F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 8, 20 06 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

________________________ N o. 05- 1523 1

________________________ D. C. Docket N o. 04-00041 -CV -T -26-MSS N IC H O L A S H
. P A RKE R, a n in div idu al a nd ci ti zen an d re si de ntof C al ifo rn ia , U.S.A., JO H N S
. P A RKE R, a n in div idu al a nd c iti ze n an d re si de ntof C al ifo rn ia , U.S.A., Pl ai nti ff s- A ppe lla nts , ve rs us CENTURY 21 J. EDW ARDS REAL ESTATE, a business ent ity organized under the laws of the Republic of Honduras, w ith its p rincipal place of bus ine ss a nd r es ide nc e in the Re publ ic of H ondu ra s, a. k.a. J. E dwar ds Real E state, De fendant-Appellee.

________________________ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lorida

_________________________ (J un e 8, 200 6) Be fo re BL A CK , P RY O R a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Ap p el l an t s Ni ch o l as H. P ar k eran d J o h n S. Pa rk erap p ea l th e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s order dismissin g without prejudice their suit against Century 21 J. E dwar ds Real E state ( J. E dw ar ds) f

or f ai lur e to e ff

ec tuate se rv ic e of

pr oc es s. S pe ci fi ca lly , the Park er s c ont en d th e dis tric t c ourt e rr edw he n it de te rm ine d J. E dw ar ds d oe s no t engage in “ a business o r business v enture” in Florida under Florida Statutes § 48
. 181( 1) , a nd, the re fo re , f al ls o uts ide F lorida ’ s lo ng- arm j ur isd ic tio n. Un d er§ 4 8 .1 8 1 (1 ), i f afo re i g n co rp o ra t i o n “ o p er at e[ s ], co n d u ct [s ],
en ga ge [s ] in, or

c ar r[ ie s] on a

bus ine ss o r busi ne ss v en tur e” in Fl or ida , the n it
au tom at ic al lyappoi nts F lorida ’ s S ec re taryof S ta te to ac ce pt s ervic e of pr oc es s on it s b eh al f. W e m

us t s tri ct ly con st ru e § 48 .18 1( 1) , se e E sbe rge r v . Firs t Fla. B us. Co nsul tan ts , 338 S o. 2d 5 61, 562 ( Fl a. D ist
. Ct
. A pp. 197 6) , a nd, onc e a de fe nda nt pr es en ts e vid en ce that i t i s no t do ing bus ine ss i n F lorida , aparty w ho s ee ks t o
se rv e pr oc es s un de r § 48
. 181( 1) “ ha s th e bur de n of pr es en tin g f

ac ts w hic h c le arly j ustify the applicability of the statute,” A B CT C v
. M ore jon , 324 S o. 2d 6 25, 627 (F la
. 197 6)
. Mo re ove r, c as es inv olv ing § 48
. 181( 1) ’ s “ busi ne ss o r busi ne ss
ve ntu re ” la ngua ge “ m

ust be r es olv edon the ba sis of the f ac ts r ev ea le d bythe record in the particular

case. ” H orac e v. A m . Na t’ l B ank

& T rus t Co. of F

ort La ude rdal e , 25 1 S o. 2 d 3 3, 3 4 (F la . Dis t. Ct . App . 19 71 ).Tra v e l O pp ortun iti e s addre sses § 48.193(1)( a), w hich also allows long -arm jurisdiction 1 over a fore ign c orporation that “operate[s] , conduct[s] , eng ag e[s] in, or ca rr[ies] on a business or business venture” in Florida. B eca use §§ 48.181(1) and 48.193(1) (a) contain identical lang uag e, the Florida courts have he ld “dec isions as to what constitutes doing business under section 48.181 should apply to section 48.193(1)( a).” Hill v. Lakeland Downtown Dev. Auth. , 529 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. D ist. Ct . App. 1988). Tra v e l O pp ortun iti e s thus applies to this appeal. 3 In Tr av el O ppor tun iti es of F

ort L aude rdal e, I

nc . v . W alter Ka rl L ist M anag em en t , the c ourt c onsi de re d w he the r a N ew Y ork c orpor at ion ope rate d or engaged in “ a business o r business v enture” for purpos es of Florida’ s long -arm j urisdictio n. 726 So. 2d 313, 314 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999 ). T he Ne w Y ork

1
co rp or at ion sub mitt eda ff ida vit s st at ing it

“ ha [d ] no p hy sic al pr es en ce in Fl or ida ; i t ha [d ] no o ff

ic es , pos t of

fi ce box , te le phon e, e m

plo y ee s, ba nk a cc ount , or pr ope rty of any kind in Florida. It [did] not sol icit busin ess in Florida.” Id
. T he c ourt he ld the N ew Y ork c orpor at ion didnot f al l w ith in F lorida ’ s lo ng- arm j ur isd ic tio n be cause “ [t ] he se f

ac ts d o no t sh ow a‘ ge ne ra l c our se of bus ine ss a ct ivi tyin the state for pec uniary benefit.’ ” Id
. ( quot ing April Indus., Inc. v. Lev y , 411 S o. 2d 303, 305 (Fla. D ist. Ct. App. 1982 )). Similarly , in this appeal, John Edw ards, J. E dwar ds’ sole administrator, submitted an affidavit asserting J. E dwar ds (1) does not d eal in rea l estate located in F lorida ; ( 2) doe s no t m ai nta in o ff ic es or ha ve a nyoth er

phy sic al pr es en ce in Fl or ida ; ( 3) doe s no t e m

plo y a ny one in Fl or ida ; ( 4) ha s no te le phon e lis tin gs i n Fl or ida ; ( 5) doe s no t ha ve aba nk a cc ount in Fl or ida ; ( 6) doe s no t f ile ta xe s in4

Fl or ida ; ( 7) ha s no t de sig na te d th e Fl or ida S ec re taryof

S ta te a s it s a ge nt f

or a ny purpose ; ( 8) doe s no t c oll ec t m one y in Fl or ida ; ( 9) doe s no t tra nsmit m one y or good s in Florida; (10) does notadvertise or solicit busi ness in Florida (except over its uni ve rs al lya cc es sib le I nte rn et w eb sit e) ; a nd ( 11) doe s no t se ll, c onsi gn, or lease tangible or intangib le personal property in Florida. T he P arke rs do n ot d isp ute the e le ve n ke y f ac ts s et f orth i n Jo hn E dw ar ds’
a f f i d a v i t . I n s t e a d , th e y ar g u e th r e e o t h e r f a c t s e s t ab l i s h J
. E d w ar d s e n g a g e s i n “a busi ne ss o r busi ne ss v en tur e” in Fl or ida : J
. E dw ar ds ( 1) e xc ha nge d th re e e- m ai ls
w ithF
. Bay ar d P arke r, w ho w as aF lorida r es ide nt; ( 2) use s F lorida -b as edf re igh t fo rw ar de rs to shi p so m e of it s of fi ce sup pli es int o H ondu ra s; a nd ( 3) pr ovi de s th e
co nta ct inf or m at ion of

F lorida -b as edf

re igh t f or w ar de rs on i ts w eb sit es a nd o n ch eck s i t d raws fro m

it s ac co un t wi th So ut hwe stBan k o f Tex as . Co nsi de ri ng the r el ev an t f ac ts, a nd r ec ogni zi ng the ne edto stric tlyc onstru e § 4 8
. 1 8 1 ( 1 ) , w e c o n c l u d e th e P ark e r s h a v e f a i l e d t o s h o w J
. E d w ar d s e n g a g e s i n “a busi ne ss o r busi ne ss v en tur e” in Fl or ida
. N ei the r the f ac ts s ta te d in Joh n E dw ar ds’ affidavit nor the fac ts high light ed in the Parker s’ brief demonstrate a general
co ur se of bus ine ss a ct ivi tyin Fl or ida f or pe cu niarybe ne fi t. A cc or din gly , the dis tric t c ourt di d no t e rr

w he n it dis miss edw ith out

pr ej udi ce the P arke rs ’ sui t ag ai nst J. E dw ar ds f

or f ai lur e to e ff

ec tuate se rv ic e of

pr oc es s. AFFIR MED.