In Pianezza v. Mia Collection Servs.. LLC, 2024 Fla. App. LEXIS 1784 (Fla. 3d DCA March 6, 2024), an action against non-resident principal and employee of foreign limited liability company alleging claims of fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, and conspiracy stemming from LLC's provision of counterfeit merchandise was not dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and the defendants appealed. The appellate court found that the corporate shield doctrine did not protect defendants from the trial court's exercise of personal jurisdiction where the complaint sufficiently alleged that defendants committed a tortious act within Florida by directing telephonic and electronic communications into Florida in which they allegedly fraudulently misrepresented the authenticity of merchandise sold to the plaintiff. The appellate court explained that the corporate shield doctrine will not operate to bar personal jurisdiction in Florida over an individual defendant that commits a tortious act in Florida, regardless of whether it was on behalf of a corporate employer.
The appellate court also found that defendants' affidavits were insufficient to shift the burden back to the plaintiff to demonstrate why jurisdiction was proper where, although both defendants denied in their declarations that they directed a phone call, text message, or e-mail to anyone in the state of Florida, they qualified these statements by stating they never did so on their own behalf . The qualification by these defendants failed to negate the allegation that they committed tortious acts in Florida by sending and/or directing telephonic and electronic communications into Florida. This, the court explained, leaves open the inference that they did direct phone calls, text messages, and/or emails into Florida in their capacity as employees of the LLC. The appellate court also found that principal's declaration as a corporate representative on behalf of LLC contained nothing more than legal conclusions, which plaintiff was not required to refute.
The appellate court therefore found that the trial court properly concluded that sufficient minimum contacts existed because defendants knew plaintiff was located in Florida and, therefore, knew their alleged misrepresentations would impact a Florida resident and would cause injuries in Florida. Thus, these non-resident defendants are required to defend the case brought against them in Florida.
If you are interested in receiving a copy of this decision or wish to learn more about the impact of this decision, please feel free to reach out to us at admin@miamimaritimelaw.co or blog@miamimaritimelaw.co.