FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 5, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nos . 06 -1 55 61 & 0 6- 15 56 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 80 98 0- CV-KLR UNITED TE CHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us RUSSELL MAZER, Defen da nt , AIRCRAFT POW ER MAINTENANCE, W EST-HEM AIRCRAFT SUPPLIES, INC., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Febru ar y 5 , 20 09 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARCUS, an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es .TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e:

Thi s ca se st em s fr om

th e th eftan d s al e o f bl ue pr in ts rel at in g t o a n a irc raft
en gi ne m anuf

actur edby the Prat t & Whi tn ey di vi si on (“ Prat t” ) of

Uni te d Tech no lo gi es Co rp or at io n (“ UTC”). UTC cl ai m edth atW es t-He m Airc raft Supp li es , Inc . (“ W es t-He m ”) an d Ai rcra ft P owe r Mai nt en an ce (“ APM”) are le ga ll y res po ns ib le forth e th eftan d s al e, an d i t s ue d t he m inth e Uni te d S ta te s Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a. The d is tri ctco urt, i n s ep arat e or de rs , gra nt edW es t-He m ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s UTC’s co m pl ai ntfor fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m forrel ie f an d APM ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r la ckof p ers on al juri sd ic ti on ,

1 2
an d i t en te redfin al jud gm en ts purs ua ntto th os e o rd ers un de r Ru le 54 (b ) of th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e. UTC no w app eal s. We reve rs e th e jud gm en t fo r W es t-He m , con cl ud in g t ha t the co m pl ai ntst at es a cl ai m

forrel ie f. W e aff

irm th e jud gm en t fo r APM, h owe ve r, be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y fou ndth atth e reco rdpro vi de d a n i ns uf

fic ie ntba si s fo r ex erci si ng pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ov er APM.

See F ed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

1 See F ed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). 2 2I. A. 3 Prat t i s a wh ol ly-own eddi vi si on of UTC, a Del aware co rp or at io n he ad qu art eredinHart fo rd , Con ne ct ic ut , andis en ga ge d i n t he bu si ne ss of
m anuf actur in g, re pa iri ng , m ai nt ai ni ng , andpro vi di ng rel at edsupp ort an d s erv ic es fo r tu rb in e en gi ne s. West -Hem is a Fl or id a co rp or at io n, l oc at edinRiv ie ra Be ach , Fl or id a, in th e b us in es s o f bu y in g a ndsel li ng air craf t p art s an d re la te d s up po rt
m at eri al s. APM is a Bel gi anco m pa ny, loc at edinW ev el ge m , Bel gi um , eng ag edin th e b us in es s o f rep ai rin g a ndm ai nt ai ni ng air craf t en gi ne s. Ru ss el l M azer , a co de fen da ntinth is cas e, is pre si de ntan d p artown er o f W es t-He m an d adi rect oran d 40 % own er o f APM. West -Hem ha d l on g b eena cu st om er o f Prat t, an d APM ha d be ena cu st om er o f bo th Prat t an d West -Hem fory ears . As p artof i ts bu si ne ss , APM rep ai redan d m ai nt ai ne d P rat t en gi ne s, in cl ud in g e ng in e m od el PWAJT8 D (“ JT8 D”). Inord er t o wo rkon a JT8 D, as wi th
an y Prat t en gi ne , APM wou ldne edto purch as e fro m Prat t ei th er s pe ci al ly-m ad e The fa cts stated in subpart I .A ar e those a lleg ed in UTC’s complaint, as a mended 3 (re fer red to in this opinion as the “complaint”) , which we have r ead in the light most favorable to UTC, and ac cepte d as true. B ridg e v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., -- U.S. -- , 128 S. Ct . 2131, 2135 n.1, 170 L . Ed. 2d 1012 (2008) ( citation omitted). We read the complaint in this way to deter mine whether , contra

ry to the district court’s ruling , UTC has stated a claim for r elief. In deter mining whe ther the district c ourt corr ectly found an insuff

icient basis for e x erc ising persona l jurisdiction over APM, we conside r the a lleg ations of the complaint and the aff idavit APM presente d in support of its moti on to dismi ss. 3pr eci si on to ol s o r bl ue pr in ts an d l ic en se s re qu ire d t o m ak e su chpre ci si on to ol in g

fo r it se lf. Fo r th is reas on , APM h adanin te res t i n a cqui rin g asetof P rat t’s bl ue pr in ts forth e JT8 D to ol in g, an d West -Hem want edto ful fil l tha t n eedby acqui rin g asetof t he bl ue pr in ts to sel l t o APM . To th is en d, West -Hem ’s Maze r ha d t rie d t o l oc at e an d p ur ch as e a s etof t he bl ue pr in ts fro m nu m ero us so ur ces , who qu ot edpri ces as h ig h a s $ 10 0,0 00 . The rea so nabl e co m m erci al va lu e o f th e bl ue pr in ts , whi chPrat t d eem edto be pro te ct edan d p ro pr ie ta ry , was ap pr ox im at el y $2 50 ,00 0. InNov em

be r 20 03 , Maze r m etwith P rat t em pl oyees i n C on ne ct ic utab ou t W es t-He m

bu si ne ss un rel at edto th is cas e. Am on g the Prat t p ers on ne l wi th who m Maz er m etwhi le inCo nn ect ic utwas An th on y DiLo ren zo , a tem

po rary con tra ct worke r. Maze r m en ti on edto DiLo ren zo th athe was i nt eres te d i n a cqui rin g aset of th e JT8 D to ol in g b lu ep rin ts . Alth ou ghDiLo ren zo ’s em pl oym en t co ntractwith Prat t p ro hi bi te d h im

fro m acce ss in g P rat t’s p ro pr ie ta ry or o th er p ro te ct ed in fo rm at io n wi th ou t au th or iz at io n fr om a res po ns ib le au th or it y , he app aren tl y su gg es te d t o M azerth athe co ul d p ro vi de th e b lu ep rin ts . 4
Although the complaint does not expli citly alleg e that DiL orenzo told Mazer that he 4 would have to stea l the blueprints to do so or that Mazer aske d DiL orenzo to steal them, we inf er from what is alleg ed that Mazer kne w that any blueprints he obtained f

rom DiL orenzo would be stolen. 4BetweenJan uary an d M arch 20 04 , APM’s m an ag in g d ire ct or , W il he lm Loe ts ch ert , was v is it in g F lo rid a fro m Bel gi um an d s ta y in g a t M azer ’s ho m e in
or de r to att en d h el ic op te r pi lo t trai ni ng . At so m e p oi ntdurin g t hi s p eri od , Maze r an d Lo et sc he rt d is cu ss edW es t-He m ’s po te nt ia l ac qu is it io n o f th e Prattbl ue pr in ts fro m DiLo ren zo , in cl ud in g the pri ce tha t West -Hem wou ldpa y

forth e b lu ep rin ts . 5 At s om e p oi ntinFeb ru ary orMarc h 2 00 4, Di Lore nz o e it he r acc es se d o r cau se d s om eo ne els e to acce ss a pr ot ect edPrat t co m pu te r an d, wi th ou t au th or iz at io n, o bt ai ne d apri nt edco py of th e JT8 D to ol in g b lu ep rin ts . There aft er, in Marc h o r Apr il 20 04 , W es t-He m an d M azerpu rch as edth e b lu ep rin ts fro m DiLo ren zo forap pr ox im at el y $5 ,00 0. Maze r pr ov id edDiLo ren zo with West
6 Hem ’s Fed eral Exp res s ac co un t i nf orm at io n t o u se insen di ng th e b lu ep rin ts to W es t-He m

inFlo rid a, rece iv edth e b lu ep rin ts at West -Hem ’s off ic e, an d in st ru ct edW es t-He m

em pl oyees t o s en d Di Lore nz o p aym en t fo r th e b lu ep rin ts us in g West -Hem ’s Fed eral Exp res s ac co un t. APM’s Lo et sc he rt p ro vi de d apo rti on

The c omplaint does not alleg e, howe ver, e x actly when Mazer and L oetsche rt agree d 5 upon a pric e or when, if e ver, L oetsche rt lear ned that the sa le would be illicit. The c omplaint does not alleg e exactly when Mazer and DiL orenzo (1) a gree d that 6 DiL orenzo would steal the blueprints (if they ever made suc h an express agree ment); (2) confirme d that Mazer and/or West-Hem would purc hase the m; or (3) settled on the price DiL orenzo would rec eive. The complaint does alleg e, howe ver, that L oetsche rt objecte d to DiL orenzo’s initial asking price a s too high a nd later de cided with Mazer on the amount that West-Hem would pay
. 5of

th e cas h u se d t o p ur ch as e th e b lu ep rin ts whi le he was s ta y in g i n F lo rid a wit h Maz er. 7 Fo ll owi ng Maz er an d West -Hem ’s recei ptof t he bl ue pr in ts , Maze r ha d W es t-He m

em pl oyees m ak e co pi es of the bl ue pr in ts us in g West -Hem equi pm en t
an d s to re the ori gi na l b lu ep rin ts at West -Hem ’s Flo rid a o ffi ce. InMarc h o r Apr il 20 04 , Maze r al so ha d West -Hem em pl oyees s hi p aco py of th e b lu ep rin ts , us in g W es t-He m ’s Fed eral Exp res s ac co un t, t o APM ’s off ic e in Bel gi um . Sub se qu en tl y , W es t-He m

is su edon e o r m or e in vo ic es to APM ch arg in g app ro xi m at el y $2 5,0 00 fo r th e b lu ep rin ts , andAPM p ai d. On Au gu st27 , 20 04 , Maze r pl edgu il ty in Fl or id a st at e co urt t o acri m in al ch arg e o f de al in g i n s to le n p ro pe rty, in v io la ti on of F la . Stat. § 81 2.0 19 , in
co nn ect io n wi th hi s p ur ch as e an d s al e o f th e st ol enPrat t b lu ep rin ts . Add it io na ll y , in or a ro un d F eb ru ary 20 05 , inco nn ect io n wi th th e th eftof t he Prat t b lu ep rin ts , DiLo ren zo pl edgu il ty in fe de ral co urt i n C on ne ct ic utto a ch arg e o f acc es si ng a pr ot ect edco m

pu te r witho utau th or iz at io n t o fu rth er an in te nd edfrau d, i n v io la ti on of 18 U.S.C. § 1 03 0( a)(4 ).

The c omplaint does not alleg e whe ther the ba lance of the purc hase mone y came from 7 West-Hem’s cor

poratefunds, Mazer’ s persona l funds, some combination of the two, or some other sourc e. 6B.

UTC bro ug htth is laws ui t ag ai ns t M azer , W es t-He m , andAPM o n Nov em be r 3, 2 00 5. Its co m

pl ai nt , as a m en de d, co nt ai ns ele ve n c ou nt s, all eg in g 8 9 to rts un de r Fl or id a co m

m onan d s ta tu to ry

law. All th ree d efen da nt s wer e ch arg ed with c iv il th eft , pu rs ua ntto Fla . Sta t. § § 8 12 .01 4 a nd77 2.1 1, an d c on ve rs io n; W es t-He m

an d APM were ch arg edwith u nju sten ric hm en t; W es t-He m an d M azer were ch arg edwith d eal in g i n s to le n p ro pe rty, pur su an t t o F la . Sta t. § § 8 12 .01 9 a nd 77 2.1 ; an d a ll th ree d efen da nt s wer e ch arg edwith c on sp iri ng to co m m itth e ab ov e to rts . W es t-He m

m ov edth e co urt t o d is m is s the co m pl ai ntun de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pr oc edur e 1 2( b) (6 ) fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m forrel ie f. APM m ov edth e co urt t o d is m is s i t fr om

th e cas e und er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 1 2( b) (2 ) fo r la ck of p ers on al juri sd ic ti on . APM acc om pa ni edit s m ot io n wi thth e aff id av it of it s m an ag in g d ire ct or , W il he lm Loet sc he rt, i n wh ic h Lo et sc he rt a dm it te d h is
The district cour

t dismi ssed UTC’s initial complaint without prejudice, with leave to 8 amend, f or fa ilure to state a c laim ag ainst West-Hem and for lack of persona l jurisdiction over APM. This opini on addre sses the cla ims set out in UTC’s complaint, as amended. Counts I , IV, VI I , X, and XI asser ted re spectively

ag ainst West-Hem claims for c ivil 9 theft, conve rsion, unjust enrichment, dea ling in stolen prope rty , and conspira cy (with Mazer a

nd APM to committhe torts prese nted by the other c ounts). Counts I I , V, IX, and XI asser ted respe ctively

ag ainst Mazer cla ims for civil theft, conve rsion, dealingin stolen property , and conspirac y . Counts I I I , VI , VI I I , and XI asser ted re spectively

ag ainst APM claims for civil theft, conver sion, unjust enrichment, and c onspiracy
. 7li mit edpe rs on al pre se nc e in Flo rid a, un rel at edto APM b us in es s, i n Dec em be r 20 03 an d fr om

Janua ry 31 , 20 04 to Marc h 2 4, 2 00 4; de sc rib edAPM’s la ck of ge ne ral co nt act s wi th th e st at e o f Fl or id a; an d s pe ci fic al ly den ie d s ev eral ne wlyad de d fa ctua l al le ga ti on s re lati ng to hi m an d APM ap pe ari ng inUTC’ s co m pl ai nt . Inres po ns e to th e Loe ts ch ertaffi da vi t, UTC at te m pt edto est ab li sh pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ov er APM by ten de rin g asu m m ary of anAug us t 2 4, 2 00 4 i nt erv ie w of Ru ss el l M azer , pre pa redby Speci al Agen t An dr ew Dunph y of t he Offic e o f th e In sp ect orGene ral of t he U.S. Departm en t o f Defen se (th e “ Dunph y Rep ort” ), in whi chMaz er p ur

po rte dl y pro vi de d i nf

orm at io n c orro bo rat in g UTC’s al le ga ti on s co nc ern in g Lo et sc he rt andAPM’s kno wled ge an d c on du ct– i n F lo rid a – reg ard in g t he pu rch as e o f th e st ol enbl ue pr in ts . 1 0 The di stric t co urt g ran te d b oth m ot io ns . Addres si ng W es t-He m ’s m ot io n, th e co urt fo un d i m

po ss ib le UTC’ s al le ga ti onth atMaz er co m m it te d h is wron gf

ul

It appea rs that Special Ag ent Dunphy , who is based in Connec ticut, conducted his 1 0 interview of

Mazer as pa

rt of the f eder al g overnme nt’s investigation into DiL orenzo’s criminal conduct with re spect to the Pratt blueprints. Mazer was represe nted by counsel a nd spoke to Dunphy under the repr esenta

tion of the U.S. Attorney

for the D istrict of Connecticut that nothing he said would be used ag ainst him “in the Governme nt’s direc t case in the event a fede ral criminal ca se is brought ag ainst [hi m] in the District of Connecticut.” Assistant U.S. Attorney Maria K ahn, also ba sed in Connecticut, attende d part of theinterview by telephone. A lso joini ng Special Ag ent Dunphy

at the Mazer inter

view, which took plac e at the O ffice of the F lorida Depa rtment of L aw Enf

orce ment in West P alm Be ach, F lorida, wa s Assistant St atewide Prosecutor William S hepher d of the Of ficeof the F lorida Attorney Gene ral, who pr esumably attended in c onnection with a c riminal case the State of F lorida wa s bring ing a g ainst Mazer. 8act s b ot h p ers on al ly andinhi s capa ci ty as pr es id en t o f W es t-He m : “ Si m pl y pu t, i f Maz er p ers on al ly com

mit te d t he cri m es , he c ou ldno t al so ha ve co m m it te d t he m

as a rep res en ta ti ve of West -Hem .” Furth erm or e, th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t the
co m pl ai ntfai le d t o e st ab li sh th atMaz er’s co nduc t was withi n t he sco pe of h is W es t-He m

em pl oym en t b ecau se “ th ere i s n o a ll eg at io n t ha t West -Hem m ak es th e bu y in g o r se ll in g o f bl ue pr in ts pa rt o f it s b us in es s.” In st ead , th e co urt co nt in ue d, Maz er’s co nduc t co ul d o nl y be withi n t he sco pe of h is em pl oym en t “ if West -Hem
was inth e b us in es s o f ‘fenci ng ’ st ol enpro pe rty.” Turn in g t o APM ’s m ot io n, the di st ric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t i t l ack edge ne ral juri sd ic ti on ov er APM du e to th e ab se nc e o f ge ne ral , system at ic bu si ne ss co nt act s by APM with F lo rid a. The c ou rt f urth er fo un d tha t the Loet sc he rt a ffi da vi t h ad sp eci fic al ly rebu tt edeach of UTC’s al le ga ti on s o f APM’s co nt act s wi th Flo rid a rel at in g t o t he cau se s o f act io n s ta te d i n t he co m pl ai nt . The co urt re

jecte d UTC’s arg um en t tha t M azer ’s st at em en ts inth e Dunph y Rep ort es tabl is he d ju ris di ct io n o n th e g ro un d t ha t M azer ’s st at em en ts co ns ti tu te d h ears ay withi n h ears ay

an d thu s were i na dm is si bl e an d i nc om pe te nt . As a fu rth er b as is forgra nt in g APM ’s
m ot io n, the co urt p oi nt edto cas es in te rp ret in g the “ [c]omm it ti ng a to rti ou s ac t withi n t hi s s ta te ” p ro vi si on of t he Flo rid a lo ng -arm st atut e, Fl a. St at . § 48 .19 3( 1) (b ), as requi rin g acla im of i nju ry inFlo rid a, so m ethi ng th e co m pl ai nt 9di d n otall eg e. Fin al ly, th e co urt fo un d UTC’s co ns pi racy clai m ag ai ns t APM in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt p ers on al juri sd ic ti on du e to th e ab se nc e o f a v iabl e al le ga ti on th atAPM, West- Hem , andMaz er h adco ns pi redto co m m ita to rt i n Fl or id a. Upo n UTC’s m ot io n, the di st ric t co urt g ran te d s ep arat e an d fi na l ju dg m en ts , pu rs ua ntto Ru le 54 (b ), infav orof West -Hem an d APM . This ap pe al fol lo wed
. II. W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di sm is sa l o f th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t West -Hem un de r Ru le 12 (b )(6 ), acce pt in g t he all eg at io ns inth e am en de d c om pl ai ntas t ru e an d
co ns tru in g t he m

inth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to UTC. Mil ls v. Fo rem os t In s. Co ., 51 1 F .3d13 00 , 13 03 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). “ Whi le a co m pl ai ntatt ack edby a Rul e 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n t o d is m is s d oe s n otne edde ta il edfactua l al le ga ti on s, . . . a pl ai nt iff’s ob li ga ti on to pro vi de th e ‘gro un ds ’ of hi s ‘ent it le [m en t] to rel ie f’ requi res m or e th anlab el s an d c on cl us io ns , anda fo rm ul ai c rec it at io n o f th e el em en ts of acau se of a ct io n wi ll no t d o.” Id. (quo ti ng Bel l At l. Co rp . v. Twom bl y , -- U.S. --, 12 7 S . Ct. 1 95 5, 1 96 4- 65 , 16 7 L. Ed. 2 d 9 29 (20 07 ) (ci ta ti on s om itte d) ). “ Fu rth erm or e, th e p la in ti ff’s fac tu al all eg at io ns , when ass um edto be tru e, ‘m us t b e en ou gh to rai se a ri gh t t o re li ef ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve lev el .’ ” Id
. (s am e). 10UTC’s com pl ai ntass ert ed , inCo un ts I, IV, VII, X, andXI, res pe ct iv el y , fiv e cl ai m s ag ai ns t West -Hem : ci vi l the ft, c on ve rs io n, u nju stenric hm en t, d eal in g i n st ol enpro pe rty, andco ns pi racy. W e ex am in e in tu rnth e el em en ts ne ces sa ry to st at e eac h c la im
. Fi rs t, t o s ta te a cl ai m

forciv il th eftun de r Fl or id a la w, UTC m us t al le ge an in jury resu lt in g fr om

a vi ol at io n b y

W es t-He m

of t he cri m in al th eftst atut e, Fl a. St at . § 8 12 .01 4. To d o t hi s, UTC m us t al le ge th atW es t-He m (1) kn owi ng ly (2) 1 1 ob ta in edor u se d, o r en de av or edto ob ta in or u se , UTC’ s p ro pe rty with (3)

“ fel on io us in te nt ” (4 ) ei th er t em po rari ly or pe rm an en tl y

to (a) d ep riv e UTC of

it s rig htto or abe ne fitfro m

th e p ro pe rty or (b ) ap pr op ria te th e p ro pe rty to West
Hem ’s ownus e o r to th e u se of a ny pers on no t en ti tl edto th e p ro pe rty. Fla. St at . §§ 77 2.1 1 (p ro vi di ng civ il rem edy forth eftor e xp lo it at io n) , 81 2.0 14 (1 ) (cri m in al th eftst atut e); see Alm ei dav. Am azo n.c om , Inc ., 45 6 F .3d13 16 , 13 26 -2 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ); Ge rs h v . Cof

m an , 76 9 S o. 2 d 4 07 , 40 9 (F la . 4th DCA 2 00 0) (“ Inord er

The F lorida theft statute pr ovides: 1 1 (1) A pe rson commits theft if he or she knowing ly obtains or uses, or e ndeavor s to obtain or use, the pr operty of anothe r with intent to, either tempora rily or perma nently : (a) Deprive the other

person of a right to the property

or a be nefit fr om the proper ty . (b) Appr opriate the proper ty to his or her own useor to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the prope rty . Fla. Stat. § 812.014(1)
. 11to est ab li sh anact io n fo r ci vi l the ft, the cla im an t m us t p ro ve th e st atut ory

ele m en ts of th eft , as wel l as cri m in al in te nt .”). Co nv ers io n i s an “ actof d om in io n wro ng fu ll y ass ert edov er an ot he r’s pr op erty in co ns is te ntwith h is own ers hi p t he rei n.” Tho m as v. Hert z Co rp ., 89 0 So . 2d44 8, 4 49 (Fl a. 3dDCA 20 04 ) (quo ta ti on om itte d) . The t ort “ m ay oc cu r whe re a p ers on wron gf

ul ly refus es to rel in qu is h p ro pe rty to wh ic h a no th er h as th e rig htof p os se ss io n,” an d i t “ m ay be est ab li sh edde sp it e ev id en ce tha t the de fen da ntto okor r et ai ne d p ro pe rty bas edup on th e m is ta ke n b el ie f th athe ha d a rig htto po ss es si on , si nc e m al ic e is no t an ess en ti al ele m en t o f th e act io n.” Seym ou r v. Ad am s, 6 38 So . 2d10 44 , 10 47 (Fl a. 5t h DCA 1 99 4) (ci ta ti on s om itte d)
.

“ The ess en ti al ele m en ts of acla im forun jus t en ric hm en t ar e: (1) a be ne fit
co nf erre d upo n ade fen da ntby the pl ai nt iff , (2) th e d efen da nt ’s app reci at io n o f th e be ne fit , and(3) th e d efen dant ’s acce pt an ce an d re te nt io n o f th e b en efi t u nd er ci rcu m st an ces th atm ak e itin equi tabl e fo r hi m to ret ai n i t wi th ou t p ay in g t he va lu e th ereo f.” Ro ll in s, In c. v. Bu tl an d, 9 51 So . 2d86 0, 8 76 (Fl a. 2dDCA 20 06 ). Lik e ci vi l the ft, aciv il cla im forde al in g i n s to le n p ro pe rty requ ire s an in jury
res ul ti ng fro m

a vi ol at io n o f th e cri m in al st atut e p ro hi bi ti ng de al in g i n s to le n

12pr op erty , Fla . Sta t. § 81 2.0 19
. Acco rd in gl y , to st at e a cl ai m forde al in g i n s to le n 1 2 pr op erty , UTC m

us t al le ge th atW es t-He m , with fe lo ni ou s i nt en t, (1 ) tr affi ck edin , oren de av or edto tra ffi c in , pro pe rty tha t i t kne w or s ho ul d h av e kno wn was st ol en , or(2) in it ia te d, o rg an iz ed , pl an ne d, fi na nc ed , di rect ed , m an ag ed , or s up erv is edth e th eftof p ro pe rty andtra ffi ck edinsu chst ol enpro pe rty. Fla. St at . §§ 77 2.1 1 (p ro vi di ng civ il rem edy

for th eftor e xp lo it at io n) , 81 2.0 19 (cri min al de al in g i n st ol enpro pe rty sta tu te ); c f. Inre St an da rdJu ry Ins tru ct io ns inCri m in al Cas es – Rep ort No . 20 06 -2 , 96 2 S o. 2 d 3 10 , 32 7 (F la . 20 07 ). Fi na ll y , to st at e a cl ai m

forciv il co ns pi racy, U TC m us t al le ge : “ (a) an ag reem en t b etweentwo or m or e p art ie s, (b ) to do anun la wfu l ac t o r to do a la wfu l actby unl awfu l m ean s, (c ) th e d oi ng of s om e o ve rt a ctinpu rs ua nc e o f th e co ns pi racy, and(d) da m ag e to pl ai nt iff as ares ul t o f th e act s d on e und er the
co ns pi racy.” Char le s v . Fla . For ecl os ur e Pl acement C tr., LLC, 9 88 So . 2d11 57 , 11 59 -6 0 (F la . 3dDCA 20 08 ).

The F lorida dea ling in stolen prope rty statute provides: 1 2 (1) Any person who tr aff

ics in, or ende avors to tra ffic in, property that he or she knows or should know wa s stolen shall be guilty of a f elony of the sec ond degree , punishable as pr ovided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084. (2) Any person who initiates, org anizes, plans, financ es, direc ts, manag es, or supervises the the ft of prope rty and tra ffics in such stolen pr operty shall be guilty of a f elony of the fir st degree , punishable as pr ovided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084. Fla. Stat. § 812.019. 13Co un ts I, IV, VII, X, andXI ap pe ar t o re ci te all of t he requi redele m en ts of

th es e fi ve cla im s ag ai ns t West -Hem . The que st io n, h owe ve r, is whet he r th os e co un ts als o a ll eg e fac ts su ffi ci en t t o m ai nt ai n t he cla im s ag ai ns t West -Hem , as op po se d t o o nl y

it s p res id en t M azerin di vi du al ly. It i s ax io m at ic th ata co rp or at io n l ik e West- Hem can no t ac t o th er tha n th ro ug h i ts off

ic ers , em pl oyees, an d a ge nt s. Pal azzo v. Gu lf Oi l Co rp ., 76 4 F .2d 13 81 , 13 85 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ) (“ The rul e is well est ab li sh edth ata co rp or at io n i s an art ifi ci al en ti ty tha t ca n a cton ly thro ug h a ge nt s . . . .”). Butth is no n- co nt ro ve rs ia l tru th do es no t n eces sa ril y im pu te to th e co rp or at io n a ny andall co nduc t b y on e who at t im es als o a ct s o n aco rp or at io n’s b eh al f. Ind eed , th e d is tri ctco urt’s
ov erri di ng ob

jecti on s t o UTC’s co m

pl ai ntad dr es se d t he ex te ntto whi chth e co m pl ai ntun am

bi gu ou sl y est ab li sh ed(1) th atMaz er ac te d i n t he sco pe of h is
em pl oym en t, i n p ur su itof West -Hem ’s bu si ne ss in te res ts , when he pu rch as edan d
re-s ol d t he st ol enPrat t b lu ep rin ts ; an d (2 ) th atMaz er ac te d fo r th e b en efi t o f W es t-He m , as o pp os edto hi m se lf. Th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d o n b ot h s co res th atUTC’ s p le ad in g fa il edto ti e Ma zer’s ac ti on s t o West -Hem ina m an ne r su ffi ci en t t o s ta te a cl ai m forco rp or at e li ab il it y . At th is th res ho ldpl ead in g s ta ge , we di sa gr ee.

“ Und er the do ctrin e o f res po nd eatsupe rio r, anem pl oyer can no t b e h el d 14li ab le forth e to rti ou s o r cri min al act s o f anem pl oyee, un le ss th e act s wer e co m m it te d dur in g t he co ur se of t he em pl oym en t an d t o fu rth er a p ur po se or in te res t, h owe ve r ex ces si ve or m is gu id ed , of the em pl oyer.” Ig le si a Cri st ia naLa Cas a Del Sen or , Inc . v. L.M., 78 3 S o. 2 d 3 53 , 35 6 (F la . 3dDCA 20 01 ). Und er Fl or id a la w, an ac ti on fal ls withi n t he sco pe of e m pl oym en t i f th e co nduc t: (1) is of th e k in d t he em

pl oyee was e m

pl oyed t o p erfo rm ; (2 ) oc curredwithi n t he ti m e an d s pa ce l im it s o f th e em pl oyee’s em

pl oym en t; an d (3 ) was act iv at edat l eas t i n pa rt b y a pu rp os e to serve th e em pl oym en t. Sp en cer v . Ass ur an ce Co . of Am ., 39 F.3 d 1 14 6, 1 15 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) ; Ig le si a Cri st ia na , 78 3 S o. 2 d a t 3 57 . The qu es ti on is whet he r, un de r th is leg al st an dardan d i n v ie w of t he fact s av ai labl e to UTC at t he ti m e o f pl ead in g, UTC ad equa te ly alle ge d t ha t M azerwas a ct in g withi n t he sco pe of h is W es t-He m em pl oym en t. Init s re ci tati on of t he fact s, UTC h advi rtu al ly no c ho ic e b utto li nkth e al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t West -Hem clo se ly to tho se ag ai ns t the co m pa ny’ s p res id en t, Maz er. Fo r ex am

pl e, it s co m

pl ai ntst at edth at“ Maz er was act in g a s the Pres id en t of W es t Hem

an d wi th inth e sc op e o f hi s emplo ym en t wh enhe co m m it te d t he to rti ou s an d c riminal act s d es cri be d i n t hi s Am en de d C om pl ai nt ” an d t ha t “ [a]t al l rel ev an t t im es , Maze r was Pres id en t an d asubs ta nt ia l o wne r of W es t Hem

an d was
en ti rel y res po ns ib le forth e d ai ly ope rat io ns of WestHem .” Am . Com pl . at ¶¶12 , 1514 . Mor eo ve r, UTC all eg edth atMaz er –all “ as Pres id en t o f W es t Hem ” –

tra ve le d t o C on ne ct ic utinNov em be r 20 03 forhi s i ni ti al m eet in g wi th DiLo ren zo ; ga ve DiLo ren zo W es t-He m ’s Fed eral Exp res s ac co un t i nf orm at io n t o u se in sh ip pi ng th e b lu ep rin ts to W es t-He m ; i ns tru ct edW es t-He m em pl oyees t o s en d DiLo ren zo pa ym en t, m ak e co pi es of t he bl ue pr in ts , sh ip a co py of th e b lu ep rin ts to APM, an d g en erat e in vo ic es fro m W es t-He m

to APM fo r th e b lu ep rin ts ; an d st or edth e o rig in al bl ue pr in ts . Id. at¶¶ 1 5, 2 7, 2 9- 31 , 35 -3 6. 1 3 W es t-He m

arg ue s tha t UTC fa il edto pl eadth e th ree e le m en ts requi redfora fin di ng th atMaz er’s co nduc t was withi n the sco pe of h is em pl oym en t an d i ns te ad rel ie d o n c on cl us ory

st at em en ts of l aw orm ix edlaw an d fa ct . Neverth el es s, al th ou gh UTC, init s co m pl ai nt , di d n otexpr es sl y

all eg e th es e th ree e le m en ts , we co nc lu de th atth e co m

pl ai nt ’s all eg at io ns reg ard in g M azer ’s con du ct“ withi n t he
sc op e o f hi s emplo ym en t” eit he r in co rp or at e th es e el em en ts or g en erat e an in fere nc e o f th es e el em en ts su ffi ci en t fo r no ti ce p le ad in g andto withs ta nda Ru le 12 (b )(6 ) m ot io n t o d is m is s. UTC ha s p le d fa ct s tha t, wh enreadto ge th er, atlea starg uabl y all eg e (1 ) th at Maz er’s co nduc t i n p ur ch as in g t he bl ue pr in ts for , andsel li ng th em to , on e o f

These f actua l alleg ations were incorporated into eac h of the c ounts brought ag ainst 1 3 West-Hem. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 69, 86, 98, 124, 132. 16W es t-He m ’s avi at io n c us to m ers (whe th er o r no t the bl ue pr in ts were s to le n) co ul d

reas on ab ly hav e b eenth e k in d o f ta skfor whi chhe was e m

pl oyed; (2) th atMaz er act edwithi n t he ti m e an d s pa ce co ns tra in ts of h is em pl oym en t, i .e., he a ct edwhi le
on du ty at W es t-He m ; an d (3 ) th atMaz er co ul d re as on ab ly hav e b eenact in g t o se rv e an d b en efi t West -Hem ’s bu si ne ss . The al le ga ti on s tha t M azerwas West
Hem ’s to p o ffi cer, wi th bro adres po ns ib il it ie s fo r th e co m pa ny’ s o pe rat io ns , and th athe ut il iz edW es t-He m res ou rces an d e m

pl oyees i n o bt ai ni ng , cop y in g, s to rin g, an d s hi pp in g t he bl ue pr in ts furth er b ol st er UTC’s g oo d fa it h b as is forall eg in g t ha t th es e act io ns were t ak enwithi n t he sco pe of M azer ’s em pl oym en t atW es t-He m . Dis co ve ry

to be tak enby U TC m ay well rev eal ad di ti on al ev id en ce t o b e u se d i n carry in g i ts bu rd en , onsu m m ary jud gm en t o r attri al , of e st ab li sh in g t ha t M azer act edwithi n t he sco pe of e m pl oym en t. Sh ou ldW es t-He m

co m e fo rwardwith e vi de nc e th atMaz er was inso m e way no t ac ti ng withi n the sco pe of h is W es t-He m em pl oym en t, the jury wil l h av e th e ch an ce t o re so lv e th is qu es ti onof f act . See Cana ve ras v. Co nt in en ta l Gro up , Ltd ., 89 6 S o. 2 d 8 55 , 85 8 (F la . 3dDCA 20 05 ) (“ Whe re . . . th ere i s co nf li ct in g e vi de nc e on th e is su e o f whe th er an em pl oyee is act in g wi th in th e sc op e o f em pl oym en t, a jury que st io n i s p res en te d.” ). Ind eed , itm ay well be th e cas e th atMaz er was act in g o ut si de th e sc op e o f hi s emplo ym en t. Perhaps hi s jo b d es cri pt io n, o r ev ena 17res ol ut io n o f th e West- Hem Bo ardof Di rect or s, ex pr es sl y pro hi bi te d d eal in g i n bl ue pr in ts or p ro sc rib edan y il le ga l co nduc t. Alt ern at iv el y , perhaps UTC wil l b e un ab le to m

us te r ev id en ce s uf

fic ie ntto est ab li sh th atMaz er’s co nduc t was withi n hi s s co pe of e m

pl oym en t. Ho wev er, atth e p le ad in g s ta ge , UTC cou ldno t p os si bl y ha ve ha d a cces s t o t he in si de W es t-He m in fo rm at io n n eces sa ry

to pro ve co nc lu si ve ly – or e ve n p le adwith g reat er s pe ci fic it y – the factua l b as is for

ho ld in g W es t-He m

li ab le forMaz er’s co nduc t. Tha t i s wh y we ha ve di sc ov ery. At th e pl ead in g s ta ge , we ass es s o nl y whet he r UTC’s all eg at io ns are “ en ou gh to rai se a rig htto rel ie f ab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve lev el .” Mi ll s, 5 11 F.3dat 1 30 3 (quo ti ng Twom bl y , 55 0 U.S. at55 5, 1 27 S. Ct. at19 64 -6 5) . Giv in g UTC, wh ic h i s ata cl ear i nf orm at io na l d is adva nt ag e, so m e b en efi t o f th e d oubtto go alo ng with t he sp eci fic fact s i t h as pl ed , it s al le ga ti on th atMaz er was act in g o n b eh al f of W es tHem reac he s atlea stab ov e th e sp ecu la ti ve lev el
. The di stric t co urt h el d o th erwi se inpa rt b ecau se itfou nd“ no all eg at io n t ha t W es t-He m

m ak es th e b uyin g o r se ll in g o f bl ue pr in ts pa rt o f it s b us in es s,” a nd
co nc lu de d t ha t M azer ’s con du ctco ul d o nl y be withi n the sco pe of h is em pl oym en t

“ if West -Hem

was i n t he bu si ne ss of ‘fen ci ng ’ st ol enpro pe rty.” This read in g o f UTC’s com

pl ai ntis far t oo cram

pe d. UTC cl earl y

all eg edth atW es t-He m

“ is in th e b us in es s o f bu y in g a ndsel li ng air craf t p art s an d re la te d s up po rt m at eri al s.” 18Am . Com

pl . at ¶ 6 (em

ph as is ad de d) . Blu ep rin ts for to ol in g u se d i n s erv ic in g ai rcra ft e ng in es reas on ab ly fall withi n t he am bi t o f “ rel at edsupp ort m at eri al s.” Sh ou ldW es t-He m

lat er co m e fo rwardwith e vi de nc e th at , withi n t he in du st ry , bl ue pr in ts are co ns id eredanen ti rel y sep arat e li ne of b us in es s, tha t wo ul d c reat e a qu es ti on of f

actfor th e jury, nota ba si s fo r di sm is sa l fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . See C an av eras , 89 6 S o. 2 d a t 8 58 . Nor was UTC requi redto go so far as to all eg e th atW es t-He m

was e st ab li sh edas a n e xp li ci tl y cri m in al en te rp ris e, orth atMaz er’s job de sc rip ti on in cl ud edcri m in al fun ct io ns , inord er t o s ta te a cl ai m forco rp or at e li ab il it y for anem pl oyee’s di sc ha rg e o f hi s dut ie s i n a n i ll eg al m an ne r. If av ia ti on bl ue pr in ts co ul d re as on ab ly fall withi n West -Hem ’s st oc k i n t rad e, an d i f pa rt o f Maz er’s em

pl oym en t dut ie s was to bu y an d s el l the go od s i n wh ic h West -Hem tra de d, the n West -Hem

co ul d re as on ab ly be an swe rab le for it s emplo y ee’s i ll eg al
orto rti ou s co nduc t i n c arrying ou t tho se tas ks
. The di stric t co urt was als o d is tu rb edby U TC’s all eg at io n t ha t M azeract ed bo th pe rs on al ly andon be ha lf o f W es t-He m , whi chth e co urt fo un d t o b e irr eco nc il ab ly inc on si st en t. Itis tru e th atth e co m pl ai ntco nt ai ns a de gr ee o f
am bi gu it y reg ard in g wh ethe r Maz er ac te d fo r hi m se lf, fo r W es t-He m , or fo r bo th , as well as wh ethe r itwas M azeror West -Hem th atpro vi de d t he fun ds to acqui re th e b lu ep rin ts fro m

DiLo ren zo an d t ha t re cei ve d t he pro ceed s fr om APM. At the 19in it ia l p le ad in g s ta ge , ho wev er, we fi ndUTC’ s al le ga ti on s s uf fic ie ntto st at e th e cl ai m s as se rte d a ga in stW es t-He m . Fi rs t, we ar e n ottro ub le d b y whatth e d is tri ctco urt s aw as in co ns is te nt al le ga ti on s. Ru le 8(d ) of th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e ex pr es sl y pe rm it s th e p le ad in g o f bo th alt ern at iv e an d i nc on si st en t cl ai m s. Thu s, UTC’s co m pl ai nt 1 4 is no t s ub ject t o d is m is sa l s im

pl y be cau se itall eg es th atbo th Maz er, i nd iv idua ll y , an d West -Hem

co m m it te d t he to rti ou s co nduc t, ev enif i t wo ul d b e im po ss ib le for bo th to be si m

ul ta ne ou sl y

li ab le (whi chqu es ti onof i m po ss ib il ity

we ne edno t, an d do no t, re so lv e). Fu rth erm or e, itis ha rdto im ag in e h ow UTC co ul d h av e p le d i ts cas e wit h gr eat er s pe ci fic it y

or a ccu racy at th is st ag e. The i ntric aci es of t he sco pe of Maz er’s em

pl oym en t au th or it y , as wel l as th e d et ai ls reg ard in g e xa ct ly who pr ov id edth e fu nd s fo r DiLo ren zo an d re cei ve d the be ne fitof t he pa ym en ts fro m

Rule 8, in releva

nt part, provides: 1 4 (d) Pleadingto BeConcise and Dir ect; Alter native Statements; Inconsistency
.

. . . (2) Alter

native Statements of a

Claim or Defe nse. A pa

rty may set out 2 or more state ments of a c laim or defe nse alter natively or hy pothetically , either in a

single count or de fense or in separ ate ones. I f a pa

rty makes a lternative state ments, the pleadingis sufficie nt if any

one of the m is sufficient. (3) Inconsistent Claims or Defe nses. A par ty may state as many separ ate c laims or defe nses as it has, re g ardle ss of consistency
. Fe d. R. Civ. P . 8(d). 20APM, are pe cu li arl y withi n t he kn owl ed ge of M azeran d West -Hem . Alth ou gh UTC ha s p le d areas on ab le go odfai th ba si s fo r it s cl ai m s ag ai ns t b ot h M azeran d W es t-He m , itha s n oty etbe enina po si ti on to kn ow al l o f th e p art ic ul ars . Sho ul d di sc ov ery rev eal th atMaz er was un di sp ut ab ly out si de th e sc op e o f hi s emplo ym en t orth athe , no t West -Hem , was the so le be ne fic ia ry of t he sal e o f th e b lu ep rin ts , th enW es t-He m

m ay be en ti tl edto su m

m ary jud gm en t o r jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. At th e in it ia l p le ad in g s ta ge , ho wev er, UTC’s al le ga ti on s wer e su ffi ci en t t o st at e a cl ai m . Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we co nc lu de th atth e al le ga ti on s o f Co un ts I, IV, VII, X, andXI, when readinth e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to UTC, are s uf fic ie ntto st at e a n on -s pe cu la ti ve cla im forrel ie f ag ai ns t West -Hem . W e rev ers e th e d is tri ct co urt’s h ol di ng to th e co nt rary. III. W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s d is mis sa l o f th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t APM fo r la ck of p ers on al juri sd ic ti on . Mei er ex rel . Mei er v . Sun Int ’l Hot el s, Lt d. 28 8 F .3d12 64 , 12 68 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). A pl ai nt iff see ki ng th e ex erci se of p ers on al juri sd ic ti on ov er a n on res id en t d efen da ntbe ars th e in it ia l b ur de n o f al le gi ng inth e co m pl ai ntsu ffi ci en t fa ct s t o m ak e o uta pr im a fac ie cas e o f juri sd ic ti on . Pos ne r v. Ess ex Ins . Co., Lt d., 1 78 F.3d12 09 , 12 14 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (p er cu riam); s ee 21Po ls ki e Lin ie Ocean ic zn e v . Seas afe Tra ns po rt A/ S, 79 5 F .2d96 8, 9 72 (11 th Cir
.

19 86 ) (d es cri bi ng pro cedur e fo r pl ai nt iff to est ab li sh pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on un de r Fl or id a’s lo ng -arm

st atut e). Whe re, as he re, the de fen da ntch al le ng es juri sd ic ti on by sub m it ti ng affi davi t ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f it s p os it io n, “ th e b ur de n tra di ti on al ly shi fts ba ckto th e p la in ti ff t o p ro du ce ev id en ce s up po rti ng juri sd ic ti on .” Mei er, 2 88 F.3dat 1 26 9; Po sn er, 1 78 F.3dat 1 21 4; see Po ls ki e Lin ie Ocean ic zn e, 79 5 F .2dat 9 72 (no ti ng th at , if the de fen da ntm ak es a sh owi ng of th e in ap pl ic ab il it y

of t he lo ng -arm

st atut e, “ th e p la in ti ff i s re qu ire d t o subs ta nt ia te th e juri sd ic ti on al all eg at io ns inth e co m pl ai ntby affid av it s o r ot he r co m pe te ntpro of

, andno t m erel y

rei te rat e th e fac tu al all eg at io ns inth e co m pl ai nt ”). A fed eral co urt s it ti ng indi ve rs it y un de rta ke s a t wo- st ep in qu iry in de te rm in in g wh ethe r pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ex is ts : the ex erci se of ju ris di ct io n m us t (1 ) be ap pr op ria te un de r th e st at e lo ng -arm st atut e an d (2 ) no t v io late th e Due Pro ces s C laus e o f th e Fo urte en th Am en dm en t t o the Uni te d S tate s C on st itut io n. 1 5 Hor iz on Agg res si ve Growt h, L.P. v . Rot hs te in -Kas s, P.A., 42 1 F .3d11 62 , 11 66 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) ; s ee al so Vene ti anSal am i Co . v. Parth en ai s, 5 54 So . 2d49 9, 5 02

Be cause we c onclude, a s discussed below, that UT C has failed to e stablish through its 1 5 alleg ations or compete nt evidencethat APM is subj ect to per sonal jurisdiction under F lorida’s long- arm statute, we do not rea ch the due proce ss inquiry
. 22(Fl a. 19 89 ). “ The reac h o f th e [Fl or id a lo ng -arm ] st atut e is a qu es ti on of F lo rid a

la w. [F] ed eral co urts are re qu ire d t o c on st ru e [s uc h l aw] as wou ldth e Fl or id a Supr em e Co urt. Ab se ntso m e in di cat io n t ha t the Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt wo ul d ho ldot he rwis e, [fed eral co urts ] are b ou ndto adhe re t o d eci si on s o f [Fl or id a’s] in te rm ed ia te co urts .” Mei er, 2 88 F.3dat 1 27 1 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on s o m itte d)
. UTC ass ert s tha t APM is subjec t t o ju ris di ct io n u nd er s ub se ct io n (1 )(b ) of th e Fl or id a lo ng -arm

st atut e, whi chpro vi de s: (1 ) Any pers on , whet he r orno t a c it iz enor r es id en t o f th is st at e, who pe rs on al ly or th ro ug h a n a ge ntdo es an y of t he act s en um erat edinth is subs ect io n the reb y

subm it s h im se lf o r he rs el f an d, i f he or s he is a na tu ral pe rs on , hi s o r he r pe rs on al rep res en tati ve to th e juri sd ic ti on of th e co urts of t hi s s ta te foran y cau se of a ct io n a ris in g fr om th e d oi ng of an y of t he fol lo win g a ct s:

. . . (b ) Co m

m it ti ng a to rti ou s ac t wi th in th is st at e. Fl a. St at . § 4 8.1 93 (1 )(b ). UTC’ s co m pl ai ntass ert edfou r cl ai m s ag ai ns t APM , in Co un ts III, VI, VIII, an d XI: civ il th eft , con ve rs io n, u nju stenric hm en t, an d
co ns pi racy. Thu s, UTC h adto est ab li sh by the all eg at io ns init s co m pl ai ntan d, i f ch al le ng edby A PM as itwas, b y it s ev id en ce tha t APM , with re sp ectto at l eas t on e o f th es e co un ts , eng ag edinto rti ou s co nduc t i n F lo rid a rel at in g t o t he th eftan d

23sa le of t he Prat t b lu ep rin ts . 1 6

UTC ess en ti al ly m ak es th e fo ll owi ng ex pl ic itall eg at io ns reg ard in g APM ’s
co nduc t i n F lo rid a rel at in g t o t he Prat t b lu ep rin ts : We have little trouble dismissing any contention that APM is subject to ge nera l 1 6 jurisdiction under F lorida’s long -ar m statute, which provides f or the e x erc ise of per sonal jurisdiction over “[a] defenda nt who is eng ag ed in substantial and not isolated ac tivity within this state . . . whe ther or not the c laim arises fr om that activity .” F la. Stat. § 48.193(2). F lorida courts have held this “substantial and not isolated ac tivity” re quirement to mea n, and subsume, the “c ontinuous and sy stematic g ener al business contac ts” standar d sufficie nt to satisfy the due proce ss require ment of minimum contacts for g ener al jurisdiction, as set forth by the Supreme Court in Helicopteros Na cionales de Colombi a S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 80 L
. Ed. 2d 404 (1984), suc h that “if the de fenda nt’s activities meet the r equire ments of sec tion 48.193(2), minimum contacts is also satisfied.” Woods v. Nova Companies B elize Ltd., 739 So. 2d 617, 620 (F la. 4th DCA 1999). UTC’s c omplaint does alleg e that “D efe ndant APM is a fore ign c orporation that regularly conducts business in this district; whose Manag ing D irec tor, Wil helm L oetsche rt, was domiciled in this district for an e x tended pe riod of time; that conducte d business on behalf of

APM from this district . . . .” Am. Compl . at ¶ 9. How ever , in his aff idavit, L oetsche rt specif

ically denied, in deta il, that APM conducted business in Florida , see L oetsche rt Aff

idavit at ¶¶ 6- 11, and UTC has pr ovided no evidenc e to the contr ary . Moreove r, the fa ctual alleg ations reg ardingL oetsche rt’s tempora ry , less-than-two- month stay in Florida, which appe ars to have been pe rsonal in nature , unrelated to his work for A PM, and, in any event, insufficient to support a c laim that he was “ domiciled” in the state, a s well as L oetsche rt’s purported busine ss conducted in F lorida on beha lf of APM, fall fa r short of amounting to either “substantial and not isolated a ctivity” or “ continuous and sy stematic g ener al business contac ts” by APM within Florida. See Slaihem v. Sea T ow B ahama s Ltd., 148 F. Supp. 2d 1343, 1350-51 (S.D. Fla . 2001) (“ To establish that a de fenda nt is eng ag ed in substantial activity within the state, the ac tivity

must be more than ‘ incidental, almost entirely persona l contacts with the state . . . .’ ” (citation omitted)); Snyder v. Mc L eod, 971 So. 2d 166, 169 (F la. 5th DCA 2007) (“ A leg al residenc e or ‘ domicile’ is the place wher e a pe rson has fixed an abode with the prese nt intention of makingit his or her per manent home.” (citation omitted)). Nor is the complaint’s alleg ation that “APM and West Hem have conducte d other business involving the sale a nd purcha se of airc raf t parts from West Hem in F lorida,” w ithout any alleg ation or showingof the magnitude or fre quency of such business, suff

icient to constitute “substantial and not isolated ac tivity ” by APM in Florida. Am. Compl. at ¶ 42. UTC sug g ests that Mazer, in his answer to the complaint, admitted that APM does business in the Southern District of F lorida. Appe llant’s Br . at 20. Without decidingthe thorny question of whethe r an a dmission by Mazer could e ven bind APM in this contex t, we note that Mazer’s re sponse to para graph 9 of the complaint in fac t expressly car ves APM out of his admission: “Admitt ed except I am without knowledg e of what ac ts APM committed.” 24• Loe ts ch ertli ve d i n F lo rid a, atMaz er’s h ou se , fro m Jan uary 20 04 th ro ug h M arch 24 , 20 04 . Am . Com pl . at ¶¶44 -4 6.

• Whi le li vi ng inFlo rid a, Loe ts ch ert , as a n a ge ntof APM , to ldMaz er th atth e p ric e DiLo ren zo want edforth e b lu ep rin ts was t oo hi gh , de ci de d wi th Maz er the pri ce West -Hem wou ldpa y

DiLo ren zo forth e bl ue pr in ts , andhe lp edW es t-He m ne go ti at e th e p ric e wit h Di Lore nz o. Id . ¶¶ 48 , 13 5.

• Loe ts ch ert , whi le inFlo rid a, pr ov id eda po rti on of t he cas h t ha t Maz er h adsen t t o Di Lore nz o a s West -Hem ’s paym en t fo r th e bl ue pr in ts . Id. ¶¶ 4 9, 1 39
.

• Whi le inFlo rid a, an d i n o rd er t o avo idtak in g aco py of th e b lu ep rin ts with h im when he returne d t o B el gi um , Loet sc he rt a rran ge d fo r Maz er t o s hi p t he co py of th e b lu ep rin ts fro m W es t-He m ’s Flo rid a of fic e to APM’s o ffi ce i n B el gi um , vi a West- Hem ’s Fed eral Exp res s acco un t. Id . ¶¶ 51 , 14 1.

• “ APM, thr ou gh it s ag en t Lo et sc he rt, a ct iv el y pl anne d a ndpa rti ci pa te d in th e th eftof t he Blu ep rin ts whi le Loet sc he rt wa s l iv in g wi th Maz er in Flo rid a.” Id . ¶ 60
. All of t he ot he r al le ga ti on s i n t he co m pl ai ntrel at in g t o APM eit he r in vo lv e co nduc t o ut si de of F lo rid a o r do no t s tate wher e th e co nduc t t oo k p la ce. 1 7

For example, UTC’s complaint alleg es that APM “paid West Hem a nd Mazer 1 7 approximately

$25,000 for the stolen B lueprints in 2004”; “purc hased the stolen Blueprints from West Hem at a fa

r lower pricethan it would have pa id to Pratt”; and “kne w that the mar ket value of these B lueprints was greatly in excess of $25,000.” Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 52, 56, 59, 143. Howeve r, the a lleg ations of the complaint ar e uncle ar a bout whether

APM made this pay

ment or had this knowledg e while L oetsche rt was in F lorida or only afte r he ha d returne d to Be lgium. Incidentally , in the Dunphy Report, on which UT C relies but which we find to be inadmissible and other wise dec line to consider a s discussed infra , Mazer is repor ted to have sa id that he does not believe that APM eve r ac tually paid any thing on the West-He m invoice for the blueprints. These a lleg ations, as pled, ar e insuffic ient to establish tortious conduct by APM in Florida. 25The se all eg at io ns ap pe ar t o b e su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sha pr im a fac ie cas e fo r

th e ex erci se of p ers on al juri sd ic ti on ov er APM . Howev er, APM, thr ou gh it s subm is si on of Lo et sc he rt’s a ffi da vi t, h as sp eci fic al ly den ie d e ach all eg at io n. UTC, cit in g P os ne r as anan al og ou s ca se , con te nd s tha t Lo et sc he rt o ffer edno m or e th anco nc lu so ry

de ni al s tha t the co urt s ho ul d d is reg ard . In Po sn er, we fo un d th e d efen da nt ’s affi da vi t, o ffer edto ch al le ng e th e p la in ti ffs ’ juri sd ic ti on al al le ga ti on s, t o b e “ of

li tt le si gn ifi can ce.” Po sn er, 1 78 F.3dat 1 21 5. Sp eci fic al ly, we ob se rv ed , The affi da vi t p rimaril y

ex pl ai ns [th e d efen da nt ’s] co rp or at e stru ctur e an d s ta tu s; su m

m ari ly ass ert s tha t [the de fen dant ] ha s n ev er d on e bu si ne ss inor d ire ct edco nt act s i nt o F lo rid a; adm it s ce rta in pe rip he ral co nn ect io ns with t he st at e; an d d en ie s i n aco nc lu so ry way an y ot he r act io ns th atwou ldbri ng [th e d efen da nt ] withi n t he am bi t o f Fl or id a’s lo ng -arm st atut e. Fo r ex am

pl e, pa rag rap h fi ve co ve rs th ree- qu art ers of a pa ge an d c on te nd s, b y

reci ti ng th e lo ng -arm

st atut e es se nt ia ll y ve rb at im , th atth e juri sd ic ti on al st atut e d oe s n otap pl y to [th e de fen da nt ]. Suc h s ta te m en ts , alt ho ug h p res en te d i n t he form of factua l d ecl arat io ns , are i n s ub st an ce l eg al co nc lu si on s tha t d o n ot tri gg er a dut y

forPla in ti ffs to res po ndwith e vi de nc e o f th ei r own supp orti ng juri sd ic ti on . Id . Accor di ng ly, we co ns id ered“ on ly tho se po rti on s o f th e [af fid av it ] th atset fo rth sp eci fic factua l d ecl arat io ns withi n t he affi an t’s p ers on al kn owl ed ge .” Id
. Loe ts ch ert ’s affi da vi t, i n c on tra st , is no t s o c on cl us ory an d, as su ch , m eri ts ou r co ns id erat io n. Th e aff id av itdo es st artwith abri ef d es cri pt io n o f APM’s

26co rp or at e st ru ctur e, adm itcert ai n p eri ph eral co nn ect io ns be twee n Lo et sc he rt a nd

th e st at e an d b etweenAPM an d t he ot he r pa rti es , andin cl ud e th e co nc lu so ry as se rti on th at“ [n ]eith er I n or APM co m

m it te d a ny torti ou s o r cri min al act s wi th in th e te rri to ria l juris di ct io n o f th is Co urt,” Lo et sc he rt Aff id av itat ¶ ¶ 2 -5 , 13 -1 6, b ut itdo es no t en d t he re. Rat he r, Loet sc he rt g oe s o n t o d en y – s pe ci fic al ly, ba se d o n hi s p ers on al kn owl ed ge , andun de r pe na lt y of p erjury

– n um ero us factua l al le ga ti on s l od ge d b y

UTC. Thes e sp eci fic factua l d en ia ls in cl ud e:

1 8

• “ At n o t im e whi le I was i n F lo rid a d idI co nduc t b us in es s tran sa ct io ns on be ha lf o f APM.” Id . ¶ 11
.

• “Neit he r I n orAPM ‘acti ve ly pla nn edan d p art ic ip at edinth e th eftof th e Bl ue pr in ts ’ whi le I was l iv in g i n F lo rid a.” Id . ¶ 24
.

• “ APM, atno ti m e (i nc lu di ng th e ti m e I was st ay in g i n F lo rid a) ev er as si st edDefen da ntW es t-He m inne go ti at in g apri ce fo r th e b lu ep rin ts with An th on y

DiLo ren zo , anddi d n otde ci de , alo ne or t og ethe r with an y on e, wha t Def

en da ntW es t-He m

sh ou ldpa y

Mr. DiLo ren zo for th os e b lu ep rin ts .” Id . ¶ 28
.

• “ I ne ve r pr ov id ed‘ a p orti on of t he cas h t ha t M azerin st ru ct edW es t Hem em pl oyees t o s en d t o Di Lore nz o a s p aym en t fo r th e Bl ue pr in ts .’ ” Id . ¶ 30
.

L oetsche rt also makes se vera l specific f actua l assertions re g ardingAPM’s lack of 1 8 business ties to Florida re levant to the question of g ener al jurisdiction, to wit: “APM i s not reg istered with the F lorida Secr etar y of State to transa ct business in Florida” ; “APM does not conduct business in the Southern District of Florida , specific ally , or in the State of F lorida, in g ener al”; “A PM has no business office in Florida” ; “APM does not own or lea se any rea l proper ty in Florida” ; and “APM does not maintain a depository or bank a ccount in F lorida.” L oetsche rt Aff

idavit at ¶¶ 6- 10. 27• “ I ne ve r arrang edwith Def en da ntMaz er t o s hi p the bl ue pr in ts to APM i n B el gi um

‘ to av oi d t ak in g t he co py of th e st ol enBlu ep rin ts on th e p la ne with [me] when [I] retu rn edto Bel gi um .’ In fa ct , itis m y un de rs ta nd in g t ha t the ful l s etof b lu ep rin ts inqu es ti on were n ot rece iv edby D efen da nt s M azeror West -Hem un ti l af te r I h adalr eady le ft, i n M arch , 20 04 , th e Uni te d S tate s fo r Bel gi um .” Id . ¶ 31
. The se st at em en ts are n otm ere l eg al co nc lu si on s; th ey are s pe ci fic factua l de ni al s tha t ch al le ng e eac h a ndev ery factua l al le ga ti on rai se d b y UTC reg ard in g APM’s co nduc t i n F lo rid a inco nn ect io n wi th th e Prattbl ue pr in ts . Thes e 1 9

“ sp eci fic factua l d ecl arat io ns withi n t he affi an t’s p ers on al kn owl ed ge ,” in co nt ras t to th os e in th e aff

id av itinPo sn er, are su ffi ci en t “ to sh iftto th e Pl ai nt iff [] the bu rd enof p ro du ci ng ev id en ce s up po rti ng juri sd ic ti on .” Po sn er, 1 78 F.3dat 1 21 5. UTC att em

pt edto res po ndan d e st ab li sh juri sd ic ti on by m ean s o f Maz er’s pu rp orte d s ta te m en ts ab ou t APM an d Lo et sc he rt c on ta in edinth e Dunph y Rep ort, bu t the di st ric t co urt fo un d t he se st at em en ts to be in adm is sabl e h ears ay an d de cl in edto co ns id er the m . In s o d eci di ng , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Bro wn, 4 41 F.3d13 30 , 13 59 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s h ears ay rul in g fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” ). To the extent, if any , that UTC’s alleg ations reg ardingAPM’s knowledg e of thetrue 1 9 value of the blueprints may

be re levant to the jurisdictional inquiry , see supr a note 17, L oetsche rt also specif

ically denies those a lleg ations: acc ordingto his affidavit, “A PM did not‘knowing ly and wr ong fully ’ obtain the blueprints at a ‘blac k marke t, below value price,’ ” and “ APM, at all times releva

nt to this lawsuit, never

knew that the value of the blue prints in question ‘was greatly in excess of $5,000,’ that the mar ket value w as ‘greatly

in excess of $25,000,’ or that they wer e the ‘prote cted pr operty

of Pratt.’” L oetsche rt Aff idavit at ¶¶ 18, 22. 28UTC arg ue s tha t M azer ’s st at em en ts inth e Dunph y Rep ort s ho ul d h av e be enco ns id eredun de r th e ex cep ti on s t o t he rul e ag ai ns t h ears ay for(1) reco rd s o f reg ul arl y co nduc te d b us in es s ac ti vi ty, an d (2 ) publ ic reco rd s an d re po rts . Fed . R. Evi d. 8 03 (6 ), (8 ). Forth e ex cep ti on s t o app ly, th e rep ort m us t co nt ai n “ factua l fin di ng s” th atare “ ba se d upo n t he kn owl ed ge or o bs erv at io ns of t he pre pa rer o f th e rep ort,” a s o pp os edto a m ere c ol le ct io n o f st at em en ts fro m a witne ss . Mil le r v. Fi el d, 3 5 F .3d10 88 , 10 91 (6t h C ir. 1 99 4) . “ It i s wel l es tabl is he d t ha t en tri es in a p ol ic e rep ort wh ic h re su ltfro m th e o ffi cer’s o wn o bs erv at io ns an d kno wled ge m ay be adm it te d b utth atst at em en ts m ad e b y th irdpe rs on s u nd er n o b us in es s dut y to rep ort m ay

no t.” Un it edSta te s v . Pazs in t, 7 03 F.2d42 0, 4 24 (9t h C ir. 1 98 3) (fi nd in g R

ul e 8 03 (6 ) in ap pl ic ab le ); s ee al so Mi ll er, 3 5 F .3dat 1 09 1 (f in di ng Ru le 80 3( 8) in ap pl ic ab le ); P ars on s v . Hon eywell , Inc ., 92 9 F .2d90 1, 9 07 (2dCir . 19 91 ) (s am e). Inothe r wor ds , “ [p ]laci ng ot he rwis e in adm is si bl e h ears ay st at em en ts by th ird -p art ie s i nt o ago ve rn m en t re po rt d oe s n otm ak e th e st at em en ts adm is si bl e.” Co m m od it y Fu tu res Trad in g C omm ’n v. Wils hi re In v. M gmt. Co rp ., 40 7 F . Sup p. 2d13 04 , 13 15 n.2 (S.D. Fla . 20 05 ), aff’d i n p art , vac at edinpa rt o n o th er g ro un ds , 53 1 F .3d13 39 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Here, wh il e we n eedno t d eci de whet he r th e Dunph y Rep ort i ts el f is subjec t to th e as se rte d e xc ep ti on s, the pe rti ne ntpo in t i s tha t we ca n s ay with c on fid en ce 29th atRu le s 8 03 (6 ) an d (8 ) can no t re nd er ad m is si bl e Ma zer’s h ears ay st at em en ts co nt ai ne d wi th in th e rep ort. See Fed . R. Evi d. 8 05 . “ Hears ay withi n h ears ay subjec t t o an e xc ep ti on is no t ad m is si bl e.” J os ep h v . Kim pl e, 34 3 F . Sup p. 2 d 11 96 , 12 04 (S.D. Ga. 20 04 ). Ther efo re, UTC can no t re ly on M azer ’s pu rp orte d st at em en ts inth e Dunph y Rep ort t o e st ab li sh juri sd ic ti oninop po si ti on to th e Loe ts ch ertaffi da vi t u nl es s tho se st at em en ts th em se lv es are s ub ject t o ahe ars ay ex cep ti on . UTC su gg es ts th atMaz er’s s tate m en ts inth e Dunph y Rep ort co ul d b e vi ewedas n on -h ears ay

admis si on s b ecau se Maz er i s a d ire ct oran d p artown er o f APM. Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 8 01 (d )(2 ) pr ov id es th ata st at em en t i s n othe ars ay if: The st at em en t i s o ffer edag ai ns t a p arty an d i s (A) th e p arty ’s own st at em en t, i n e it he r anin di vi du al or arep res en ta ti ve cap aci ty or (B) a st at em en t o f whi chth e p arty ha s m an ife st edanad op ti on or b el ie f in it s tru th , or (C ) a s ta te m en t b y a pe rs on au th or iz edby the pa rty to m ak e a s ta te m en t co nc ern in g the subjec t, o r (D) a s ta te m en t b y th e pa rty’ s ag en t o r se rv an t co nc ern in g am at te r withi n t he sco pe of t he ag en cy or e m pl oym en t, m ad e dur in g t he ex is te nc e o f th e rel at io ns hi p, or(E) a st at em en t b y

a co co ns pi rat orof apa rty durin g t he co ur se an d in furth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy. T he co nt en ts of t he st at em en t s ha ll be co ns id eredbu t ar e n otalo ne su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh th e d ecl aran t’s au th or ity un de r subd iv is io n (C ), th e ag en cy or e m pl oym en t rel at io ns hi p a ndsco pe th ereo f un de r subd iv is io n (D) , or the ex is te nc e of th e co ns pi racy andth e p art ic ip at io n t he rei n o f th e d ecl aran t an d t he pa rty agai ns t wh om

th e st at em en t i s o ffer edun de r subd iv is io n (E)
.

30Howev er, the re i s n o e vi de nc e – an d n o re as on to ass um e – th atMaz er’s st at em en ts to go ve rn m en t i nv es ti ga to rs , m ad e whi le he hi m se lf wa s fa ci ng cri m in al ch arg es , were m ad e in a rep res en ta ti ve cap aci ty on b eh al f of APM, th at APM ad op te d t ho se st at em en ts , or tha t M azer was autho riz edto m ak e th e st at em en ts on APM’s b eh al f. Furth erm or e, be cau se Maz er’s s ta te m en ts rel at e to hi s an d/ orW es t-He m ’s sal e o f th e b lu ep rin ts to APM, th ey can no t al so co nc erna m at te r withi n t he sco pe of h is ag en cy or e m pl oym en t, i f an y , forAPM. 2 0 Mo reo ve r, ev enass um in g a rg ue nd o t ha t M azeran d APM were co -co ns pi rat or s, Maz er’s s ta te m en ts ess en ti al ly con fes si ng to th e m is co nduc t ca nn otco ns ti tu te st at em en ts by a co-c on sp ira to r du rin g t he co ur se an d i n fu rth eran ce o f th atsame co ns pi racy. Thu s, an y

admis si on s co nt ai ne d i n t he Dunph y Rep ort ar e Ma zer’s al on e; th ey

can no t b e at tri bu te d t o APM
. Maz er’s u ns worn, una tt es te d s ta te m en ts inth e Dunph y Rep ort al so are n ot adm is si bl e und er the res idua l ex cep ti on to th e h ears ay rul e. Fed . R. Evi d. 8 07
. 2 1 Although U TC’s complaint repe atedly alleg es that Mazer w as ac ting on be half of 2 0 West-Hem, there is no alleg ation that Mazer wa s actingon behalf of APM. Rule 807 provides: 2 1 A statement not spec ifically cover ed by

Rule 803 or 804 but havingequivalent circ umstantial gua

rante es of trustwor

thiness, is not ex cluded by the hea rsay rule, if the cour

t determines that ( A) the state ment is offer ed as e vidence of a material fac t; (B) the statement is more pr obative on the point for which it is offere d than any other e vidence which the pr oponent ca n procur e through rea sonable e ffor ts; and (C) the g ener al purposes of these rule s and the intere sts of justice will best be serve d by admission of the statement into evidenc e. Howe ver, a statement may 31“ Co ng res s i nt en de d t he res idua l h ears ay ex cep ti on to be us edve ry rare ly, an d o nl y in ex cep ti on al cir cu m st an ces ,” Uni te d S tate s v . Ing ram , 50 1 F .3d96 3, 9 67 (8t h Ci r. 20 07 ), an d i t “ ap pl [ie s] on ly whe n c ert ai n e xc ep ti on al gu aran te es of tru st worth in es s ex is t an d wh enhi gh de gr ees of p ro ba ti ve ne ss an d n eces si ty are pr es en t,” Un it edSta te s v . Wrig ht , 36 3 F .3d23 7, 2 45 (3dCir . 20 04 ). Not withs ta nd in g t he pro fferag reem en t u nd er wh ic h M azersubm it te d t o t he go ve rn m en t i nt erv ie w, Maze r’s po si ti on as atar ge t i n acri m in al in ve st ig at io n pr ov id edhi m

am pl e m ot iv at io n t o i m

pl ic at e o th ers (ev enfal se ly), inc lu di ng APM, in hi s m is co nduc t i n o rd er t o d iff us e an d m it ig at e h is owncu lp ab il it y . Thu s, the st at em en ts lac k t he “ equi va le ntcir cu m st an ti al gu aran te es of t ru st worth in es s” th at Ru le 80 7 re qu ire s. Mo reo ve r, Maz er’s s ta te m en ts are n ot“ m or e p ro ba ti ve on th e po in t fo r whi ch[th ey

are] off eredth anan y

ot he r ev id en ce wh ic h t he pro po ne nt canpro cu re thr ou gh reas on ab le effo rts .” Fed . R. Evi d. 8 07 . As furth er ex pl ai ne d be lo w, UTC cou ldha ve tak enreas on ab le st ep s t o o bt ai n a dm is si bl e te st im on y di rect ly from

Maz er p rio r to th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng on APM’s m ot io n t o di sm is s, b utitfai le d t o d o s o. As su ch , Rul e 8 07 can no t s al va ge th e adm is si bi li ty not be admitted under

this ex ception unless the pr oponent of it makes known to the adve rse pa

rty sufficie ntly

in advanc e of the trial or hea ringto provide the adver se par

ty with a fa ir opportunity

to prepa re to mee t it, the proponent’s intention to offer the statement and the particula rs of it, includingthe name a nd addre ss of the dec lara

nt. Fe d. R. Evid. 807. 32of

Maz er’s s ta te m en ts inth e Dunph y Rep ort. At o ral arg um en t, UTC fu rth er arg ue d tha t M azer ’s st at em en ts , bec au se he ha d afin an ci al st ak e in APM, co ns ti tu te d s tate m en ts ag ai ns t i nt eres t s ub ject t o t he
ex cep ti on to th e h ears ay

rul e se t fo rth inRu le 80 4( b) (3 ) of th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e. Becaus e UTC di d n otrai se th is arg um en t i n i ts op en in g b rie f (o r atall in th e d is tri ctco urt), i t h as li ke ly beenab an do ne d. Dav is v. Co ca-C ol a Bo tt li ng Co . Con so l., 5 16 F.3d95 5, 9 72 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); M il le nn iu m Partne rs , L.P. v. Co lm ar St or ag e, LLC, 49 4 F .3d12 93 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (“ Arg um en ts rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal are n otpro pe rly befo re thi s C ou rt.” ). Even if we wer e to co ns id er thi s ar gu m en t, h owe ve r, itlac ks m eri t fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, Ru le 80 4( b) (3 ) on ly app li es wher e th e d ecl aran t i s u na va il ab le , andUTC has m ad e n o sh owi ng th atMaz er was un av ai labl e to gi ve co m pe te nttes ti m on y . Ind eed , UTC
reas on ab ly cou ldha ve tak en , bu t fa il edto tak e, reas on ab le st ep s t o o bt ai n M azer ’s di recttes ti m on y . Seco nd , whi le itap pe ars to be tru e th atMaz er h adanown ers hi p in te res t i n APM an d i nd ire ct ly mig hthave st oo d t o l os e m on ey if APM were im pl ic at edinth e th eftan d s al e o f th e Prattbl ue pr in ts an d t he reaf te r subjec te d t o ci vi l o r cri min al li ab il it y , th e cri m in al ch arg es pe nd in g a ga in stMaz er wo ul d h av e be ena subs ta nt ia ll y

gre at er co nc ernto a reas on ab le pe rs on inMaz er’s p os it io n. The refo re, i t i s re as on ab le to in fer tha t s pr ead in g b la m e fo r th e m is co nduc t b y 33im

pl ic at in g o th ers , eve n fa ls el y , cou ldhave be enat l eas t as bi g apri or it y for Maz er atth e ti m e o f hi s i nt erv ie w with g ov ern m en t i nv es ti ga to rs as wo ul d h av e be enpro te ct in g h is fin an ci al st ak e in APM. Acco rd in gl y , th e fac ts do no t co m pe l
a co nc lu si on th atMaz er’s s ta te m en ts pe rta in in g t o APM were “ atth e ti m e o f [th ei r] m ak in g s o fa r co nt rary to [M azer ’s] pe cu ni ary orpro pr ie ta ry in te res t . . . th ata reas on ab le pe rs onin[Maz er’s] po si ti on wou ldno t h av e m ad e th e st at em en t un le ss be li ev in g i t t o b e true .” Fed . R. Evi d. 8 04 (b )(3 ). Insu m , whi le th e Dunph y Rep ort i ts el f m ig htbe he ars ay subjec t t o a n ex cep ti on , Maze r’s st at em en ts co nt ai ne d wi th in th e rep ort ar e th em se lv es he ars ay st at em en ts , andth e ru le s o f ev id en ce re qu ire th at , forhe ars ay withi n h ears ay

to be adm is si bl e, “ each pa rt o f th e co m bi ne d s ta te m en ts [m

us t] con fo rm [] with an ex cep ti on to th e h ears ay

rul e.” Fed . R. Evi d. 8 05 . Yet n o e xc ep ti on ap pl ie s t o t he Maz er s ta te m en ts . Accor di ng ly, we fi ndno ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to di sr eg ardth os e st at em en ts . UTC, th eref

or e, ha s p ro ffer edno co m pe te ntev id en ce t o e st ab li sh juri sd ic ti on inop po si ti on to th e d en ia ls of the juri sd ic ti on al all eg at io ns co nt ai ne d in Loet sc he rt’s a ffi da vi t. Un de r su chcir cu m st an ces , th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y fo un d Lo et sc he rt’s u nr eb ut te d d en ia ls su ffi ci en t t o n eg at e UTC’s juri sd ic ti on al al le ga ti on s ty in g APM to to rti ou s co nduc t i n F lo rid a. Co ns eque nt ly, th e d is tri ct 34co urt p ro pe rly con cl ud edth atitlac ke d p ers on al juri sd ic ti on ov er APM un de r

Fl or id a’s lo ng -arm

st atut e. Befo re l eav in g t hi s t op ic , we m us t b rie fly addres s UTC’s arg um en t tha t, rathe r th andi sm is si ng forlac k o f pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on ov er APM , th e d is tri ctco urt sh ou ldha ve de ferr eda ru li ng on APM’s m ot io n a ndgra nt edUTC’ s “ reque st s” for juri sd ic ti on al di sc ov ery, in cl ud in g t he tak in g o f Maz er an d Lo et sc he rt’s de po si ti on s. Ini ti al ly, “ [t]he co urt’s d en ia l, g ran t, o r li m it at io n o f a m ot io n fo r

2 2 di sc ov ery is rev ie wedforab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Lowery v. Ala. Po wer Co ., 48 3 F.3 d 1 18 4, 1 21 8 n .76 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Here, UTC ex pr es sl y reco gn iz edth e po te nt ia l u ti li ty of juri sd ic ti on al di sc ov ery atlea stby the ti m e itfil edit s re sp on se to APM’s m ot io n t o d is mis s o n Ap ril 27 , 20 06 . Howev er, UTC n ev er fo rm al ly
m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt fo r juri sd ic ti on al di sc ov ery bu t, i ns te ad , bu rie d s uc h reque st s i n i ts bri efs as apro po se d a lt ern at iv e to di sm is si ng APM o n t he st at e o f th e cu rren t re co rd . Furt he rm or e, UTC do es no t ap pe ar t o h av e se rv edno ti ces for Maz er o r Loe ts ch ert ’s dep os it io ns – wh ic h n ot ic es m an ife st edUTC’ s un de rs ta nd in g o f it s ab il it y to see k d is co ve ry

du rin g t he pe nd en cy

of APM ’s
m ot io n t o d is m is s –un ti l l at e Ju ly andearl y Aug us t 2 00 6. Th erea fte r, th ou gh Trag ically , we note that L oetsche rt perishe d in a helicopter acc ident on Dec ember

26, 2 2 2007. There fore , even if

we we re to re instate the ca se ag ainst APM, L oetsche rt would not be available for a

deposition or to testify

at any trial. 35UTC cla im s t o h av e b eenin fo rm al ly w orki ng th ro ug h s ch edul in g i ss ue s wi th th e

witne ss es an d re sp on di ng to APM’s o bjec ti on s t o t he su ffi ci en cy of UTC’s de po si ti on no ti ce fo r Loe ts ch ert , UTC fail edto tak e an y form al act io n t o c om

pe l di sc ov ery orpro pe rly iss ue anin te rn at io na ll y effe ct iv e subp oe nafor

Loet sc he rt’s te st im on y . All inall , UTC sh ou ldhave tak enev ery st ep po ss ib le to si gn al to th e d is tri ct co urt i ts imm ed iate ne edforsu chdi sc ov ery. But , des pi te th e o bv io us urg en cy of th e si tu at io n, i t fa il edto tak e an y of t he se reas on ab le st ep s t o s eekdi sc ov ery, or a de ferr al of arul in g p en di ng di sc ov ery, du rin g t he m or e th anfou r m on th s APM ’s
m ot io n was pe nd in g. “ The di st ric t co urt, the refo re, d idno t s o m uc h d en y di sc ov ery as itdi sm is se d t he cas e b efo re d is co ve ry was t ak en . W e can no t s ay th at th e d is tri ctco urt erred ,” Po sn er, 1 78 F.3dat 1 21 4 n .7, m uc h l es s ab us edit s di sc ret io n. Fi na ll y , we add res s wh ethe r UTC’s co ns pi racy clai m is su ffi ci en t t o ju st ify th e ex erci se of p ers on al juri sd ic ti on inFlo rid a o ve r APM. The di st ric t co urt h el d th at , bec au se “ [n ]one of t he Co m pl ai nt ’s all eg at io ns in vo lv e anact io nabl e to rt i n Fl or id a,” “ th ere i s n o u nd erl y in g t ort [i n F lo rid a] to s up po rt aco ns pi racy clai m . As a re su lt , per so na l juris di ct io n d oe s n otex is t o ve r APM, a fo rei gn co rp or at io n, on th e co ns pi racy clai m

un de r Fl or id a’s lo ng -arm st atut e.” 36Und er Fl or id a la w, a civ il co ns pi racy m us t h av e as it s o bjec t the
co m m is si on of an u nd erl y in g t ort. Whethe r th e und erl y in g t ort m us t h av e b een co m pl et ed(an d t hu s b e in de pe nd en tl y act io nabl e), h owe ve r, is op ento qu es ti on . The Flo rid a co urts ha ve be enso m ewh atdi vi de d c on cern in g t he an swe r to th is qu es ti on . Com

pa re Ra im i v . Fur lo ng , 70 2 S o. 2 d 1 27 3, 1 28 4 (F la . 3dDCA 19 97 ) (“ [A]n act io nabl e co ns pi racy requ ire s an act io nabl e und erl y in g t ort o r wro ng .”); Ru sh in g v . Bos se , 65 2 S o. 2 d 8 69 , 87 5 (F la . 4th DCA 1 99 5) (sa m e); Flo rid a Fern Gro wers Ass ’n, Inc . v. Co nc ern edCit iz en s o f Pu tn am Co un ty, 61 6 S o. 2 d 5 62 , 56 5 (F la . 5th DCA 1 99 3) (sa m e), wit h Wil co x v . Sto ut , 63 7 S o. 2 d 3 35 , 33 6 (F la
. 2dDCA 19 94 ) (“ Fl or id a rec og ni zes th atciv il co ns pi raci es m ay ex is t as an in de pe nd en t t ort.”) ; s ee al so W al te rs v. Bl an ke ns hi p, 9 31 So . 2d13 7, 1 40 (Fl a. 5t h DCA 20 06 ) (“ As fo r th e co un t o f ci vi l co ns pi racy, w e co nc lu de itis vi ab le , bas ed ei th er o n t he un de rlyin g t orti ou s i nt erfe ren ce co un t o r as anin de pe nd en t t ort . . . . Gen eral ly an act io nabl e co ns pi racy requ ire s anact io nabl e und erl y in g t ort o r wro ng

. . . . Howev er, analt ern at iv e b as is fora ci vi l co ns pi racy clai m ex is ts wher e th e pl ai nt iff cansh ow s om e ‘pecu li ar p owe r of co erci on ’ po ss es se d b y

th e co ns pi rat or s b y

vi rtu e o f th ei r co m

bi na ti on , whi chanin di vi du al act in g a lo ne do es no t p os se ss .” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ). Inth is ap pe al , ho wev er, we n eedno t en te r th e m or as s o f whe th er o r whe n 37Fl or id a la w requi res anin de pe nd en t t ort t o s up po rt aciv il co ns pi racy clai m

be cau se , inan y

ev en t, UTC’s co ns pi racy all eg at io ns are i ns uf fic ie ntto jus ti fy

th e ex erci se of p ers on al juri sd ic ti on ov er APM . Flo rid a co urts ha ve he ldth atth e st at e’s lo ng -arm

st atut e can supp ort p ers on al juri sd ic ti on ov er an y all eg ed
co ns pi rat orwher e an y

ot he r co -co ns pi rat orco m m it s anactinFlo rid a in furth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy, evenif the de fen da ntov er wh om pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on is so ug htin di vi du al ly committe d n o a ctin , or h adno rel ev an t co nt act with, Fl or id a. See M ach ti ng er v . Ine rti al Airl in e Servs ., Inc ., 93 7 S o. 2 d 7 30 , 73 4- 36 (Fl a. 3dDCA 20 06 ) (fi nd in g p ers on al juri sd ic ti on ex is te d i n F lo rid a whe re co ns pi racy was m ad e in Ohi o b utact s i n fu rth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy were do ne in an d d ire ct edto wardFlo rid a); W il co x, 6 37 So . 2dat 3 37 (“ if [ pl ai nt iff ] ha s su cces sf ul ly alle ge d tha t an y

m em be r of th atco ns pi racy comm it te d t orti ou s ac ts in Fl or id a in furth eran ce o f th atco ns pi racy, the n a ll of the co ns pi rat or s ar e subjec t t o th e juri sd ic ti on of t he st at e o f Fl or id a th ro ug h i ts lo ng -arm st atut e”); see als o Exe cu -Tech Bu s. Sys., Inc . v. New Oji Pap er Co ., 75 2 S o. 2 d 5 82 , 58 4- 85 (Fl a. 20 00 ) (fi nd in g p ers on al juri sd ic ti on inFlo rid a o ve r pa rti ci pa ntina na ti on wid e pr ic e-fi xi ng co ns pi racy in wh ic h s om e co -co ns pi rat or s, b utno t the de fen da ntat is su e, m ad e sa le s i nt o F lo rid a). Here, i n c on tra st , UTC has all eg edno th in g tha t cl earl y co nn ect edAPM t o a 38co ns pi racy m ad e o r carrie d o utinFlo rid a. At the th res ho ld , as e xp la in edab ov e,

we can no t co ns id er the all eg at io ns ab ou t APM ’s con du ctinFlo rid a b ecau se th e Loe ts ch ertaffi da vi t, wh ic h UTC h as fai le d t o re bu t wi thco m pe te ntev id en ce, sp eci fic al ly den ie s tho se all eg at io ns . Thu s, an y co ns pi racy-bas edex erci se of pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on m

us t b e fo un de d o n c on du ctco m m it te d i n F lo rid a b y

ot he rs th atcanbe attrib ut edto APM as a co -co ns pi rat or . The gi stof t he co ns pi racy des cri be d i n t he co m pl ai ntcanbe de sc rib edas, pr im ari ly, a co ns pi racy to s te al th e Prattbl ue pr in ts an d, s eco nd ari ly, a co ns pi racy to res el l the alr eady -s to le n b lu ep rin ts . The co ns pi racy to s te al th e b lu ep rin ts was al le ge dl y m ad e b etweenMaz er an d Di Lore nz o, o st en si bl y inCo nn ect ic ut(no t Fl or id a), atso m e ti m e b efo re the actua l the ft, wh ic h o ccu rred“be twee n F eb ru ary 20 04 an d M arch 20 04 .” Am . Com pl . at ¶ 2 4. Mo reo ve r, th e th eftit se lf o ccu rred in Co nn ect ic ut . See Ap ril Indus ., Inc . v. Lev y , 41 1 S o. 2 d 3 03 , 30 5- 06 (Fl a. 3d DCA 19 82 ) (fi nd in g n o p ers on al juri sd ic ti on inFlo rid a whe re, ev enass um in g a co ns pi racy was m ad e in Flo rid a, th e to rti ou s ac t es se nt ia l t o c au si ng th e al le ge d
wro ng oc cu rredinNew York ). To t ie APM t o t hi s co ns pi racy to s te al ina m an ne r ad equa te to supp ort p ers on al juri sd ic ti on inFlo rid a, UTC ha d t o a ll eg e un am bi gu ou sl y th atAPM was in vo lv edina Fl or id a-b as edag reem en t t o s te al – i.e., i nv ol ve d i n am eet in g o f th e m in ds with a t l eas t o ne ot he r co -co ns pi rat or– 39be fo re the ti m e o f th e th eft . See, Ch arl es , 98 8 S o. 2 d a t 1 15 9 (“ A civ il co ns pi racy

requi res : (a ) anag reem en t b etweentwo or m or e p art ie s . . . .”). Yet t he re i s n o a ll eg at io n d ire ct ly con ne ct in g APM to th is in it ia l ag reem en t to st eal th e b lu ep rin ts . At m os t, UTC’s co m pl ai ntall eg es th atAPM’s m an ag in g di rect orLoet sc he rt wa s l iv in g i n F lo rid a wit h M azerfro m Jan ua ry 20 04 un ti l Mar ch24 , 20 04 . UTC do es no t al le ge expl ic it ly tha t Lo et sc he rt, wh il e in Flo rid a, was inon th e fo rm at io n o f th e p lo t t o s te al th e b lu ep rin ts ; ra th er, i t as ks us to in fer fro m th e o ve rlap b etweenth is ti m e p eri odan d t he pe rio d dur in g wh ic h t he th eft
oc cu rredth atLoet sc he rt p art ic ip at edinth e fo rm at io n o f th e p lo t. Su chin fere nc e can no t re as on ab ly be m ad e. It re qu ire s t oo gre ata sp ecu la ti ve leap t o fi ndth at , jus t b ecau se he m ay

ha ve be eninFlo rid a atth e ti m e o f th e th eft , Loet sc he rt m us t ha ve be enin vo lv edin it ia ll y inth e p lo t t o s te al th e b lu ep rin ts . Mor eo ve r, th e ti m el in e se t fo rthinth e co m pl ai nty ie ld s o th er i nf

eren ces . Maze r fi rs t m etwith DiLo ren zo inCo nn ect ic ut– an d d is cu ss edanin te res t i n p ur ch as in g t he JT8 D bl ue pr in ts – i n No ve m

be r 20 03 . Am . Com

pl . at ¶¶15 -1 6. Hen ce, i t i s en ti rel y po ss ib le th atMaz er an d Di Lore nz o re ach edth ei r ag reem en t t o s te al (an d t o h av e DiLo ren zo sel l M azerth e st ol enbl ue pr in ts ) as earl y as No ve m

be r 20 03 , all witho utLoet sc he rt’s kno wled ge or i nv ol ve m en t an d wel l b efo re Lo et sc he rt’s e arl y 20 04 tri p t o F lo rid a. On b al an ce, the co m pl ai nt ’s all eg at io ns are s im pl y to o 40am

bi gu ou s t o c on ne ctLoet sc he rt a ndAPM t o t he form at io n o f th e co ns pi racy to st eal th e Pra ttbl ue pr in ts . Nordo es vi ewin g t he rel ev an t co ns pi racy as o ne to res el l the alr eady -s to le n bl ue pr in ts to APM ai d UTC’s caus e. Thi s fo rm of aco ns pi racy woul d re qu ire an al le ga ti on th atAPM n oton ly agree d t o p ur ch as e th e b lu ep rin ts (or actua ll y pu rch as edth em) inFlo rid a b utals o, atth e ti m e itag reedto purch as e th em , kn ew th atth e b lu ep rin ts wou ldbe st ol en . But , aga in , th e d en ia ls inth e Loe ts ch ert affi da vi t, wh ic h a re u nr eb ut te d b y an y co m pe te ntev id en ce, h av e eff ect iv el y ne ga te d UTC’s al le ga ti on s re ga rd in g APM ’s kn owl ed ge of t he il li ci t ch arac te r of th e b lu ep rin ts . Accor di ng ly, UTC ha s fa il edto est ab li sh di rect ly tha t APM
en te redin to a co ns pi racy kn owi ng ly to p ur ch as e st ol enbl ue pr in ts th atwas e it he r fo rm edor i n a ny way

carr ie d o utinFlo rid a. Insu m , th e co m

pl ai ntdo es no t al le ge vi ab le fact s fr om whi chth e in fere nc e co ul d re as on ab ly be drawnth atAPM was part o f a co ns pi racy eithe r en gi ne ered in Flo rid a o r pu rs ua ntto whi cha to rti ou s ac t i n fu rth eran ce was co m m it te d i n Fl or id a. Thu s, APM is no t s ub ject t o c on sp ira cy -imput edpe rs on al juri sd ic ti on un de r Fl or id a’s lo ng -arm st atut e. See Arc h Al um in um & Gla ss Co . v. Han ey , 96 4 So . 2d22 8, 2 34 -3 5 (F la . 4th DCA 2 00 7) (fi nd in g n o p ers on al juri sd ic ti on wher e ne it he r th e co ns pi racy no r th e und erl y in g t ort o ccu rredinFlo rid a). 41IV.

The di stric t co urt d idno t err in di sm is si ng th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t APM forlac k of pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on . W e th eref or e AFFIR M the co urt’s jud gm en t fo r APM. Howev er, the di st ric t co urt d iderr i n d is m is si ng th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t West -Hem for fai lu re t o s tate a cl ai m

forrel ie f. W e acc or di ng ly REVE RSE th e co urt’s jud gm en t fo r W es t-He m

an d R EMAND th e cas e fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs ag ai ns t West -Hem . AFFIRMED, inpa rt, R EVERSED, inpa rt, andREMANDED.

42