Metnick & Levy, P.A. v. Seuling
2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15523
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff law firm (Florida, principal office Delray Beach) represented Vermont-accident New York resident Barbara Seuling under a retainer sent by a Florida paralegal and returned to the Florida office.
- Liberty Mutual offered $100,000; Seuling refused the law firm’s release and hired New York attorney Anthony Pirrotti; Pirrotti notified the firm it was discharged and claimed quantum meruit.
- Seuling settled with Liberty Mutual and promised to hold the insurer harmless for any fees owed to the Florida firm.
- Florida firm sued Seuling for breach of contract and Pirrotti for tortious interference in Florida; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (among other grounds).
- Trial court dismissed (handwritten order referenced “improper venue”); the appellate court treats the ruling as turning primarily on personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida long-arm jurisdiction applies to Seuling on breach-of-contract claim | Seuling contracted with a Florida law firm and returned the retainer to Florida; payment/fees were due to Florida office, bringing her within §48.193(1)(g) | Seuling lacked sufficient contacts with Florida; underlying events occurred out-of-state | Held: Long-arm statute applies; allegations sufficient under §48.193(1)(g) (reversed dismissal) |
| Whether Seuling has constitutionally adequate minimum contacts with Florida | Hiring and communicating with the Florida firm for legal services (retainer, correspondence, payments) amounted to purposeful availment | The accident, injuries, and most events occurred in New York/Vermont; mere contract with Florida party insufficient | Held: Minimum contacts satisfied—retention of Florida firm to perform substantial services supports due process for breach action |
| Whether Florida long-arm jurisdiction applies to Pirrotti for tortious interference | Plaintiff claimed Pirrotti induced breach impacting Florida firm’s contract and revenues | Pirrotti argued acts occurred in New York; no tortious acts were committed in Florida or directed into Florida | Held: No long-arm jurisdiction over Pirrotti—complaint failed to allege tortious acts in Florida (affirmed dismissal) |
| Whether tortious-interference claim against Pirrotti satisfies minimum-contacts/long-arm requirements | Plaintiff argued effects in Florida (loss to Florida firm) suffice | Defendant argued locus of conduct was New York; effects-only test insufficient for §48.193(1)(b) | Held: Effects in Florida alone are insufficient where defendant’s wrongful acts occurred outside Florida and were not directed to Florida listeners/targets |
Key Cases Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (establishes two-step long-arm analysis: statute then minimum contacts)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (minimum contacts / due process framework)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (foundational due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Tallmadge v. Mortgage Finance Group, Inc., 625 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (contacts like sending application and contract to Florida office support jurisdiction)
- Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 2002) (tortious-act long-arm may be based on communications into Florida)
- Freedom Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Ormandy & Assocs., Inc., 479 So.2d 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (effects in Florida insufficient where tortious act occurred outside Florida)