ANDREAS STIHL AG & CO. KG, etc., vs FRANCISCO VILLATA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 4, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D19-451 Lower Tribunal No. 17-29163 ________________ Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG, Appellant, vs. Francisco Villalta, Appellee. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael Hanzman, Judge. McGuireWoods LLP, and Martha Swicegood Stwodah (Richmond, VA) and Justin D. Howard (Richmond, VA) and Sara F. Holladay-Tobias (Jacksonville); Bowman and Brooke LLP, and Christine L. Welstead and Stephanie M. Simm, for appellant. Eaton & Wolk, P.L., and Douglas F. Eaton, for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appellant seeks review of a trial court order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. After review, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to vacate the order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss and to enter an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint as to Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG. See Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989); Tobacco Merchants Ass’n of U.S. v. Broin, 657 So. 2d 939, 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that where defendant has met its burden of contesting personal jurisdiction by filing a legally sufficient affidavit in support of its position, “the burden is then placed upon the plaintiff to prove by affidavit the basis upon which jurisdiction may be obtained,” and “[i]f no such sworn proof is forthcoming from the plaintiff as to the basis for jurisdiction, the trial court must grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)); Kent v. Marmorstein, 120 So. 3d 604, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding that, where plaintiff filed only an unsworn response to defendant’s affidavit contesting jurisdiction, plaintiff “failed to meet his burden” to demonstrate jurisdiction). REVERSED AND REMANDED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
