Corporacion Aero Angeles, S.A. v. Fernandez
69 So. 3d 295
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- A Mexican corporation, Aero Angeles, challenges a Florida court's order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a breach-of-contract claim for nonpayment of a commission on a jet sale.
- The action hinges on an oral brokerage agreement between Fernandez (a Florida broker) and Aero Angeles in connection with the sale.
- Aero Angeles had no Florida presence or assets; the jet was located in Mexico, with closing in Canada, and no Florida-based contracts, escrow, or payments by Aero Angeles.
- Fernandez marketed the plane in Florida, obtained a $25,000 payment from buyers in Florida for viewing the plane in Mexico, and facilitated introductions to the eventual Canadian buyers.
- The sale proceeded in Canada; the buyers and other brokers paid Fernandez nothing; the trial court found Florida-minimum-contacts based on Fernandez's activities, and Aero Angeles appealed.
- The appellate court reverses, holding no constitutionally sufficient minimum contacts between Aero Angeles and Florida exist to sustain specific jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida has specific personal jurisdiction over Aero Angeles. | Fernandez claims Florida contacts suffice. | Aero Angeles did not purposefully avail Florida; no Florida acts linked to the sale. | No; lacks minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction. |
| Whether a contract to pay a commission to Florida broker suffices for jurisdiction. | Contract to pay Fernandez exists and is in Florida. | No clear contract between Aero Angeles and Fernandez; funds and negotiations occurred outside Florida. | Insufficient to establish Florida long-arm jurisdiction. |
| Whether the nature of the sale (Mexico to Canada) undermines Florida contacts. | Broker activities in Florida were connected to the sale. | Sale and contract were outside Florida; Florida activities were incidental. | Sale outside Florida precludes minimum contacts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stomar, Inc. v. Lucky Seven Riverboat Co., 821 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (dual inquiry for jurisdictional analysis; contact must relate to action and be purposeful)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (sets framework for minimum contacts analysis)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (establishes minimum contacts and fair play standard)
- Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1977) (requires relation between defendant, forum, and litigation)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (illustrates specific jurisdiction limits for nonresident defendant)
- Tallmadge v. Mortgage Finance Group, Inc., 625 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (closer to Florida-minimum contacts when deposit and Florida broker central to transaction)
- Global Satellite Commc'n Co. v. Sudline, 849 So.2d 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (presumes payment at creditor's residence when no place of payment designated)