Court Opinion

ID: 9894177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 19:00:56.260283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:58.903965
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11062     Document: 28-1       Date Filed: 10/31/2023   Page: 1 of 10

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                     In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eleventh Circuit

                            ____________________

                                  No. 23-11062
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

        MICRO FINANCE ADVISORS, INC.,
        a Florida corporation,
                                                         Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        CLAUDIO MATUS COLOUMB,
        an individual residing in Guatemala,

                                                       Defendant-Appellee.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
USCA11 Case: 23-11062       Document: 28-1        Date Filed: 10/31/2023      Page: 2 of 10

        2                        Opinion of the Court                    23-11062

                         D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-22303-JLK
                             ____________________

        Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Micro Finance Advisors, Inc. appeals the dismissal of its
        amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the sole
        defendant, Claudio Matus Coloumb. After review of the parties’
        briefs and the record, we aﬃrm in part, vacate in part, and remand
        in part.
                                                  I
                                                 A1
               Micro is a Florida corporation that “provides ﬁnancial man-
        agement” for several companies (“Related Companies”) in Latin
        America, including Banco Solidario, Sociedad Anonima, in Ecua-
        dor (“Banco Solidario”), and Banco de Antigua, Sociedad Anonima,
        in Guatemala (“Banco de Antigua”). On behalf of the Related
        Companies, Micro may (1) authorize payments, (2) negotiate
        agreements, and (3) hire and ﬁre top level executives. Fernando
        Bueno, who will soon become relevant, is vice President of Micro
        and operates out of its headquarters in Miami, Florida. Mr. Bueno
        is also chairman of the board of directors of Banco de Antigua,

        1 The facts herein are taken from Micro’s amended complaint and its attach-

        ments.
USCA11 Case: 23-11062     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 10/31/2023    Page: 3 of 10

        23-11062              Opinion of the Court                        3

        although he does not have any day-to-day responsibilities for the
        institution.
               Prior to 2014, Mr. Matus served as general manager and
        commercial vice president to a predecessor of Banco Solidario in
        Ecuador. In 2014, he moved to Guatemala to serve as the vice pres-
        ident of sales and vice-chairman of the board of directors for Banco
        de Antigua. Mr. Matus is a citizen of Chile.
               In March of 2016, Micro decided to ﬁre Mr. Matus from
        Banco de Antigua. Mr. Matus in turn requested to negotiate his
        severance with Mr. Bueno. Mr. Bueno negotiated on behalf of Mi-
        cro, Banco de Antigua, and other Related Companies. At all times
        relevant, Mr. Matus was aware of Mr. Bueno’s whereabouts and his
        responsibilities at Micro and Banco de Antigua. The two ex-
        changed several calls and emails, with Mr. Matus in Guatemala and
        Mr. Bueno in Florida. In one such email, Mr. Matus told Mr. Bueno
        that he was “willing to give up an important part of my income . .
        . and thus close tightly this chapter of my professional life.”
               The parties reached an agreement in April of 2016. Micro
        paid Mr. Matus $200,000 by depositing the money in his Panama-
        nian bank account, as requested by Mr. Matus. Micro transferred
        the money from its Bank of America account in the United States,
        which it had previously used to pay Mr. Matus bonuses. In addi-
        tion, Banco Solidario signed over a life insurance policy, allowing
        Mr. Matus to collect over $100,000 in surrender value; Banco de
        Antigua paid Mr. Matus $58,000; and Banco de Antigua continued
        to cover Mr. Matus’ rent and private security for some time. In
USCA11 Case: 23-11062      Document: 28-1         Date Filed: 10/31/2023   Page: 4 of 10

        4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-11062

        exchange, Mr. Matus agreed to release Micro and Banco de Antigua
        (and the other Related Companies) of any further liability.
               In May of 2018, Mr. Matus ﬁled a civil suit against Banco de
        Antigua and Micro in Guatemala seeking damages related to his
        termination. The next month, Mr. Matus ﬁled a “criminal action”
        against Mr. Bueno and an oﬃcer of Banco de Antigua in Guate-
        mala, accusing Mr. Bueno of the Guatemalan equivalents to fraud,
        conversion, and unjust enrichment.
                                              B
               Micro sued Mr. Matus in Florida state court in March of
        2020, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract,
        negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The crux of
        Micro’s lawsuit is that Mr. Matus never truly intended on abiding
        by the settlement agreement and thus obtained it by fraud.
               Mr. Matus removed the case to the Southern District of Flor-
        ida three months later and shortly thereafter moved to dismiss for
        lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, forum non conven-
        iens. In October of 2021, the district court granted the motion to
        dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds (“October Order”).
               In its October Order, the district court reasoned that Mr.
        Matus was subject to personal jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm
        statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193.(1)(a)(2), for allegedly committing a tor-
        tious act within Florida (i.e., sending and making allegedly fraudu-
        lent emails and calls into Florida). The district court held, however,
        that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would not comport with
USCA11 Case: 23-11062      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 10/31/2023     Page: 5 of 10

        23-11062               Opinion of the Court                         5

        due process because Micro was the “only link between the defend-
        ant and the forum . . . . ” D.E. 14 at 7 (quoting Walden v. Fiore, 571
        U.S. 277, 285 (2014)). Mainly, the district court reasoned that Micro
        sending money from the United States and Mr. Bueno being in Mi-
        ami were all of Micro’s choosing. The district court found the ef-
        fects test inapt because of Mr. Bueno’s double role as chairman of
        the board of directors of Banco de Antigua. The district court did
        not give weight to a 2014 trip by Mr. Matus to Florida because it
        was too far removed from and unrelated to Micro’s claims.
               In December of 2021, the district court reconsidered its Oc-
        tober Order based on Mr. Bueno’s representation that Mr. Matus
        speciﬁcally requested to be paid the settlement money from Micro’s
        Florida bank account to his account in Panama. In response, Mr.
        Matus moved the district court to again reconsider its exercise of
        personal jurisdiction following an evidentiary hearing. The district
        court agreed and referred the matter to a magistrate judge.
               In June of 2022, the magistrate judge held an evidentiary
        hearing at which Mr. Matus and Mr. Bueno testiﬁed. magistrate
        judge limited her review to whether Mr. Matus requested to be paid
        the settlement money from Micro’s Florida bank account. Alt-
        hough the magistrate judge found both witnesses to be credible,
        she concluded that “although Mr. Bueno had a basis to believe that
        [Mr. Matus] wanted him to use the Bank of America account, that
        impression was not created by any direction or statement that was
        made by [Mr. Matus]. Rather, he drew that conclusion because he
USCA11 Case: 23-11062      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 10/31/2023     Page: 6 of 10

        6                      Opinion of the Court                 23-11062

        knew that the previous payments to [Mr. Matus] made to his Pana-
        manian account came from Bank of America.” D.E. 46 at 12. The
        magistrate judge further explained that “[a]lthough [Mr. Matus]
        knew that [Micro] was in Florida, there is nothing in the record to
        support the allegation that he directed that a Florida or American
        bank pay his settlement.” Id. at 13.
                On that basis, the magistrate judge recommended that Mr.
        Matus’ motion for reconsideration be granted and that the district
        court dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. In doing so,
        the magistrate judge noted that “[Micro], of course, is free to
        amend the complaint . . . . ” Id. at 14. Micro failed to object to the
        magistrate’s report and recommendation. In August of 2022, the
        district court adopted the report, dismissed the case without preju-
        dice for lack of personal jurisdiction, and closed the case. That
        same day, Micro moved to have the district court reopen the case
        and allow it to ﬁle an amended complaint within ten days. district
        court granted Micro’s motion.
                On August 19, 2022, Micro ﬁled its amended complaint—the
        complaint at issue in this appeal. Mr. Matus again moved to dismiss
        the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The dis-
        trict court dismissed the case with prejudice because the amended
        complaint did not add anything new.
                                             II
               We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdic-
        tion. See SkyHop Techs., Inc. v. Narra, 58 F.4th 1211, 1222 (11th Cir.
        2023). Factual allegations in the complaint are accepted as true to
USCA11 Case: 23-11062      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 10/31/2023     Page: 7 of 10

        23-11062               Opinion of the Court                         7

        the extent that they are uncontroverted and all reasonable infer-
        ences are construed in the plaintiff’s favor. See Fraser v. Smith, 594
        F.3d 842, 846 (11th Cir. 2009).
               Under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, however, a party waives
        the ability to appeal a district court’s order relying on unobjected
        to factual and legal conclusions in a magistrate judge’s report. In
        such cases, we review waived objections for plain error “if neces-
        sary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. See Harrigan v.
        Metro Dade Police Dept. Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1191 (11th Cir.
        2020).
                                             A
                There are two steps for a federal court to determine whether
        it has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. See
        Sculptchair, Inc. v. Century Arts, Ltd., 94 F.3d 623, 626 (11th Cir.
        1996). First, “we must determine whether the Florida long-arm
        statute provides a basis for personal jurisdiction.” Id. If the answer
        is yes, “then we must determine whether sufficient minimum con-
        tacts exist between the defendants and the forum state so as to sat-
        isfy ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ under
        the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. (quot-
        ing Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 253,256 (11th Cir.
        1996)).
               We discuss only the second step because Mr. Matus does not
        challenge that Florida’s long-arm statute, Fla. Stat. §
        48.193.(1)(a)(2), applies. Micro, in turn, has not argued for any
        other provision of the long-arm statute. In reference to §
USCA11 Case: 23-11062       Document: 28-1         Date Filed: 10/31/2023    Page: 8 of 10

        8                       Opinion of the Court                    23-11062

        48.193.(1)(a)(2), we have acknowledged that the due process anal-
        ysis is the “more restrictive” step. See Internet Solutions Corp. v. Mar-
        shall, 611 F.3d 1368, 1371 n.1 (11th Cir. 2010 (remanding for district
        court to consider the “more restrictive” step of whether the exer-
        cise of jurisdiction would violate due process)).
                                               B
                In specific jurisdiction cases, we examine “(1) whether the
        plaintiff’s claims ‘arise out of or relate to’ at least one of the defend-
        ant’s contacts with the forum; (2) whether the nonresident defend-
        ant ‘purposefully availed’ himself of the privilege of conducting ac-
        tivities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefit of the fo-
        rum state’s laws; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdic-
        tion comports with ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial
        justice.’” Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1355
        (11th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). The plaintiff bears the burden
        of establishing the first two requirements. See id. If it carries that
        burden, Mr. Matus must then make a “‘compelling case’ that the
        exercise of jurisdiction would violate traditional notions of fair play
        and substantial justice.” Id. (quoting Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v.
        Food Movers Int’l, Inc., 593 F.3d 1249, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010)).
               Mr. Matus’ only contacts with Florida are his allegedly tor-
        tious emails and calls to Mr. Bueno in Florida to induce Micro into
        settlement. Micro does not appear to be challenging the magistrate
        judge’s unobjected to finding, and the district court’s reliance on
USCA11 Case: 23-11062        Document: 28-1         Date Filed: 10/31/2023        Page: 9 of 10

        23-11062                  Opinion of the Court                               9

        the same, that Mr. Matus did not intend for Micro to wire the set-
        tlement money from a Florida or even U.S. bank account. And in
        any event, we do not find any error.
               Under the first prong, Mr. Matus’ communications into
        Florida are certainly related to Micro’s claims in that without them
        there would be no contract or fraud.
                Where Micro runs into trouble is the second prong. Plain-
        tiﬀs suing nonresident defendants can establish purposeful avail-
        ment under the eﬀects test and the minimum contacts test. See Del
        Valle v. Trivago GMBH, 56 F.4th 1265, 1275–76 (11th Cir. 2022). Mi-
        cro relies exclusively on the eﬀects test. This test is met when the
        tort was intentional, aimed at the forum state, and caused harm
        that the defendant should have anticipated would be suﬀered in the
        forum state. See id. at 1276. 2
               In SkyHop Techs., Inc. v. Narra 58 F.4th 1211, 1230–31 (11th
        Cir. 2023)—a case Micro calls “directly on point”—we held that
        California residents satisfied the effects test when they extorted a
        Florida company they were in business with via emails sent into
        Florida. In contrast, this litigation’s connection to Florida is much
        more attenuated. This is an employment dispute between a Chil-
        ean citizen residing in Guatemala and a Guatemalan bank. The
        alleged breach of contract took place in Guatemala when Mr.

        2 In some ways, this is an awkward fit.  This is more of a breach of contract
        case than a tort case. Given that Mr. Matus has not raised this issue, we none-
        theless proceed with our analysis.
USCA11 Case: 23-11062       Document: 28-1        Date Filed: 10/31/2023       Page: 10 of 10

        10                       Opinion of the Court                    23-11062

        Matus initiated legal proceedings in Guatemala. Mr. Matus last vis-
        ited Florida in 2014, two years before his termination. Mr. Bueno
        serves as the chairman of the board of directors of the Guatemalan
        bank and as vice president of Micro. In negotiating with Mr. Matus,
        Mr. Bueno did so on behalf of both entities. 3
                So, how is Florida, and not Guatemala, the “focal point” of
        the harm? See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789 (1984). The reality
        is that Florida’s tangential connection to this litigation is driven pri-
        marily by Micro’s presence in Florida and not, as it must be, Mr.
        Matus’ actions. See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284–85 (2014).
                                            III
                We affirm the district court’s order granting Mr. Matus’s
        motion to dismiss Micro’s amended complaint. We vacate the op-
        erative order of dismissal, however, and remand for the district
        court to correct the dismissal into one without prejudice. See Posner
        v. Essex Ins. Co., Ltd., 178 F.3d 1209, 1221 (11th Cir. 1999) (affirming
        dismissal of claims for lack of personal jurisdiction but “in-
        struct[ing] the district court to dismiss these claims without preju-
        dice”).
            AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND
        REMANDED IN PART.

        3 Micro calls this a “highly disputed characterization,” but its own amended

        complaint alleges that “Mr. Bueno made it clear that he was negotiating on
        behalf of Plaintiff, in addition to the Related Companies that, as Defendant
        knew, Plaintiff has managerial control over.” D.E. 50 ¶ 8 (emphasis added).