Court Opinion

ID: 9377652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 16:03:56.776858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:15.448564
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                             FOURTH DISTRICT

                            DAVID W. RACE,
                               Appellant,

                                    v.

                        WILLIAM J. MITCHELL,
                              Appellee.

                             No. 4D22-1979

                             [March 8, 2023]

   Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Jeffrey R. Levenson, Judge; L.T. Case
No. 0602021CA007130AXXXCE.

  James S. Toscano and Rebecca E. Rhoden of Lowndes, Drosdick,
Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.

    James A. Stepan of Law Offices of James A. Stepan, P.A., Hollywood,
for appellee.

GROSS, J.

   Defendant David Race appeals the nonfinal order denying his motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We reverse, concluding that
Defendant lacks sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to require him
to defend a lawsuit in this state.

   Background

   Plaintiff William “Billy” Mitchell sued Defendant in Florida for alleged
violations of the Florida Security of Communications Act (the Act), Chapter
934, Florida Statutes (often referred to as the “wiretap statute”).

   Using a smartphone application that automatically recorded all of his
calls, Defendant, while in Ohio, recorded 27 phone calls with Plaintiff in
Florida, including seven calls Defendant made from Ohio to Plaintiff in
Florida. Defendant neither disclosed that he was recording nor obtained
Plaintiff’s consent to record any of the calls.
   Defendant initiated the series of conversations from Ohio by calling
Plaintiff in Florida to discuss Plaintiff’s disputed video game world records.
Defendant communicated with Plaintiff and others in Florida during a
year-and-a-half long “investigation” that Defendant conducted of the
records. Defendant eventually accused Plaintiff of cheating and disclosed
one of the recorded calls to Twin Galaxies, an entity that administers video
game records. Defendant also referred to the call in Internet postings and
voluntarily filed a transcript of the call in a defamation case that Plaintiff
has brought against Twin Galaxies in California.

    Plaintiff sued Defendant in Florida under section 934.10, Florida
Statutes (2019), which creates a civil remedy for violations of the Act,
including unlawfully recording phone calls without the consent of all
parties. See § 934.10(1), Fla. Stat. (2019) (“Any person whose wire, oral,
or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation
of ss. 934.03-934.09 shall have a civil cause of action against any person
or entity who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person
or entity to intercept, disclose, or use, such communications . . . .”); §
934.03(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2019) (allowing “a person to intercept a wire, oral,
or electronic communication when all of the parties to the communication
have given prior consent to such interception”) (emphasis added).

   Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under
Florida’s long-arm jurisdiction statute, arguing that he did not commit a
tort in Florida because he recorded the calls from Ohio, where consent of
all parties was not required. See § 48.193(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (2019)
(providing for long arm jurisdiction over a non-resident that “commit[s] a
tortious act within [Florida]”).

  Defendant also argued that he lacked minimum contacts with Florida
and that subjecting him to suit in Florida violated due process.

   The trial court denied the motion and concluded that Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged that Defendant committed tortious acts in Florida
because the interception of Plaintiff’s words—the conduct prohibited by
the Act—occurred in Florida. See State v. Mozo, 655 So. 2d 1115, 1117
(Fla. 1995) (“The actual ‘interception’ of a communication occurs not where
such is ultimately heard or recorded but where the communication
originates.”). Defendant timely appeals.
    Discussion

   Defendant lacks sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy
due process. See Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 500
(Fla. 1989).

   Without contradiction, Defendant alleged that he owns no property and
does no business in Florida. He has visited just twice in the last decade
and has no other ties to Florida.

   It is significant that the conduct that offends the Florida Plaintiff—the
recording of phone calls without his consent—is not illegal in Ohio, where
the calls were recorded. The recording of the calls is not malum in se, a
wrong or evil in itself that is prohibited everywhere. 1 Nor is the act of
recording a conversation akin to a tort like slander or libel, which is
recognized as tortious conduct in every state. While a defamation action
deters falsehoods, an unaltered, audible recording conveys with precision
what was said.

    The Fifth District recognized in France v. France, 90 So. 3d 860, 863
(Fla. 5th DCA 2012), that “the United States Supreme Court has held that
‘[a] State cannot punish a defendant for conduct that may have been lawful
where it occurred.’” Id. (quoting State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Campbell,
538 U.S. 408, 421 (2003)).

   “[T]o subject a defendant to an in personam judgment when he is not
present within the territory of the forum, due process requires that the
defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.” Parthenais, 554 So. 2d at 500 (citing Int’l Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)).

   Where a defendant legally records a phone conversation in his home
state, and has no other significant contacts with Florida, it offends
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to require him to
appear in Florida to defend against a lawsuit for an alleged violation of the
Florida Security of Communications Act.

1Florida is one of just 11 states that requires all-party consent. Rauvin Johl,
Reassessing Wiretap and Eavesdropping Statutes: Making One-Party Consent the
Default, 12 Harv. L. & Pol’y Rev. 177, 180 & n.27 (2018).
   Although Defendant knew he was calling into Florida, we note that cell
phones have largely displaced land lines and a call to a number in a
specific area code does not necessarily mean that the call was received
within the geographical limits of the area code. Personal jurisdiction
should not entirely turn on a cell phone’s location in Florida when a
conversation is legally recorded by a cell phone under the law of the state
where the voice communication is received.

    The Fifth District faced a similar issue of personal jurisdiction in France
but held that Florida had jurisdiction over a defendant who surreptitiously
recorded telephone calls with a Florida plaintiff in a jurisdiction that
allowed such a recording. 90 So. 3d at 863–64. France certified conflict
in the case law that has never been resolved.

   The conflict originates from two Second District cases. In Koch v.
Kimball, 710 So. 2d 5, 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), a Georgia defendant recorded
a telephone call with a Florida plaintiff. The Second District held that long
arm jurisdiction was proper in Florida. Id. at 7–8.

   Years later, in a footnote, the Florida Supreme Court approved of Koch
because “the decision held that a telephonic communication into Florida
can constitute a tortious act under section 48.193(1)(b), [Fla. Stat.
(1999)].” Acquadro v. Bergeron, 851 So. 2d 665, 670 n.11 (Fla. 2003).

   After Acquadro was decided, the Second District, in an en banc
decision, unanimously receded from Koch. The court held that

      a Florida statute that creates a private cause of action for the
      nonconsensual interception of a communication originating
      within Florida cannot transform a defendant’s out-of-state act
      of recording that communication, standing alone, into a
      “tortious act within this state” for jurisdictional purposes.

Kountze v. Kountze, 996 So. 2d 246, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

    The Fifth District in France concluded that the Second District’s holding
in Koch—from which it has receded—controlled because the Florida
Supreme Court approved it in footnote 11 of Acquadro, quoted above. The
Fifth District certified conflict with Kountze.

   Unlike the Fifth District in France, we do not believe that footnote 11 in
Acquadro controls our decision in this case. The footnote does not address
the issue of minimum contacts under International Shoe but focuses on
the different proposition that “a telephonic communication into Florida
can constitute a tortious act under section 48.193(1)(b).” Acquadro, 851
So. 2d at 670 n.11.

   We certify an express and direct conflict with France.

   We therefore reverse and remand to the circuit court with directions to
enter an order dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

   Reversed; conflict certified.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., and KUNTZ, J., concur.

                             *      *         *

    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.