Ruben Galsky Sandelman v. Aby Galsky Sandelman

Summary

The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed a non-final order denying Ruben Galsky Sandelman’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that the operative complaint failed to allege a legally and factually adequate basis for exercising Florida’s long-arm jurisdiction and that the plaintiff could not change jurisdictional theories in briefing without amending the complaint. The case was remanded for dismissal without prejudice to filing a second amended complaint adequately alleging jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint failed to allege an adequate legal and factual basis for exercising long-arm jurisdiction over Appellant.
2. When a plaintiff changes the theory of long-arm jurisdiction, the plaintiff must seek to amend the complaint to allege germane jurisdictional facts or track the relevant statutory language; the plaintiff may not establish jurisdiction solely through a new theory asserted in opposition to a motion to dismiss.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint adequately pleaded a statutory and factual basis for exercising Florida long-arm jurisdiction over the nonresident Appellant.
2. Whether Appellee could establish personal jurisdiction under a newly asserted business-venture theory raised in opposition to the motion to dismiss without amending the complaint to plead that theory and its required connexity to the claims.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded