Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais Case Brief

Summary of Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (1989)

Cause of action: The following is a cause of action for collection of debts. Parthenais asserts personal jurisdiction via FL’s long arm statute over Venetian by way of its debt being in Alachua County, FL.

Procedural History: Venetian moved to quash service of process for lack of jurisdiction over DF. Affadavits filed supporting their positions. Trial court dismissed for lack of PJ. 1st DCA reversed the order of dismissal. They said PJ may be obtained by meeting parameters of the long arm statute. Appealed and subsequently reversed in this case.

Facts: Parthenais attempted to collect a debt from Venetian, and is trying to use the long arm of the FL statute to enforce his right to do so in a FL court. Venetian asserts there is no jurisdiction b/c a debt alone without any personal contacts is not enough to satisfy the statute.

Issue(s): Under FL rules of civil procedure, does an outstanding debt in another state suffice the FL long arm statute requirement for PJ when the debtor has had no other minimum contacts other than the debt alone.

Court’s Rationale/Reasoning: There is no constitutional requirement for meeting personal jurisdiction; it is on a case-by-case basis. In Burger King v. Rudewicz, the court held there was no intermediate step in regulatory process, it was not realistic to hold a MI resident bound to a FL court for breach of K. There was too mechanical a test applied in this case, and not purposeful for personal jurisdiction. Breach of K would pass muster in this state. There is a 2-prong test applied to situations such as these to see in long arm of FL statute applies:

(1) Are there enough facts to bring this case under the long arm of the statute

(2) Is there personal jurisdiction via minimum contacts rule applied in World Wide Volkswagon and previously in Int’l Shoe.

Only if K’s breach and the actions which resulted in the breach were in the state in which the long arm applies does there exist a situation where the first part of the test applies. Additionally, as per the rule in Shoe, the “minimum contacts w/in the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

Since after even finding that statute does apply, there must be affadavits submitted to properly ascertain the facts of the case. The BOP is on PL to prove the facts exist. Since there is no proof either way, the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of jurisdiction.

Rule: (1) Are there enough facts to bring this case under the long arm of the statute

(2) Is there personal jurisdiction via minimum contacts rule applied in World Wide Volkswagon and previously in Int’l Shoe.

Holding: No. Aside from the debt, Venetian asserts it had no contacts within the state of FL, and since Parthenais disputes this same claim, the case is remanded for further discussion to ascertain the evidence.



Copyright © 2001-2012 4LawSchool.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy HotChalk Partner