Koock et al v. Sugar & Felsenthal LLP et al

Filing 52

ORDER granting 13 Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, denying as moot motion to dismiss for improper venue and motion to transfer. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 3/25/2010. (JM)

UNITED S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

KENNETH KOOCK,

et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v.
SUGAR
et
&
i

CASE NO.
FELSENTHAL LLP

8:09-CV-609-T-17EAJ

al

Defendants.

/

ORDER

This cause

is before the Court on:

Dkt.
Dkt. Dkt. Dkt.

13
14 15 16

Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
Affidavit Affidavit Affidavit

Dkt. Dkt. Dkt.

21 23 47

Response M o t i o n f o r L e a v e to F i l e R e p l y Supplement

T h e A m e n d e d C l a s s A c t i o n C o m p l a i n t in t h i s c a s e i n c l u d e s t h e

f o l l o w i n g : 1) C o u n t I - N e g l i g e n c e ; a n d 2) N e g l i g e n t Misrepresentation by Omission. T h e c l a i m s in t h i s c a s e a r o s e

f r o m t h e P o n z i s c h e m e c a r r i e d o u t by H o w a r d K. W a x e n b e r g , w h i c h
defrauded 200 investors of $130,000,000. The claims are brought

against Defendant S u g a r & Felsenthal LLP f/k/a Sugar, Friedberg &
Felsenthal LLP, and John Doe 1-10, the law firm who acted as

c o u n s e l f o r H o w a r d K. W a x e n b e r g a n d o n e o r m o r e of t h e e n t i t i e s
t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e P o n z i s c h e m e w a s c a r r i e d out,
individual members of the law firm.

a s w e l l as t h e

The entities are HKW Trading

F u n d I LLC,

H o w a r d W a x e n b e r g T r a d i n g L . L . C . F u n d One,

and Downing

& Associates Technical Analysis.

Case

No.

8:09-CV-609-T-17EAJ

P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h a t the o f f e r i n g d o c u m e n t s o m i t t e d

m a t e r i a l f a c t s a n d f a i l e d to m a k e full, c o m p l e t e a n d a d e q u a t e
d i s c l o s u r e s a s t o v a r i o u s i s s u e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h H o w a r d K.

Waxenberg and his entities.

Plaintiffs allege:

1)

Defendants omitted to inform investors

t h a t H o w a r d K. W a x e n b e r g r e c e i v e d a l i f e t i m e t r a d i n g b a n f r o m t h e

securities i n d u s t r y and a $15,000 fine for lying to and stealing
from his employer, J e f f e r i e s & Co.; 2) D e f e n d a n t s d i d n o t m a k e

r e a s o n a b l e i n q u i r y of t h e f i n a n c i a l r e c o r d s of t h e e n t i t y o r
entities, when a review would have disclosed the existence of the
3) Defendants did not disclose that the Funds

Ponzi scheme;

g e n e r a t e d i n s u f f i c i e n t p r o f i t s to p a y the r e p o r t e d r e t u r n s ; 4) Defendants did not require any truly independent third party a c c o u n t i n g o r f i n a n c i a l f i r m to r e v i e w t h e o p e r a t i o n s of t h e W a x e n b e r g F u n d s to v e r i f y t h a t t h e y w e r e in f a c t a c t i n g p r o p e r l y ;

5) D e f e n d a n t s o m i t t e d to d i s c l o s e that H o w a r d K. W a x e n b e r g a n d / o r his a f f i l i a t e d e n t i t i e s w e r e i m p r o p e r l y a n d i l l e g a l l y a c t i n g as an u n r e g i s t e r e d i n v e s t m e n t adviser, w h e n F l o r i d a l a w r e q u i r e s
registration.

P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e that D e f e n d a n t s c a n c l a i m no a t t o r n e y c l i e n t o r o t h e r p r i v i l e g e as a d e f e n s e as a m a t t e r of law,
because information which is intended for release to third

parties, s u c h as p r o s p e c t u s e s , o f f e r i n g s t a t e m e n t s , a n d p r i v a t e

placement memoranda d e s i g n e d for and d i s t r i b u t e d to the investing
p u b l i c , a r e n o t s u b j e c t to a n y s u c h p r i v i l e g e , a n d m u s t be
accurate.

P l a i n t i f f s f u r t h e r a l l e g e that the d e l a y e d d i s c o v e r y
d o c t r i n e a p p l i e s to t h i s c a u s e of a c t i o n d u e to D e f e n d a n t s '

Case

No.

8:09-CV-609-T-17EAJ

material omissions, and Plaintiffs could not have r e a s o n a b l y
l e a r n e d a b o u t t h e e v e n t s g i v i n g r i s e to t h i s c a u s e o f a c t i o n

until at least mid-May, 2 005, when H o w a r d K. W a x e n b e r g c o m m i t t e d
suicide and the Ponzi scheme was revealed.

P l a i n t i f f s f u r t h e r a l l e g e that D e f e n d a n t S&F, b y p r e p a r i n g the p r i v a t e p l a c e m e n t m e m o r a n d u m for a F l o r i d a - b a s e d enterprise, e f f e c t i v e l y c o n d u c t e d b u s i n e s s in Florida, and could reasonably

e x p e c t to b e s u b j e c t to t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e C o u r t i n t h e
Middle District of Florida.

Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant S&F intended that

t h e m a t e r i a l s p r e p a r e d b y it w e r e to be u s e d in t h e S t a t e of F l o r i d a b y its c l i e n t , Mr. W a x e n b e r g , a n d h i s a f f i l i a t e d
entities, b y f u r n i s h i n g s u c h d o c u m e n t s to i n v e s t o r s e i t h e r

p e r s o n a l l y or t h r o u g h the mails and delivery services, emanating
from Waxenberg's Florida offices.

T h e b a s i s of j u r i s d i c t i o n is d i v e r s i t y ,
1332(a) and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2)(a).

28 U . S . C . Sec.

Plaintiffs Kenneth Koock and Cristine Koock are residents of

New Jersey.

D e f e n d a n t S u g a r & F e l s e n t h a l L L P is a l i m i t e d

l i a b i l i t y p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h its p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s in
Chicago, Illinois.

I.

Standard of Review

When considering a motion to dismiss for lack of

p e r s o n a l jurisdiction, a court must a c c e p t the facts a l l e g e d

in plaintiff's complaint as true, to the extent that they

Case N o .

8:09-CV-609-T-17EAJ

are not c o n t r a d i c t e d b y d e f e n d a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t s . S e e M o r r i s
v. SSE, Inc., 8 4 3 F . 2 d 489, 492 (11th Cir.1988). The parties

have s u b m i t t e d e v i d e n t i a r y m a t e r i a l s in s u p p o r t of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e positions. W h i l e the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of s u c h m a t e r i a l s o r d i n a r i l y w o u l d convert a m o t i o n to d i s m i s s i n t o
o n e for s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , see F e d . R . C i v . P . 12(b), in t h e

c o n t e x t of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n the m o t i o n r e m a i n s o n e to
d i s m i s s e v e n if e v i d e n c e o u t s i d e t h e p l e a d i n g s is
considered. Bracewell v. Nicholson Air Servs. Inc., 748 F.2d

1499,

1 5 0 1 n. 1 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1 9 8 4 ) . A n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g o n a

m o t i o n to d i s m i s s f o r l a c k of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n is

d i s c r e t i o n a r y b u t not m a n d a t o r y . See, e.g., M a d a r a v. Hall,
916 F.2d 1510,
1504 .

1514

(11th Cir.1990); Bracewell,

748 F.2d at

O n c e the p l a i n t i f f p l e a d s s u f f i c i e n t m a t e r i a l facts to
f o r m a b a s i s f o r p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e b u r d e n s h i f t s to
the defendant to challenge the plaintiff's allegations by
affidavits or other pleadings. See Future Tech Today, Inc.

v. O S F H e a l t h c a r e S y s . ,

2 1 8 F . 3 d 1247,

1249

(11th Cir.2000).
the

When the nonresident defendant meets this burden,

p l a i n t i f f m u s t s u b s t a n t i a t e the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a l l e g a t i o n s
in i t s c o m p l a i n t b y a f f i d a v i t s o r o t h e r c o m p e t e n t p r o o f , "

a n d m a y not m e r e l y r e l y u p o n the f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s set
f o r t h in t h e c o m p l a i n t . Id,; P o s n e r v. E s s e x Ins. Co.., F . 3 d 1209, 1215 (11th Cir.1999). Where the plaintiff's
all reasonable

178

evidence and defendant's evidence conflict,

inferences must be construed in favor of the plaintiff.

Case N o .

8:09-CV-609-T-17EAJ

Stubbs v. W y n d h a m Nassau Resort and Crystal Palace Casino,
4 4 7 F . 3 d 1357, 1 3 6 0 843 F . 2 d 489, 492 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ; M o r r i s v. SSE, W h e n t h e r e is n o Inc.,

(11th Cir.1988).

c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n the parties' a f f i d a v i t s as to the essential

jurisdictional facts, the Court can resolve the issue of jurisdiction on the basis of the affidavits. Venetian Salami
Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499, 502 (Fla.1989); Welleslev

I n c o m e P a r t n e r s h i p Ltd. IV v. G e m i n i E q u i t i e s ,
S o . 2 d 1108, 1110

Inc., 650

( F l a . D i s t . C t . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e f a i l u r e of a

p l a i n t i f f to r e f u t e the a l l e g a t i o n s of the d e f e n d a n t ' s
a f f i d a v i t r e q u i r e s t h a t a m o t i o n to d i s m i s s be g r a n t e d , provided that the defendant's affidavit properly contests the b a s i s f o r l o n g - a r m j u r i s d i c t i o n b y l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t
facts. Venetian Salami, 5 5 4 S o . 2 d a t 5 0 2 ; L a m p e v. Hoyne,

652 S o . 2 d 424,

425 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995).

I.

Florida Long Arm Statute

The Florida long-arm statute allows jurisdiction over an

o u t - o f - s t a t e d e f e n d a n t o n l y if: 1)

the d e f e n d a n t e n g a g e s in a c t s

t h a t a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y e n u m e r a t e d in Sec. 4 8 . 1 9 3 ( 1 ) , Fla. Stat. ( s p e c i f i c j u r i s d i c t i o n ) ; o r 2)
substantial, continuous,

the d e f e n d a n t e n g a g e s in

s y s t e m a t i c a n d n o t i s o l a t e d a c t i v i t y in

the s t a t e as p r o v i d e d f o r in Sec. 4 8 . 1 9 3 ( 2 ) ,
jurisdiction).

Fla. Stat.

(general

Case

No.

8:09-CV-609-T-17EAJ

A.

General

Jurisdiction

Defendant Sugar & Felsenthal,

L L P ("S&F")

argues that

Defendant's contacts with Florida have been isolated, and wholly insubstantial.

sporadic

Defendant S&F performed services for
2 0 03 to A p r i l , 2 0 05, a n d t h e w o r k

H o w a r d K. W a x e n b e r g f r o m May,

w a s in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of H K W T r a d i n g F u n d I L L C (the "Fund") a n d H K W T r a d i n g , L L C (the " M a n a g e r " ) . Defendant

S & F s t a t e s it h a s n o o f f i c e ,

a g e n t o r p r e s e n c e in F l o r i d a a n d
To Defendant S&F's

does not solicit business or advertise there.

k n o w l e d g e , H o w a r d K. W a x e n b e r g w a s an o u t - o f - s t a t e r e s i d e n t w h o m e r e l y h a d a n o f f i c e in F l o r i d a . D u r i n g t h e r e l e v a n t time, 4 to

6 of S&F's 850 to 1050 clients were Florida residents,

and most

of t h o s e c l i e n t s b e c a m e c l i e n t s w h e n t h e y r e s i d e d in I l l i n o i s ,
before moving to Florida. The revenues collected from the

"Florida" c l i e n t s a m o u n t e d to 4 5 / 1 0 0 of one p e r c e n t of S & F ' s income. B e t w e e n 2002 a n d 2009, D e f e n d a n t S & F p e r f o r m e d w o r k for
Defendant S&F's revenue from those

2 to 6 Florida clients.

c l i e n t s a m o u n t e d to one half of one p e r c e n t of S & F ' s revenue.

A p l a i n t i f f m u s t e s t a b l i s h that t h e r e is g e n e r a l jurisdiction over a defendant only where a defendant's contacts

w i t h the forum state are unrelated to the p l a i n t i f f ' s cause of
action. Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall, 466

U.S.

408

(1984).

In this case,

Plaintiffs contend that the

allegations of the A m e n d e d Complaint e s t a b l i s h specific
j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r Sec. 48 .193 (1) ()b) , Fla. S t a t .

A f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , the C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of

the A m e n d e d Complaint,
general jurisdiction.

and supporting documents, do not e s t a b l i s h

Case

No.

8:09-CV-609-T-17EAJ

B.

Specific Jurisdiction

Florida's long-arm statute states:

(1) A n y p e r s o n , w h e t h e r or not a c i t i z e n o r r e s i d e n t of t h i s state, w h o p e r s o n a l l y or t h r o u g h a n a g e n t d o e s a n y of t h e a c t s e n u m e r a t e d in t h i s s u b s e c t i o n t h e r e b y s u b m i t s h i m s e l f or h e r s e l f . . . t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e for a n y cause of a c t i o n a r i s i n g f r o m t h e d o i n g of a n y of t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t s :

(a) Operating, conducting, or e n g a g i n g in, or c a r r y i n g
on a business or business venture in this state or

h a v i n g a n o f f i c e o r a g e n c y in t h i s s t a t e .
(b) Committing a tortious act within this state.

(f) C a u s i n g i n j u r y to p e r s o n s or p r o p e r t y w i t h i n t h i s s t a t e a r i s i n g out of an act or o m i s s i o n b y the
defendant outside this state, of t h e i n j u r y e i t h e r : if, at o r a b o u t t h e t i m e

1. T h e d e f e n d a n t w a s e n g a g e d in s o l i c i t a t i o n or service activities within this state; or 2. P r o d u c t s , m a t e r i a l s , o r t h i n g s p r o c e s s e d , serviced, or manufactured by the defendant
anywhere were used or consumed within this

s t a t e in t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e of c o m m e r c e ,
trade, or use.

Defendant S&F argues that Defendant S&F does not meet the

requirements of the above sections of Florida's long-arm statute

1)

Sec.

4 8 . 1 9 3 (1) (b)

As to Sec 4 8 . 1 9 3 ( 1 ) ( b ) , D e f e n d a n t S & F a r g u e s t h a t w h a t e v e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n S & F d i d or d i d not conduct, a n d whatever material

Case

No.

8:09-CV-609-T-17EAJ

f a c t s it m a y h a v e o m i t t e d f r o m t h e PPM, its s u p p o s e d l y t o r t i o u s f a i l u r e s o c c u r r e d in I l l i n o i s , n o t F l o r i d a .
e v e r in F l o r i d a .

No S&F attorney was

A l l S & F w o r k f o r H o w a r d K. W a x e n b e r g a n d t h e

d r a f t i n g of t h e P P M w a s d o n e in I l l i n o i s .

Defendant S&F argues

that Plaintiffs do not allege that any S&F lawyer did or failed to d o a n y t h i n g i n F l o r i d a . T h e o n l y a c t s t h a t c o n n e c t S & F to

F l o r i d a a r e t e l e p h o n e c a l l s o r t h e m a i l i n g o r e m a i l i n g of
c o m m u n i c a t i o n s o r d o c u m e n t s to H o w a r d K. W a x e n b e r g . Defendant

S & F a r g u e s t h a t t h e c a u s e of a c t i o n f o r f a i l i n g t o a d e q u a t e l y

investigate Waxenberg could not conceivably arise from the doing of a n y [those] acts, as r e q u i r e d b y Sec. 4 8 . 1 9 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) .

Defendant

S&F relies on Wendt v.

Horowitz,

822

So.2d 1252

(Fla. 2 0 0 2 ) .

The Florida Supreme Court held that an out-of-state
into Florida could constitutes a tortious act

communication sent

in F l o r i d a o n l y if " t h e t o r t a l l e g e d a r i s e s f r o m s u c h communications". T h e F l o r i d a S u p r e m e C o u r t p o i n t e d to

defamation, s l a n d e r a n d the u n l a w f u l r e c o r d i n g of t e l e p h o n e c a l l s
as examples of communication that in and of itself constituted

the t o r t i o u s conduct.
documents,

D e f e n d a n t S & F argues that m e r e l y s e n d i n g
i n t o F l o r i d a is n o t
tortious act in

e v e n if n e g l i g e n t l y p r e p a r e d ,

sufficient to constitute the commission of a
Florida.

P l a i n t i f f s K e n n e t h Koock, et al. , r e s p o n d t h a t the A m e n d e d
C o m p l a i n t a d e q u a t e l y a l l e g e s that D e f e n d a n t S & F ' s c o n d u c t f a l l s
w i t h i n t h e c o n f i n e s of S e c . 4 8 . 1 9 3 ( 1 ) ( b ) , Fla. Stat. Plaintiffs

a r g u e t h a t p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e is n o t r e q u i r e d to c o m m i t a t o r t i o u s a c t in F l o r i d a b e c a u s e t h e t o r t c a n be c o n d u c t e d v i a e l e c t r o n i c ,

t e l e p h o n i c or w r i t t e n communications, so l o n g as the t o r t is c o n n e c t e d to t h o s e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s . Plaintiffs rely on Beta

Case

No.

8:09-CV-609-T-17EAJ

Drywall Acquisition,

L L C v.

Mintz & Faede.

P.C..

2009 WL 763550

(Fla. 4th D C A 2009); Becker v. Hooshmand, 841 S o . 2 d 561 (Fla. 4th
D C A 2 0 03) a n d D e l o i t t e & T o u c h e v. Gencor Industries, Inc., 929

So.2d 678

(Fla. 5th D C A 2 0 0 6 ) .

In t h e A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t , P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h a t D e f e n d a n t
S & F c o n d u c t e d b u s i n e s s in F l o r i d a b y p r e p a r i n g t h e p r i v a t e

placement memorandum for a Florida-based enterprise, and could
r e a s o n a b l y e x p e c t t o b e s u b j e c t to t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e C o u r t

in the M i d d l e D i s t r i c t of Florida.

Plaintiffs further allege

t h a t D e f e n d a n t S & F i n t e n d e d t h a t the m a t e r i a l s p r e p a r e d b y D e f e n d a n t w e r e to be u s e d in t h e S t a t e of F l o r i d a b y i t s c l i e n t ,
Mr. W a x e n b e r g a n d h i s a f f i l i a t e d e n t i t i e s , b y f u r n i s h i n g t h e

d o c u m e n t s to i n v e s t o r s e i t h e r p e r s o n a l l y o r t h r o u g h t h e m a i l s a n d delivery services emanating from Waxenberg's Florida offices. The
A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t is a c l a s s a c t i o n c o m p l a i n t f o r n e g l i g e n c e a n d for negligent misrepresentation by omission.

The A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t s t a t e s that D e f e n d a n t S & F o w e d a d u t y
to t h e i n v e s t i n g p u b l i c , i n c l u d i n g K o o c k a n d t h e class, to e n s u r e

that full a n d f a i r d i s c l o s u r e s w e r e m a d e on o f f e r i n g d o c u m e n t s d r a f t e d by D e f e n d a n t S&F, that D e f e n d a n t S & F b r e a c h e d that d u t y
o w e d to P l a i n t i f f s , that Defendant S&F's negligence proximately
Plaintiffs further

caused damage to the Koocks and the class.

allege that the negligence was willful.

T h e A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t D e f e n d a n t S&F, as c o u n s e l t o t h e W a x e n b e r g - r e l a t e d i n v e s t m e n t e n t i t i e s , o w e d a

d u t y to t h e i n v e s t i n g p u b l i c ,

i n c l u d i n g t h e K o o c k s a n d t h e class,

to ensure that full and fair disclosures were made on the

Case

No.

8:09-CV-609-T-17EAJ

o f f e r i n g d o c u m e n t s d r a f t e d b y D e f e n d a n t S & F, t h a t D e f e n d a n t S & F

breached that duty by negligently omitting from disclosure the m a t e r i a l i t e m s e n u m e r a t e d in t h e A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t , a n d t h e

n e g l i g e n c e of D e f e n d a n t S & F p r o x i m a t e l y c a u s e d d a m a g e s to K o o c k
a n d the class. Plaintiffs further allege that the negligent

misrepresentations were willful.

The Court

concludes that

Plaintiffs have stated causes of

action for negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The C o u r t ' s n e x t i n q u i r y is w h e t h e r t h e torts, as a l l e g e d , o c c u r r e d
in Florida.

It is n o t d i s p u t e d t h a t D e f e n d a n t S & F s e n t c o m m u n i c a t i o n s b y m a i l a n d e m a i l to t h e " M a n a g e r " a n d t h e " C o m p a n y " at a F l o r i d a address. It is n o t d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e r e w e r e t e l e p h o n e c a l l s

b e t w e e n D e f e n d a n t S & F in Chicago,
the "Company" in Florida.

I l l i n o i s a n d the "Manager" a n d

Committing a tortious act in Florida can o c c u r t h r o u g h a
n o n - r e s i d e n t ' s t e l e p h o n i c , e l e c t r o n i c or w r i t t e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n s

into Florida.
However,

P h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e in F l o r i d a is not required.
The

the tortious act must arise from the communication.

F l o r i d a S u p r e m e C o u r t i d e n t i f i e d t h e t o r t s of d e f a m a t i o n , s l a n d e r , o r w r o n g f u l r e c o r d i n g of c o m m u n i c a t i o n s as t o r t s w h i c h m e e t t h e " c o n n e x i t y " r e q u i r e m e n t of Sec. 4 8 . 1 9 3 ( 1 ) ( b ) - - t h e c a u s a l
connection between the defendant's activities in Florida and the

p l a i n t i f f ' s c a u s e of a c t i o n .

In other words,

the communication
the
842

itself must be the tortious act for the tort to "arise from"
communication. S e e C a r l y l e v. Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc.,

So.2d 1013

(Fla. 4th D C A 2 0 0 3 ) .

10

Case

No.

8:09-CV-609-T-17EAJ

Beta Drywall,

supra,

is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h e f a c t s of

this case because Beta involved claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and legal malpractice directed to F l o r i d a corporations,
w h i c h a c c r u e d in F l o r i d a a r i s i n g f r o m f a u l t y " A r t i c l e s " f i l e d in
Florida.

A f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e C o u r t g r a n t s t h e M o t i o n to D i s m i s s
f o r l a c k of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n as t o S e c . 4 8 . 1 9 3 ( 1 ) ( b ) .

2)

Sec.

4 8 . 1 9 3 (1) (a)

In o r d e r to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a d e f e n d a n t is c o n d u c t i n g
b u s i n e s s i n F l o r i d a f o r p u r p o s e s of t h e l o n g - a r m s t a t u t e , the

C o u r t m u s t c o n s i d e r the d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i v i t i e s c o l l e c t i v e l y , a n d
d e t e r m i n e s w h e t h e r t h e a c t i v i t i e s e s t a b l i s h a g e n e r a l c o u r s e of

b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t y in the s t a t e for p e c u n i a r y b e n e f i t .

Relevant

factors include whether the defendant maintains and operates an o f f i c e in F l o r i d a , t h e p o s s e s s i o n a n d m a i n t e n a n c e of a l i c e n s e to
do business in Florida, the number of clients served, and the See

percentage of overall revenue derived from Florida clients.

H o r i z o n A g g r e s s i v e G r o w t h , L.P. v. R o t h s t e i n - K a s s , 4 2 1 F . 3 d 1162, 1 1 6 7 (11th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) .

I n t h e i r r e s p o n s e , P l a i n t i f f s do n o t a r g u e t h a t D e f e n d a n t ' s

activities e s t a b l i s h that Defendant S&F was c o n d u c t i n g business
in F l o r i d a . Based on the above factors, the Court concludes that

D e f e n d a n t S & F w a s n o t c o n d u c t i n g b u s i n e s s in F l o r i d a .

After consideration,

t h e C o u r t g r a n t s t h e M o t i o n to D i s m i s s

f o r l a c k of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n as to Sec. 4 8 . 1 9 3 ( 1 ) (a) .

11

Case N o .

8:09-CV-609-T-17EAJ

3) S e c .

4 8 . 1 9 3 (1) (f)

The Court notes that Plaintiffs allege o n l y a financial injury. Sec. 48.193(1)(f) subjects nonresident defendants to

jurisdiction only in cases of personal injury or damage to
property.
992, 994

Aetna Life & Cas.
(Fla. 1987).

C o . V.

Therm-O-Disc,

Inc.,

511 So.2d

After consideration,

the Court concludes that Sec.

48.193(1)(f) c a n n o t f o r m the b a s i s of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n .

The

C o u r t g r a n t s D e f e n d a n t ' s M o t i o n to D i s m i s s f o r l a c k of p e r s o n a l
jurisdiction.

II.

Due

Process

The Court has concluded that the allegations of the Amended

C o m p l a i n t do n o t e s t a b l i s h g e n e r a l or s p e c i f i c j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r D e f e n d a n t S & F p u r s u a n t to F l o r i d a ' s l o n g - a r m s t a t u t e . Therefore,

it is not n e c e s s a r y to a d d r e s s the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d u e p r o c e s s
requirements.

III.

Venue

and Transfer

Because the Court has granted the Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Personal Jurisdiction, the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss

f o r I m p r o p e r V e n u e a n d t h e M o t i o n to T r a n s f e r as m o o t . Accordingly, it is

ORDERED

that Defendant's

Motion to Dismiss

for Lack of

P e r s o n a l J u r i s d i c t i o n is g r a n t e d .
Improper Venue is denied as moot,
12

The Motion to Dismiss for
and the Motion to Transfer is

Case

No.

8:09-CV-609-T-17EAJ

denied as moot.

The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

O N E a n d O R D E R E D in C h a m b e r s ,
ay of March, 2010.

in T a m p a , F l o r i d a o n t h i s

v

C o p i e s to: All parties and counsel of record

13