Aegis Defense Services, LLC v. Gilbert
222 So. 3d 656
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Laurence Gilbert, a Florida resident, worked for Aegis (Delaware LLC headquartered in Virginia) as an explosives-detection canine handler in Afghanistan and sued for declaratory relief, unjust enrichment, and unpaid overtime.
- Gilbert applied online from Brevard County, Florida; Aegis recruited him by phone/email while he was in Florida and required pre-employment medical screening in Brevard County.
- Gilbert signed his initial employment agreement in Arkansas (training location); a second-year agreement was executed in Florida and returned by email.
- Aegis averred it has no offices, employees, bank accounts, property, tax filings, or licensing in Florida and does not market or derive revenue from Florida.
- Trial court denied Aegis’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the Fifth District reversed, concluding Florida’s long‑arm statute did not reach Aegis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida has general jurisdiction under section 48.193(2) | Aegis engaged in substantial, not isolated activity in Florida via hiring contacts, medical screenings, website access, and payroll deposits | Aegis’s contacts were limited (website, remote communications, one-time screenings, payroll deposits) and not continuous/systematic | No general jurisdiction: contacts were insufficiently continuous and systematic |
| Whether Florida has specific jurisdiction under section 48.193(1)(a)1 | Gilbert’s claims arise from Aegis’s recruitment and pre-employment activities in Florida | Gilbert’s claims arise from contracts and work performed outside Florida (Arkansas/Afghanistan), not from solicitation activities in Florida | No specific jurisdiction: plaintiff’s causes of action did not arise from the Florida-directed activities |
| Whether federal due-process minimum contacts analysis must be reached | Gilbert contended statutory long-arm grounds satisfied jurisdictional reach | Aegis argued long-arm statute not satisfied, making due-process inquiry unnecessary | Court declined to reach due-process minimum contacts after finding long-arm not met; dismissal directed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2002) (two-part test: long-arm statute analysis then federal due-process minimum contacts)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (affidavits and complaint harmonized for jurisdictional factfinding)
- Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Ocean World, S.A., 12 So. 3d 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (limited contacts, including interactive website and minor Florida presence, insufficient for general jurisdiction)
- Caiazzo v. Am. Royal Arts Corp., 73 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (continuous and systematic contacts required for general jurisdiction; modest sales to Florida insufficient)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (interactive website alone does not establish general jurisdiction)