Opinion ID: 2675191
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Imputation is Proper

Text: The record demonstrates that TTP acted as TG’s agent under Florida law when it conducted its Florida contacts. This principal-agent relationship 14 Case: 12-31213 Document: 00512636188 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 No. 12-31213 allows for imputation of TTP’s contacts to TG for the purposes of personal jurisdiction. See Pesaplastic, 750 F.2d at 1522–23. First, TG allowed TTP to act on its behalf, and TTP did act on TG’s behalf. See, e.g., Stubbs v. Wyndham Nassau Resort & Crystal Palace Casino, 447 F.3d 1357, 1361–63 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding an agency relationship supporting imputation when, among other things, the agent “acted as an advertising and booking department” for the principal); Benson v. Seestrom, 409 So. 2d 172, 173 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) (“Even where an agent’s act is unauthorized, the principal is liable if the agent had the apparent authority to do the act and that apparent authority was reasonably relied upon by the third party dealing with the agent.”). For instance, TG authorized TTP to use TG’s trademark in producing drywall but did not charge TTP for this authorization. TTP also sold the exclusive right to purchase TG’s “DUN” brand of drywall even though TG did not formally authorize TTP to sell this brand. See id. at 173 (“While Paschall was not cloaked with authority to execute contracts on appellant’s behalf, he certainly had the apparent authority necessary to conduct negotiations between the parties.”). Second, TG and TTP held themselves out to be the same entity to customers such as OTC (a Florida company) and Guardian. See, e.g., John Scott, 670 F. Supp. at 346 (finding fact that entity acted on behalf of principal in negotiating contracts was a factor favoring agency relationship). TTP employees used TG email address, fax numbers, phone numbers, business cards, and websites when dealing with customers. See Stubbs, 447 F.3d at 1362 (finding an agency relationship supporting imputation when, among other things, the principal listed the agent’s address on checks). Moreover, the entities settled each other’s debts. Third, TTP was formed to conduct a narrow function for TG and it acted only to serve TG. See, e.g., Stubbs, 447 F.3d at 1362–63 (noting that imputation 15 Case: 12-31213 Document: 00512636188 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 No. 12-31213 was appropriate when the Florida subsidiary conducted business “solely for the nonresident corporation[]”); Meier, 288 F.3d at 1275 (finding that one factor to consider in determining imputation is whether the subsidiary “render[s] services on behalf of” the parent that are “sufficiently important” to the parent that the parent would “perform the equivalent services if [the subsidiary] did not exist”). For example, some of TTP’s board members did not receive compensation from TTP, TG rented or sold to TTP offices, factories, and equipment, and TTP returned these properties to TG when it ceased operating; TG and TTP did not accurately report their dealings with each other in their financial reports, 8 and TTP and TG were used interchangeably in contracts. See, e.g., PFM Air, Inc. v. Dr. Ing. hc. F. Porshe A.G., 751 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (finding imputation appropriate when, among other things, the parent paid the salaries of the subsidiary’s employees and the parent “controlled the warranty program” that issued in the subsidiary’s name). These factors demonstrate TG’s control over TTP. As Lennar Homes summarized, “TTP had no independent purpose outside of servicing TG’s needs and, as such, was its agent under Florida law.” Lennar Homes, No. 09-7901 CA 42, at 5. Accordingly, because TTP acted as TG’s agent when it executed its Florida contacts, those contacts can be imputed to TG for the purposes of personal jurisdiction.