ASSOCIATED AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING AND SALES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
FLIGHT CONNECTOR CORP., A FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Associated Aircraft Manufacturing appealed a circuit court order dismissing its complaint against Flight Connector Corp. for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the defendant's shipping of goods to Florida and negotiation of the contract in Florida constituted sufficient contacts to establish jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute.
The court reversed the dismissal order, holding that Flight Connector Corporation's continuous and systematic activities in Florida—including negotiating and executing the contract in Florida and shipping goods to Florida for repackaging and resale—subjected it to jurisdiction under Section 48.193(1)(a). The defendant's failure to adequately refute the complaint allegations also weighed against dismissal.
[1] A Florida court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who, personally or through an agent, operates, conducts, engages in, or carries on a business or bu…
[2] Shipping goods into Florida can constitute continuous and systematic activities sufficient to be considered engaging in business within the state for jurisdictional purpo…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Any 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 that person and, if he is a natural person, 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, conducts, engages in, or carries on a business or business venture in this state or has an office or agency in this state.”
The statutory basis for Florida's long-arm jurisdiction over nonresidents engaging in business activities in the state
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlight Connector Corporation, a foreign corporation doing business in Florida, allegedly negotiated and executed a contract in Florida with Associated…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Long-Arm Statute Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before the court on appeal from a circuit court order granting Flight Connector Corporation’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We reverse and remand.
Section 48.193(1), Florida Statutes (1983), provides in pertinent part for jurisdiction of Florida courts over persons, including nonresidents, who perform certain enumerated acts:
48.193 Acts subjecting persons to jurisdiction of courts of state.—
(1) Any 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 that person and, if he is a natural person, 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, conducts, engages in, or carries on a business or business venture in this state or has an office or agency in this state.
The second amended complaint here asserted that jurisdiction could be exercised over the defendant pursuant to Section 48.-193(l)(a). It alleged that the contract was negotiated and ultimately executed in this state. It also alleged that the defendant shipped its goods to Florida which the plaintiff repackaged and then passed on to its purchasers. Thus, the defendant’s shipping constituted continuous and systematic activities in this state tantamount to engaging in business. See Ford Motor Co. v. Atwood Vacuum Machine Co., 392 So. 2d 1305 (Fla.1981). More importantly, the defendant failed to adequately refute any of the allegations of the complaint. Scordilis v. Drobnicki, 443 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) and Phoenix Trimming, Inc. v. Mowday, 431 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), cert. denied, 440 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1983). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jaffer v. Miami Beach Redev. Agency, 392 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1980)
- Alain Scordilis v. Drobnicki, 443 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Alvan E. Boutin v. The City OF Miami, 431 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)