Two Worlds United v. Zylstra
46 So. 3d 1175
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Two Worlds United, a Florida nonprofit, sued California resident Roel Zylstra and others for defamation and related claims based on website postings.
- Zylstra denied personal ownership or posting; Global Notion owned the website.
- Zylstra moved to quash service and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; sought attorney's fees under section 57.105.
- Two Worlds responded with California attorney affidavit and depositions; trial court granted dismissal after reviewing submissions.
- Zylstra separately sought section 57.105 attorney's fees; court ruled on jurisdiction in a postures fact-specific context.
- On appeal, court affirmed the dismissal, addressing waiver of jurisdiction defenses and the long-arm analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 57.105 fees waived lack of jurisdiction | Two Worlds; Zylstra waived by seeking fees | Zylstra's fee motion defensive, not affirmative relief | No waiver; fee motion defensive, does not waive jurisdiction defense |
| Whether Florida long-arm §48.193(1)(b) supports personal jurisdiction | Two Worlds argues tortious acts in Florida via defamation网站 | Zylstra denied personal postings; corporate shield applies | Insufficient under §48.193(1)(b); absence of personal tort acts by Zylstra |
| Whether Marshall v. Marshall governs jurisdiction here | Two Worlds relies on Marshall for website defamation jurisdiction | Marshall inapplicable because Zylstra did not own/post site | Inapplicable; Marshall does not control due to lack of personal postings by Zylstra |
| Whether §48.193(2) general jurisdiction applies | Two Worlds seeks continuous Florida contacts | Zylstra's Florida visits are sporadic | Insufficient minimum contacts; no general jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Babcock v. Whatmore, 707 So.2d 702 (Fla. 1998) (waiver requires affirmative relief beyond defense)
- Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Salter, 710 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (section 57.105 aimed at deterring frivolous litigation)
- Heineken v. Heineken, 683 So.2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (defensive nature of fee request does not waive jurisdiction)
- Doe v. Thompson, 620 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1993) (corporate shield doctrine protects from out-of-state suit)
- Radcliffe v. Gyves, 902 So.2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (corporate shield and lack of rebuttal evidence)
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (burden-shifting on jurisdictional affidavits)
- Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 39 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 2010) (defendant's tortious acts via website accessible in Florida; limited scope here)
- Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 2002) (de novo review of jurisdictional order; no evidentiary hearing assumed)
- Bafitis v. Ara, 815 So.2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (characterization of substantial and not isolated activity)