Castillo v. Concepto Uno of Miami, Inc.
193 So. 3d 57
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Concepto Uno sued Leopoldo Castillo (and wife) in Miami-Dade for breach of four written interior-design contracts for properties located outside Florida.
- The original complaint was verified and contained jurisdictional allegations that Castillo resided in Boca Raton and that contracts were entered into / payable in Miami-Dade; it was later dismissed for procedural defects (lack of translated contracts).
- Concepto Uno filed an amended complaint labeled “verified” (but not actually verified) repeating the same jurisdictional allegations and attaching the four contracts (only one purportedly signed by Castillo).
- Castillo filed an affidavit denying Florida residency, stating he has lived in the Dominican Republic since 2012, owns only 1% of a Boca Raton property, never lived in Miami-Dade, and did not execute the contracts.
- Concepto Uno submitted no affidavit or sworn proof in response; at a hearing it orally argued Castillo signed one contract in Miami, but presented no testimony or evidence.
- The trial court denied Castillo’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without explanation; the appellate court reversed and remanded for a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual conflict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint alleges sufficient facts under Florida's long-arm statute | Concepto Uno asserted allegations (residence in Boca Raton; contracts entered into / payable in Miami-Dade) support long-arm jurisdiction | Castillo denied those facts in sworn affidavit | The court treated the verified original complaint as competent sworn proof sufficient to allege jurisdictional facts pending resolution of disputes |
| Whether defendant’s affidavit shifts burden to plaintiff to produce contrary sworn proof | Castillo maintained his affidavit shifted burden to Concepto Uno to file affidavits proving jurisdiction | Concepto Uno offered no sworn affidavit in response (only oral argument at hearing) | Once defendant filed an affidavit, the burden shifted to plaintiff; plaintiff needed sworn proof (affidavit or equivalent) to sustain jurisdictional allegations |
| Whether trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing when affidavits conflict | Concepto Uno argued jurisdiction based on its pleadings / contract signature claim | Castillo argued dismissal was required absent plaintiff’s sworn proof; factual conflict existed between sworn statements | Where sworn proof (the original verified complaint) and defendant’s affidavit presented irreconcilable facts, the court must hold a limited evidentiary hearing; denial without hearing reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2002) (standard of review and framework for evaluating personal jurisdiction challenges)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (two-prong test: long-arm statute allegations and minimum contacts; affidavit burden-shifting rule)
- Tobacco Merchants Ass’n of U.S. v. Broin, 657 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (verified complaint or other sworn proof can substitute for affidavit; court must hold evidentiary hearing where affidavits conflict)
- Rollet v. Bizemont, 159 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (if plaintiff fails to provide sworn proof after burden shifts, trial court must grant defendant’s motion to dismiss)