Navas v. Brand
130 So. 3d 766
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff Craig Brand, a Florida resident and businessman, alleges Florida investors recruited Costa Rican lawyers (Torrealba and Cersosimo of F & C) to bring a fraudulent criminal investigation and immigration hold in Costa Rica to recoup investments, causing Brand business losses and inability to leave Costa Rica.
- Costa Rican prosecutors later found no evidence and dismissed the criminal investigation and immigration hold; Brand returned to Florida and the Costa defendants converted the matter into a private civil suit pending in Costa Rica.
- Brand sued the Florida investors and the Costa Rican lawyers/F & C in Miami-Dade for statutory civil remedies for criminal practices, conspiracy to defraud, false imprisonment, and injunctive relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and on forum non conveniens grounds; the trial court denied both motions after considering submitted documents (no defendant affidavits were filed).
- The trial court found sufficient long‑arm contacts and minimum contacts (travel to Florida, communications with Florida residents, representation of Florida clients) and concluded Florida was an adequate and more convenient forum; it also denied a comity‑based stay.
- The appellate court affirmed: de novo review for jurisdiction and abuse‑of‑discretion review for forum non conveniens; it held the record supports exercise of jurisdiction and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying dismissal for forum non conveniens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction: whether Florida courts can exercise jurisdiction over Costa Rican lawyers and F & C | Brand: defendants purposefully availed themselves of Florida by traveling to meet investors, obtaining signatures in Florida, communicating by phone/email, representing Florida clients — tort arose from conduct directed to Florida | Defendants: lack of sufficient contacts; no basis under Florida long‑arm statute; due process bars jurisdiction | Court: affirmed jurisdiction — alleged acts and communications satisfied §48.193 and minimum contacts; jurisdictional facts supported and defendants offered no affidavits to rebut |
| Forum non conveniens: whether case should be dismissed or stayed in favor of Costa Rica | Brand: Florida is adequate and more convenient; many witnesses and parties are in Florida; Costa Rican expert opined Brand has no remedy there | Defendants: Costa Rica is the proper forum; parallel civil case pending there | Court: affirmed denial — trial court considered Kinney factors, private/public interests favored Brand, defendants submitted no affidavits or expert showing Costa Rica adequate |
| Evidentiary hearing / affidavits: whether defendants were entitled to an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction | Brand: agreed record on submitted documents sufficed; no defendant affidavits contested facts | Defendants: absence of hearing deprived them of opportunity to present live testimony to contest jurisdiction | Court: no error — parties agreed the court could decide on submitted documents; defendants failed to file affidavits so hearing was not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Execu‑Tech Bus. Sys., Inc. v. New Oji Paper Co. Ltd., 752 So.2d 582 (Fla. 2000) (standard for de novo review of jurisdictional rulings)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (framework for long‑arm analysis and due process minimum contacts)
- Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 2002) (telephonic/electronic communications can establish long‑arm jurisdiction)
- Kinney Sys., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 674 So.2d 86 (Fla. 1996) (forum non conveniens factors and analysis)
- Machtinger v. Inertial Airline Servs., Inc., 937 So.2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (procedure when affidavits conflict; plaintiff must support jurisdictional facts)
- Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So.3d 1085 (Fla. 2013) (guidance on forum non conveniens considerations)