Court Opinion

ID: 9397070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 15:04:26.97749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:21.531568
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                             FOURTH DISTRICT

                           LORNAMEAD, INC.,
                              Appellant,

                                     v.

                JOANNE FLEEMIN and JOHN FLEEMIN,
                           Appellees.

                              No. 4D22-3385

                              [May 24, 2023]

  Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Martin J. Bidwill, Judge; L.T. Case No.
CACE21022203.

  Mary J. Street and Eduardo Medina of Foley Mansfield, Miami, for
appellant.

   No appearance for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

   Lornamead, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in New York, appeals the trial court’s order denying its motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in this products liability action.
Because the record reflects a lack of minimum contacts to support
personal jurisdiction, we reverse.

   Appellees, John and Joanne Fleemin, filed a products liability action
against numerous defendants, including Lornamead, alleging that Joanne
developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos through her
use of cosmetic talcum powder products of various brands, between the
years of 1978 to 2015. One of the brands, which was attributed to
Lornamead, was Yardley Lavender.

   In their complaint, appellees alleged jurisdiction as to all defendants,
including Lornamead, based on the defendants having “maintained
sufficient contact with the State of Florida and/or transacted substantial
revenue producing business in the State of Florida” to subject them to the
jurisdiction of Florida courts.
   Lornamead moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction, attaching the affidavit of its Senior Vice President of Finance
(“Lornamead V.P.”), to the motion. The Lornamead V.P., in the affidavit,
averred that Lornamead was incorporated in Delaware in 2002, with its
principal place of business in New York. According to the affidavit,
Lornamead has no operations or facilities in Florida, has no officers or
directors based in Florida, does not own or lease any real property in
Florida, and has never manufactured Yardley Talcum powder.

    The Lornamead V.P. further stated in the affidavit that Lornamead
acquired Yardley brand trademarks in various geographic territories,
including the United States. After the acquisition, Lornamead sold a total
of six bottles of Yardley talcum powder to Walgreens within the U.S. from
2005-2012. Lornamead did not distribute any Yardley brand talcum
powder in the U.S. after 2012, and did not sell the powder to any Winn-
Dixie or Eckerd’s store during this same time frame.

   In opposition to the motion to dismiss, appellees relied on Joanne’s
deposition testimony that she purchased and used the powder “during the
years Lornamead admits to having liability for Yardley powder.” She stated
that she purchased the powder from Winn-Dixie, “maybe Eckerds,” and
that she “may have [also] gotten it at Walgreens” in Florida. She further
stated that she used the Yardley powder “[a]bout 15 percent of the time,”
about two bottles per year, from about 1983 to 2015. She did not have
any Walgreens’ receipts for this timeframe.

   The trial court held a non-evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss.
Lornamead argued that appellees did not produce any evidence
contradicting Lornamead’s affidavit stating that it had no purposeful
contacts in Florida and that Joanne’s deposition testimony was not
enough.

   In response, appellees emphasized Joanne’s testimony that she had
purchased the Yardley powder in Florida. Appellees argued that the
reason Joanne was able to purchase the product in Florida was because
Lornamead purposefully, either directly or indirectly, allowed its products
to be sold by intermediaries in Florida.

   At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court announced its decision
that appellees’ facts, as pleaded, were sufficient to establish personal
jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute. As to minimum contacts,
the court determined that the Lornamead V.P.’s affidavit “precisely admits
to distributing to Walgreens during an operative period where this plaintiff

                                     2
alleges exposure.” The trial court subsequently entered an order denying
the motion to dismiss, and this appeal followed.

   We review a trial court’s order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction de novo. Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So. 2d 1252, 1256
(Fla. 2002).

   We have held:

      For a Florida court to have jurisdiction over a defendant under
      the long-arm statute, courts must apply a two-prong analysis.
      Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla.
      1989). The court first determines whether the facts as pleaded
      were sufficient to support personal jurisdiction under the
      long-arm statute, section 48.193, Florida Statutes.          Id.
      Secondly, if the first requirement is met, it determines
      “whether the federal constitutional due process requirements
      of minimum contacts have been met.” Id. (citations omitted).

      If the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis for long-arm
      jurisdiction, then the burden shifts to the defendant to contest
      those allegations, by affidavit or other proof, or to claim that
      the federal minimum contacts requirement is not met, by
      affidavit or other verified evidence. See Venetian Salami, 554
      So. 2d at 502. If adequately contested, then the burden shifts
      back to the plaintiff to refute the evidence the defendant
      submitted by affidavit or other evidence. Id. at 502.

S. Wall Prods., Inc. v. Bolin, 251 So. 3d 935, 938–39 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

   Here, appellees alleged in the complaint, that personal jurisdiction
existed as to Lornamead because:

      b. The alleged causes of action arise out of, or relate to, the
      business or business ventures conducted within Florida by
      [Lornamead] or through which [Lornamead] purposefully
      availed [itself] of Florida, invoked the benefits and protections
      of Florida law, or otherwise could reasonably have foreseen
      [its] activities would subject [it] to jurisdiction of the Florida
      courts;

      c. [Lornamead’s] asbestos-containing products were sold in
      Florida;

                                      3
      d. [Lornamead’s] asbestos-containing products acted upon
      Mrs. Fleemin in Florida when Mrs. Fleemin used and was
      around [its] asbestos-containing products in Florida.

         ...

      g. The foreign corporation [Lornamead] ha[s] committed
      wrongful acts either outside or inside Florida causing injury
      to Plaintiff as a result of products, materials, or things
      processed, serviced, or manufactured by [Lornamead] that
      were used or consumed within the state of Florida in the
      ordinary course of commerce, trade or use, including
      breaching its continuing duty to warn Mrs. Fleemin to avoid
      further asbestos exposures.

    The Lornamead V.P.’s affidavit sufficiently contested these allegations,
and appellees failed to meet their burden once Lornamead presented
evidence establishing lack of minimum contacts. See Bolin, 251 So. 3d at
939. The Lornamead V.P.’s affidavit stated that only six bottles of Yardley
powder were sold to Walgreens stores in the United States, not specifically
Florida, and no Yardley powder was sold to the other stores where Joanne
shopped. Although the trial court found that Lornamead “conceded” to
having sold the product in Florida, the only mention of Florida within the
the Lornamead V.P.’s affidavit is that Lornamead does not maintain an
office in Florida, has no operations in Florida, is not registered to do
business in Florida, and does not own or lease any real property in Florida.

    Joanne’s vague deposition testimony that she might have purchased
some of the powder at Walgreens is insufficient to meet her burden to
establish personal jurisdiction. Moreover, because of the limited number
of sales, if any in Florida, minimum contacts are not established. Evidence
that a defendant may have predicted its goods would reach the forum state
does not suffice to demonstrate personal jurisdiction, nor is the fact that
a defendant merely sold products that ended up in a state sufficient.
Imerys Talc Am., Inc. v. Ricketts, 262 So. 3d 799, 803-05 (Fla. 4th DCA
2018); see also Bolin, 251 So. 3d at 939–40 (“[M]erely placing goods in the
stream of commerce does not create sufficient minimum contacts to
warrant the assertion of jurisdiction.”).

   Here, appellees provided no evidence that Lornamead targeted Florida
for sales. See id. at 940 (“The ‘substantial connection’ between the
defendant and the forum State necessary for a finding of minimum
contacts must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully
directed toward the forum State. The placement of a product into the

                                     4
stream of commerce, without more, is not an act of the defendant
purposefully directed toward the forum State.”) (emphasis added) (quoting
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873, 886, 131 S. Ct. 2780,
180 L. Ed. 2d 765 (2011)); cf. Mazda Motor Corp. v. Triche, --- So. 3d ---,
2023 WL 2505842, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA Mar. 15, 2023) (affirming an order
denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction where the
record showed that Mazda Japan “did more than simply place its vehicles
in the global stream of commerce heedless of the American and Florida
markets. Instead, it engaged in the sort of additional conduct indicat[ing]
an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum State[.]” ) (internal
quotation marks omitted).

   In sum, because appellees failed to meet their burden once Lornamead
presented evidence stablishing a lack of minimum contacts, we reverse the
order denying Lornamead’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. On remand, the trial court shall dismiss Lornamead from the
action.

   Reversed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., WARNER, and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

                           *         *         *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                     5