### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ay 20, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14939 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C
. Do c k e tNo
. 0 4
- 0 0 2 1 1
- C V- OR L
- 2 2 J GG L A W S O N C A T T L E & E Q U I P M E N T , I N C ., a F lo r id a c o rp o r a tio n , P la in tif f
- A p p e lla n t,
v ersu s P A S T U R E R E N O V A T O R S L L C , a T e x a s lim ite d liab ility c o m p a n y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 20, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: P l ai nt i ff L aw son C att l e & E qu i pm ent , Inc. (“ L aw son”) app ea l s the di stri ct2

court ’ s ordergrant i ng the R ul e 12(b) m ot i on t o d i sm i ss of defe nd antP as ture R enov at ors L L C (“ P as ture R enov at ors” ) f or l ac k o f per sonal j uri sdi ct i on . A ft er
r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D P l a i nt i f f L a w s on i s a F l or i da c orpor a t i on, e nga ge d i n the bus i ne s s of s e l l i ng im p le m e n ts f

o ra g r ic u ltu r a l u s e . P la in tif f L a w s o n h a s a b u s in e s s o f f ic e in F lo r id a . S i n ce 1 9 8 3 , L aw so n h as reg u l arl y u t i l i zed th e m ark “ A erat o r” i n i t s b u si n ess d e a lin g s , s e llin g “A e r a to r ” a g r ic u ltu r a l im p le m e n ts . T h e A e r a to rd e s ig n is di s t i ngui s he d by i t s pl ur a l i ty of i ndi vi dua l bl a de s e gm e nt s di s pos e d a r ound a drum in a s p ir a l f

o r m a tio n . T h e d e f e n d a n t, P a s tu r e R e n o v a to r s , is a T e x a s c o rp o r a tio n lo c a te d in T e x a s . In M ar ch 20 00 , K ei th H edem ann, the curr entP re si dentof defe nd antP as ture R e nova t or s , r e c e i ve d a pr i c e l i s t , w hi c h he ha d pr e vi ous l y r e que s t e d, f orva r i ous A e r a t or s f

r om pl a i nt i f

f L a w s on. I n A ugus t2000, C ha r l e s H a y m or e , the c urr e nt C ha i r m a n of

de f e nda ntP a s tur e R e nova t or s , pur c ha s e d tw o 16' x 42" A e r a t or s f r om pl ai nt i ff L aw son for use on h i s tw o T exas ra nches, the R ud y R anch and the C edar S pr i ngs R a nc h. In 20 03 , the R ud y R anch and the C edarS pri ng s R anch needed addit i on al
e q u i p m e n t , a n d Ha y m o r e l o c a t e d Ac e r o s y Ma q u i n a d o s Na c i o n a l e s , S
. A.3

( “A M N S A ” ) , a M e x ic a n m a n u f a c tu r e rth a t s o ld s im ila re q u ip m e n t a t a
s i gni f i c a nt l y l ow e rpr i c e . U pon l oc a t i ng A M N S A , H a y m or e e xpl or e d the po ss i bi l i ty of openi ng an A M N S A di stri bu t orshi p i n the U ni t ed S t at es . T o that
e nd, i n A pr i l 2003, H e de m a nn onc e a ga i n c ont a c t e d pl a i nt i f f L a w s on by s e ndi ng a fa x t o L aw son i n F l ori da i n w hi ch he request ed a pri ce l i st . T w o d ay s l at er , L a w s o n f

a x e d a p r ic e lis t to H e d e m a n n f o rth e A e r a to r s . R ec og ni zi ng a vi abl e busi ness op po rtun i ty, i n Jun e 200 3, H ay m ore f orm ed de f e nda ntP a s tur e R e nova t or s , a s a T e xa s l i m i t e d l i abi l i ty c orpor a t i on a nd
s ubs i di a ry of

C e da rR a nc h, a nd P a s tur e R e nova t or s the n e nga ge d i n the bus i ne s s of di stri bu t i ng agri cul tural i m pl em ent s. In addi t i on , defe nd antP as ture R enov at ors
a n d A M N S A e n te r e d in to a n e x c lu s iv e d is tr ib u to r s h ip f o rP a s tu r e R e n o v a to r s to sel l A M N S A p ro d u ct s. D e f e nda ntP a s tur e R e nova t or s , l oc a t e d i n T e xa s , be ga n runni ng ad v ert i sem en t s reg u l arl y i n th ree n at i o n al trad e m ag azi n es — L i v est o ck W eek l y, C a ttle m a n M a g a z in e , a n d T e x a s W ild lif e E x tr a — f

o rth e A M N S A p r o d u c ts it i nt ended t o sel l
. S uspi ci ou s of the new com pet i t i on , i n January 20 04 , W i l l ar d P a l m e r , a F l or i da r e s i de nta nd a n a s s oc i a t e of L a w s on’ s ow ne r , c a l l e d de f e nda nt P a s tur e R e nova t or s a nd pos e d a s a pot e nt i a l c us t om e r , r e que s t i ng i nf or m a t i on
ab o u t P a s tu r e R e n o v a to r s ’ p r o d u c ts . D e f e n d a n t P a s tu r e R e n o v a to r s m a ile d toWe reviewde novo the district cour t’s dismiss al for lack of personal jurisdiction. Meier 1 ex rel. Meier v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264, 1268 (11th Cir. 2002). 4 P a lm e ra le tte r , b r o c h u r e , p h o to g r ap h s , a n d a p r ic e lis t. P a lm e r ’s s e c r e ta ry in F l or i da s ubs e que nt l y c ont a c t e d de f e nda ntP a s tur e R e nova t or s a nd r e que s t e d a T exas A & M stud y on the ef fe ct s of a er at i on . D ef

endantP as ture R enov at ors f axed
a c op y of aT exas A & M stud y on the ef fe ct s of a er at i on , w hi ch had b ee n con du ct ed
u s in g L a w s o n e q u ip m e n t. O n F e brua ry 20, 2004, pl a i nt i f f L a w s on f

i l e d a c om pl a i nta ga i ns tde f e nda nt P a s tu r e R e n o v a to r s f

o rtr a d e m a r k in f

r in g e m e n t, tr a d e d r e s s in f r in g e m e n t, u n f

a ir
c om pe t i t i on, a nd f

a l s e a dve r t i s i ng. P a s tur e R e nova t or s f i l e d a R ul e 12( b) m ot i on t o di s m i s s the c om pl a i ntf orl a c k of

pe r s ona l a nd s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on a nd i m prop ervenu e. O n A ug ust20 , 20 04 , the di stri ctcourtgrant ed defendantP as ture R e n o v a to r s ’ m o tio n to d is m is s f o rla c k o f

p e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n . L a w s o n ap p e a le d
. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A ft erre vi ew , w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtprop er l y gra nt ed P as ture R e nova t or s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s f orl a c k of

pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on. 1 A n a n a ly s is o f

w h e th e rp e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n e x is ts r e q u ir e s a c o u r t to d eter m in e w h eth erth e e x er cise o f ju risd icti o n co m p o rts w ith b o th th e f o ru m state’s l ong- a r m s t a tut e , he r e F l a . S t a t . § 48. 193, a nd the D ue P r oc e s s C l a us e of the F our t e e nth A m e ndm e ntt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s C ons t i tut i on. M ut . S e r v. I ns . C o. v.Th eF lorida long -a rm statuteprov ide s: 2 (1 ) Any pers on , whether o r n ot a

c iti zen or re sident o f t

hisstate , who pers on ally or through an ag ent does a ny of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits hi mself or herself . . . to the jurisdiction of the c ourts of this state for a ny c a us eof a c tio n a ri singfrom t

hedo ingof

any of thefo llo winga c ts:

. . . (b) Committi nga tortious act within this state. Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1) . The district cour t concluded that § (1)(b) was satisfied. We ne ed not reach the F lorida longarm statute issue be causeeven if Florida ’s statute is satisfied, plaintiff L awson fails to establish the sec ond prongof the inquiry : showing that the exercise of jurisdiction in the circumstance s of this case c omports with the Due Proce ss clause. SeePosner 5 F r it I n d u s ., I n c ., 3 5 8 F .3 d 1 3 1 2 , 1 3 1 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . “U n d e rF lo r id a la w , a pl ai nt i ff se eki ng t o subj ec ta non re si dentdefe nd antt o j uri sdi ct i on of the court th r o u g h th e lo n g - a r m s ta tu te m u s t d o m o r e th a n a lle g e f a c ts th a t s h o w a p o s s ib ility of j uri sdi ct i on . ” J etC hart erS erv. , Inc. v. K oeck, 90 7 F
. 2d 11 10 , 11 12 (11th C i r. 1990)
. “ A de f

e nda ntw i s hi ng t o c ont e s tthe a l l e ga t i ons of the c om pl a i nt
c o n c e rn in g ju r is d ic tio n o rto r a is e a c o n te n tio n o f m in im u m c o n ta c ts m u s t f ile
a f f id a v its in s u p p o r t o f

h is p o s itio n . T h e b u r d e n is th e n p la c e d u p o n th e p la in tif f to prov e by a ff

i davi tthe basi s upo n w hi ch j uri sdi ct i on m aybe ob t ai ned. ” A cquadro
v. B e r ge r on, 851 S o. 2d 665, 671 ( F l a . 2003) ( c i t i ng V e ne t i a n S a l a m i C o. v. P a r th e n a is , 5 5 4 S o .2 d 4 9 9 , 5 0 2 ( F la . 1 9 8 9 ) )
. B e c a us e w e c onc l ude tha tP a s tur e R e nova t or s ’ c ont a c t s w i th the S t a t e of F l ori da w er e i nsuffi ci entt o sat i sf y the D ue P roce ss C l ause of the U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on , w e do n otre ac h the i ss ue as t o w hether tho se cont ac t s w ou l d sat i sf y the re qu i re m ent s of F l ori da’ s l on g-arm st atut e. 2v. Essex Ins. Co., Ltd., 178 F.3d 1209, 1220 (11th Cir. 1999) ( “Having c oncluded that

[Florida’s] long-a

rm statute create s jurisdiction over Salem with respe ct to Posner’s insuranc e policy-re lated claims, we turn to the sec ond part of thejurisdictional inquiry : determining whether exercisingjurisdiction in these circumstanc es comports with due process.” ). 6 “ T he e xe r c i s e of

pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on c om por t s w i th due pr oc e s s w he n ( 1) the nonr e s i de ntde f

e nda ntha s purpos e f

ul l y e s t abl i s he d m i ni m um c ont a c t s w i th the f orum . . . a nd ( 2) the e xe r c i s e of j ur i s di c t i on w i l l notof

f e nd ‘ tr a di t i ona l not i ons of fa i r pl ayand sub st ant i al j ust i ce . ’ ” S E C v. C arri l l o, 11 5 F
. 3d 15 40 , 15 42 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d )
. T o sat i sf y the m i ni m um cont ac t s r equi re m entfor purpo se s of per sonal j ur i s di c t i on, a de f

e nda nt ’ s c ont a c t s ( 1) m us tbe r e l a t e d t o the pl a i nt i f f’ s c a us e of
a c t i on orha ve gi ve n r i s e t o i t , ( 2) m us ti nvol ve s om e a c tby w hi c h the de f e nda nt ha s purpos e f

ul l y a va i l e d i t s e l f

of the pr i vi l e ge of

c onduc t i ng a c t i vi t i e s w i thi n the f orum , a nd ( 3) the de f

e nda nt ’ s c ont a c t s w i th the f orum m us tbe s uc h tha tthe de f e nda nts houl d r e a s onabl y a nt i c i pa t e be i ng ha l e d i nt o c our tthe r e . I d ( quot a t i on
m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). W e a g r e e w ith th e d is tr ic t c o u r t th a t d e f e n d a n t P a s tu r e R e n o v a to r s ’ c o n ta c ts
w i th F l or i da w e r e i ns uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on. F i r s t , H a y m or e ’ s pur c ha s e of the L a w s on A e r a t or s i n 2000 w a s f orus e on hi s tw o r a nc he s a nd nott o c om pe t e w i th L a w s on. T he 2000 pur c ha s e ha d no
r e l a t i on t o L a w s on’ s c l a i m s tha tP a s tur e R e nova t or s l a t e rs ol d a pr oduc ti n 2003Live sto c k We e kly ha s o ver 1 9, 00 0 s ub sc ribers , 1 15 of whic h ( 0. 6% ) re sidewithin 3 F lorida . O f C attl e man M ag azine ’smoretha n 1 5, 00 0 s ub sc ribers , o nly 50 (0 .3 %) re sidewithin Florida . Texas Wi ldlife Extra ha s over 5,000 subscribers, but only 16 (0.3%) in Florida. 7 w h ic h in f

r in g e d u p o n L a w s o n ’s m a r k s . I n a d d itio n , it w a s H a y m o r e ( n o t ap a r ty to thi s l a w s ui t ) a nd notP a s tur e R e nova t or s ( pa r ty t o thi s l a w s ui t ) w ho pur c ha s e d the L aw son A er at ors, and h e di d so i n 2 00 0, three ye ar s bef ore defe nd antP as ture R e nova t or s w a s e ve n f

or m e d. T hus , the di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y a c c or de d no attri b u t i o n fro m th i s 2 0 0 0 p u rch ase t o th e m i n i m u m co n t act s an al ysi s. S ec o n d , w ith re sp ec t t o th e tw o in q u iries in A p ril 2 0 0 3 ab o u t L aw so n ’s pr i c e s , thos e c ont a c t s oc c urr e d be f or e P a s tur e R e nova t or s e nt e r e d i nt o a di s tr i but or s hi p a gr e e m e ntw i th A M N S A
. D e t e r m i ni ng the pr i c e s of L a w s on
ae ra t ors w as m arketre se ar ch and p artof the du e di l i gence condu ct ed by P as ture R e n o v a to r s in d e te r m in in g w h e th e rto r e a c h a n a g r e e m e n t w ith A M N S A to di stri bu t e thei r produ ct s. F urther, A M N S A , no tP as ture R enov at ors, se tthe pri ce s f orA M N S A ’ s a e r a t or s . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n c onc l udi ng th a t th e s e in q u ir ie s w e r e in s u f f ic ie n t to p r o v id e a b a s is f o rp e r s o n a l ju r is d ic tio n . T h i rd , al th o u g h P astu re R en o v at o rs ad v ert i ses i n n at i o n al m ag azi n es, o n l y a
s m a ll n u m b e ro f

s u b s c r ib e r s r e s id e w ith in th e S ta te o f F lo r id a . F u r th e r“m e r e ly

3
a d v e r tis in g in m a g a z in e s o f n a tio n a l c ir c u la tio n th a t a r e r e a d in th e f o ru m s ta te is nota s i gni f

i c a ntc ont a c tf

orj ur i s di c t i ona l purpos e s . ” C ha r i a v. C i ga r e tt e R a c i ng8

T e a m , I nc . , 583 F
. 2d 184, 187 ( 5th C i r . 1978) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on
om i tt e d)
. O the rw i s e , a bus i ne s s tha ta dve r t i s e d i n a na t i ona l m a ga z i ne w oul d be
s ubj e c tt o j ur i s di c t i on i n vi rtua l l y e ve ry s t a t e . W hi l e the s e c ont a c t s c ount , the y do notc ountf

orm uc h. F i na l l y , w i th r e s pe c tt o the br oc hur e s m a i l e d t o P a l m e ri n F l or i da , a nd the T e xa s A & M s tudy f

a xe d t o hi m , w e not e tha tthi s i s ol a t e d c ont a c tw i th a

“ prospect i ve F l ori da pu rc hase r” w as do ne atthe behestof P al m er , pl ai nt i ff L a w s on’ s a ge nt , a nd doe s notc ons t i tut e purpos e f ul a va i l m e ntby the de f

e nda nt P a s tu r e R e n o v a to r s . S e e R u iz d e M o lin a v . M e rr itt & F u r m a n I n s . A g e n c y , I n c ., 207 F
. 3d 1351, 1356 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( “ [ I ] ti s i m por t a ntt o r e m e m be rtha tthe cond uctati ss ue i s thatof the defendant s. . . . T here fore , w e m ustdet erm i ne w hat the s e de f e nda nt s di d t o purpos e f ul l y a va i l the m s e l ve s of the be ne f

i t s of doi ng bus i ne s s i n A l aba m a s uc h tha tthe not i ons of r e a s onabl e ne s s a nd f

a i rne s s a r e not of f e nde d by r e qui r i ng the m t o de f e nd the m s e l ve s i n a n A l aba m a c our t . ” )
. T he d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin c o n c lu d in g th a t d e f e n d a n t’s c o n ta c ts w ith F lo r id a in
r e s p o n s e to P a lm e r ’s u n ila te r a l r e q u e s ts d id n o t c o n s titu te p u rp o s e f u l a v a ilm e n t. Ac c o r d i n g l y , a n d t a k i n g a c c o u n to f a l l o f th e a l l e g e d c o n t a c t s t o g e th e r , we
c o n c lu d e th a t P a s tu r e R e n o v a to r s d id n o t h a v e th e r e q u is ite m in im u m c o n ta c ts w ith the S t at e of F l ori da t o al l ow a c ou rti n F l ori da t o con st i tut i on al l y e xerc i se pers on alIn addition to finding minimum contacts with the forum, a n exercise of

personal 4 jurisdiction over a de fenda nt must comport with traditional noti ons of fair play and substantial jus tic e . In ma

kingthi s d e terminatio n, thec ourt loo ks at: (a) the burden on the def

endant, (b) the for

um State's interest in adjudicatingthe dispute, (c) the plaintiff' s interest in obtainingconvenient and ef fec tive relief

, (d) the interstate judicial system' s interest in obtainingthe most effic ient resolution of controversies, and ( e) theshare d interest of theseveral States in furthering fu ndamental su

bs tantiveso c ial po lic ie s. Meier exrel. Meier v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264, 1276 (11th Cir. 2002). B eca use we concludethat therewere insuffic ient minimumcontac ts for the e x erc ise of per sonal jurisdiction ov er P a stureReno vator s, wene e d n ot add re ss t hisa dditi on al re quire ment. 9 j ur i s di c t i on. 4 I I I . CONCL US I ON F or al l of the abov e r ea sons, thi s C ou rtaf fi rm s the di stri ctcourt ’ s order di s m i s s i ng thi s a c t i on f

orl a c k of

pe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on. AF F I RME D.