TEXAS GUARANTEED STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION, а foreign corporation, Appellant,
v.
Jeffrey R. WARD, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
*931 Russell L. Cheatham, III of Fisher & Sauls, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant.
Barry Ben Butler of Barry Ben Butler, P.A., Brandon, and Jеffrey Renick Ward, St. Petersburg, for Appellee.
THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.
Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corрoration (TGSLC), defendant below, appeals a nonfinal order denying its motion to abate/dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and motion to quash service of process. We have jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). Because TGSLC's acts were not sufficient to subject it to Florida's long-arm jurisdiction under seсtion 48.193, Florida Statutes (1995), we reverse.
*932 TGSLC is a foreign corporation existing under the laws of Texas. In determining whether a nonresident defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of Florida's сourts, two inquiries must be made. "First, it must be determined that the complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the ambit of the statute; and if it does, the next inquiry is whether sufficient `minimum contacts' are demonstrated to satisfy due process requirements." Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais,
The complaint filed in this case by Jeffrey Ward sought relief under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, as well as under theories of defamation, intentional infliction of severe emotional distress, invasion of privacy, negligence, and usury. The complaint alleged that TGSLC engaged in debt collection activities in Florida by mailing debt collection letters and making telephone сalls to Mr. Ward while he was in Florida. The complaint also alleged that TGSLC conducted business within Florida, and that all or part of the transactions complained of occurred in Hillsborough County, Florida. Mr. Ward contends that section 48.193(1)(a)-(b) confers jurisdiction ovеr TGSLC. That provision states that any person who, personally or through an agent, commits an enumerated act submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any causе of action arising from the act. The enumerated acts include, in pertinent part: "(a) [o]perating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in this state оr having an office or agency in this state;" and "(b) [c]ommitting a tortious act within this state." § 48.193(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (1995).
In order to challenge allegations in a complaint regarding jurisdiction or the sufficiency of minimum contacts, a defendant must file affidavits to support its position. Venetian Salami,
The assertions in TGSLC's affidavit refute the allegation in the complaint that TGSLC cоnducts business in Florida. To invoke Florida's long-arm jurisdiction over a foreign corporаtion under section 48.193(1)(a), the corporation's activities must be considered collectively and must show a general course of business activity in Florida for pecuniаry benefits. Citicorp Ins. Brokers, Ltd. v. Charman,
Similarly, Mr. Ward has failed to establish that jurisdiction exists under section 48.193(1)(b). The complaint alleged several tort claims including defamation, intentional infliсtion of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. These claims arise from the debt collection letters and telephone calls received by Mr. Ward in Florida аnd from false statements allegedly made by TGSLC to credit reporting agencies. The сomplaint, however, fails to allege that any of the tortious conduct ocсurred in Florida. The occurrence of injury alone in Florida does not satisfy sectiоn 48.193(1)(b). Phillips v. Orange Co., Inc.,
Because we have determined that TGSLC is not subject to Florida's long-arm jurisdiction under section 48.193, it is not necessary to address the second inquiry as to whether sufficient minimum contacts have been demonstrated *933 to satisfy due process requirements. See Rafal v. Mesick,
Reversed.
PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.