Opinion ID: 1037656
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dion

Text: Xena alleges in its complaint that Dion is an individual that resides in Aventura, Florida. Dion, in response, declares that he is a foreign citizen whose principal place of residence is outside the United States. For reasons previously 12 Xena argues that Meier ex rel. Meier, 288 F.3d at 1264, is applicable here. Xena claims that the consulting agreement between MFM and MUS, on its own, under agency principles, is enough to assert jurisdiction over MFM, and prove that MFM is present and doing business in Florida. Id. Through MUS, Xena contends, MFM is holding itself out as doing business in Florida, and MUS is sufficiently present in Florida, as the agent of MFM, to bind MFM. Id. We disagree. In Meier, there was a parent-subsidiary relationship between the foreign corporation and its Florida subsidiary. Id. at 1267. The Florida subsidiary in Meier had no identity of its own, and operated solely for the benefit of its parent foreign corporation. Id. at 1272. There were also significant financial ties between the Meier foreign corporation and its Florida subsidiary. Id. at 1273. None of these distinctions are present here. 11 Case: 11-14770 Date Filed: 08/14/2013 Page: 12 of 16 stated, there was evidence that Dion has no continuous or systematic contact with Florida. Thereafter, the burden of proof shifted back to Xena to prove that Dion had a nexus of minimum contacts with Florida. The district court found that Xena had failed to offer any proof in rebuttal of Dion=s declaration. As the district court found that there was no Abattle of affidavits,@ it was not Ainclined to give greater weight . . . to the plaintiff=s version@ of the facts. See Psychological Res. v. Gerleman, 624 F. Supp. 483, 486 (N.D.Ga. 1985). The district court determined that Xena had failed to establish a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over Dion. Xena=s claims against Dion were due to be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. We disagree. Under our de novo review, the record reflects that Xena submitted evidence that it had established personal jurisdiction over Dion under Florida’s transient jurisdiction rule, which is the exercise of jurisdiction based solely on a “non-resident [] when [the] non-resident is properly served with service of process while voluntarily present in the state.” Meier v. Sun Int’l. Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264, 1269 (11th Cir. 2002); Keveloh v. Carter, 699 So. 2d 285, 288 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997 (citing Burnham v. Super. Ct. of Cal., 495 U.S. 604 (1990)). Although Dion disputes this, the district court was required to accept Xena’s allegations as true, and should not have dismissed the claims against him 12 Case: 11-14770 Date Filed: 08/14/2013 Page: 13 of 16 for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Morris, 843 F.2d at 492. Nevertheless, we need not reach this issue, as the district court correctly dismissed Xena’s claims against Dion for lack of improper venue, discussed in the following Section B of this opinion. B. Motions to Dismiss for Improper Venue As the district court found, forum-selection clauses are presumed to be valid and enforceable Awhere the underlying transaction is fundamentally international in character.@ Lipcon, 148 F.3d at 1295. These clauses will not be upheld if there is a Astrong showing that enforcement would be unfair or unreasonable under the circumstances,@ but the party attempting to invalidate a forum-selection clause has a heavy burden of proof. Krenkel v. Kerzner Int=l Hotels Ltd., 579 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2009). As the district court stated: Forum selection clauses and choice of law clauses will be found unreasonable and unenforceable Aonly when: (1) their formation was induced by fraud or overreaching; (2) the plaintiff would effectively be deprived of its day in court because of the inconvenience and unfairness of the chosen forum; (3) the fundamental unfairness of the chosen law would deprive the plaintiff of a remedy; or (4) enforcement of such provisions would contravene a strong public policy.@ Lipcon, 148 F.3d at 1296. Also, a plaintiff must specifically allege that the forum selection clause was included in the agreement because of fraud when seeking to invalidate it. See id. at 1296 (citing Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 59495). 13 Case: 11-14770 Date Filed: 08/14/2013 Page: 14 of 16 Xena argues that its claims are broader than the Forbearance Agreement. It claims they do not necessarily arise out of, or in connection with the Forbearance Agreement. Xena contends that forum-selection clauses are not limitless, and, as Dion and David are non-signatories to the Forbearance Agreement, they cannot now invoke its forum-selection clause pertaining to English courts and English law. 13 Xena also argues that because it was fraudulently induced into the agreement the clause should not be binding, and therefore, venue in Florida is proper. Relying upon the standards of law set forth above, the district court found, that due to the presumption of validity of the forum clause contained in the Forbearance Agreement, and Xena=s failure to challenge the clause specifically, the forum-selection clause was valid. It dismissed all of Xena=s claims on the basis that Florida is not a proper venue. 13 At oral argument, Xena offered Bahama Sales Assoc., LLC v. Byers, 701 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2012), in support of its position that its claims surpass the limits of the Forbearance Agreement. In Bahama Sales, Byers purchased a lot in the Bahamas. The parties signed a lot purchase contract that contained a forum-selection clause and a choice-of-law clause that required all disputes to be litigated in Bahamian courts under Bahamian law. Id. at 1338. Byers=s mortgage financing note also contained a forum-selection clause and a choice-of-law clause. Id. That clause required that all disputes be litigated in Florida under Florida law. Id. When Byers failed to make payments on the mortgage note, Bahama Sales sued him in the Middle District of Florida. Id. The district court dismissed Bahama Sales=s breach-of-contract claim against Byers for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 1339. This court reversed the district court on the basis that the forum-selection clause of the secondary document, the mortgage note, requiring all disputes to be resolved in Florida, controlled. Id. at 1341. Xena=s reliance upon Bahama Sales is misplaced. The secondary agreements here, unlike those in Bahama Sales, do not require that all disputes be resolved in Florida. They direct the parties to the BVI. 14 Case: 11-14770 Date Filed: 08/14/2013 Page: 15 of 16 The district court found the same true for Dion, as MFM=s principal decision maker. Also, as representations made by David led to the execution of the Forbearance Agreement, the district court found that the forum-selection clause also controlled. Here, the district court enforced the forum-selection clause of the Forbearance Agreement, requiring all disputes be resolved under English law in English courts. Under our de novo review, the district court correctly enforced the forum-selection clause against the signatories to the Forbearance Agreement, Xena and MFM, and also the closely-related parties, Dion and David.14