Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Jones
227 So. 3d 150
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Kenneth Jones developed mesothelioma; his wife Carol Jones (as personal representative) amended a long-pending product-liability complaint to add Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (VWAG), a German parent company, alleging exposure from a 1987 Volkswagen Quantum and replacement parts used in Florida.
- VWAG, served abroad under the Hague Convention, answered and asserted lack of personal jurisdiction as an affirmative defense and later moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction supported by an affidavit from its U.S. counsel (Ceresney affidavit) denying VWAG’s contacts with Florida.
- Jones moved for jurisdictional discovery (Rule 1.310(b)(6)) and to compel VWAG’s corporate representative; she submitted evidence including a clerk’s affidavit recounting an online purchase of Volkswagen OEM brake pads from a Miami supplier and various documents about Volkswagen entities.
- The trial court held a hearing the parties characterized as an evidentiary hearing but admitted no live testimony or formal evidence, denied VWAG’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and denied sanctions; it granted merits discovery but stayed that order pending appeal.
- The Second District reversed, concluding Jones failed to establish the minimum contacts required for specific jurisdiction over VWAG and remanded for the trial court to consider Jones’s pending motion to compel jurisdictional discovery (so the court may follow Venetian Salami procedures if discovery is permitted).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VWAG waived its personal-jurisdiction defense | VWAG’s earlier motions and conduct waived the defense | VWAG timely preserved the defense by moving to quash and asserting it in its answer | No waiver; VWAG did not waive the defense |
| Whether the Ceresney affidavit was legally sufficient to shift burden back to Jones | The affidavit lacked personal knowledge and was insufficient | The affidavit contained factual assertions which, if true, refuted jurisdictional allegations | Affidavit legally sufficient to shift burden to Jones |
| Whether VWAG had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida for specific jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(6) | VWAG’s products reached Florida, VWOA’s Florida operations and parts distribution channel should be imputed to VWAG (agency/parent control), and online sales show purposeful availment | VWAG has no offices, employees, agents, registration, or control of U.S. distribution; unilateral acts of plaintiff and internet orders are insufficient | Jones failed to prove minimum contacts; specific jurisdiction lacking |
| Appropriate remedy and procedure when factual submissions conflict | Jones asked for remand for limited jurisdictional discovery (deposition of VWAG rep) | VWAG asked dismissal; trial court had already denied dismissal | Court reversed denial of dismissal and remanded for trial court to rule on Jones's motion to compel jurisdictional discovery; if denied, dismiss VWAG; if granted, proceed under Venetian Salami process |
Key Cases Cited
- Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989) (procedure for resolving jurisdictional disputes: affidavits shift burden and, if conflicting, require a limited evidentiary hearing)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (unilateral activity of a third party is insufficient to establish defendant's forum contacts)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (plaintiff-focused contacts do not establish defendant's purposeful availment; defendant's own conduct must create the connection to the forum)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment and that the litigation arise out of defendant's forum-directed activities)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) (territorial limitations on state-court jurisdiction remain important despite interstate commerce developments)
- Teva Pharm. Indus. v. Ruiz, 181 So. 3d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (minimum-contacts/due-process analysis and limited evidentiary-hearing guidance)
- WH Smith, PLC v. Benages & Assocs., Inc., 51 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (where disputed facts viewed in plaintiff’s favor still cannot establish jurisdiction, dismissal is required)