You are on page 1of 6

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction

over the non-resident defendants. Morris v. SSE, Inc., 843 F.2d 489, 492 (11th cr. 1988).
The U.S. Supreme Court in Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 485-
486 (1985) noted, “We…therefore reject any talismanic jurisdictional formulas; “the
facts of each case must [always] be weighed” in determining whether personal
jurisdiction would comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice’”.

A Defendant wishing to contest the allegations in the Complaint concerning jurisdiction
mst submit an affidavit n support of his position. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554
So.2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989). In order to establish the facts relating to its lack of contacts
in Florida, Defendant, Georgia-Pacific has submitted the Affidavit of ____, President and
Chief Executive Officer of Georgia-Pacific as Exhibit __. Once a foreign defendant
submits an affidavit to the contrary of Plaintiff’s allegations, as Georgia-Pacific has done,
the burden shifts back to the Plaintiff to produce evidence supporting jurisdiction. Posner
v Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209, 1215 (11th cir. 1999).

There are two aspects of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant being sued in
Florida. In Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir. 1990) the Court stated:

The determination of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant
requires a two-part analysis. First, we consider the jurisdictional question
under the state long-arm statute. If there is a basis for the assertion of
personal jurisdiction under the tate statute, we next determine whether
sufficient minimum contacts exist to satisfy the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment so that “maintenance of the suit does ot offend
‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Only if both
prongs of the analysis are satisfied, may a federal or state court exercise
persona ljurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.

916 F.2d at 1514. In the case at bar, the specific facts of the case fail to establish
jurisdiction over Georgia-Pacific within the requirements of Florida’s long-arm statute.
Failing to meet the requirements of the statute, the specific facts of the case also dictate
that Georgia-Pacific does not have sufficient contacts with Florida to satisfy the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Failure to meet the requirements of Florida’s Long Arm Statute at the time of distribution
of asbestos

In a case alleging personal injur by exposure to asbestos against a non-resident defendant,
the Florida Supreme Court held that the long-arm statute in effect at the tme of the
manufacture or distribution of the asbestos is the statute that governs. Fibreboard Corp.
v. Kerness, 625 So.2d 457, 458 (_____1993). The Florida Supreme Court further stated
that neither Fla Stat 48.193, nor ts predecessor, Fla. Stat. 48.182, could be applied
retroactively since to do so would violate the requirement of fair notice. Id at 458. In
Kerness, the Plaintiff alleged exposure to asbestos products from 1943-1962. in the
present case, Plainitff, in his Sworn Information Form and the exposure sheets filed wit

there must be some connexity between the Plaintiff’s cause of action and the foreign defendnat’s actions in the state. who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits that person and. (f) Causes injury to persons or property within this state arising out of an act or omission by the defendant this state. conducts. Black’s law dictionary defines connexity as. his personal representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the following: (a) Operates. Since Plaintiff alleges exposure from 1975-79. or things processed. Georgia-Pacific. 48.Fla.Supp. if. or manufactured by the defendant anywhere were used or consumed within this state in the ordinary course of commerce. it is this version of the long-arm statute that is applicable against Geora-Pacific. To satisfy the connexity requirement under the Florida long-arm statute. which Fibreboard v. Georgia-Pacific cannot be subject ot he jurisdiction of he LForida Courts.193 Acts subjecting persons to jurisdiction of courts of state: (1) Any person. Inc. if he is a natural person. PLantff’s claim is based upon asbestos exposure and under the proper Florida long-arm statute. which were the cause of pLaintiff’s personal injuries. from 1975-1979. The defendant was engaged in solicitation or service activities within this state which resulted in such injury. “nexus or connection. or carries on a business or business venture in this state or has an office or agency in this state. Products. Thre is no connexity between Georgia-Pacific’s minor sales to Florida businesses and Plaintiff’s alleged injury.D.193(1973). or 2. allege exposure to asestos containing products manufactured by defendanr.193 (1973) states: 48. none of those sales were for asbestos containing products. this referes to the requirement that this coase of action arise out of the transaction or operation connected wit hor incidental to the activities of a foreign corporton in the state. and the use or consumption resulted in the injury. There is no connexirty and therefore.hthe OCmpliant. for purposes of aquiring personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation. 510 F. whether or not a citizen or resident of this state. pursuant to the then applicable long-arm statute. engages in. Fenton. Florida Statute 48. either: 1. Kerness dictates to be the statute in effect at the time of the distribution of asbestos- Fla. . Stat. appling this statute to the facts of the current case. the cause of action must have some connection to a specific act committed in Florida. While Georgia-Pacific has had sporadic sales of its products in Flrida. The relevant part of Florida Statute 47. v.193 (1973) indicates the requirement of connexity. or use. contact with Florida during 1975-1979 was related t oasbestos containing products. materials.2007. at or about the time of the injury.” Therefore. services. New Lenox Industries. trade. Plaintiff would have to show that Defendant.2d 893. Georgia-Pacific’s. M.

Courts 12(2. Personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants in Florida is limited to situations where cause of action arises from doing of business in Florida or cause of action has some other connection to a specified act committed in Florida. and thus. called “connexity. Courts 12(2. were engaged in continuous and systematic activity in Florida. App. 581 F. on which to predicate long-arm jurisdiction.D. Ltd.Supp. Inc. long-arm statute provision conferring jurisdiction over nonresident defendant for “any cause of action arising from the doing of” any of therein enumerated items. H. Inc. Bloom v.15) Term “arising from” in long-arm statute does not mean proximately caused by. Steel Systems Const. 870 So. Camp Illahee Investors. nexus. Bloom v.2d 902 (1997). 2 Dist. 701 So.1981. were subject to jurisdiction of Florida courts regardless of whether claims upon which buyer's liability insurer sued arose from their Florida activity. Pollard v.. such as conducting business in forum state. there must also be some nexus or connection. App. there was not sufficient connexity between defendant's business activity in Florida and the cause of action to permit exercise of long-arm jurisdiction under Florida §§ 48. Co. v. 1162.Supp. A. but rather. as Subrogee of World Office Products Mfg..2d 80 (2003). .193. Wah-Wai Furniture Co. Pond Co. 1 Dist. bulk of which were transported directly to Florida for resale and distribution by buyer to retailers in Florida and throughout country. it was irrelevant where claims accrued or whether there was any “connexity” between them and Florida. Pafco General Ins. Doing business in Florida is not sufficient basis. it only requires direct affiliation. 519 F.. H..Fla. Inc..Foreign manufacturers of defective office chairs. v. requires connexity between the defendant's activities and the cause of action.15) Service on out-of-state corporation's registered agent prior to effective date of amendment to § 48.1984. Citicorp Ins.2d 79 (1994)..D. 635 So. S. By its terms.1981.. Charman.D. Blackman.. 1551.Fla..Fla. standing alone. Inc. abolished connexity requirement had not applied to corporations such as defendant.. Brokers (Marine). or substantial connection to exist between basis for cause of action and the business activity. S. App.Supp.. Inc. 3 Dist. 1162. v. A. S.181 and 48. 519 F. Pond Co. Where plaintiff was injured while working in Ecuador and allegations of negligence were all founded upon acts or omissions which occurred in Ecuador. Co.193 abolishing connexity requirement in certain situations was nevertheless sufficient to give federal court jurisdiction over corporation without showing that connection existed between cause of action and corporation's in-state activities.” between business that is conducted in Florida and causes of action alleged.

526 So. Rexam Airspray.2d 985 (1983). 471 F. under Florida long-arm statute. Canron Corp. Gebrueder Pletscher Druckgusswaremfabrik. Federal Courts 82 . v. Cornett. Cornett. Courts 12(2. App. App. Corporations 668(4) Amendment of this section eliminating connexity requirement for long-arm jurisdiction did not apply to cause of action which accrued prior to effective date of the amendment but which was filed after that date. Inc.which had registered agent in state. Federal Courts 76.2d 264 (1980). Inc. as principal. review denied 534 So.2d 398. General Tire and Rubber Co. Corporations 665(1) In the absence of any showing of connection between business activities in Florida of defendant manufacturing company. S. Courts 12(2.. v. over California sales representative of Florida manufacturer of foam dispensers used with cosmetics. Utility Trailer Mfg. Pepsico. 526 So.2d 886 (1990). Co. a defendant's business presence within the state does not in itself satisfy connexity requirement for long-arm jurisdiction under statute prior to 1984 amendment of this section.2d 1292. answer to certified question conformed to 923 F. Co.2d 1064 (1988).. v. 568 So. alleged Florida agent was just a customer of California representative principal.2007. 444 So.2d 1064 (1988). 1 Dist. Utility Trailer Mfg.Supp. and Florida agent. in breach of contract action. based upon alleged agency relationship between California representative. 1 Dist. Holt. App.25) Evidence that among foreign corporation's business activities in Florida was sale and delivery of “trac-gopher” which was involved in accident in another state established sufficient “connexity” between corporation's business activities in Florida and products liability action to confer personal jurisdiction over corporation in Florida.15. Arminak.2d 1473.1) Where injury occurs outside Florida. 442 So.. Kravitz v. White v. Co. Corporations 665(1) For purpose of personal jurisdiction over foreign corporation. and cause of action in suits which arose from fire in county jail started in mattresses.. under circumstances of case.. 3 Dist.. v. Hickory Springs Mfg. Corporations 665(3) Federal district court in Florida did not have general personal jurisdiction.2d 529 (1984). 1 Dist.. 388 So. App. App. v. which was foreign corporation not qualified to do business within Florida and which sold polyurethane foam to mattress manufacturer in Alabama which sold the mattresses to sales company in Georgia which in turn sold the mattresses to county for use in its jail.Fla. 5 Dist. review denied 534 So.D.2d 398. court correctly dismissed manufacturing company as party defendant. “connexity” refers to requirement that cause of action arise out of transaction or operation connected with or incidental to activities of foreign corporation in state.

v.Q. Courts 15 Fact that corporation had Florida post office box did not establish that it was engaged in “substantial and not isolated activity” within state.D.. that its out-of-state sales agent was present within state on three separate occasions to attend business meetings and that employer regularly provided sales agent with proprietary information. 515 So.Fla. defendant supplier of webbing material used in hot air balloon in which decedents were riding when they were killed as result of collision with some electric power lines was not subject to jurisdiction of state courts under this section.Fla. to satisfy this section and due process and to permit court to exercise personal jurisdiction over sales agent in action for breach of noncompete clause in employment agreement. within meaning of that state's long-arm statute. would be sufficient.. electronic. 2 Dist. Atlas Copco AB. City Contract Bus Service. Harman.. Federal Courts 86 Federal district court sitting in Florida had personal jurisdiction. if true.D. petition for review denied 440 So. representative of Washington corporation twice entered Florida for negotiations. Hyco Mfg. App. 431 So. Air Turbine Technology. Inc. in suit by Florida producer of in-flight entertainment systems alleging breach of joint venture agreement by Washington-based producer of avionics products. Woody. App..15) Allegations about an out-of-state defendant's telephonic.2d 1354 (1987). Courts 12(2. Pentar Systems. or written communications into Florida may be sufficient to trigger jurisdiction under Florida long- .2d 471 (1978). Phoenix Trimming. distributors or salesmen in the state. Inc.2d 649 (1990). 1 Dist. v. Courts 12(2.2002. Nordmark Presentations. Corp.2d 198 (1983). trade secrets and assistance from its Florida office. In view of fact that defendant supplier did no advertising and had no offices. Rotex Intern. 355 So.Supp. 65 U.” for purpose of this section and § 48.S. distribute or market any products. Inc. 3 Dist.P. v. S.081. employees.. v. under Florida long-arm statute conferring jurisdiction over defendants operating business in state. representatives. agents.25) Defendant that maintains an agent and/or distributor in state is subject to jurisdiction of courts of state.2d 1377.2d 1260. M. 235 F. 557 So. 219 F. and corporation made numerous phone calls and transmitted e-mail messages into Florida.2d 352. Federal Courts 79 Allegations in former employer's unverified complaint.2002.Swedish holding company which did not itself manufacture. 4 Dist. Inc. App. company had no offices in Florida and had no employees or agents working there. v. Constitutional Law 3965(10). App. Co. Inc. or that it was “maintaining business office within state. was not doing business in Florida.2d 1287. Inc.Supp. Mowday. Baker Electronics.. v.

)2005. so as to permit assertion of long-arm personal jurisdiction over defendant based on Florida activities of wholly-owned subsidiary corporation under this section and § 48. C.11 (Fla. the vessel was in Florida ports when the policy was issued and extended. prior to 1969. Rotta.25) There was no “connexity” between Florida activities of defendant corporation and relationship between plaintiff and defendant.Ct.S.181 prior to 1984 amendments. 795 F. Hrtica v. P.30) . App. v.2d 37. Courts 12(2.3d 1162. Armstrong World Industries.. and a direct affiliation thus existed between the insurer's Florida-related act and the cause of action. certiorari denied 123 S. Glovegold Shipping. thus. 3 Dist. rehearing denied. even though the subsidiary allegedly sold similar products. Ltd. Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening.2d 968. and condition of the automobile. 919 So. 1 Dist. Federal Courts 79 Trial court had personal jurisdiction over nonresident seller of luxury automobile in action by in-state buyer arising out of seller's alleged intentional misrepresentations as to the quality. C.2d 4 (2000).2d 851. Rothstein-Kass. provided that the cause of action arises from those communications..P. Polski Linie Oceaniczne v. and.A. review denied 817 So. Horizon Aggressive Growth. but.1984.2d 685 (2006). 537 U. 421 F. plaintiff was not exposed to any asbestos products in Florida attributable to alleged manufacturer and distributor of asbestos products or its predecessor. there was no connexity between cause of action alleged and pre-1969 activities of alleged manufacturer or its predecessor within Florida which would subject alleged manufacturer to in personam jurisdiction for any pre-1969 acts. there must be some “connexity” that exists between the out-of-state communications and the cause of action such that the cause of action would depend upon proof of either the existence or the content of any of the communications into Florida. exercising personal jurisdiction was consistent with the long-arm statute.D. and seller could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the state to answer for the misrepresentations it directed to buyer in an effort to sell the automobile.25) Foreign ship owner's lawsuit against alien insurer for breach of hull and machinery policy by denying coverage arose out of a contract to insure property in the state. Fletcher Jones West Shara. 16. LLC v. Seasafe Transport A/S. 826. where record did not show any connection between the Florida business and plaintiff's action against defendant for damages suffered when container lashing system supplied by defendant malfunctioned.A.Supp.) 1986. value. 114. Ltd. Courts 12(2.A. v..11 (Fla. 791 So. buyer alleged the commission of an in-state tort by seller. L. 607 F.Ed.. Federal Courts 82 Where cause of action was predicated upon plaintiff's exposure to asbestos products.Fla. S. App.arm statute's provision for jurisdiction based on commission of tortious act in Florida. Courts 12(2. 154 L.