Opinion ID: 78169
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lovelady's contacts with Florida

Text: Lovelady maintains that he has no constitutionally significant contacts with Florida. He has no office, no agents, no employees or property in Florida. His sporadic travel to Florida in connection with his management of Carman and other music groups, he argues, is both constitutionally insufficient and unrelated to this cause of action. [3] Although apparently conceding that his website is related to Carman's claim, [4] Lovelady contends that it not a sufficient contact upon which to predicate personal jurisdiction in Florida. [5] As we have discussed above, the constitutional litmus test for personal jurisdiction is whether the defendant purposefully established `minimum contacts' in the forum State.' Burger King, 471 U.S. at 473-74, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (quoting International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154). Jurisdiction may be constitutionally asserted over the nonresident defendant whenever he has by his own purposeful conduct created a substantial connection with the forum state. Id. at 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174. The Court has made clear, however, that [s]o long as it creates a `substantial connection' with the forum, even a single act can support jurisdiction. Id. (quoting McGee v. Int'l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957)). Intentional torts are such acts, and may support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant who has no other contacts with the forum. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984). In Calder, a California plaintiff sued a Florida newspaper and two of its employees in California state court based on an allegedly libelous article about the plaintiff. Id. In affirming jurisdiction, the Court noted that the nonresident employees' article was not untargeted negligence, but rather an intentional and allegedly tortious act expressly aimed at the plaintiff in the forum state because the defendants knew their article would have a potentially devastating impact on the California plaintiff. Id. at 789-90, 104 S.Ct. 1482. The defendants knew that the brunt of the harm to plaintiff's reputation would be suffered in California. Thus, California was the focal point of the tort and jurisdiction was proper there based on the effects in California of defendants' Florida conduct. Id. at 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482. The Supreme Court concluded that [a]n individual injured in California need not go to Florida to seek redress from persons who, though remaining in Florida, knowingly cause the injury in California. Id. at 790, 104 S.Ct. 1482. Similarly, in Keeton, decided the same day as Calder, the Court emphasized that states have a special interest in exercising jurisdiction over those who commit intentional torts causing injury to their residents. 465 U.S. at 776-77, 104 S.Ct 1473. In Keeton, the Court affirmed the exercise of jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant magazine alleged to have intentionally libeled the plaintiff in the forum. Id. Many courts have employed the Calder effects test when the plaintiff's claim involves an intentional tort. The Seventh Circuit upheld the exercise of personal jurisdiction in a trademark infringement action by the Indianapolis Colts football team against a nonresident Canadian football team, also calling themselves the Colts. Indianapolis Colts, Inc. v. Metropolitan Baltimore Football Club Ltd. Partnership, 34 F.3d 410 (7th Cir.1994). The Seventh Circuit held that the Canadian team was subject to personal jurisdiction in Indiana even though its only activity directed toward Indiana was the broadcast of its games on nationwide cable television. Id. Because the Colts used their trademarks in Indiana, the court reasoned that the intentional injury to them by the Canadian team's exploitation of their name was sufficient to permit jurisdiction in Indiana. Id. Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that the defendant's connection with the forum in an intentional tort case should be evaluated under the Calder effects test, rather than the contracts-oriented minimum contacts test. Ziegler v. Indian River County, 64 F.3d 470, 473 (9th Cir.1995). In Ziegler, the court noted that: We apply different purposeful availment tests to contract and tort cases.... Consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Burger King, merely contracting with a resident of the forum state is insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction over a nonresident. In tort case, however, jurisdiction may attach if an out-of-forum defendant merely engages in conduct aimed at, and having effect in, the situs state. 64 F.3d at 473 (citing Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1486 (9th Cir.1993)). The court formulated the Calder test for personal jurisdiction as requiring a tort that was (1) intentional; (2) aimed at the forum state; and (3) caused harm that the defendant should have anticipated would be suffered in the forum state. Id. at 474 (affirming the exercise of jurisdiction over nonresident defendants alleged intentionally to have caused a false arrest). [6] Similarly, in Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1321-22 (9th Cir. 1998), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the exercise of jurisdiction in a trademark infringement action over a nonresident defendant whose sole contact with the forum was his posting of plaintiff's trademarks on his internet website. Id. The court found that the defendant knew that the brunt of the harm to Panavision would be felt in California where Panavision had its principal place of business. Id. [7] Although noting that the mere posting of an infringing trademark on a website without more might not be sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant purposefully aimed his activity toward the forum state, the court found that the defendant's use of Panavision's trademarks as his domain name on the internet was an attempt to extort payment from Panavision for the names and that this intentional conduct was sufficient to permit jurisdiction. Id. at 1321. In a recent case, the Ninth Circuit explained that something more is required under Calder than the mere foreseeability that an act may have effects in the forum, and concluded that Calder requires that the defendant expressly aim his wrongful conduct, individually targeting a known forum resident. Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1088 (9th Cir.2000). When the nonresident defendant targets a forum resident and injures him there, the court held, the defendant cannot complain when he is haled into court there. Id. at 1087. Recently the Middle District of Florida recognized that a number of courts have held that where a defendant's tortuous conduct is intentionally and purposefully directed at a resident of the forum, the minimum contacts requirement is met, and the defendant should anticipate being haled into court in that forum. New Lenox Industries v. Fenton, 510 F.Supp.2d 893, 904 (M.D.Fla.2007). In that case, the plaintiff had alleged fraud and misappropriation of trade secrets, and the district court held that jurisdiction was proper inasmuch as Plaintiff alleges that Defendants committed one or more intentional torts ... against Plaintiff who was injured in Florida. Id. at 904-05 (citing Godfrey v. Neumann, 373 So.2d 920, 922 (Fla.1979) (Florida Supreme Court similarly applied the effects test to find jurisdiction over the defendant alleged to have committed an intentional tort)). Finally, in Allerton v. State Department of Insurance, 635 So.2d 36 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), a Florida appellate court rejected an argument that neither the Florida long-arm statute nor the Constitution permitted the exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident alleged to have committed fraud and breach of fiduciary duty causing injury in Florida, stating [w]e do not believe that the supreme court [of Florida] intended... to deprive a Florida plaintiff, injured by the intentional misconduct of a nonresident corporate employee expressly aimed at him, of the right to obtain personal jurisdiction over that employee in a Florida court. Id. at 40. The court held that, because the defendant was alleged to have committed numerous intentional torts specifically aimed at a Florida resident, due process was satisfied under the Calder effects test. Id. The court concluded that the quality and nature of [the defendant's] actions were not so `random, fortuitous or attenuated' that [he] could not reasonably anticipate being haled into court in Florida. Id. In this case, Lovelady is alleged to have committed an intentional tort against Carmanusing his trademarked name and his picture on a website accessible in Florida in a manner to imply Carman's endorsement of Lovelady and his products. The use was not negligent, but intentional. The purpose was to make money from Carman's implied endorsement. The unauthorized use of Carman's mark, therefore, individually targeted Carman in order to misappropriate his name and reputation for commercial gain. These allegations satisfy the Calder effects test for personal jurisdictionthe commission of an intentional tort, expressly aimed at a specific individual in the forum whose effects were suffered in the forum. The Constitution is not offended by the exercise of Florida's long-arm statute to effect personal jurisdiction over Lovelady because his intentional conduct in his state of residence was calculated to cause injury to Carman in Florida. See Calder, 465 U.S. at 791, 104 S.Ct. 1482. Lovelady cannot now claim surprise at being haled into court here. See id. at 789-90, 104 S.Ct. 1482. [8]