minimum contacts analysis in Florida

2009However, in the commercial context, “the Supreme Court has held that the minimum contacts standard is met if a forum-selection clause exists that is ‘freely negotiated’ and is not ‘unreasonable and unjust.’ ” Steller Group, Inc., 2004 WL 5685570 , at *3 (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 472 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)); Global Satellite Commc’n Co. v. Sudline, 849 So.2d 466, 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see Desai Patel Sharma, Ltd. v. Don Bell Indus., Inc., 729 So.2d 453, 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“Personal jurisdiction, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, may

2009However, in the commercial context, “the Supreme Court has held that the minimum contacts standard is met if a forum-selection clause exists that is ‘freely negotiated’ and is not ‘unreasonable and unjust.’ ” Steller Group, Inc., 2004 WL 5685570 , at *3 (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , 472 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985)); Global Satellite Commc’n Co. v. Sudline, 849 So.2d 466, 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see Desai Patel Sharma, Ltd. v. Don Bell Indus., Inc., 729 So.2d 453, 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“Personal jurisdiction, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, may

2000"The constitutional touchstone of the minimum contacts analysis is whether `the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.'" Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. American Conveyors Corp., 542 So.2d 426, 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ( citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)).

2000"The constitutional touchstone of the minimum contacts analysis is whether `the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.'" Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. American Conveyors Corp., 542 So.2d 426, 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ( citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)).

2013We do not agree ... that the provisions in that section for notice to the judgment debtor are insufficient to meet due process standards.”); see also Tabet v. Tabet, 644 So.2d 557, 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“The minimum contacts requirement of the due process clause does not prevent Florida from enforcing another state’s valid judgment against a judgment-debtor’s property located here, regardless of the lack of other minimum contacts by the judgment-debtor.” (citing Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 , 210 n. 36, 97 S.Ct. 2569 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977))).

2013We do not agree ... that the provisions in that section for notice to the judgment debtor are insufficient to meet due process standards.”); see also Tabet v. Tabet, 644 So.2d 557, 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“The minimum contacts requirement of the due process clause does not prevent Florida from enforcing another state’s valid judgment against a judgment-debtor’s property located here, regardless of the lack of other minimum contacts by the judgment-debtor.” (citing Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 , 210 n. 36, 97 S.Ct. 2569 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977))).

2018Co. , 392 So.2d 1305 , 1307, 1310-13 (Fla. 1981) (holding that a nonresident manufacturer of component parts in Ford vehicles, who knew that Ford automobiles would be shipped to Florida and sold, was subject to jurisdiction in Florida: "Continuous and systematic activities provide a reasonable basis for the assertion of jurisdiction.... [T]he fact that a nonresident manufactures a component part outside the state and takes no part in the sale, distribution, or marketing of the finished product in the state is no basis for a limitation on jurisdiction.... [The manufacturer's] lack of direct pre

2018Co. , 392 So.2d 1305 , 1307, 1310-13 (Fla. 1981) (holding that a nonresident manufacturer of component parts in Ford vehicles, who knew that Ford automobiles would be shipped to Florida and sold, was subject to jurisdiction in Florida: "Continuous and systematic activities provide a reasonable basis for the assertion of jurisdiction.... [T]he fact that a nonresident manufactures a component part outside the state and takes no part in the sale, distribution, or marketing of the finished product in the state is no basis for a limitation on jurisdiction.... [The manufacturer's] lack of direct pre

2000NOTES [1] The case against Carnival remains pending below. [2] In light of these determinations, it is unnecessary directly to pass upon the very problematic issues of whether his activities constituted even doing business under section 48.193(1)(a) or satisfied the minimum contacts requirement of the constitution. [3] Id.

1995See Burstein v. State Bar, 693 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1982); Golf City, Inc. v. Wilson’s Sporting Goods Co., 555 F.2d 426 (5th Cir.1977); see also Milberg Factors, Inc. v. Greenbaum, 585 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

2026The minimum contacts analysis “looks to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 285 .

2026See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) (stating that the minimum contacts analysis “looks to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there”).

2000"The constitutional touchstone of the minimum contacts analysis is whether `the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.'" Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. American Conveyors Corp., 542 So.2d 426, 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ( citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 , 105 S.Ct. 2174 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)).

1990Although "[t]he inquiry into whether a foreign defendant has invoked the benefits and protections of the laws of the forum State does not lend itself to a bright-line rule," Pellerito Foods, Inc. v. American Conveyors Corp., 542 So.2d 426, 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), the constitutional touchstone of the minimum contacts analysis is whether "the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 , 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183 , 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 542 (1985) (quoting World-Wide Vo

1995See Burstein v. State Bar, 693 F.2d 511 (5th Cir.1982); Golf City, Inc. v. Wilson's Sporting Goods Co., 555 F.2d 426 (5th Cir.1977); see also Milberg Factors, Inc. v. Greenbaum, 585 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

1995See Burstein v. State Bar, 693 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1982); Golf City, Inc. v. Wilson’s Sporting Goods Co., 555 F.2d 426 (5th Cir.1977); see also Milberg Factors, Inc. v. Greenbaum, 585 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

2017If the complaint was based exclusively on the ownership redemption agreement, as argued by the Defendants and accepted by the circuit court, the choice of law and venue provisions are not at issue and the jurisdictional analysis would be based upon the traditional minimum contacts test set forth in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).

2017If the complaint was based exclusively on the ownership redemption agreement, as argued by the Defendants and accepted by the circuit court, the choice of law and venue provisions are not at issue and the jurisdictional analysis would be based upon the traditional minimum contacts test set forth in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 , 66 S.Ct. 154 , 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).

2005In Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78 S.Ct. 1228 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958), the Court said with remarkable clarity that "[t]he unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State." [e.s.]; see also Asahi, 480 U.S. at 109 , 107 S.Ct. 1026 ("The `substantial connection' between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. " [e.o., c.o.]); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 47

2005In Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78 S.Ct. 1228 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958), the Court said with remarkable clarity that "[t]he unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State." [e.s.]; see also Asahi, 480 U.S. at 109 , 107 S.Ct. 1026 ("The `substantial connection' between the defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum State. " [e.o., c.o.]); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 47

2018Co. , 392 So.2d 1305 , 1307, 1310-13 (Fla. 1981) (holding that a nonresident manufacturer of component parts in Ford vehicles, who knew that Ford automobiles would be shipped to Florida and sold, was subject to jurisdiction in Florida: "Continuous and systematic activities provide a reasonable basis for the assertion of jurisdiction.... [T]he fact that a nonresident manufactures a component part outside the state and takes no part in the sale, distribution, or marketing of the finished product in the state is no basis for a limitation on jurisdiction.... [The manufacturer's] lack of direct pre

2018Co. , 392 So.2d 1305 , 1307, 1310-13 (Fla. 1981) (holding that a nonresident manufacturer of component parts in Ford vehicles, who knew that Ford automobiles would be shipped to Florida and sold, was subject to jurisdiction in Florida: "Continuous and systematic activities provide a reasonable basis for the assertion of jurisdiction.... [T]he fact that a nonresident manufactures a component part outside the state and takes no part in the sale, distribution, or marketing of the finished product in the state is no basis for a limitation on jurisdiction.... [The manufacturer's] lack of direct pre

1990In light of the circumstances just set forth, and the terms of subsection 48.193(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the trial court had in personam jurisdiction of the husband for all purposes in the lawsuit below, and sufficient contacts exist with this jurisdiction to satisfy the minimum contacts test of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 , 90 L.Ed. 95, 101-02 (1945); see also Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). [*] The husband next contends that the trial court erred by setting the case for trial without disposing

1990In light of the circumstances just set forth, and the terms of subsection 48.193(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the trial court had in personam jurisdiction of the husband for all purposes in the lawsuit below, and sufficient contacts exist with this jurisdiction to satisfy the minimum contacts test of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158 , 90 L.Ed. 95, 101-02 (1945); see also Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 , 98 S.Ct. 1690 , 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). [*] The husband next contends that the trial court erred by setting the case for trial without disposing

2026LLC, 225 So. 3d at 301 ("When sections 685.101 and 685.102 are satisfied, personal jurisdiction may be exercised and the courts may dispense with the more traditional minimum contacts analysis."); see also Gibney v. Pillifant, 32 So. 3d 784, 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("[T]he actual language used in the contract is the best evidence of the intent of the parties, and the plain meaning of that language controls." (quoting Emergency Assocs. of Tampa, P.A. v. Sassano, 664 So. 2d 1000, 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995))).

2021Further, when these statutory prerequisites are satisfied, “personal jurisdiction may be exercised and the courts may dispense with the more traditional minimum contacts analysis.” Id.

2004Although such activities do not necessarily satisfy the second prong of the inquiry, see, e.g., Venetian Salami, 554 So.2d at 501, 503 (explaining that a nonresident's contract with a Florida resident alone, or the mere failure to pay money in Florida, cannot automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts to warrant the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction), the additional fact that a substantial portion of the contract is to be performed in Florida, or substantial services are to be rendered in Florida, does satisfy the minimum contacts requirement.

1991Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1989).

2026LLC, 225 So. 3d at 301 ("When sections 685.101 and 685.102 are satisfied, personal jurisdiction may be exercised and the courts may dispense with the more traditional minimum contacts analysis."); see also Gibney v. Pillifant, 32 So. 3d 784, 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("[T]he actual language used in the contract is the best evidence of the intent of the parties, and the plain meaning of that language controls." (quoting Emergency Assocs. of Tampa, P.A. v. Sassano, 664 So. 2d 1000, 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995))).

2026However, Cedrus ignores that "in the commercial context, 'the Supreme Court has held that the minimum contacts standard is met if a forum-selection clause exists that is "freely negotiated" and is not "unreasonable and unjust." ' " Jetbroadband WV, LLC v. MasTec N. Am., Inc., 13 So. 3d 159, 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (quoting Steller Grp., Inc. v. Mid-Ohio Mech., Inc., 2004 WL 5685570 , at *3 (M.D.

2026LLC, 225 So. 3d at 301 ("When sections 685.101 and 685.102 are satisfied, personal jurisdiction may be exercised and the courts may dispense with the more traditional minimum contacts analysis."); see also Gibney v. Pillifant, 32 So. 3d 784, 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("[T]he actual language used in the contract is the best evidence of the intent of the parties, and the plain meaning of that language controls." (quoting Emergency Assocs. of Tampa, P.A. v. Sassano, 664 So. 2d 1000, 1003 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995))).

2024Shwartzberg v. Knobloch, 98 So. 3d 173, 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“[A] nonresident corporate officer is subject to personal jurisdiction if the officer directed ‘fraud or other intentional misconduct’ at parties in the State of Florida.”) (citation omitted); see Walter Lorenz Surgical, Inc. v. Teague, 721 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“The court's sole inquiry and determination [is] whether the tort as alleged occurred in Florida, and not whether the alleged tort actually occurred.”); Amersham Enters., Inc. v. Hakim-Daccach, 333 So. 3d 289 , 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Our Supreme Court has

2024Shwartzberg v. Knobloch, 98 So. 3d 173, 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“[A] nonresident corporate officer is subject to personal jurisdiction if the officer directed ‘fraud or other intentional misconduct’ at parties in the State of Florida.”) (citation omitted); see Walter Lorenz Surgical, Inc. v. Teague, 721 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“The court's sole inquiry and determination [is] whether the tort as alleged occurred in Florida, and not whether the alleged tort actually occurred.”); Amersham Enters., Inc. v. Hakim-Daccach, 333 So. 3d 289 , 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Our Supreme Court has

2024Shwartzberg v. Knobloch, 98 So. 3d 173, 181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (“[A] nonresident corporate officer is subject to personal jurisdiction if the officer directed ‘fraud or other intentional misconduct’ at parties in the State of Florida.”) (citation omitted); see Walter Lorenz Surgical, Inc. v. Teague, 721 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“The court's sole inquiry and determination [is] whether the tort as alleged occurred in Florida, and not whether the alleged tort actually occurred.”); Amersham Enters., Inc. v. Hakim-Daccach, 333 So. 3d 289 , 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Our Supreme Court has

2022See § 48.193(1)(a)(2), Fla. Stat.; Machtinger v. Inertial Airline Servs., Inc., 937 So. 2d 730, 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“Directing a conspiracy toward Florida establishes sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process.”); Ileyac Shipping, Ltd. v. Riera-Gomez, 899 So. 2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quoting Godfrey v. Neumann, 373 So. 2d 920, 922 (Fla. 1979)) (“[B]y committing a tort in Florida a nonresident defendant establishes ‘minimum contacts’ with Florida to justify the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over 13 him . . . .”). adhering to this precedent, we conclude that Dr. Ha

2022See § 48.193(1)(a)(2), Fla. Stat.; Machtinger v. Inertial Airline Servs., Inc., 937 So. 2d 730, 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“Directing a conspiracy toward Florida establishes sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process.”); Ileyac Shipping, Ltd. v. Riera-Gomez, 899 So. 2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quoting Godfrey v. Neumann, 373 So. 2d 920, 922 (Fla. 1979)) (“[B]y committing a tort in Florida a nonresident defendant establishes ‘minimum contacts’ with Florida to justify the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over 13 him . . . .”). adhering to this precedent, we conclude that Dr. Ha

2022See § 48.193(1)(a)(2), Fla. Stat.; Machtinger v. Inertial Airline Servs., Inc., 937 So. 2d 730, 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“Directing a conspiracy toward Florida establishes sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due process.”); Ileyac Shipping, Ltd. v. Riera-Gomez, 899 So. 2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quoting Godfrey v. Neumann, 373 So. 2d 920, 922 (Fla. 1979)) (“[B]y committing a tort in Florida a nonresident defendant establishes ‘minimum contacts’ with Florida to justify the acquisition of in personam jurisdiction over 13 him . . . .”). adhering to this precedent, we conclude that Dr. Ha

2018Under the traditional test, courts “identify all contacts between a nonresident defendant and [Florida]” and determine “whether those contacts: (1) are related to the plaintiff’s cause of action; (2) involve some act by which the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privileges of doing business within the forum; and (3) are such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum.” Id. at 1357 (citing U.S. S.E.C. v. Carrillo, 115 F.3d 1540, 1542 (11th Cir. 1997)).

2018See, e.g., Louis Vuitton, 736 F.3d at 1356 (noting that “courts have applied the traditional minimum contacts test for purposeful availment analysis in lieu of, or in addition to, the ‘effects test’ in cases involving . . . intentional torts”).

2018Under the traditional test, courts “identify all contacts between a nonresident defendant and [Florida]” and determine “whether those contacts: (1) are related to the plaintiff’s cause of action; (2) involve some act by which the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privileges of doing business within the forum; and (3) are such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the forum.” Id. at 1357 (citing U.S. S.E.C. v. Carrillo, 115 F.3d 1540, 1542 (11th Cir. 1997)).