537 F. App'x 852
11th Cir.2013Background
- Pycsa Panama, S.A. is a Panamanian corporation that contracted (1994) to build and operate a Panama tollway; all project work occurred in Panama.
- Melgarejo, a Florida resident and former director of the project, executed a 1997 employment agreement with Pycsa (signed at Panamanian Consulate in New York) and worked on the project in Panama until resigning in 2001.
- Pycsa did not pay the contract sums; Melgarejo sued in Panama in 2010 and then filed a substantially identical federal suit in the Southern District of Florida in 2011 seeking $1,000,000.
- Melgarejo argued Florida courts had specific (and assertedly general) jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(1) because Pycsa used an affiliate’s Miami office to receive mail/order materials, negotiated portions of the contract in Florida, and had previously litigated a separate Florida case (Tensar).
- Pycsa presented affidavits showing no Florida office, no Florida clients, minimal use of an affiliate (MHMS) Miami office limited to mail/material procurement, and that MHMS was a separate corporate entity; the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding Pycsa’s limited and attenuated contacts (via an affiliate) did not show a general course of business in Florida nor a sufficient nexus between Florida activity and Melgarejo’s contract claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(1) authorizes specific jurisdiction over Pycsa | Melgarejo: Pycsa conducted business in Florida via an affiliate’s Miami office (mail/procurement) and negotiated the contract partly in Florida, so his claims arise from Florida business activity | Pycsa: No office/agents/employees in Florida; MHMS is separate and only used minimally for mail/materials unrelated to Melgarejo’s contract; Tensar suit irrelevant | Held: No. The affiliate’s limited use does not constitute a general course of business in Florida nor a direct nexus to Melgarejo’s claims, so § 48.193(1)(a)(1) is not satisfied. |
| Whether Pycsa’s prior Florida litigation (Tensar) subjects it to jurisdiction for related future claims | Melgarejo: Prior suit shows purposeful availment and makes Florida an appropriate forum for similar subject matter | Pycsa: Tensar concerned different subject matter; prior suit alone shouldn’t impose indefinite jurisdiction | Held: Prior Florida suit does not automatically subject Pycsa to jurisdiction for later, separate claims; Tensar did not create continuing jurisdiction here. |
| Whether district court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on jurisdictional facts | Melgarejo: Hearing required to resolve disputes and to consider affidavits about Panamanian courts | Pycsa: Hearing unnecessary where parties submitted affidavits; district court may decide on prima facie record | Held: No error. Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case; district court properly resolved conflicting affidavits without a hearing; any error would be harmless. |
| Whether court should reach forum non conveniens given personal jurisdiction dispute | Melgarejo: District court abused discretion by not addressing forum non conveniens and evidence about Panama | Pycsa: Forum non conveniens need not be reached if no personal jurisdiction | Held: Court properly declined to address forum non conveniens because absence of personal jurisdiction is dispositive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mutual Serv. Ins. Co. v. Frit Indus., Inc., 358 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir.) (two-step personal-jurisdiction analysis and prima facie standard without evidentiary hearing)
- Future Tech. Today, Inc. v. OSF Healthcare Sys., 218 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.) (defendant activities must show a general course of business activity in the forum)
- Sculptchair, Inc. v. Century Arts, Ltd., 94 F.3d 623 (11th Cir.) (limited communications/meetings do not establish carrying on business in Florida)
- Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 39 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2010) (Florida long-arm and federal due-process analyses are distinct)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla.) (Florida long-arm statutory proof does not automatically satisfy federal due process)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (forum non conveniens doctrine inapplicable if court lacks personal jurisdiction)
- United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir.) (plaintiff’s initial burden to allege prima facie jurisdiction; burden shifts when defendant submits affidavits)