Foche v. NAPA Home & Garden, Inc.
8:14-cv-02871
M.D. Fla.Jul 3, 2015Background
- Plaintiff sued for injuries allegedly caused by defective ethanol gel fuel; Second Amended Complaint named Losorea Packaging, Inc. as a manufacturer/packager allegedly liable under product liability theories.
- Plaintiff asserted personal jurisdiction in Florida under Fla. Stat. § 48.193 (specific and general jurisdiction) and the Due Process Clause.
- Plaintiff submitted two MSDS documents listing Losorea as manufacturer for certain branded fuels and noted Losorea had been sued previously in Florida; no additional jurisdictional discovery evidence was produced after leave was granted.
- Losorea submitted sworn declarations from its president stating Losorea is a Georgia contract packager (not the manufacturer), mixed and bottled fuels per Fuel Barons’ formulas, charged only bottling fees, did not sell or ship products to Florida, and has minimal Florida sales (max ~0.694% of revenue).
- The court permitted but received no further jurisdictional discovery and treated Losorea’s affidavits as uncontradicted by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida has specific jurisdiction over Losorea under § 48.193(1) for Plaintiff’s tort claim | Losorea either manufactured or packaged the defective fuel that caused injury in Florida and thus committed a tort connected to Florida | Losorea was only a contract packager in Georgia, not the manufacturer, and did not cause the injury in Florida | No specific jurisdiction — plaintiff failed to show connexity between Losorea’s contacts and the claim |
| Whether Losorea committed a tort in Florida (§ 48.193(1)(a)(2)) | Alleged tortious manufacture/packaging and failure to warn tied to plaintiff’s injury in Florida | No factual showing that Losorea designed/manufactured or caused the injury; Fuel Barons developed formulas and distributed products | Court held plaintiff did not tie Losorea’s actions to the incident; statute not met |
| Whether acts outside Florida that caused injury in Florida confer jurisdiction (§ 48.193(1)(a)(6)) | Injury in Florida resulted from Losorea’s acts outside the state (packaging/manufacture) | Losorea denies being the manufacturer and denies causing the in-state injury | No — plaintiff failed to establish Losorea was a manufacturer whose out-of-state acts caused injury in Florida |
| Whether Florida has general jurisdiction over Losorea under § 48.193(2) | Losorea’s prior sales and prior appearances in Florida courts demonstrate substantial, continuous activity | Florida sales were minimal (<1% of revenue) and Losorea lacks offices, employees, property, or solicitation in Florida | No general jurisdiction — contacts were de minimis and not continuous/systematic |
Key Cases Cited
- Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., Ltd., 178 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 1999) (prima facie burden for plaintiff and burden shift after defendant submits affidavits)
- Snow v. DirecTV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2006) (conflicts between plaintiff’s allegations and defendant’s sworn proof are resolved in plaintiff’s favor but plaintiff must submit evidence after defendant rebuts)
- Sculptchair, Inc. v. Century Arts Ltd., 94 F.3d 623 (11th Cir. 1996) (personal jurisdiction analysis under state long-arm and due process)
- Stubbs v. Wyndham Nassau Resort & Crystal Palace Casino, 447 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing specific and general jurisdiction under Florida law)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (plaintiff’s burden to prove jurisdiction when allegations are challenged)
- Cable/Home Commc’n Corp. v. Network Prods., Inc., 902 F.2d 829 (11th Cir. 1990) (due process minimum contacts principle)
- TRW Vehicle Safety Sys. Inc. v. Santiso, 980 So.2d 1149 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.) (small percentage of sales to state can be de minimis for general jurisdiction)