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

March 18, 2016 by admin

Jurisdiction — Non-residents — Contracts — Failure to pay on contract requiring payment in Florida is sufficient to satisfy Florida’s long-arm statute conferring jurisdiction over breach of contract actions — Minimum contacts

41 Fla. L. Weekly D672bTop of Form

Jurisdiction
— Non-residents — Contracts — Failure to pay on contract requiring payment
in Florida is sufficient to satisfy Florida’s long-arm statute conferring
jurisdiction over breach of contract actions — Minimum contacts — Where
neither amended complaint nor testimony at hearing on jurisdiction showed that
any related substantial act beyond repayment of promissory note was required to
be and/or actually was performed in Florida, defendant did not have sufficient
minimum contacts with state to support assertion of personal jurisdiction —
Remand with directions to dismiss without prejudice to refiling complaint in
appropriate forum

CORNERSTONE INVESTMENT FUNDING, LLC, Appellant, v. PAINTED
POST GROUP, INC., Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D15-1907. March 16, 2016.
Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit, Palm Beach County; Lisa S. Small, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502014CA004263
AH. Counsel: Steven A. Matta of Matta Blair, PLC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan,
for appellant. Arnold R. Ginsberg of Arnold R. Ginsberg, P.A., Miami, and Jared
L. Gamberg of Jared L. Gamberg, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee.

ON
MOTION FOR REHEARING

[Original Opinion at 41 Fla. L. Weekly D261a]

(PER CURIAM.) We grant the Motion for Rehearing filed by
Appellee Painted Post Group, withdraw our previously issued opinion dated
January 27, 2016, and replace it with the following:

Appellant, Cornerstone Investment Funding, LLC
(“Cornerstone”), a Virginia-based entity, appeals the trial court’s denial of
its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.1 We reverse, concluding that
Cornerstone lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy due
process.

Background

The complaint alleged as follows. Arnold S. Goldin, Inc.,
loaned Cornerstone $300,000. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note signed
by the parties separately in Virginia and Florida. Goldin subsequently assigned
its interest in the promissory note to appellee, Painted Post Group, Inc.
(“Post Group”), with which Goldin was affiliated. Both Goldin and Post Group
were located in Palm Beach County.

When Cornerstone failed to make payments on the note, Post
Group filed suit in Palm Beach County against Cornerstone and others for,
amongst other things, repayment of the loan. The defendants in the action below
moved for summary judgment, alleging the trial court lacked personal
jurisdiction over the non-resident defendants. A predecessor judge granted the
motion but also granted leave for Post Group to amend its complaint.

Post Group filed an amended complaint only against
Cornerstone, alleging a single count for breach of contract. Cornerstone moved
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and, after conflicting
jurisdictional affidavits were filed by the parties, the trial court held an
evidentiary hearing. The only witness to testify at the hearing was Arnold
Goldin, a principal of Arnold S. Goldin, Inc. Arnold Goldin claimed the parties
had entered into a “verbal agreement” that payments on the promissory note
would be made to his business address in Palm Beach County. Based on Arnold
Goldin’s testimony, a successor judge2 concluded that Post Group had
established both jurisdictional facts and minimum contacts between Cornerstone
and Florida sufficient to assert personal jurisdiction over Cornerstone. From
that order, Cornerstone brings this appeal.

Analysis

Personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant may be
exercised only when the following two-pronged test has been satisfied: (1) the
complaint alleges facts that would subject the defendant to Florida’s
“long-arm” statute,3 and (2) the defendant has sufficient
“minimum contacts” to meet traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice such that the defendant could “ ‘reasonably anticipate being haled into
court’ ” due to its actions. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.
2d 499, 501 (Fla. 1989) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,
444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)); Henderson v. Elias, 56 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2011). Failure to pay on a contract requiring payment in Florida has been
found sufficient to satisfy Florida’s long-arm statute conferring jurisdiction
over breach of contract actions. Smith Architectural Grp., Inc. v. Dehaan,
867 So. 2d 434, 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Post Group’s amended complaint thus
meets the first prong of the Venetian Salami test.

The mere fact, however, that Cornerstone allegedly breached
a contract by failing to make payments on the contract in Florida would not
constitute sufficient minimum contacts with this state to satisfy due process. Taskey
v. Burtis
, 785 So. 2d 557, 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“Factors that go into
determining whether sufficient minimum contacts exist include the
foreseeability that the defendant’s conduct will result in suit in the forum
state and the defendant’s purposeful availment of the forum’s privileges and
protections.”); Labry v. Whitney Nat’l Bank, 8 So. 3d 1239, 1241 (Fla.
1st DCA 2009); Ganiko v. Ganiko, 826 So. 2d 391, 394-95 (Fla. 1st DCA
2002). As neither Post Group’s amended complaint nor Goldin’s hearing testimony
showed that any related substantial act beyond repayment of the promissory note
was required to be and/or actually was performed in Florida, Cornerstone does
not have sufficient minimum contacts with this state to support the assertion
of personal jurisdiction over it. See deMco Techs., Inc. v. C.S. Eng’d
Castings, Inc.
, 769 So. 2d 1128, 1131 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Conclusion

Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and
remanded with directions to grant Cornerstone’s motion to dismiss without
prejudice to Post Group refiling its complaint in an appropriate forum.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
(CIKLIN, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and FORST, JJ., concur.)

__________________

1This Court has jurisdiction based on
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).

2Cornerstone argues that the
predecessor judge’s grant of summary judgment as to personal jurisdiction bound
the successor judge to rule in its favor on the subsequent motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction. However, since that order likewise granted
Post Group leave to amend the complaint, no final judgment on personal
jurisdiction existed for which collateral estoppel would apply. Hanover Ins.
Co. v. Marriott Int’l, Inc.
, 685 So. 2d 894, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

3“A person, whether or not a citizen
or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the
acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself or herself . . . to
the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising
from any of the following acts . . . . Breaching a contract in this state by
failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this
state.” § 48.193(1)(a)7., Fla. Stat. (2013).

 

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Winn-Dixie, website, customers, prescription, place of public accommodation, coupons, refills, privileges, disabled, advantages, accommodations, visually-impaired, auxiliary, public accommodation, inaccessible, barrier, offerings, sighted, majority opinion, intangible, enjoyment, locator, rewards, card, district court, facilities, shopping, software, communicate, in-store – The difficulties caused by the customer’s inability to access much of the store’s website constituted a concrete and particularized injury that was not conjectural or hypothetical, and would continue if the website remained inaccessible; [2]-The statutory language in Title III of the ADA defining “public accommodation” was unambiguous and clear, and public accommodations were limited to actual, physical places, and websites were not a place of public accommodation under the statute; [3]-The store’s website did not constitute an intangible barrier to the customer’s ability to access and enjoy fully the physical grocery store; [4]-Absent congressional action that broadened the definition of “places of public accommodation” to include websites, the appellate court could not extend ADA liability to the facts presented.
  • Civil rights — Employment discrimination — Pharmacist employed by Department of Veterans Affairs brought action against Secretary, alleging that her managers at VA medical center discriminated against her based on her gender and age, retaliated against her because she engaged in protected activity, and subjected her to hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act — Retaliation — Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires personnel actions to be made free from any discrimination — Supreme Court’s decision in pharmacist’s case, which held that federal-sector provision of ADEA did not require plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of a challenged personnel action, undermined to the point of abrogation Eleventh Circuit’s prior panel precedent holding that Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires but-for causation — Standard that Supreme Court articulated for claims under ADEA’s federal-sector provision controls cases arising under Title VII’s nearly identical federal-sector provision — Retaliatory hostile work environment — An actionable federal-sector Title VII retaliatory-hostile-work-environment claim must describe conduct that rises to the level of personnel actions and must be evaluated under “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker” standard rather than the more stringent “severe or pervasive” standard
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Reasonable, related, and necessary medical treatment — Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Opposing affidavit — Trial court abused its discretion in granting motion to strike affidavit of independent medical examiner based on plaintiff’s claim that affidavit “baldly repudiated” affiant’s deposition testimony regarding relationship between injuries and accident and medical necessity of chiropractic treatment — Because affiant’s testimony raised genuine issue of material fact, as it clearly conflicted with testimony of treating chiropractor, order granting summary judgment in favor of assignee/medical provider reversed
  • Wrongful death — Automobile accident — Jurors — Peremptory challenge — Race neutral explanation — Genuineness — New trial — Evidence — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on its improper denial of plaintiff’s peremptory challenge of juror — Trial court failed to apply proper legal standard in denying plaintiff’s peremptory strike of juror where it failed to recognize the presumption that plaintiff was exercising her peremptory challenge in a nondiscriminatory manner and hold defendants to their burden of proving purposeful discrimination — Fact that juror was sole African American juror left on the panel is, standing alone, insufficient to override a genuine race-neutral challenge — Trial court erred in granting a new trial based on its determination that verdict finding one of the defendants 100% liable for the fatal accident was against the manifest weight of the evidence — Order shows that trial court improperly re-weighed the evidence and acted as a seventh juror in doing so — Trial court erred in permitting jury to hear evidence related to defendant’s driving history where not only was the evidence unduly prejudicial, but the citations bore no similarity to the circumstances at issue and had no relevance to defendant’s alleged negligence at the time of the accident — Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion notwithstanding verdict which asserted that defendant should not be liable for the total amount of damages to co-defendant’s tractor-trailer — A new-trial order and order for judgment notwithstanding verdict are mutually inconsistent and may not be granted simultaneously unless granted on the express condition that the order granting the judgment notwithstanding verdict only becomes effective if the order granting new trial is reversed on appeal, which did not happen in this case
  • Workers’ compensation — Prosthetic devices — Limitation of actions — Claimant who had screws and rods inserted in her spine as a result of an injury occurring in 1990 — Judge of compensation claims erred in rejecting employer/carrier’s statute of limitations defense to claim for pain management and a replacement mechanical bed — While applicable 1989 version of workers’ compensation law contained an exemption from its statute of limitations to the right for remedial attention relating to the insertion or attachment of a prosthetic device, there is no evidence that either the prosthesis, or the surgery required to insert it, is causing the need for the requested benefits as opposed to the underlying condition that necessitated the prosthesis in the first place — Fact that claimant may have a prosthetic device is not, standing alone, sufficient to prevent statute of limitations from accruing

Blog Archives

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