ROY T. AMICO AND DAVID LARUE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CDG PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., ROBERT D. HALL, JAMES M. HALL, DANIEL P. HALL, CLEMATIS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, L.C., MANA INVESTMENTS, LLC, AND PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of an amended third-party complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants James and Daniel Hall. The court held that a forum selection clause in a contract alone cannot establish personal jurisdiction without an independent jurisdictional basis, and that appellants failed to demonstrate the defendants conducted sufficient business activities in Florida to satisfy Florida's long-arm statute.
The court held that a forum selection clause in a contract alone cannot provide personal jurisdiction without an independent jurisdictional basis, and that appellants failed to demonstrate personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute because they did not show that the defendants actually conducted the requisite business activities in Florida; merely contemplating Florida business activities is insufficient.
[1] A forum selection clause in a contract alone cannot establish personal jurisdiction over a party unless an independent basis for jurisdiction exists.
[2] The publication element of a libel claim requires an allegation that the defamatory statement was executed in or transmitted into the forum 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 forum selection clause in the membership interest purchase agreement cannot alone provide the circuit court with personal jurisdiction over appellees James and Daniel Hall unless there is an independent basis for such jurisdiction.”
Establishes the core holding that contractual forum selection clauses are insufficient to establish jurisdiction without an independent basis
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Roy T. Amico and David LaRue sued defendants including James M. Hall and Daniel P. Hall regarding a membership interest purchase agreement …
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 Business Venture cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm this non-final appeal of an order granting a motion to dismiss the amended third party complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.1 We briefly address some of the points raised by appellants.
The forum selection clause in the membership interest purchase agreement cannot alone provide the circuit court with personal jurisdiction over appellees James and Daniel Hall unless there is an independent basis for such jurisdiction. See McRae v. J.D./M.D., Inc., 511 So. 2d 540, 543 (Fla.1987) (where the court noted that a provision for submission to in personam jurisdiction based only on a contractual provision was “[cjonspicuously absent” from Florida’s long-arm statute). Count IX of the complaint, which attempts to state a cause of action for libel, does not allege that the defamatory resolution was either executed in or transmitted into Florida. Cf. Silver v. Levinson, 648 So. 2d 240, 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (finding that publication element of tort of libel was satisfied when letters were received by addressees in Florida).
We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that appellants failed to demonstrate personal jurisdiction under sections 48.193(l)(a) and (g), Florida Statutes (2003). The trial court reconciled the opposing affidavits; appellants’ affidavit did not refute or directly oppose appellees’ assertions that they did not actually conduct votes or other business in Florida, except for two annual meetings James Hall attended in 1997 and 2001.
Appellants argue that by entering into the membership interest purchase agreement, which was for the purpose of engaging in real estate ventures in Florida, appellees “initiated a series of acts all of which were to be conducted” in Florida, thereby subjecting them to jurisdiction in this state. The problem with this argument was that it was not supported by any affidavit that demonstrated appellees’ business activities which amounted to a “business or business venture” within the meaning of section 48.193(l)(a). What conduct the agreements may have contemplated is not the equivalent of a showing that the requisite conduct in Florida had actually occurred.
Affirmed.
STONE, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Consol. Energy Inc. v. Strumor, 920 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…nating Florida as the forum, cannot operate as the sole basis for Florida to exercise personal jurisdiction over an objecting non-resident defendant.” McRae v. J.D./M.D., Inc., 511 So. 2d 540, 542 (Fla.1987). See also Amico v. CDG Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 895 So. 2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). For the reasons expressed, we affirm. WARNER, J. and SWEET, GARY, Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- C.R. McRAE v. J.D./M.D., Inc., 511 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1987)
- Silver v. Levinson, 648 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)