F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT February10 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 05- 1149 1 Non-Argum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 04-00309 -CV -J-32-MMH BARBARA BOND, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us IVY TECH STATE COLLEGE, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(F eb ru ar y 10 , 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK and P RY O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:98 perc ent of students at I vy Tec h are Indiana residents. Of the r emainingtwo perc ent, most are 1 from states that bor der Indiana. 2 Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant B ar

bara Bo nd, pr oc ee din g pro se , a ppeals from

a district court order dism issin g her civil suit for lack of personal j urisdictio n and further de nyin g h er m ot io n t o t ran sf er t he cas e. No re ve rs ib le erro r ha s b een sh own ; we a f f i rm. Pl ai nti ff br ough t su it in the Mi ddl e D istri ct of F lor ida a ga ins t I vy

T ec h S tate College, a

state-supported comm

unitycollege in Indiana and Plaintiff’ s form er em plo y er . P la int if

f al le ge d th at

I vy T ec h br ea ch ed

the te rm s of

ase ttl em en t agreem ent struck between the parties to sever Plaintiff’ s em ploym ent. P laintiff, who w as dom iciled in Florida at the tim e she sued, cla im ed the Florida district co urt ha d di ve rs ity

j ur isd ic tio n un de r 28 U . S. C. § 13 32. T he dis tr ic t c ourt, how ev er , dis m iss ed

the sui t f or la ck of pe rs ona l j ur isd ic tio n ov er I vy S tate pu rs ua ntto Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(2 ). Indis m iss ing P la int if

f’ s su it, the c ourt c re dit ed I vy T ec h’ s a sse rt ion s th at

it did no t engage in bus iness, rec ruit stud ents, m aintain an office, or cause an injury in Florida under the m eaning of Florida’ s long -arm statute. I vy

Te ch’ s cam

puses ar e co nf ine d to I ndi an a, and i ts s tud en t po pul at ionis m ad e up a lm ost e nti re ly of Indiana residents. And even accepting Plaintiff’ s allegations as true, the court 1P a rt i e s p r o c e e d i n g pro s eare entitled to leniency in pleading . GJ R Invs., Inc. v. County of 2 Escambia, 132 F .3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998). 3 re j ec te d he r as se rt ion s th at I vy T ec h ha d su ff

ic ie nt c ont ac ts w ithF lor ida thr ough m ai lin g ali m ite d num

be r of stu de nt a dm iss ion s pa ck et s to F lor ida r es ide nts , m ai nta ini ng a

w eb sit e, and o ff

er ing dis tanc e le ar

nin g c our se s ov er

the I nte rn et . W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al f or la ck of pe rs ona l j ur isd ic tio n de novo and c onstru e al l r ea sona ble inf er en ce s inf

av or of the pla int if

f. Me ie r v. S un Int’ l Hotels, Ltd. , 288 F. 3d 12 64, 1268-69 (11th Cir. 2002). To deter m ine whether th e Fl or id a d is tri ctco urt h adpe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ov er n on -res id en t Iv y Tech , we use atw o- part

ana ly sis : 1) whe the r Fl or ida ’ s lo ng- ar m statut e pr ovi de s aba sis f or j ur isd ic tio n, and, if

it doe s, 2) whe the r Iv y

T ec h ha d su ff

ic ie nt mini m

um c ont ac ts wi thFl o ri d a s u ch th ats at i s fy th e F o u rt ee n thAm en dm en tDu e P ro ce s s Cl au s e’s no ti on s o f fai r pl ay

an d s ub st an ti al jus ti ce. Scu lp tc ha ir, In c. v. Ce ntury Arts , Ltd ., 94 F . 3d 6 23, 626 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . Unde r Fl or ida law , the pla int if

f be ar s th e bur de n of pr ovi ng p er sona l j ur isd ic tio n. I d. E ve n c onstru ing P la int if f’ s pl ea din gs le nie ntl y , the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly de ci de d th at

pe rs ona l j ur isd ic tio n ov er I vy 2 T ec h is not

pr ope r unde r the F lor ida lon g- ar m statut e an d w oul d vi olate D ue Pr oc es s.4

As best w e can tell, Plaintiff’ s pleadings indicate that she believes j urisdictio n rests on Fla. S tat. §§ 48.193(1)(f) , ( 1)(g), and (2) (F lorida’ s long -arm statut e) . S ec tio n 48 . 193( 1) (f ) pr ovi de s, in re le vant p ar t, j ur isd ic tio n ov er

any person “ causing injury

to persons or prop erty

within this state arising o ut of an act or om iss ionby

the de fe ndant o uts ide thi s st at e, ” if the de fe ndant “w as e nga ge d in sol ic itatio n or

se rv ic e ac tiv iti es ” w ith in F lor ida . F lor ida ’ s S upr em e Co urt ha s he ld that “ the pr ovi sio ns o f se ct ion48. 193( 1) (f ) co nte m plate pe rs ona l i nj ur

y or phy sic al pr ope rty

dam ag e; ” m er e ec onomic inj ur y is ins uf fi ci en t t o su

bj ec t a non re sid en t de fe ndant t o pe rs ona l j ur isd ic tio n inF lor ida und er thi s se ct ion . A etna L if e & C as . Co . v. T he rm -O -D isc , I nc . , 511 S o. 2d 9 92, 994 ( Fl a. 199 7) . B ec au se she doe s no t a lle ge pe rs ona l i nj ur y or pr ope rty dam ag e, j ur isd ic tio n is not available under section 48.193 (1)(f ). Se ct ion48. 193( 1) (g ) pr ovi de s j ur isd ic tio n ov er any pe rs on “br ea ch ing a co ntr ac t i n th is s tate by

f ai lin g to pe rf

orm a ct s r equir ed

by the c ontra ct

to be pe rf orm ed in thi s st at e. ” W e have wri tte n th at thi s se ct ion“ m eans that the re m ust ex ist aduty to pe rf orm an a ct in F

lor ida ; a contractual duty to tender perform ance to a F lor ida r es ide nt i s no t i n it se lf

suf fi ci en t t o satis fy

the statut e. ” P osne r v. Essex Ins. Co., Ltd. , 178 F. 3d 12 09, 1218 (11t h Cir. 1999 ). See also Tr avel O ppor tun iti es of

F ort L au de rd al e, I nc . v. W al te r K ar l L ist Mg m t. , I nc . , 726 S o. 2d5

313, 314 ( Fl a. D ist . Ct . App. 199 8) ( “ [I ] t i s no t e noug h th at af or ei gn d ef

en dant m erely contract w ith a Florida resident. Rather, the contract itself m ust require perform ance in Florida. ”). T he settlem ent agreem ent at issue here does not require Ivy Te ch to perform

acts in Florida. Section 48.193(2) provid es j urisdictio n over any defendant “ who is engaged in s ubst an tia l and n ot i sol at ed a ct ivi ty w ith in this state , whe the r suc h a ct ivi ty is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise. .. [and] whether or not the claim

arises fr om that a ct ivi ty . ” P la int if

f poi nts to Iv y

T ec h’ s w eb sit e an d on lin e cl as s of fe ri ngs an d so m e ev ide nc e that the sc hool se nt a dm iss ion s pa ck et s to pr os pe ct iv e stud en ts in Flo rid a as supp orti ng juri sd ic ti on un de r th is sec ti on . Florida courts have held that jurisdiction is prop er under this section onl y when the nonre sid en t de fe ndant a ct ua lly pr oc ur es bus ine ss i n F lor ida or sol ic its bus ine ss thr oughc ont inu ed

or sus ta ine d e ff

orts; sol ic itatio n ina“ ha

pha zard and s por ad ic m anne r” doe s no t c onf

er j ur isd ic tio n. P ri ce v. P oin t M ar ine , I nc . , 610 S o. 2d 1339 , 1341 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992 ). Pl ai nti ff ha s m ad e onl y

bare a lle gatio ns that sh e ha s pe rs ona l kn ow le dge that application packets we re m ailed to Florida residents, but she failed to provide de ta ils about

the c ont ac ts. I vy

T ec h’ s un co ntr ove rt ed

e vid en ce sho w s th at

98 pe rc en t of

it s st ude nts are f

ro m I ndi an a an d th at

the m aj or ity

of the r em ai nin g6

stu de nts are f

ro m bor de ri ng s tate s. E ve n c onstru ing a ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s in Pl ai nti ff ’ s f av or , nothin g e vid en ce s ac ont inu ous or sus ta ine d e ff

ort t o so lic it student s from

Florida. Ne ver has this Court addressed the questi on of whether the m ere existence o f awe b s i t e t h ati s v i s i b l e i na f o ru m , b y i t s el f, co n fe rs ju ri s d i ct i o no v erth e s i t e’s owne r. O the r ci rc uit s, how ev er , have f ound thi s c ir cum stanc e ins uf

fi ci en t t o co nf er j ur isd ic tio n. S ee , e . g. , Mc Be e v. D el ic a Co . , L td. , 417 F . 3d 1 07, 124 ( 1st Ci r 2005 ) (“ T he m er e ex ist en ce of aw eb sit e doe s no t sh owthat a de fe ndant i s dir ec tin g it s bu sin es s a ct ivi tie s to w ar ds e ve ry f or um whe re the w eb sit e is vis ibl e. . . . ”) ; T ri nte c In dus. , I nc . v. P edre P ro m oti ona l P ro ds. , I nc . , 395 F . 3d 1275 , 128 1 ( Fe d. Ci r. 200 5) ( “ [T ] he abil ity of D istri ct r es ide nts to ac ce ss the de fe ndants ’ w eb sit es . . . doe s no t by it se lf sho wany

pe rs ist en t c our se of

c ondu ct by th e d efen da nt s i n t he Dis tri ct .”) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . InRe ve ll v. L ido v, 317 F . 3d 4 67, 470 -7 1 ( 5thCi r. 200 2) , the F if th C ir cu it co nc lud ed

he ld that a

nonre sid en t un ive rs ity ’ s w eb sit e, whic h a llo w ed use rs to subs cr ibe to a j our

na lis m r ev ie w , pur ch as e adve rt isi ng, and s ubm it el ec tr oni c adm issio ns application s, did not subje ct the university to jurisdiction in Texas w he n th e uni ve rs ity

did not r ec ei ve m or e than tw en ty int er ne t su bsc ri pti ons fr om Te xas residents. T he Fifth Circ uit conclud ed that thou gh “ a w ebsite is, in a sense,Be cause we conclude that the Flor ida long -ar m statute does not provide a basis for pe rsonal 3 jurisdiction, the constitutional analy sis is unnecessar y . Homewa

y Fur niture Co. of Mount Airy , Inc. v. Horne , 822 So.2d 533, 536 (Fla. D ist. Ct . App. 2002). 7 a continuo us presence ever ywher e in the world, ” the defe ndant’s contacts w ere

“ not in any w ay ‘ subs tanti al . ’ ” Id . a t 47 1. I vy T ec h’ s li m ite d c ont ac t w ithF lor ida via it s w eb sit e w as similarl y ins ubst an tia l. 3 Plaintiff also ar gues on app eal that the interests of j ustice required the court to transf er he r ca se to a dis tr ic t c ourt i n I ndi an a onc e it fo und that F lor ida w as not the proper forum . 28 U. S. C. § 163 1 states that “ [w ] henever a c ivil action is filed in a c ourt. . . an d th at

c ourt f ind s th at the re is a w an t of

j ur isd ic tio n, the c ourt sh al l, if it is in the interest of j ustice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brough t at the tim e it w as fi le d. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ef ra ine d f ro m tr an sf er ri ng the c as e to anothe r fo rum , and we reviewits refusal to transfer for an a buse of discretion. Robinso n v. G iarm arco & Bill, P. C., 74 F.3d 253, 255 (11th Cir. 1996 ). W e cannot

say that the dis tr ic t c our

t a buse d it s di sc re tio n by

not tr an sf er ri ng thi s c as e to I ndi an a. P la int if f ha s f ai le d to pr es en t e vid en ce or a lle ge that sh e could no t refile the case in Indiana. T he evidence further indicates that Plaintiff kn ew In di an a was th e p ro pe r fo ru m when sh e fi le d s ui t i n F lo rid a. Sh e fi le d t wo m ot io ns in th e North ern Dis tri ctof I nd ia narel at edto he r se tt le m en t ag reem en t.8

O nly whe n th ose m oti ons w er e de nie d di d sh e fi le he r ca se in Fl or ida . O n th is re co rd w e cannot

c onc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n whe n it concluded th at Plaintiff’ s actions “ do no t show the goodfaith that would dictate a tra n s fe r i nth e ‘i n t er es to f ju s t i ce .’” Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons w e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of Pl ai nti ff ’ s c ivi l a ct ionand r ef

usa l t o tr an sf

er he r cl ai m s. AFFIR MED.