confidential and proprietary information. The Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Leroy H. Moe, J., denied employee's motion to dismiss. Employee appealed. Holdings: The District Court of Appeal, Gerber, Jonathan D., Associate Judge, held that: (1) evidence was sufficient to sustain dealership's jurisdictional allegations under state long-arm statute, and (2) employee had the requisite minimum contacts with the state to satisfy due process considerations. Affirmed. The District Court of Appeal reviews a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction de novo. To determine whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a non-resident, the court must determine whether the complaint pleads jurisdictional facts in order to sufficiently bring the action within the ambit of the state long-arm statute; if so, the court then must determine whether there exists minimum contacts between the state and the non-resident or, essentially, whether the non-resident should reasonably anticipate being haled into a state court. West's F.S.A. § 48.193. The plaintiff may seek to obtain jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant by pleading the basis for service in the language of the statute without pleading the supporting facts. By itself, the filing of a motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the person does nothing more than raise the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. A non-resident defendant wishing to contest the allegations of the complaint concerning personal jurisdiction or to raise a contention...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online