Opinion ID: 2675191
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conducting business within Florida

Text: Under § 48.193(1)(a)(1) TG is subject to jurisdiction in Florida for “any cause of action arising from . . . [o]perating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in this state or having an office or agency in this state.” In order to satisfy this provision, “[t]he activities of the [defendant] sought to be served . . . must be considered collectively and show a general course of business activity in the State for pecuniary benefit.” Sculptchair, 94 F.3d at 627 (quoting Dinsmore v. Martin Blumenthal Assocs., Inc., 314 So. 2d 561, 564 (Fla. 1975)); see also Future Tech Today, Inc. v. OSF Healthcare Sys., 218 F.3d 1247, 1249 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam); Golant v. German Shepard Dog Club of Am., Inc., 26 So. 3d 60, 63 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) (noting the same); Citicorp Ins. Brokers (Marine), Ltd. v. Charman, 635 So. 2d 79, 81 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (noting the same). Further, “[i]t is not necessarily the number of transactions, but rather the nature and extent of the transaction(s) that determines whether a person is ‘carrying on a business venture’ within the state.” Joseph v. Chanin, 869 So. 2d 738, 740 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004). In Horizon Aggressive Growth, L.P. v. Rothstein-Kass, P.A., 421 F.3d 1162, 1167 (11th Cir. 2005), the court highlighted “[f]actors relevant, but not dispositive” to this analysis. These 14 The district court also noted other contacts between Taishan and Florida. For instance, Taishan sold drywall to Beijing Building Materials Import and Export Co., Ltd., which sold the drywall to Rothchilt International, Ltd., which shipped it to La Suprema Enterprises, Inc. and La Suprema Trading, Inc., which finally sold it to Banner in Florida. Taishan also represented that it could ship to Florida when contacted by SCI Co., Ltd. Guardian also purchased drywall from Taishan, which was subsequently shipped to Stock Building Supplies, which in turn sold it to builders in Florida. 22 Case: 12-31213 Document: 00512636188 Page: 23 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 No. 12-31213 include: (1) “the presence and operation of an office in Florida,” (2) “the possession and maintenance of a license to do business in Florida,” (3) “the number of Florida clients served,” and (4) “the percentage of overall revenue gleaned from Florida clients.” Id. (citing Florida cases utilizing each factor). The third and fourth factors are relevant here. First, Taishan sold 200,000 sheets of drywall for about $800,000 in Florida. 15 Second, Taishan negotiated with Florida companies, and arranged shipping to Florida. See Robert D. Harley Co. v. Global Force (H.K.) Ltd., No. 05-21177-CIVSEITZ/MCALILEY, 2007 WL 196854, at  (S.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2007) (jurisdiction proper under Florida law because, among other reasons, defendant “shipped from [its] factories in Jordan and China directly to VF Corp’s Tampa location”). Third, Taishan granted a Florida company the sole right to purchase a specific brand of its drywall. See Sierra v. A Betterway Rent- A-Car, Inc., 863 So. 2d 358, 360 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (finding statute satisfied when defendants “were aware that its vehicles were driven in Florida,” “did not discourage or prohibit its customers from driving in Florida,” and advertised itself as a “global system of rental agencies, available for worldwide rental arrangements”). Fourth, Taishan specifically altered some boards by stamping “Tampa, Florida” and a Florida phone number; shipped samples to Florida; and insured its shipments to Florida. These and the other Florida contacts “show a general course of business activity in the state for pecuniary benefits.” Citicorp Ins., 635 So. 2d at 81 (deriving commissions of $600,000 over five years, “sending numerous letters 15TG argues that the amounts attributed to TG were clearly erroneous and takes issue with Exhibit 1, which it objected to below. The district court overruled its objection. On appeal, TG argues that this exhibit was based on inadmissible evidence, but does not explain in any detail how the district court abused its discretion in admitting it beyond this assertion. Further, the district court computed its amounts by looking at multiple sources including testimony explaining that 30% of the $4,000,000 purchase order was paid up front. 23 Case: 12-31213 Document: 00512636188 Page: 24 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 No. 12-31213 and telefaxes back and forth to negotiate a deal with a Florida insurance broker,” and responding to a request by the Florida Insurance broker to provide coverage for a vessel moored in Florida, all supported long-arm jurisdiction); see Lennar Homes, No. 09-07901 CA 42, at 8 (holding that “Taishan was ‘carrying on business’ in Florida and that the Court may assert jurisdiction over Taishan under Section 48.193(1)(a)(1) of the Florida long-arm statute.”), aff’d sub nom. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., 123 So. 3d at 637.