Asbury v. Stout
8:25-cv-00141
M.D. Fla.Jul 10, 2025Background
- Samuel Asbury, a lawyer based in Florida, sued several defendants (primarily based in Oregon and Texas) alleging intentional harm to his law practice, including defamation, tortious interference, abuse of process, and violations of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act.
- The underlying dispute centers on client relationships Asbury inherited from an Oregon attorney, Dan Larsson; most clients and relevant actions are located in Oregon.
- Defendants are alleged to have diverted clients, pursued claims against Asbury, and made defamatory statements regarding his legal practice and ethics, mostly through actions directed at Oregon entities and persons.
- The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue in the Middle District of Florida.
- The court analyzed whether specific personal jurisdiction existed under Florida's long-arm statute and due process, and whether venue was proper under federal statute.
- The court found personal jurisdiction and venue were both lacking in Florida and suggested transfer to the District of Oregon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over defamation claim | Defendants' defamatory acts injured Asbury in Florida | Acts took place in Oregon, not aimed at Florida | No personal jurisdiction |
| Personal jurisdiction over tortious interference claim | Harm to Asbury occurred in Florida due to defendants' acts | All acts occurred outside Florida, not directed at Florida | No personal jurisdiction |
| Personal jurisdiction over abuse of process claim | Defendants’ legal actions in Oregon harmed Florida resident | Legal actions all in Oregon; any Florida connection is incidental | No personal jurisdiction |
| Personal jurisdiction over unlawful trade practices claim | Defendants' communications harmed Asbury in Florida | Conduct targeted only Oregon clients/affairs, not Florida | No personal jurisdiction |
| Venue in Middle District of Florida | Venue proper as defendants targeted a Florida resident | Defendants reside and acted outside Florida; all events elsewhere | Venue improper |
| Transfer or dismissal | Favor transfer to Oregon | Favor outright dismissal | Transfer favored if interests of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Waite v. All Acquisition Corp., 901 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2018) (setting out personal jurisdiction principles for federal courts in diversity)
- Stubbs v. Wyndham Nassau Resort & Crystal Palace Casino, 447 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff bears burden to establish personal jurisdiction)
- Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2008) (Florida’s long-arm statute and "effects test" for intentional torts)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (personal jurisdiction requires defendant’s conduct to connect them to the forum, not just plaintiff’s residence)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021) (specific jurisdiction depends on close affiliation between forum, defendant, and litigation)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) ("effects test" for personal jurisdiction in libel cases)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (specific jurisdiction requires forum-related activity or occurrence)
- Jenkins Brick Co. v. Bremer, 321 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2003) (venue turns on where substantial part of events giving rise to claim occurred)