Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

November 13, 2015 by admin

Jurisdiction — Non-residents — Contracts — Torts — Dismissal — Trial court improperly denied defendant’s motion for dismissal grounded on lack of personal jurisdiction where allegations do not allege defendant committed a tort in Florida or that he failed to perform a contractual obligation that he was personally required to perform in Florida

40
Fla. L. Weekly D2475a
Top of Form

Jurisdiction
— Non-residents — Contracts — Torts — Dismissal — Trial court improperly
denied defendant’s motion for dismissal grounded on lack of personal
jurisdiction where allegations do not allege defendant committed a tort in
Florida or that he failed to perform a contractual obligation that he was
personally required to perform in Florida — Moreover, plaintiff did not
provide an affidavit or evidence refuting defendant’s affidavit contesting
jurisdiction

BRIAN MCLANE, Appellant, v. THE AUTOMOTIVE RESOURCE NETWORK
HOLDINGS, INC., n/k/a NATIONWISE CAPITAL VENTURES, INC., a Florida corporation,
NOSTEGO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, LARRY ROLEN, an individual,
and SAFEDATA TRUST, INC., a Tennessee corporation, Appellees. 4th District.
Case No. 4D15-107. November 4, 2015. Appeal of a non-final order from the
Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; John J.
Murphy, III, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14-8783 (04). Counsel: Raymond C. Carr and Joshua
Magidson of MacFarlane Ferguson & McMullen, P.A., Clearwater, for
appellant. No brief filed for appellees.

(PER CURIAM.) Brian McLane appeals a non-final order denying
his Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
We agree that the evidence was insufficient to show that McLane had sufficient
minimum contacts with Florida, and the motion should have been granted.

McLane, a Kentucky resident, is a managing member of
Nostego, LLC, a Delaware company with its principal place of business in
Kentucky. In a December 2012 purchase agreement, Nostego agreed to sell 245,000
unique gift card codes to The Automotive Resource Network Holdings, Inc.
(“ARNH”). ARNH is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place
of business in New York.

A January 2013 Letter of Agreement between Nostego and
SafeData Trust, Inc. indicated that Nostego would receive the cards from
SafeData Trust, and ARNH would be the authorized reseller under a separate
agreement with Nostego.

In May 2014, ARNH filed a complaint in Broward County
against Nostego, McLane, and other defendants for rescission, declaratory
relief, injunction, and breach of contract. An amended complaint was filed in
September 2014. The only counts against McLane are for breach of contract
(third party beneficiary) and fraud in the inducement. The amended complaint
alleged McLane committed a tortious act in this state, breached a contract by
failing to perform acts that the

contract required to be performed in this state, and engaged in substantial,
and not isolated activity in this state. The amended complaint alleged venue
was proper here because the cause of action accrued in Broward County, and
based on a venue provision in the purchase agreement.

McLane filed his motion to dismiss and a supporting
affidavit. He argued that he was not a party to the purchase agreement, and
ARNH did not show that he operated a business venture in the state or that he
committed a tort in the state. He alleged that he signed the contracts as a managing
member of Nostego and denied that he personally paid for the gift card codes.
He stated that the contract negotiations did not occur in Florida, and he did
not conduct any individual business with ARNH.

ARNH did not file an affidavit to rebut McLane’s affidavit
contesting jurisdiction.

At the hearing on his motion, McLane reiterated that the
allegations of fraud in the inducement in the amended complaint do not indicate
that his alleged false statements were made in Florida. He argued the
communication with ARNH occurred in New York, and introduced corporate filings
to show ARNH’s principal place of business in 2012 and 2013 was New York.

ARNH responded that its articles of incorporation going back
to 1997 show a registered office in Ft. Lauderdale.

ARNH believes Nostego is McLane’s alter ego and that he
formed the company only after signing the purchase agreement with ARNH. ARNH
alleged a fraud occurred when McLane represented that he already had paid for
these cards when he did not have them to sell. The cards never were provided,
and they since have expired.

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss without
explanation.

The allegations in the amended complaint do not show that
McLane committed a tort in Florida or that he failed to perform a contractual
obligation that he was personally required to perform in Florida. But, even if
the amended complaint sufficiently pleaded a cause of action and properly
alleged personal jurisdiction as to McLane, ARNH did not provide an affidavit
or any evidence that refuted McLane’s affidavit. See Venetian Salami Co. v.
Parthenais
, 554 So. 2d 499, 502-03 (Fla. 1989); Votaw v. Watkins,
660 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (holding that the trial court erred in
denying a motion to dismiss where plaintiff did not refute the proof in
defendants’ affidavits contesting jurisdiction either by affidavit or at an
evidentiary hearing). Reiterating factual allegations in a complaint does not
meet the plaintiff’s burden to substantiate its jurisdictional allegations once
the defendant’s affidavit makes a prima facie showing that the long-arm statute
does not apply. Electro Eng’g Prods. Co. v. Lewis, 352 So. 2d 862, 864
(Fla. 1977); Shoppers Online, Inc. v. E-Pawn, Inc., 792 So. 2d 615 (Fla.
4th DCA 2001).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to
grant McLane’s motion to dismiss.

Reversed and Remanded. (CIKLIN, C.J., STEVENSON and
GROSS, JJ., concur.)
* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982