Opinion ID: 2645047
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mosseri’s Corporate Shield Defense

Text: On appeal, Mosseri argues for the first time that he is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida because any websites sales and infringement acts by him 29 Case: 12-12501 Date Filed: 12/02/2013 Page: 30 of 39 were made on behalf of his corporation, JEM Marketing. First, Mosseri did not raise this corporate shield argument in his Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate or during the district court’s evidentiary hearing. Thus, we consider this argument waived. See Miller v. King, 449 F.3d 1149, 1150 n.1 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that because a “claim was never raised in the district court” this Court would “not consider it for the first time on appeal”); Narey v. Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526–27 (11th Cir. 1994) (“[A]ppellate courts generally will not consider an issue or theory that was not raised in the district court.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). In any event, even if the argument is not waived, this case involves intentional torts, meaning that Mosseri cannot invoke Florida’s corporate shield doctrine. For purposes of personal jurisdiction under Florida law, the corporate shield doctrine creates a “distinction between a corporate officer acting on one’s own and a corporate officer acting on behalf of one’s corporation.” Doe v. Thompson, 620 So. 2d 1004, 1006 (Fla. 1993). Florida courts have held “that it is unfair to force an individual to defend a suit brought against him personally in a forum with which his only relevant contacts are acts performed not for his own benefit but for the benefit of his employer.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Importantly, however, under Florida law, this corporate shield doctrine is inapplicable where the corporate officer commits intentional torts. Id. at 1006 n.1 (stating “[a] corporate officer committing fraud or other intentional misconduct can 30 Case: 12-12501 Date Filed: 12/02/2013 Page: 31 of 39 be subject to personal jurisdiction”); see also Kitroser v. Hurt, 85 So. 3d 1084, 1088 n.3 (Fla. 2012). Because Louis Vuitton alleges that Mosseri committed intentional torts, his corporate shield defense to personal jurisdiction fails under Florida law.