FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT OCT 31 , 2006 THOMAS 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N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]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. 06- 1174 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 21 90 0- CV-AJ
FLICK MOR TGAGE INV ESTORS, INC.,
Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us MET ROP OL IS P ROM OT IO N I NV ES TMENT S & PROPERTIES ( 19 93 ) LTD., ANGLO-SAXON REAL ESTATE AGENCY (ISRAEL 19 92 ), LTD.,
D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 31, 200 6)2

Be fo re T JO FL A T , BI RC H a nd M A RC U S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Flick Mortgage Investors, I nc. (“ Flick”) a ppeals the dist rict court’ s dism issal of its co m pla int , al le gin g unf

ai r co m pe tit ion an d vio la tio n of

the F lor ida

D ec ep tiv e
an d U nf ai r T ra de P ra ct ic es A ct ( “ FDU PT A ”) , a ga ins t D ef en da nts Me tr opol is Pr om oti on I nve stm en ts & P ro pert ie s ( 1993 ), L td. ( “ Me tr opol is” ) an d A ngl o- Sa xon Real E state Agency

(Isra el 1992) Ltd. (“ Anglo-Saxon”). The district court dism issed the c om pla int f or la ck of pe rs ona l j ur isd ic tio n ove r the D ef en da nts a ft er

c onc lud ing tha t a lth oughth e Fl or ida

lon g- ar m sta tut e, F la
. S ta t. § 48
. 193( 1) (b ), w as sa tis fi ed , the D ef en da nts did

not ha ve suf

fi ci en t m ini m

um c ont ac ts unde r the D ue P ro ce ss C lause of the Fourteenth Am endm ent to allow the exer cise o f personal j urisdictio n over the m in a co urt i n F lor ida
. O n a ppe al , Fl ic k argues the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in its

“ m ini m um c ont ac ts” a na ly sis a nd i ts con cl usi on tha t the D ef en da nts ’ 199 8 m ee tin g
w iththe P re sid en t of

F lic k w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o sati sf

y due pr oc es s be ca

use the m ee tin g
w a s n o n - e s s e n t i a l t o t h e p a rt i e s ’ f u tu r e d e a l i n g s . A f

t e r c a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. W e re view a dism issal f

or lack of personal j urisdictio n de novo
. See Meier e x rel. Meier v. Sun Int’ l Hotels, Ltd. , 288 F. 3d 1264 , 126 8 (11th Cir. 2002 ); A lexander Pro ud fo ot Co . W or ld Hqrt rs . L.P. v. Thayer, 87 7 F .2d 91 2, 9 16 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ).

“ Whe n th e d is tric t c ourt do es not c ondu ct adis cr et ion ar

y e vid en tiary

he ar ing on aBe cause we c onclude that the Defenda nts’ contac ts with Florida

wer e insuffic ient to satisfy 1 the Due Proc ess Clause of the United S tates C onstitut ion, we do not rea ch the issue as to whethe r tho se c on ta c ts w ou ld s a tis fy the re qu ir e me nts of

F lor ida ' s lo ng -a

rm statut e , w hic h p ro vid e s: (1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or reside nt of this state, who persona lly or thr ou g h a n a g e nt do e s any of the a c ts e nume ra te d in t his su bs e c tio n th e re by

su bmi ts 3 mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s f

o r l a c k o f p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e p l a i n t i f f mu s te s t ab l i s h ap r i ma f a c i e c a s e o f p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e n o n r e s i d e n t d e f e n d a n t
. ” C ab l e / H o me Co m m c’n Co rp . v. Net wor k P ro ds ., Inc ., 90 2 F .2d 82 9, 8 55 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). On appeal, Flick argues that the district court err oneous ly co n cl uded that exercising specific j urisdictio n over the De fendants in F l o ri d a would not com port
w ithf undam en ta l notio ns of fa ir play a nd s ubst an tia l j ust ic e, w ith in the m eanin g of In t’ l Sh oe Co
. v. W as hin gto n, be ca use the D ef

en da nts did not ha ve su ffi ci ent
m ini m um c ont ac ts w iththe stat e. S ee 326 U
. S. 310 , 316 ( 1945 ) (h old ing tha t the fundam ental inqu iry of specific j urisdictio n is whether the defendant h as s uch

“ m ini m um c ont ac ts w ith[ Fl or ida ] suc h th at the m ai nte na nc e of

th e su it does n ot of fend ‘ traditional no tions of fair play and subs tantial justice. ’ ” (c itation o m itted)). A n a na ly sis of

w he the r pe rs ona l jur isd ic tio n e xis ts r equir es ac ourt t o de te rm ine whether t he exercise of j urisdictio n com ports with both the forum state’ s long -arm sta tut e, he re F la
. S ta t. § 48
. 193, a nd the D ue P ro ce ss Cl au se of the F ourte en th Am en dm en t t o t he Uni te d S ta te s C on st it ut io n. Mu t. Se rv . Ins . Co. v . Frit Ind us ., Inc ., 358 F.3d 131 2, 1319 (11th Cir. 2004 ). 1himself or he r s e lf · · · to th e ju r is d ic ti o n o f th e c o u rts o f th is s tate f o r an y c a u s e of a c tio n a ri sin g fr om t

he do ingof

any of the fo llo wi nga c ts:

· · · (b) Committi ng a tortious act within this state. Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)
. The dist rict court conclude d that § (1)(b) was satisfied. W e need not rea ch the F lor ida lon g arm statut e iss ue be c a us e e ve n if Fl or ida ’s statut e is s a tis fi e d, F lic k f a ils to e sta

bli sh the se c on d pr on g of the inq uir y : sh ow ing that th e e xer c ise of jur isd ic tio n in

the c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

his case comports with the Due Proc ess clause
. 4 T he due pr oc es s in qui ry c onsi sts of as kin g w he the r “ (1 ) the non re sid en t de fe ndant h as pur

pose fu lly e sta bli she d m ini m

um co nta ct s wi th the fo ru m . . . a nd ( 2) the e xe rc ise of

j ur isd ic tio n w ill not

of fe nd ‘ tr ad iti on al not ion s of f ai r play a nd subs tantial justice. ’ ” S EC v. Carrillo, 115 F. 3d 15 40, 1542 (11t h Cir. 1997 ) (internal quot at ionm ar

ks and c ita tio ns om it te d)
. W e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t the De fendants’ singu lar cont act with Florida, consis ting of a 1998 m eeting during which pr el im inary

f inanc ing dis cu ssi ons too k pl ac e, but no fo rm al w ri tte n or or al a gr ee m en t
w as re ac he d, an d dur ing w hic h Fl ic k vol unt ar ily pr ovi de d the Defen dants ’
re pr es en ta tiv es w ith br oc hur es be ar ing F lic k’ s nam e an d m ar k, w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o showpur pose fu l a va ilm en t and, a cc or din gly , w as ins uf fi ci en t to es ta

bli sh p ur pose fu l
a v a i l men t
. We a r e u n p e r s u a d e db y F l i c k ’s s u g g e s t i o n t h a t , t h e mer e ( v o l u n t a ry) exch an g e o f Flick’s nam e and m ark in Florida changes the result wher e the re cord
m ak es c le ar

tha t the a lle ge d m isa

ppr opr ia tio n a nd a ct s of

unf ai r co m pe tit iontoo k5

place in Isra el. In short, af ter de novo review , w e discern no err or in the district court’ s m inim

um -contacts analy sis and di sm issal of the c om pl a i nt f or l a ck of personal j ur isd ic tio n. AFFIRMED.