Cases

A club member brought suit against the club, which was organized under the laws of New York, in Florida court. The club did not have a physical office anywhere and approximately 150 to 170 of its members resided in Florida. The club also collected dues from Florida members, sponsored regional clubs in Florida, mailed copies of its magazine to Florida, and held a dog show and meetings in Florida. The trial court dismissed the complaint against the club for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling that its contacts with Florida were not sufficient to meet the requirements of the Florida long arm stature. The district court held that the facts of this case brought it within the ambit of the long arm statute and that the club had sufficient “minimum contacts” with Florida to satisfy personal jurisdiction.

A Dutch corporation sold what it new to be tainted chemicals to a company in Haiti that produced medicine, causing the death of more than 70 children. A group of personal representatives of deceased Haitian children and parents of children who survived exposure to the medicine filed suit against the company in a Florida court. The corporation filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the trial court denied it. The trial court found that the corporation had “continuous and systematic” contacts in Florida through other business dealings that allowed the court to assert jurisdiction over it. The district court
reversed holding that the corporation’s contacts in Florida were “ de minimis.” The district
court noted that the tainted chemicals never passed through Florida and did not involve a
Florida business. Also, the corporation’s sales in Florida only accounted for 0.236 percent of its overall sales. The trial court specially noted that the corporation had a Florida bank account, but the district court held this contact insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

A company, which was being sued by multiple plaintiffs, joined a party to the action that destroyed diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs claimed that this party was fraudulently joined for the sole purpose of destroying diversity jurisdiction and removing the case from federal court. The Court held that the party was not fraudulently joined, as the defendant could possibly be seen as having a valid defamation cause of action against that party.

In a case brought under, inter alia, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, plaintiff, the Civil Rights Division of Broward County, Florida (Division) on behalf of a foreman, filed a complaint of discrimination with the Broward County, Florida Board of County Commissioners Human Rights Board (Board). Defendant employer removed the case under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1441, prompting the Division to file a motion for remand. The sole issue presented by the motion to remand was whether the Board was a state court from which the could properly be removed under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1441(a). While the functional view went beyond the language of § 1441, which did not authorize removal of proceedings from administrative agencies, in the absence of guidance from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, applying the functional test, the analysis followed by a majority of courts to have considered the question, was the proper course to follow. There was little doubt the function and procedures of the Board were substantially similar to those of a court. The crucial difference was the Board's lack of enforcement power; this lack of inherent enforcement power was a significant distinguishing factor between the Board and a court. The court, therefore, granted the motion for remand, noting that while it was not clear that the Board even had jurisdiction to consider Title VII claims, the present court was not in a position to declare the jurisdictional boundaries of the Board. The final order of the Board was reviewable by the Broward County, Florida Circuit Court, and once in that court, the employer could presumably remove the case to federal court.

Aerolineas filed a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, seeking to transfer the action to the adequate and more convenient alternate forum of Argentina. A trial court heard the motion and entered an order finding that assessment of costs would preclude plaintiffs from litigating in Argentina. Aerolineas contended that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its motion to dismiss. The appellate court agreed because both defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction and amenable to process in Argentina. Furthermore, the adequacy of the Argentenian forum was evident from the plaintiffs

Read More