ZERO'S MR. SUBMARINE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND MARTIN PALACIOS, AN INDIVIDUAL, APPELLANTS,
v.
ZERO'S SUBS OF FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, LARRY GRAYBILL, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND RANDALL APPEL, AN INDIVIDUAL, 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.
A Florida corporation sued a Delaware corporation and its CEO in Florida state court to satisfy a judgment, alleging the Delaware corporation fraudulently received assets from a Virginia corporation to avoid liability. The Fourth District reversed the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that the complaint failed to adequately plead that the cause of action arose from the defendants' in-state activities, as required by Florida's long-arm statute.
The complaint was insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction over the non-resident defendants. Although the complaint adequately pleaded that the defendants engaged in business activities in Florida, it failed to plead the critical statutory requirement that the cause of action arose from those activities, as mandated by section 48.193(1), Florida Statutes.
[1] A plaintiff may obtain specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant by pleading the language of the long-arm statute without including supporting facts.
[2] To establish specific jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute, a plaintiff must plead that the cause of action arose from the defendant's enumerated acts within the…
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“Section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2005), provides for specific jurisdiction over an individual not a citizen or resident of this state "for any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the following acts" and then delineates such acts.”
Establishes the statutory framework requiring a nexus between the cause of action and the in-state activities.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee, a Florida corporation, held a judgment against a Virginia corporation. Appellee filed suit in Florida trial court against a Delaware corpora…
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 Tortious Act Within This State cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case involves the issue of specific jurisdiction over non-resident defendants. Appellee, a Florida corporation, held a judgment against a Virginia corporation which it sought to satisfy by filing this action in the trial court against Appellants, a Delaware corporation and the CEO of the Delaware corporation. In their complaint, Appellees alleged that the Delaware corporation transferred all assets from the Virginia corporation to itself in an effort to avoid liability on the judgment.
The trial court denied the Appellants’ motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction.
The trial court found jurisdiction over the Delaware corporation was proper where it received fraudulently conveyed assets from the Virginia corporation and where the CEO was personally involved in the transfer he too was subject to jurisdiction. Appellants argue that the complaint failed to properly plead the statutory basis for long-arm jurisdiction.
We agree and reverse.
Appellants’ challenge is to the sufficiency of Appellee’s allegations. Ap-pellee correctly argues that a plaintiff may obtain jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant by pleading the language of the statute without including the supporting facts. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla.1989).
Section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2005), provides for specific jurisdiction over an individual not a citizen or resident of this state “for any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the following acts” and then delineates such acts. The two acts applicable to this analysis are “(a) Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in this state or having an office or agency in this state” and “(b) Committing a tortious act within this state.” Appellees pled that the Delaware corporation was doing business in the state and that the CEO both did business in the state and engaged in tortious conduct within the state. These allegations satisfy sections (a) and (b) of the statute, but Appellee did not plead the statutory language of section (1) of the statute, namely that the cause of action arose from the activities as pled. Appellees did not plead how its claims for successor liability or piercing the corporate veil arose out of Appellants doing business in Florida, nor is this connection apparent on the face of the complaint in the instant facts. This deficiency makes Appellee’s allegations insufficient to obtain specific jurisdiction over the non-resident defendants.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
STONE, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.