LANCE E. FRIED, APPELLANT,
v.
SCOTT N. BERGMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DIRECTOR OF CLASSIC COLLECTIBLE PRODUCTS, INC., AND MARIE B. RINGVIK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS DIRECTOR OF CLASSIC COLLECTIBLE PRODUCTS, INC., APPELLEES
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.
This case involves a business dispute where appellant Fried sued Florida-incorporated Classic Collectible Products, Inc. and individual defendants Bergman and Ringvik for fraud, conversion, and interference with business relations. The trial court dismissed based on a pending Georgia action involving the same parties and issues and lack of personal jurisdiction, but the appellate court reversed, holding that a stay pending the Georgia litigation was appropriate under comity principles, and that the defendants' contacts with Florida were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
The trial court erred in dismissing based on splitting causes of action; instead, the proper remedy under comity principles is to stay the Florida proceedings pending resolution of the Georgia case. The individual defendants' contacts with Florida—meeting with plaintiff in Palm Beach, engaging in business discussions, and forming a Florida corporation for the business venture—were sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute and federal minimum contacts requirements.
[1] A trial court should apply the principle of comity, rather than the rule against splitting causes of action, when faced with two lawsuits involving the same parties and s…
[2] Under the principle of comity, a trial court should stay a proceeding when a prior case involving the same subject matter and parties is pending in another state.
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“the trial court should have applied the "principle of priority," which is a matter of comity [...] Under comity, the trial court should have stayed this proceeding while the prior case involving the same subject matter and parties was pending in Georgia.”
Establishes that the proper remedy for overlapping litigation in different states is a stay under comity principles, not dismissal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Fried brought suit against a Florida corporation and three individuals (Bergman, Boettcher, and Ringvik) arising from a business deal. The i…
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 (Fla. Stat. § 48.193) cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant brought this case against a corporation, Classic Collectible Products, Inc. and three individuals, Scott Bergman, Bruce Boettcher, and Marie Ringvik, seeking damages on several theories arising out of a business deal. The trial court dismissed the action because a previously filed action involving the same issues was pending in Georgia and because Florida lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant appellees. This appeal was stayed pending settlement negotiations which were successful as to some of the defendants, but not as to appellees Bergman and Ringvik who are now the only remaining defendants. We reverse.
We agree with the appellant that the trial court erred in dismissing this case based on the rule against splitting causes of action. We conclude that, because these two lawsuits were pending in different states, the trial court should have applied the “principle of priority,” which is a matter of comity. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Ainsworth, 630 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) and cases cited. Under comity, the trial court should have stayed this proceeding while the prior case involving the same subject matter and parties was pending in Georgia. Leslie Fay Retail Outlets, Inc. v. Gallery Mfg. Corp., 653 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) and cases cited.
As to the question of whether the court had personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants, the facts are undisputed that the individual defendants, who are Georgia residents, met with the appellant in Palm Beach for several days for the purpose of setting up a business venture. After those meetings, the parties formed a Florida corporation for the purpose of engaging in that business venture. Appellant brought this action against the corporation and the individual defendants in Florida, alleging fraud, conversion, and interference with a business relationship.
The actions of the defendants in coming to Palm Beach, engaging in meetings with the appellant, and forming a Florida corporation for the purpose of engaging in a business venture, were sufficient to comply with the long-arm statute, section 48.193, Florida Statutes (1995), as well as the federal minimum contact requirement. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989). Because the allegations include conduct of the individuals prior to incorporation and as individuals after incorporation, the case on which appellees rely, Doe v. Thompson, 620 So. 2d 1004 (Fla.1993), in which the non-resident corporate employee had only been acting in his corporate capacity, is inapplicable.
We therefore reverse the order of dismissal and remand without prejudice to the defendants seeking a stay pending resolution of the Georgia case.
STONE and STEVENSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)
- DOE v. Jere William Thompson, 620 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1993)
- Merrill Lynch v. Ainsworth, 630 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Leslie FAY Retail Outlets, Inc. v. Gallery Mfg., 653 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)