Estes v. Rodin
259 So. 3d 183
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Christy Lee “Cali” Estes (Florida resident) and The Addictions Academy (Florida LLC) allege defamatory posts in a closed Facebook group by three nonresident defendants (Rodin—California; Nicholl—California; Brown—Kansas).
- The posts occurred in a private Facebook group of addiction professionals; Estes accessed the posts while in Florida (initially on her account, later via a friend’s account).
- Defendants submitted sworn affidavits denying business ties, advertising, clients, property, or regular contacts in Florida; each attested the only connection to Florida was the disputed online posts.
- Trial court found the complaint alleged sufficient facts to invoke Florida’s long-arm statute but dismissed all defendants with prejudice for lack of constitutional minimum contacts.
- Plaintiffs submitted a counter-affidavit alleging reputational and commercial harm but failed to identify any Florida third-party who read the posts; the trial court denied late-filed limited jurisdictional discovery.
- The district court affirmed dismissal, concluding the defendants lacked purposeful availment and that exercising jurisdiction would violate due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint alleges tortious act "within" Florida under Fla. long-arm statute (§ 48.193(1)(a)(2)) | Posts were accessible and accessed in Florida (Estes read them there), satisfying publication in Florida | If only Estes read the posts in Florida, there is no publication to a third person in Florida and thus no tort "within" Florida | Allegations based solely on Estes reading the posts in Florida fail to show a tort "within" Florida; but allegations that third parties in Florida accessed the posts (alleged but not contested by defendants) are sufficient at pleading stage to invoke the long-arm statute |
| Whether defendants had constitutionally sufficient "minimum contacts" (specific jurisdiction) under Due Process (Calder effects / relatedness) | Defendants targeted or caused reputational harm to a Florida resident, satisfying Calder effects and making suit in Florida foreseeable | Defendants lacked contacts with Florida beyond posting in a closed group; injury to a Florida plaintiff alone is insufficient to establish contacts with the forum (Walden) | Defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of Florida; the only link was the plaintiff herself, so minimum contacts not established |
| Whether traditional purposeful-availment analysis supports jurisdiction (website/activity directed at forum) | Posting on an interactive internet forum that can be accessed in Florida suffices; prior internet-defamation cases support jurisdiction | The closed Facebook group was passive, community-focused, not aimed at Florida customers; defendants have no business, advertising, or sales targeted to Florida | Under traditional analysis, defendants’ contacts (commenting in the closed group) were insufficient to reasonably anticipate being haled into Florida court |
| Whether the court abused discretion by denying limited jurisdictional discovery | Plaintiffs argued additional discovery could reveal Florida-directed contacts or Florida readers of the posts | Plaintiffs’ counter-evidence (verified complaint and counter-affidavit) was legally insufficient or uncontroverted; affidavits are reconcilable | No abuse of discretion: plaintiffs failed to present legally sufficient, contested factual basis to justify discovery; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (two-prong test: long-arm statutory basis then constitutional minimum contacts)
- Internet Sols. Corp. v. Marshall, 39 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2010) (internet publication accessible and accessed in Florida can constitute tort within Florida; but federal due process analysis remains distinct)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (plaintiff's forum ties alone cannot supply defendant's contacts; focus is whether defendant formed meaningful contacts with the forum)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects test for intentional torts: intentional act, expressly aimed at forum, causing forum harm)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2013) (framework for specific jurisdiction: relatedness, purposeful availment, and fairness factors)