Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 22, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-0375
Lower Tribunal No. 20-12620
________________
Robert Gold,
Appellant,
vs.
Lee Rosen,
Appellee.
An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge.
Crabtree & Auslander, and John G. Crabtree, and Charles M.
Auslander, and Brian C. Tackenberg, for appellant.
Fasano Law Firm, PLLC, and Michael C. Fasano, for appellee.
Before EMAS, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.
MILLER, J.
Appellant, Robert Gold, appeals a non-final order denying his motion
to dismiss the lawsuit pending against him in the lower tribunal. The genesis
of the underlying complaint concerns a meeting that occurred between Gold
and appellee, Lee Rosen, in Bal Harbour, Florida. Observing the trial court
properly confined the sole inquiry below to “whether the tort as alleged
occurred in Florida, and not whether the alleged tort actually occurred,” the
allegations were sufficient to both satisfy the long-arm statute, codified in
section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2021), and establish the requisite minimum
contacts with Florida to justify the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over
Gold. Walter Lorenz Surgical, Inc. v. Teague,
721 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1998); see § 48.193(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (“A person . . . thereby submits
himself . . . to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action
arising from any of the following acts: . . . [c]ommitting a tortious act within
this state.”); Godfrey v. Neumann,
373 So. 2d 920, 922 (Fla. 1979) (“[B]y
committing a tort in Florida a nonresident establishes ‘minimum contacts’
with Florida to justify the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over him
. . . .”); Krilich v. Wolcott,
717 So. 2d 582, 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“The
commission of a tort in Florida is sufficient to establish minimum contacts
and satisfy federal due process concerns.”). Concluding the remaining
2
issues warrant no further discussion, we affirm the reasoned decision under
review.
Affirmed.
3
