LEONARD BROOKE AND ACCOUNTANTS PROFESSIONAL SCHOLASTICS, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
TOTALTAPE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2001-10-19
No. 2D00-801
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
804 So. 2d 440 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2001) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Totaltape sued Mark Brooke and his company for violating a noncompetition agreement, later adding Mark's father Leonard Brooke and a successor entity APSI. The court affirmed summary judgment against APSI but reversed as to Leonard Brooke, finding insufficient allegations that he had actionable contacts with Florida to support personal jurisdiction.


Holding

The court affirmed summary judgment against APSI but reversed summary judgment against Leonard Brooke, holding that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts establishing that Leonard Brooke committed any actionable conduct in Florida or had sufficient contacts with the state to support personal jurisdiction.


Headnotes

[1] A Florida court may exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant under section 48.193, Florida Statutes, only if the complaint alleges sufficient facts demonstrati…

[2] A plaintiff must allege specific facts in the complaint to establish personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant under Florida's long-arm statute.

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

Key Quotes

“Leonard Brooke contends there is no allegation in the complaint that he has committed any actionable conduct within the state of Florida or that he otherwise has contacts with the state which would subject him to the jurisdiction of Florida courts. We agree.”

Establishes the court's holding that the complaint failed to allege sufficient jurisdictional facts regarding Leonard Brooke.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Totaltape sued former employee Mark Brooke and his company PSI for violating a noncompetition agreement. After a temporary injunction against Mark Bro…

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.


Opinion of the Court
GREEN, Acting Chief Judge.

GREEN, Acting Chief Judge.

We affirm summary judgment in favor of Totaltape, Inc. (Totaltape) against Accountants Professional Scholastics, Inc. (APSI). On the other hand, we determine that Totaltape’s amended complaint against appellant Leonard Brooke failed to allege sufficient facts so as to subject him to the jurisdiction of Florida courts under section 48.193,' Florida Statutes (1997). We therefore reverse the summary judgment entered against Leonard Brooke.

Totaltape filed suit against Mark Brooke, a former employee, and Profes sional Scholastics, Inc. (PSI), a company controlled by Mark Brooke which marketed products in competition with Totaltape, in violation of a noncompetition agreement. After a temporary injunction was entered against Mark Brooke and PSI, Leonard Brooke, Mark Brooke’s father, formed APSI, to market the same type of products as Totaltape and PSI. Totaltape later amended the complaint to include Leonard Brooke and alleged that he was an individual residing in the state of Mississippi and was an officer, a director, and a shareholder of the stock of PSI. It was further alleged that substantially all of the assets of PSI were transferred to APSI, for the fraudulent purpose of avoiding Lability on the part of Mark Brooke, in violation of section 726.105, Florida Statutes (1997).

Leonard Brooke contends there is no allegation in the complaint that he has committed any actionable conduct within the state of Florida or that he otherwise has contacts with the state which would subject him to the jurisdiction-of Florida courts. We agree. See § 48.193, Fla. Stat. (1997); Sunrise Assisted Living, Inc. v. Ward, 719 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Koch v. Kimball, 710 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. v. Ward, 696 So. 2d 930 (Fla.2d DCA 1997); Kennedy v. Reed, 533 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Phillips v. Orange Co., Inc., 522 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

We reverse the summary judgment against Leonard Brooke and the order denying his motion to dismiss the^amended complaint against him. Furthermore, we remand for entry of an order granting Leonard Brooke’s motion for dismissal of him as a party defendant, with leave for Totaltape to amend its pleading. We affirm summary judgment against APSI.

Affirmed m part, reversed m part, and remanded with directions.

CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Homeway Furniture Co. OF Mount Airy, Inc. v. Horne, 822 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
    …o establish jurisdiction pursuant to section 48.193(1)(b) when all of the defendant’s tortious conduct occurred outside the state. See, e.g., Tex. Guaranteed, Student Loan, 696 So. 2d 930; Phillips, 522 So. 2d 64; see also Brooke v. Totaltape, Inc., 804 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). This court has recognized only two exceptions: one involved an action for conspiracy in which the actions of coconspirators taken in Florida were attributed to the nonresident defendants and thus supported asserting jurisdiction…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw