GROUP ONE ENTERPRISES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLISHERS' REPRESENTATIVE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, 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.
Group One Enterprises appealed a Florida judgment finding personal jurisdiction over a California corporation for failing to remit advertising proceeds. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the mere failure to pay money in Florida does not establish sufficient minimum contacts for jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.
The court held that it does not. The mere failure to pay money in Florida does not satisfy the minimum contacts requirement under the Due Process Clause necessary to establish personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.
[1] A Florida court lacks personal jurisdiction over a California corporation when the alleged tort or breach of contract, consisting of the failure to remit money, occurred…
[2] The mere failure to pay money in Florida, without more, does not satisfy the due process requirement of minimum contacts for establishing personal jurisdiction over a non…
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“Committing a tort in Florida or breaching a contract in Florida, would give Florida courts jurisdiction under section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2002).”
Establishes the statutory basis the Florida corporation relied upon for asserting jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA Florida corporation that publishes a magazine contracted with a California corporation to sell advertising in all territories. The contract was exec…
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 Civil Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The issue in this appeal is whether the failure of a California corporation to remit money to a Florida corporation which retained it to perform work in California, subjects the California corporation to personal jurisdiction in Florida. We hold that it does not.
The Florida corporation, which publishes a magazine, contracted with the California corporation to sell advertising. The territory to be covered was “all territories,” but the contract provided that it was executed in, and intended to be performed in California and that California law would govern its interpretation. The California corporation was to bill advertisers, collect the money, deduct a twenty percent commission, and pay the Florida corporation the remainder. After the California corporation sued the Florida corporation in California, alleging breach of contract, the Florida corporation filed this suit, alleging civil theft and conversion.
The facts which formed the basis of the Florida claims were that, by failing to forward the net advertising receipts after deducting its commissions to Florida, the California corporation committed civil theft, conversion, or breach of contract to be performed in Florida. Committing a tort in Florida or breaching a contract in Florida, would give Florida courts jurisdiction under section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2002).
The Florida corporation relies on Stomar, Inc. v. Lucky Seven Riverboat Company, L.L.C., 821 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In that case we held that a brokerage agreement for the sale of a ship owned by a non-resident seller, requiring payment in Florida, subjected the owners of the ship to jurisdiction in Florida. Sto-mar is distinguishable, however, in that the brokerage contract required plaintiff to render substantial services in Florida in marketing and negotiating the sale of the vessel.
We noted that the case was different from Venetian Salami Company v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.1989), in which the Florida Supreme Court held that the mere failure to pay money in Florida would not satisfy the due process requirement of minimum contacts under International Shoe Company v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).
The Florida corporation has not cited a single case in which personal jurisdiction has been upheld in Florida based on the commission of a tort or breach of contract under similar facts. Assuming that the California corporation did commit civil theft or conversion, the improper retention of the property occurred entirely in California. The breach of contract to be performed in Florida theory fails for the same reason, in that there were no services to be performed under this contract in Florida. This is, accordingly, one of those cases in which there was a “mere failure to pay money in Florida,” and no personal jurisdiction over the non-resident. Venetian Salami, 554 So. 2d at 503. Affirmed.
GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bohlander v. Robert Dean & Assocs. Yacht Brokerage, Inc., 920 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…tacts is not satisfied by a showing that a party has entered into a contract with a non-resident, or a showing that payment must be made in Florida. See Venetian Salami, 554 So. 2d at 502; Group One Enters., Inc. v. Publishers’ Representative, Inc., 899 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Hartcourt Cos., v. Hogue, 817 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); deMco Techs., Inc. v. C.S. Engineered Castings, Inc., 769 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). The due process requirement may be satisfied, however, when it is establish…
-
Gangavaram v. Devi Kondapi (M.D. Fla. 2024)…(Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (holding that nonresident's failure to pay under the terms of a license, franchise and loan 4 ---PAGE 4--- agreement was not enough to establish minimum contacts); Grp. One Enterprises, Inc. v. Publishers' Representative, Inc., 899 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding no personal jurisdiction in a breach of contract action (among other tort claims) since the only activity to be performed in Florida under the contract was payment); Bohlander v. Robert Dean & Assocs. Yacht Brokerage, In…
Authorities Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. State OF Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. J.S. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989)
- Jefferson v. State, 821 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Stomar, Inc. v. Lucky Seven Riverboat Co., L.L.C., 821 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)