RG Golf Warehouse, Inc. v. Golf Warehouse, Inc., 362 F. Supp. 3d 1226

Background

RG Golf Warehouse, Inc. (Plaintiff) and The Golf Warehouse, Inc. (Defendant) executed a Referral Agreement in March 2011 after negotiating in Orlando, Florida.
Plaintiff was originally incorporated in Minnesota; after Defendant (acquired by a Minnesota entity) requested Plaintiff move business out of Minnesota, Plaintiff reincorporated in South Dakota and moved its principal place of business to Lee County, Florida in June 2013.
From June 2013 to November 2014 Plaintiff operated from Florida and alleges Defendant used Plaintiff’s Florida address for reports and payments; Defendant terminated the Referral Agreement in November 2014.
Plaintiff alleges Defendant later obtained a trademark registration in bad faith and sent a cease-and-desist to Golfsmith, causing Golfsmith to terminate its contract with Plaintiff (tortious interference), and also breached payment obligations under the Referral Agreement.
Plaintiff sued for breach of contract (Indiana law governs) and tortious interference (Florida law governs). Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the pleadings legally sufficient to state claims?	Complaint states breach (contract, damages) and tortious interference facts.	—	Claims are pled sufficiently.
Is general jurisdiction in Florida proper?	Defendant’s interactive website, ongoing Florida sales (~7%), marketing, trade-show presence make it “at home” in Florida.	These contacts are insufficient to render the corporation "at home" in Florida.	General jurisdiction denied; contacts do not meet Daimler "at home" standard.
Is specific jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. §48.193(1)(a)(1) (doing business) satisfied?	Negotiations in Orlando and continuous sales/website activity constitute doing business in Florida.	An isolated negotiation, website access, and modest Florida sales do not amount to ‘‘doing business’’ or maintaining an office in Florida.	Denied; no office, license, or sufficient collective business activity in Florida.
Is specific jurisdiction proper under §48.193(1)(a)(2)/(1)(a)(7) and due process (tort and payment allegations)?	Tortious interference caused injury in Florida (Golfsmith’s termination); Defendant paid to Plaintiff’s Florida account and breached payments—so long-arm and Calder effects test apply.	The cease-and-desist was drafted/sent from Minnesota to Texas; mere injury in Florida is insufficient; payments were wired to Minnesota account per affidavit.	§48.193(1)(a)(2) satisfied on statute interpretation (Eleventh Circuit precedent), but due process fails: Calder/Walden analysis shows Defendant lacked meaningful contacts with Florida. §48.193(1)(a)(7) not met because payment-location presumption was rebutted. Overall, specific jurisdiction denied.

Key Cases Cited

Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (jurisdictional limits and personal jurisdiction prerequisites)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction requires defendant be "at home" in forum)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (minimum contacts and fair play/substantial justice framework)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (effects test for intentional torts aimed at forum)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (Calder clarified: plaintiff’s forum contacts cannot drive jurisdiction; defendant must have meaningful forum connections)
Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209 (Eleventh Circuit: injury in forum can satisfy Fla. long-arm §48.193(1)(a)(2))
Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d 1280 (application of Calder effects test in Eleventh Circuit)
Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210 (distinguishing general vs. specific jurisdiction analysis)
Meier ex rel. Meier v. Sun Int'l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264 (Florida long-arm §48.193(2) parallels due process for general jurisdiction)
United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260 (choice-of-law and reach of Florida long-arm analysis)