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

Heading: Imputation under Florida Law

Text: Under Florida law, a foreign parent corporation is generally not “subject to the jurisdiction of a forum state merely because a subsidiary is doing business there.” Meier ex rel. Meier v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264, 1272 (11th Cir. 2002). But if: the subsidiary is merely an agent through which the parent company conducts business in a particular jurisdiction or its separate corporate status is formal only and without any semblance of individual identity, then the subsidiary’s business will be viewed as that of the parent and the latter will be said to be doing business in the jurisdiction through the subsidiary for purposes of asserting personal jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1069.4 (3d ed. 2002)). Indeed, Florida’s long-arm statute recognizes that an agent’s contacts with Florida can be imputed to its principal 6 Applying Florida law is also consistent with Lennar Homes, LLC v. Knauf GIPS KG, No. 09-07901 CA 42 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Aug. 31, 2012). As noted in the district court opinion, Judge Fallon and Judge Farina coordinated their hearings because of the overlapping issues in TG’s motions in the MDL court and those in the Florida court. In Lennar Homes, the court held that Florida law applied to the imputation question: Here, Florida is not only the place of business for many of the parties, but it is also the place where the injuries that gave rise to the causes of action occurred. The property damage suffered by hundreds of Florida residents comprises the foundation of this litigation, and this factor weighs heavily in finding that Florida law should apply in determining whether TTP’s actions can be attributed to TG under Florida principles of agency. Lennar Homes, No 09-07901 at 2. The Third District Court of Appeal in Florida summarily affirmed Judge Farina’s decision. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. v. Lennar Homes, LLC, 123 So. 3d 637 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2013) (per curiam). In support of its affirmance, the court relied on the portion of Judge Fallon’s September 4, 2012 Order discussing Mitchell, which applied Florida law to the imputation decision. Lennar Homes is instructive because “when the supreme court of a state has not spoken to a particular issue, the well-established practice of this Circuit is to follow the opinion of the highest court which has written on the matter.” Birmingham Fire Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Winegardner & Hammons, Inc., 714 F.2d 548, 550 (5th Cir. 1983); see also Temple v. McCall, 720 F.3d 301, 307 (5th Cir. 2013). 8 Case: 12-31213 Document: 00512636188 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 No. 12-31213 for jurisdictional purposes: “A person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits . . . to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 48.193(1)(a) (emphasis added); see also Dev. Corp. of Palm Beach v. WBC Constr., LLC, 925 So. 2d 1156, 1161 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (“While a parent corporation is not subject to jurisdiction in Florida solely because its subsidiary does business here, the control of a parent over a subsidiary may permit the conclusion that the subsidiary is acting as the agent of the parent, thus subjecting the parent to jurisdiction under section 48.193(1) and supporting ‘minimum contacts.’” (internal citations omitted)). “Essential to the existence of an actual agency relationship is (1) acknowledgment by the principal that the agent will act for him, (2) the agent’s acceptance of the undertaking, and (3) control by the principal over the actions of the agent.” Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So. 2d 422, 424 n.5 (Fla. 1990). “The issue of control is critical to the determination of agency.” State v. Am. Tobacco Co., 707 So. 2d 851, 854 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998). The parent’s control “must be high and very significant.” Enic, PLC v. F.F. S. & Co., Inc., 870 So. 2d 888, 891 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004). “[T]he parent corporation, to be liable for its subsidiary’s acts under the . . . agency theory, must exercise control to the extent the subsidiary manifests no separate corporate interests of its own and functions solely to achieve the purposes of the dominant corporation.” Id.