### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 1 9, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1465 1 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 00 05 4- CV-ORL-3 1DAB CAROL ABRAM SON, IRA ABRAM SON, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, WALT DISNEY W ORLD COMPANY, WALT DISNEY W ORLD HOSPITALITY AND RECREATION CORPORATION, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 1 9, 200 5) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BIRCH an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PE R CU RIA M:2

Ca ro l Ab ra m s o n an dh erh u s b an d , I ra Ab ra m s o n , ap p ea l th e d i s tri ct co u rt ’s or de r gr an tin g de fe ndant- ap pe lle e W al t D isn ey Co m pany ’ s ( “ W D C” ) m oti on t o dism iss for lack of personal j urisdictio n. W e A FFI RM. I. BACKG ROUND InN ove m

be r 2001 , Caro l Abr am son tr ipp ed ove r a ra ili ng whil e w al kin g th ro ug h ada rk en edco rri do r atDis ne y ’s Ani m al Kin gd om in Flo rid a. R3 -1 at 1 . She fe ll and broke her hip. Id. In May 2002 , the Abram sons filed a per sonal injury action against W DC, W alt Disney W orld (“ W DW ”), and W alt Disney W or ld H ospi ta lity

and R ec re at ionCo rp or at ion( “ H RC ”) in the E as te rnD istri ct of N ewY ork. I d. W D C m ove d to dis m iss f or f ai lur e to s ta te ac au se of

a ct ion pursuant to Feder al Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 12(b)(6) and W DW and HRC m oved to di sm is s fo r la ckof p ers on al juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua nt to Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (b )(2 ). R1-10, 11. Following the Abram sons ’ response and a hearing, the district court de nie d W D W

and H RC ’ s m oti on t o di sm iss f or la ck of pe rs ona l j ur isd ic tio n, and tra n s fe rr edth e c as e t o th e M i d d l e D i s tri ct o f F l o ri d a; i td ec l i n edt o ad dre s s WDC’s m otion to dism iss for failure to state a claim notin g that it would be m ore ap pr opr ia te ly

handl ed by the tr an sf

er ee c ourt. R 2- 12, R3 -2 5 a t 1, 8, 9. Following the transfer, the Abram sons we re granted leave to file an am en de d c om

pla int . R4 a t 52 . I n th e am en de d c om pla int , the Abr am sons3

ide nti fi ed W D C a s “ a D el aw ar e co rp or at ionw ithit s pr inc ipa l pl ac e of bus ine ss i n Ca lif or nia [, ] ” W D W

a s asub sid iary

of W D C, and “ a D el aw ar e co rp or at ionw ithit s pr inc ipa l pl ac e of

bus ine ss i n F lor ida [, ] ” an d H RC a s asub sid iary of W D C and W D W and a “ D el aw ar e co rp or at ionw ithit s pr inc ipa l pl ac e of bus ine ss i n Fl or ida . ” R4 -5 3 a t 2. T he Abr am sons a lle ge d th at the pr inc ipa l bu sin es s of both W D W and H RC w as the ow ne rs hip , m an ag em en t, and o pe ratio n of vari ous integrated W DC facilities in Florida, includi ng Anim al K ingd om . Id. They de sc rib edW DW

an d HRC as “ ‘sis te r’ sub si di ari es ” whi ch were b ot h o wne d, operated, and served as agents for W DC. Id. at 2-3. T hey also claim ed that WD C ’s C h a i rman / C h i e f

Ex e c u t i v e Of

f i c e r ( “CE O ” ) an dWDC c o n tr o l l e dth e d ayto- day ope ratio ns o f W D W

and H RC . I d. a t 3- 4. Inr es pons e to the a m en de d c om pla int , W D C m ove d to dis m iss f or la ck of personal jurisdiction and W DW and HRC filed an answe r. R4-54, 55. In support of the m otion to dism iss, W DC attached the aff idavit of W DC Senior V ice Pres id en t –East ern Reg io na l Co un se l an d As si st an t Se cret ary Ken ne th E. Newm an . R4- 54 , Ex. 2. Newm an ex pl ai ne d t ha t WDC’ s “ bu si ne ss act iv it ie s . . . co nsi st o f ow ne rs hip of

sto ck ” of vari ous en te rt ai nm en t e nte rp ri se s and tha t i t di d not “ co nduc t bu sin es s inthe S ta te of F lor ida [, ] ” an d th at

W D C d id n ot “ co ntr ol the busi ne ss a ct ivi tie s” of

e ith er W D W or H RC . I d. a t 2, 3. T he Abr am sons r ep lie dThe Abr amsons timely appea led and moved f

or ce rtification under

Rule 54(b). The 1 appea l was filed with this court, but was dismissed for la ck of jurisdiction bec ause the district c ourt ha d n ot ye t c e rt if

ie d th e c a se . Abr amso n v . Wa lt D isn e y Com pa ny , N o. 04 -1 25 90 (1 1th Cir. Aug . 10, 2004). 4 with the aff

idavit of their attorney , E ric T urkewitz, in which he com m ented that based on hi s “ personal kno wledge” a s a result of various m aterials which he had re ad , WDC co n du ct edb u s i n es s d i re ct l y i n Fl o ri d a. R5 -6 0 at1 , 2 . Tu rk ew i t z’s affidavit w as suppo rted by copies of internet articles, letters to W DC stockho lders fro m W DC’s Ch ai rm an /C EO, andex cerp ts fro m W DC’s CEO’ s au to bi og rap hy. Id., Exs. A- H. In the articles, the W DC CE O w as quoted as claim ing th at he w as directly and personally

invol ved in op erations in Florida, including at Anim al K ing dom , and tha t a ll of

the D isn ey -r el at ed

e nte rp ri se s w er e in the bus ine ss o f

“ m ax im iz [i ng the pr of

its ] ” fo r W D C thr oughthe ir “ int er de pe nde nc e. ” R5 -6 0 a t 2, 3 , 4 , Ex . C . Th e “in t er d ep en d en ce ” a tAn i m al Ki n g d o m i n v o l v edu s i n g WDC’s successful past film s invo lving anim als as a basis for shows and W DC’ s planned film s invo lving anim als as a basis for r ides. I d. at 4. T he district court granted W D C’ s m oti on t o di sm iss f or w an t of pe rs ona l j ur isd ic tio n. R 5- 68. F oll ow ing the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s F ed er al Ru le of Ci vil P ro ce dur e 54( b) c er tif ic at ion , the Abr am sons ap pe al ed . 15

O n a ppe al , the Abr am sons arg ue that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by f ai lin g to allow them

discovery

regar ding the j urisdictio nal issue, by failing to hol d an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , andby gran ti ng W DC’s m ot io n t o d is m is s. II. D ISCU SSION

“ W e re vie wadis 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 n o v o .” Un i t edSt at es SE C v . C arri l l o , 1 1 5 F. 3 d1 5 4 0 , 1 5 4 2 (1 1 th Ci r. 1 9 9 7 ). We re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n a s to w he the r to h old an e vid en tiary

he ar ing on the j ur isd ic tio na l i ssu e fo r ab use of dis cr et ion . C lif

f v. P ay co G en . A m . Cr ed its , In c. , 363 F . 3d 1 113, 112 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ; se e al so W al t D isn ey Co . v. N el son, 677 So. 2d 400 , 403 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996 ) (observing that the trial court need not hol d an e vid en tiary

he ar ing unl es s th e af

fi davit s are not

“ fa ct ua lly re co nc ila ble ”) . W e al so r ev ie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ai lur e to o rd er

dis co ve ry

on the j ur isd ic tio na l i ssu e fo r ab use of dis cr et ion . L ei gh v . W ar ne r Br os. , I nc . , 212 F. 3d 12 10, 1214 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). Absent an evidentiary

hearing on a m otion to dism iss for want of personal j urisdictio n, the district court m ust first determ ine that the plainti ff has e stablish ed a prim a fa cie ca se of personal j urisdictio nal over the nonresident d efendant w hich is c ap ab le of

w ith standi ng a

dir ec te d ve rd ic t m oti on. Ma dara v. H al l, 916 F . 2d 1510 , 151 4 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) . I n m ak ing thi s de te rm inatio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust6

ac ce pt the pla int if

f’ s f ac tua l a lle ga tio ns, unl es s th ose a lle ga tio ns are c ont es te d by the defendant’ s affidavits. Id. If the a llegations are contested, the district court shou ld c onstru e al l r ea sona ble inf er en ce s inf

av or of the pla int if

f. I d. Whe re the parties’ aff

idavits canno t be rec onciled, the trial court should h old an evident iary he ar ing to re sol ve the j ur isd ic tio na l i ssu e. V en et ian S al am i C o. v. P ar the na is, 554 So.2d 499, 503 (Fla. 1989 ). T he c ourt m

ust the n e nga ge in a tw o- part ana ly sis to de te rm ine w he the r it ha s j ur isd ic tio n ov er

the non re sid en t de fe ndant, and c ane xe rc ise that j ur isd ic tio n onl y if both pr ongs are sa tis fi ed . Ma dara , 916 F . 2d at 15 14. T he f ir st p ro ng o f that analy sis requires exam ination of w hether a basis of j urisdictio n is provi ded unde r the f

or um state ’ s lo ng arm

statut e. I d. I f that pr ong is m et , the se co nd pr ong re qui re s c onsi de ratio n of w he the r the re are suf

fi ci en t m ini m

um c ont ac ts t o sa ti sf y du e p ro ces s co nc ern s. Id . Be ca use the r ea chof

af or um state ’ s lo ng arm

statut e is a

que sti on o f state la w, we con st ru e it as wo ul d t he st at e’s hi gh es t co ur t. Id . In Fl or id a, a nonr es ide nt i s su

bj ec te d to j ur isd ic tio n f

or “ [o ] pe ratin g, c ondu ct ing , e nga gin g in , or c ar ry ing on a

bus ine ss o r busi ne ss v en tur e . . . in thi s st at e, ” “ co m m itt ing a tortio us a ct

w ith in this state , ” or

e nga gin g “ in s ubst an tia l and n ot i sol at ed a ct ivi ty within this st ate. ” F LA . S T AT . § 48.193(1)(a ) and (b), and (2). T he necessary7

m ini m um c ont ac ts b etw ee n th e fo re ignc or por at ionand the state , f

or the a sse rt ion of ge ne ra l j ur isd ic tio n, m

ust be “ co nti nuou s and s y ste m at ic . ” Co nsol idate d D ev . Corp. v. Sherr itt, Inc. , 216 F. 3d 12 86, 1292 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). Acorporation which engages in sub stantial activityin a state through a sub sidiary is subject to personal j ur isd ic tio n inF lor ida . U niv er sa l C ar ibb ean E sta bli shm en t v. Bard , 543 S o. 2d 447, 448 ( Fl a. D ist . Ct . App. 198 9) . T o de te rm ine w he the r a fo re ignc or por at ionis lia ble ba se d onasub sid iary ’ s su bst an tia l a ct ivi ty , w e co nsi de r the ow ne rs hip of the subs idiary , the business activities of the sub sidiary , and the financial re l at i o n s h i p b et we en th e c o rp o ra t i o n an dth e s ub s i d i ary . M ei erv . S u n In t ’l Hotels, Ltd. , 188 F. 3d 12 64, 1272-73 (11th Cir. 2002). Beca use “ the m ere pr es en ce of

aw hol ly ow ne d su

bsi diary is ins uf fi ci en t t o f

orm aba sis f or the as se rt ionof

pe rs ona l j ur isd ic tio n, ” one of the f ac tor s to be c onsi de re d is the am ount of c ontro l e xe rc ise d by

the f or ei gn c or

por at ion . S ta te of

F lor ida v. Am eri can Tob acco Co ., 70 7 S o. 2 d 8 51 , 85 4- 55 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct . App . 19 98 ). To establish an agency

relationship, the foreign corporation m ust exercise such c o n tr o l th a tth e s ub s i d i a ry’ s s o l e p u r p o s e f o r e x i s t e n c e i s t o a c c o mp l i s h th e a i ms of the foreign corporation and there is no evidence of separate interests. I d. at 855. E vid en ce of

ope ratio na l c ontro l i s no t satis fi ed w he re the f

or ei gn co rp or at ion ’ s po lic y

state m en ts m er el y

e sta bli sh g oa ls f

or it s su bsi diari es and8

whe re t he subs id ia rie s o pe rat e wit h a“ hi gh de gr ee o f au to no m y .” Id . at 8 56 . Jur isd ic tio n ov er

the f or ei gn c or

por at ionw ill not

be e xe rc ise d ba se d onthe subs idi ar y ’ s lo ca l a ct ivi tie s whe re the sub sid iary c ar ri es on i ts o w n bu sin es s and pr es er ve s so m e ind ep en de nc e fr om the f or ei gn c or

por at ion . C onso lid at ed

D ev . Corp., 216 F.3d at 1293. Aforeign corporation will be held subject to per sonal j ur isd ic tio n, how ev er , if

the sub sid iary

is a “ m er e ins tr

um en ta lity . ” Me ie r, 188 F.3 d a t 1 27 3. O nc e the pla int if

f ha s de m onstrate d th at

the de fe ndant h as m et

a t l ea st o ne of the j ur isd ic tio na l c ri te ri a of the F lor ida

lon g- ar m statut e, ac ourt m

ust de te rm ine w he the r the de fe ndant p oss es se s su ff ic ie nt m ini m

um c ont ac ts w iththe state and w he the r m ai nte nanc e of

the sui t w ill “ of

fe nd ‘ tr ad iti ona l no tio ns o f fa ir play and subs tantial justice. ’ ” W alt Disney Co., 677 So. 2d at 402 (quo ting Internation al Shoe Co. v. W ashingt on, 326 U. S. 310, 316, 66 S. C t. 154, 158 (1945) (internal ci ta tio n om itt ed )) . A ft er

apla int if f ha s e sta bli she d apr im a fa ci e ca se f or j ur isd ic tio n and the de fe ndant h as f ile d a ff idavit s c ont es tin g j ur isd ic tio n, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving s ufficient j urisdictio n by aff idavits o r other sw or n st at em en ts. I d. a t 40 2- 03. Ac cepting Abram son’s f

actual allegations as true, Abram son claim ed that W D C, af or ei gn c or

por at ion , w as c ondu ct ing bus ine ss i n F lor ida thr oughtheDespite WDC Chairman’s cla im of “interde pendenc e,” N ewman’ s aff idavit makes cle ar 2 that WDW and HRC operate autonomously , even if those autonomous operations are ba sed on film ideas produc ed and owned by WDC. 9 ope ratio ns o f its sub sid iari es , W D W and H RC . T his a lle ga tio n w as suf fi ci en t t o state apr im a fa ci e ca se of j ur isd ic tio n un de r Fl or ida ’ s lo ng- ar m statut e. T his al le gatio n w as , how ev er , dir ec tly and c om ple te ly c ontra dic te d by

the a ff idavit of W DC’ s Senior V ice Pr esident – Eastern Re gion al Counsel and Assistant Secretar y K enne th E . N ewm an . I n hi s a ff idavit , N ewm ane xpl ai ne d th at W D C n ei the r did busi ne ss i n F lor ida

nor ha d an a ge nt i n F lor ida . H e state d th at W D C n ei the r ow ns orop erat es W DW

an d HRC , whi ch are b ot h wh ol ly owne d s ub si di ari es of WDC subs idiary

Disney Enter prises, I nc. ( “ DE I”). H e established that W DW and HRC we re e ach re spon sible for their own day -to-day activities and finances, m aintained separate books, re cords, and ac counts from W DC, and wer e not authorized to act as an agent for W DC. N ew m an’ s allegation was sufficient to shift the burden back t o Ab ra m s o n t o p ro du ce s wo rn t es t i m o n y i n s up p o rto f ju ri s d i ct i o n . Ab ra m s o n ’s attor ne y ’ s sw or

n a ff idavit pr es en te d qu otatio ns f

ro m W D C’ s C E O in supp ort of j ur isd ic tio n. T he a ff

idavit , how ev er , did

not c ount er N ewm an ’ s e xpl an at ionof the busin ess practices of WDC, W DW , or HRC , and do es not contradict the absence of c ont ac t or

se parate bus ine ss e nti tie s be tw ee n W D C, W D W , and H RC . Abse nt 2 co m pe te nt e vid en ce to co ntr ad ic t N ewm an ’ s a ff idavit , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no tThe Abr amsons reque sted discover y while the ca se wa s pendingin the Easter n District 3 of Ne w Y or k. R2- 12 at 15 -1 6. In th e me mor and um o pin ion

tr ans fe rr ingthe c a se to t

he Mid dle District of F lorida, the district judg e held that they had “f ailed to per suade” the cour t that they wer e entitled to jurisdictional discovery , rely ing on “ wide-r ang ing r equests for materia l of dubious releva

nce” instead of “ specific , rele vant demands.” R3-25 at 8. The Abramsons did not rene w this request in the Middle District of F lorida. 10 ab use it s di sc re tio n by

not hol din g an e vid en tiary

he ar ing . B as ed

on the uncont ested facts c ontained in Ne wm an’ s affidavit, there is no indication that W DC do es bu si ne ss in Flo rid a o r ha s an ag en cy rel at io ns hi p wi th W DW

or HR C. Furthe r, the m ini m

um c ont ac ts r equir em en t i s no t satis fi ed dir ec tly by W D C o r ind ir ec tly thr oughW D W

or H RC . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n in not pe rm itt ing dis co ve ry

or hol din g an e vid en tiary

he ar ing , and d id n ot e rr

in declining to exercise j urisdictio n over W DC. 3 III. C ONC LUS ION Fo r t h e r ea s o n s s t at edab o v e, th e d i s tri ct co u rt ’s o rd erg ra n t i n g WDC’s m oti on t o di sm iss f

or la ck of pe rs ona l j ur isd ic tio n is AF FIRMED .