Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v. Ruiz
181 So. 3d 513
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Ruiz) sued Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (an Israeli parent) alleging propofol contamination caused severe injury during outpatient surgery. Plaintiffs asserted negligence and strict liability claims.
- Plaintiffs alleged Teva Industries owns 100% of Teva USA and Teva Parenteral, exercises control over subsidiaries, and “regularly conducts business in Hillsborough County, Florida,” invoking Fla. Stat. § 48.193.
- Teva Industries moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and submitted an affidavit (Kobi Altman) denying any business presence or contacts in Florida and asserting separate corporate forms and lack of involvement in U.S. propofol manufacture, quality control, or distribution.
- Plaintiffs submitted contrary evidence (documents and deposition excerpts), including: internal facility diagrams labeled as Teva Industries’ property; SEC materials suggesting Florida property ownership; and testimony from Teva quality personnel indicating global quality oversight and communications with Teva Industries’ executives about propofol and a recall.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss without receiving live testimony or resolving the factual conflicts. The Second District reversed and remanded for a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts and determine minimum contacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint alleges grounds for specific long‑arm jurisdiction under § 48.193(1)(a) and (f) | Ruiz alleged Teva Industries "regularly conducts business in Hillsborough County" and that products manufactured by Teva affiliates were used in Florida | Teva argued the allegations are conclusory and insufficient to subject the Israeli parent to Florida jurisdiction | Complaint sufficiently tracked § 48.193(1)(a)/(f); allegation met pleading burden so defendant had to rebut |
| Whether Teva's affidavit rebutted the complaint so as to require plaintiff to produce contrary sworn proof | Ruiz relied on corporate documents and depositions showing parent involvement and global quality oversight | Teva's Altman affidavit denied Florida contacts and disclaimed operational control over subsidiaries and propofol | Court found Altman affidavit sufficient to contest essential jurisdictional facts, shifting burden back to Ruiz to produce contradictory sworn proof |
| Whether disputed factual record required a Venetian Salami evidentiary hearing | Ruiz presented deposition testimony and documents contradicting Altman (global quality role, communications with Teva Industries executives, materials labeled as parent property) | Teva maintained separate corporate structures and lack of U.S. operational control | Because evidence conflicted, court must hold a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed facts before ruling on jurisdiction; reversal and remand ordered |
| Whether general jurisdiction exists over Teva Industries in Florida (due process) | Ruiz suggested parent-level control could render Teva "at home" in Florida | Teva emphasized lack of incorporation, principal place of business, or continuous/systematic Florida activity | Daimler precludes general jurisdiction here; Florida lacks general jurisdiction over Teva or Teva USA absent being "at home" in Florida |
Key Cases Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (standards for resolving jurisdictional disputes and when evidentiary hearing is required)
- Kin Yong Lung Indus. Co. v. Temple, 816 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (long‑arm jurisdiction requires statutory and due process analyses)
- Hilltopper Holding Corp. v. Estate of Cutchin ex rel. Engle, 955 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (defendant’s affidavit can rebut plaintiff’s jurisdictional pleading and shift burden)
- Res. Healthcare of Am., Inc. v. McKinney, 940 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (trial court should hold limited hearing when facts are in dispute)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires defendant to be "at home" in the forum)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (due process requires defendant’s own contacts with forum; suit‑related contacts must create substantial connection)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (defendant must have created contacts with the forum for specific jurisdiction)