PAYLESS DRUG STORES NORTHWEST, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
INNOVATIVE CLOTHING EXCHANGE, INC., 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.
Payless Drug Stores appeals a trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a contract dispute with Innovative Clothing Exchange, a Florida company. The appellate court reverses, holding that two isolated purchase orders placed in Miami are insufficient to establish minimum contacts with Florida.
The court holds that Payless's contacts with Florida are insufficient to establish minimum contacts supporting long-arm jurisdiction. Two isolated purchase orders placed in Miami do not constitute sufficient minimum contacts to allow a nonresident defendant to be sued in Florida.
[1] Isolated contact, such as placing two orders and agreeing to payment in Florida, is insufficient to establish minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction over a nonresiden…
[2] The mere failure to pay money in Florida, standing alone, does not suffice to obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.
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“If the question is whether an individual's contract with an out-of-state party alone can automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts in the other party's home forum, we believe the answer clearly is that it cannot.”
Establishes the foundational rule that a contract alone cannot establish minimum contacts for jurisdiction purposes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePayless, a western states retailer with no Florida presence, learned of Innovative's products through a New York manufacturer's representative. On Mar…
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 Goods Sold cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Inc., appeals a non-final order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We reverse.
Appellee Innovative Clothing Exchange, Inc., filed a complaint against Payless for account stated, goods sold, open account, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff alleged that it had sold clothing to Payless and Payless had not paid the amount due.
Payless moved to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction. As revealed in the affidavits of the parties, Payless does business in several western states, and does not have a presence in, or do business in, Florida. Payless learned of Innovative’s products on a buying trip to New York City. The products were introduced to Payless by a New York manufacturer’s representative. The manufacturer’s representative provided samples to Payless.
On March 9, 1989 Payless placed two orders for goods with Innovative in Miami, one for shipment to a California location and the other for shipment to an Oregon location. The goods were shipped from Miami and payment was to be made in Miami. Payless does not otherwise solicit orders, advertise in, or have contact with, the State of Florida.
Payless asserted that the foregoing facts are insufficient to establish minimum contacts with Florida so as to support long-arm jurisdiction here. The trial court disagreed and denied the motion to dismiss. Payless has appealed.
Payless’ contacts with Florida boil down to the placement of two orders in Miami on March 9, 1989, with payment thereafter due to be made in Miami. Such isolated contact is not sufficient to establish minimum contacts with Florida so as to allow Payless to be sued in Florida. The Supreme Court stated in Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985), “If the question is whether an individual’s contract with an out-of-state party alone can automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts in the other party’s home forum, we believe the answer clearly is that it cannot.” 471 U.S. at 478, 105 S.Ct. at 2185 (emphasis in original).
More recently the Florida Supreme Court stated in Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989), “we do not believe that the mere failure to pay money in Florida, standing alone, would suffice to obtain jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.” Id. at 503 (citation and footnote omitted).1
Innovative relies primarily on a statement in dictum in Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. American Conveyors Corporation, 542 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) that “[w]here Florida is the designated place of payment pursuant to an agreement between a resident plaintiff and a nonresident defendant, that fact alone is a sufficient minimum contact.” Id. at 428 (citations omitted). The just quoted Pellerito dictum is no longer good law after Venetian Salami.
Innovative also relies on Sorokwasz v. Kaiser, 549 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). That case involved substantially greater contact between the Texas defendant and Florida plaintiff than the contact involved in the present case.
The order under review is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the action without prejudice to plaintiff to refile in an appropriate jurisdiction.
. In Venetian Salami the court held that the Florida long-arm statute "extends only to the limits of the due process clause.” Id. 554 So. 2d at 503 n. 2 (citation omitted).
. The quoted passage from Pellerito cited as authority, inter alia, Engineered Storage Systems, Inc. v. National Partitions & Interiors, Inc., 415 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Engineered Storage Systems was expressly disapproved in Venetian Salami. 554 So. 2d at 503.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
deMCO Techs., Inc. v. C.S. Engineered Castings, Inc., 769 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…truction materials); Alan Richard Textiles, Ltd. v. Vertilux, Inc., 627 So. 2d 529, 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (failure to pay pursuant to the terms of a credit agreement/guaranty); Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Inc. v. Innovative Clothing Exch., Inc., 615 So. 2d 249, 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (failure to pay for clothing); Hatcher v. Hatcher, 598 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (failure to pay pursuant to oral agreement). See also AM Sampling, Inc. v. White Lab., Inc., 564 So. 2d 590, 592 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (holdin…
-
Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. v. The Queen's Flowers Corp., 696 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ntly ordered goods from a Florida corporation over a fifteen month period in Florida, standing alone, deemed insufficient to obtain jurisdiction over non-resident defendant); Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Inc. v. Innovative Clothing Exchange, Inc., 615 So. 2d 249, 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (finding non-resident’s failure to pay for two orders of merchandise from Florida vendor is insufficient to establish minimum contacts with Florida). Consistent with these decisions, we similarly hold in this case that Marsh’…
-
O'Brien Glass Co. v. Miami Wall Sys., Inc., 645 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…lux, Inc., 627 So. 2d 529, 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (holding that the act of ordering goods from a Florida corporation was insufficient to establish minimum contacts); see also Payless Drug Stores Northwest, Inc. v. Innovative Clothing Exchange, Inc., 615 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (holding that a nonresident clothing purchaser whose sole contacts with Florida consisted of placing- two orders in Miami, with payment thereafter to be made in Miami, did not have sufficient minimum contacts with Florida so as to…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)
- Engineered Storage Sys., Inc. v. Nat'l Partitions & Interiors, Inc., 415 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. Am. Conveyors Corp., 542 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Sorokwasz v. Kaiser, 549 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)