Kingland Estates, Ltd. v. Davis
170 So. 3d 825
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Kingsland Estates Limited (KEL), Classic Investments Limited, and Richard Cox (Barbados defendants) seek dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction in Florida over claims arising from a Barbados-based dispute.
- Plaintiff Marjorie Knox, a Barbados citizen living in Miami, alleges a Florida-connected racketeering scheme involving the Barbados defendants and others to devalue Knox’s KEL shares.
- The complaint relies on allegedly tortious and criminal acts purportedly occurring in Florida, including defamatory blog posts from a Miami-based blog, false financial records sent to Knox in Florida, and perjury in Florida-court proceedings.
- The trial court denied the Barbados defendants’ motion to dismiss under Florida’s long-arm statute, § 48.193, on the theory that sufficient jurisdictional facts were pled.
- The court of appeal reviews de novo and reverses, holding that neither the long-arm prong nor minimum contacts are satisfied by the complaint or accompanying affidavits.
- The Barbados defendants’ affidavits contradicted the plaintiffs’ jurisdictional allegations and were not rebutted by the plaintiffs; the court remands with directions to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Florida long-arm statute applies | Knox asserts sufficient Florida-based acts occurred | Barbados defendants contest jurisdictional facts | No, long-arm prong not met |
| Whether minimum contacts exist to satisfy due process | Florida-connected acts suffice to foresee suit in Florida | No direct contact or control tying Barbados defendants to Florida | No, no minimum contacts exist |
| Whether Counts III–V (emotional distress, defamation, conspiracy) establish jurisdiction | Acts in Florida by Barbados defendants support jurisdiction | Affidavits deny involvement; allegations are unsubstantiated | No, jurisdiction lacks for these counts |
| Whether Counts I–II (RICO and RICO conspiracy) support jurisdiction | Florida-based acts constitute racketeering involvement | No factual basis tying Barbados defendants to the acts | No, insufficient jurisdictional facts |
| Whether remand with dismissal is proper | Appeal supports remand to Florida court | Dismissal is appropriate to avoid improper jurisdiction | Dismissal affirmed; remanded with instruction to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (two-step test for personal jurisdiction under 48.193)
- Acquadro v. Bergeron, 851 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2003) (two-part analysis: long-arm scope and due process minimum contacts)
- Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2002) (de novo review of jurisdictional ruling)
- Rollet v. de Bizemont, 159 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (minimum contacts must be shown for Florida jurisdiction)
- Salazar v. HSBC Bank, USA, NA, 158 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (fraud claims require particularized factual pleading)