Opinion ID: 2675191
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: TG satisfies the stream of commerce plus test

Text: Unlike the Fifth Circuit, see Ainsworth, 716 F.3d at 178, the Eleventh Circuit has not yet interpreted McIntyre; instead “[r]elevant Eleventh Circuit case law is unclear as to which test it would adopt,” because “the Eleventh Circuit had applied, but had never explicitly adopted [the stream of commerce plus test], which arose from Justice O’Connor’s plurality opinion in [Asahi].” 27 Case: 12-31213 Document: 00512636188 Page: 28 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 No. 12-31213 Hatton v. Chrysler Canada, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1365 (M.D. Fla. 2013); Simmons v. Big No.1 Motor Sports, Inc., 908 F. Supp. 2d 1224, 1228–29 (N.D. Ala. 2012) (“It is unclear which of the two tests the Eleventh Circuit endorses.”). But, even assuming that the Eleventh Circuit would conclusively embrace the stream of commerce plus test after McIntyre (or had done so prior to McIntyre), Taishan’s contacts with Florida suffice. The evidence demonstrates that Taishan engaged in “additional conduct such that it could be said to have ‘purposefully availed’ itself of the privilege of conducting business in” Florida. Vermeulen v. Renault, U.S.A., Inc., 985 F.2d 1534, 1549 (11th Cir. 1993). Among other availments, Taishan entered into a sole agency agreement with a Florida company to sell its products and arranged the shipping of its drywall to Florida. See Vermeulen, 985 F.2d at 1548 (noting that defendant “created and controlled the distribution network that brought its products into the United States”). TTP agreed to sell OTC TG’s exclusive brand of drywall and make OTC—a Florida company—the sole sales agent of TG’s drywall, which reflects TG’s purposeful availment of Florida through its agency relationship with TTP. See Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 759 n.13 (recognizing that “a corporation can purposefully avail itself of a forum by directing its agents or distributors to take action there”); id. (noting approvingly that “‘marketing [a] product through a distributor who has agreed to serve as the sales agent in the forum State’ may amount to purposeful availment.” (quoting Asahi, 480 U.S. at 112 (opinion of O’Connor, J.)). Moreover, Taishan specifically altered its products to suit the forum state by marking its packaging “Tampa,” stamping a Florida phone number on the packaging, and marking its drywall with a certification that it met or exceeded American standards. See Asahi, 480 U.S. at 112 (noting that “[a]dditional conduct of the defendant may indicate an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum State, for example, designing the product for the 28 Case: 12-31213 Document: 00512636188 Page: 29 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 No. 12-31213 market in the forum State”); Germano, 742 F.3d at 589 (holding the stream-ofcommerce-plus test satisfied because “TG not only included the name of a Virginia company on its product, it also included a phone number with a Virginia area code. Through its own acts, TG connected its product to Virginia, and ensured that the product’s end-users would identify its product with a Virginia resident.”). Similarly here, Wenlong Peng testified: “We would stamp it for the customer.” These actions go beyond merely placing a product in the stream of commerce and demonstrate purposeful availment. 18 TG relies on Banton Indus., Inc v. Dimatic Die & Tool Co., 801 F.2d 1283, 1284–85 (11th Cir. 1986), which addressed whether “the due process clause prohibits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose sole contact with the forum state was an out-of-state sale of goods to a resident of the forum state.” Id. at 1284. Jurisdiction did not lie, the court held, because Dimatic is not an Alabama corporation and has no contacts with that state other than its sale of goods to an Alabama resident. Nor does Dimatic actively seek business in Alabama. In fact, the contract and sale upon which Banton bases its claim arose out of Banton’s unsolicited order of goods from Dimatic. Furthermore, Dimatic tendered the goods to Banton in Omaha, Nebraska. At no time did any representative of Dimatic enter Alabama. Id. at 1284. Here, Taishan made more than a single sale to a Florida company and did actively seek business in Florida—it entered a sole sales agreement with a Florida company to sell TG drywall, arranged shipping to Florida ports on 18 As our court in Germano recognized, these facts do not present a traditional “stream-of-commerce” case: “most cases address contacts when a product only reaches the forum state after an out-of-state distributor sells the out-of-state defendant's product into the forum.” Germano, 742 F.3d 576. As in Germano, that Taishan “knowingly sold its products directly to” Florida residents “is, on its own, a significant contact with the forum.” Id. But we also “need not decide whether this contact alone would suffice to meet the first prong of the minimum contacts test because [Taishan] also designed its product for market in [Florida], and because it was not an isolated sale.” Id. 29 Case: 12-31213 Document: 00512636188 Page: 30 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 No. 12-31213 multiple occasions, expressed a willingness to expand shipping to Florida, and expressed a desire to expand its sales in the United States with OTC, a Florida company. 19 Accordingly, even assuming that TG would benefit from the most stringent minimum-contacts test, jurisdiction would still be proper.