Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A.

Citation558 F.3d 1210
Decision Date12 February 2009
Docket NumberNo. 07-11958.,07-11958.
PartiesRichard OLDFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PUEBLO DE BAHIA LORA, S.A., d.b.a. Parrot Bay Village, Iffy Iffy de Osa, S.A., Defendants-Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

Detra Shaw-Wilder, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Coral Gables, FL, for Defendants-Appellants.

Michael Charles Black, Cassidy & Black, P.A., Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge:

This appeal challenges a district court order denying a motion to set aside a default judgment. The appellants contend that the judgment is void because the district court lacked jurisdiction over their persons. We agree and accordingly vacate the judgment and remand with the instruction to dismiss the case.

I.
A.

Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., is a Costa Rican corporation1 owned by two United States citizens and residents, Sean Weaver and Arthur Augustensen.2 The corporation owns and operates a fishing village and resort in Costa Rica named "Parrot Bay Village."

Richard Oldfield, is a resident of Port St. Lucie, Florida. In January 2005, while searching the internet at his home, Oldfield came across the website for Parrot Bay Village. The website, whose text was entirely in English, described the resort as both a "full service resort" and a "unique sport fishing and rainforest eco-lodge."3 The site listed the Village's mailing address as 2040 Hwy 35 Suite 3 # 190, Wall, NJ 07719,4 and offered a toll-free number that potential guests could use to call the resort from within the United States and instructions on how to configure cell phones bought and used in the United States.

Intrigued by the services and amenities offered by the resort, Oldfield submitted an online reservation request through the Parrot Bay Village website,5 which he later confirmed in an email to the resort on January 10. In the exchange that followed, Oldfield submitted a credit card authorization form to secure a room for three nights at the resort, March 4-7. He also made arrangements with a charter service for a one-day fishing trip on March 6. Oldfield was injured while aboard the chartered boat,6 and that injury is the subject of this litigation.

B.

On September 28, 2005, Oldfield filed a single-count complaint against Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., d/b/a Parrot Bay Village ("Pueblo" or "Parrot Bay Village"),7 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, claiming that the boat captain's negligence caused his injury and that Pueblo was legally responsible for the captain's neglect.8 Oldfield invoked the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction on two bases. The first was diversity jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.9 Oldfield alleged that he was a citizen of Florida, that Parrot Bay was a Costa Rican corporation with offices in New Jersey, and that the amount in controversy exceeded the sum of $75,000. The second was the court's admiralty jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1333.10 Oldfield alleged that the events surrounding and giving rise to his injuries occurred at sea and had the requisite nexus to maritime activity. Oldfield averred that the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants under the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193, because Pueblo was engaged in business within the state of Florida.11

After receiving an extension of time to complete service, Oldfield filed a notice with the district court on March 9, 2006, stating that Pueblo had been successfully served with process on February 7, 2006. On March 29, 2006, Oldfield filed a motion for the entry of a default pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), and the clerk of court entered a default on April 4, 2006. On June 28, 2006, the district court, acting on Oldfield's motion, entered a default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) in the amount of $810,895.94.12

Following the court's entry of judgment, Pueblo moved the district court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4),13 to set aside the default judgment on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction.14 Pueblo argued that exercising jurisdiction under the Florida Long-Arm Statute was improper because it did not conduct or engage in business within the state.15 Pueblo claimed that it (1) did not maintain an office in Florida, (2) did not have employees or agents in Florida, (3) did not own real estate in Florida, and (4) did not provide any services in Florida or solicit business in Florida. Pueblo further noted that the alleged injury occurred aboard a fishing boat that it neither owned nor operated. Moreover, the captain's negligence and Oldfield's injury had occurred off the coast of Costa Rica and, thus, had no relationship with Florida.

Oldfield countered Pueblo's motion with the argument that the district court had personal jurisdiction under the Florida Long-Arm Statute because (1) the boat involved in the accident, although not owned or operated by Pueblo, was purchased in Florida, (2) Oldfield viewed the Parrot Bay Village website while in Florida, and (3) Parrot Bay Village sponsored and participated in an event in Islamorada, Florida in 2005 for a women's organization called "Ladies Let's Go Fishing." These acts, he submitted, amounted to conducting business within Florida.

As an alternative basis for personal jurisdiction, Oldfield relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2),16 which, in cases where a defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state's courts of general jurisdiction, authorizes a district court to "aggregate a foreign defendant's nationwide contacts to allow for service of process provided that two conditions are met: (1) plaintiff's claims must `arise under federal law,' and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction must `be consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.'" Consol. Dev. Corp. v. Sherritt, Inc., 216 F.3d 1286, 1291 (11th Cir.2000) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(2)). Oldfield argued that since his injury occurred on the high seas and had a nexus with maritime activity the rule's first condition was satisfied because his claim arose under maritime law. He argued that the second condition was satisfied as well because Pueblo had established continuous and systematic contacts within the United States. As factual bases for these claims, in addition to those he had previously cited, Oldfield pointed to the following contacts Pueblo had with the United States: Pueblo had a New Jersey mailing address from approximately 2001-2002; had a bank account in New Jersey, which was closed on August 31, 2005, that was used to purchase goods and pay bills for advertising;17 advertised in "Fisherman" magazine in 2004-2005 for the months of December, January, and February; distributed cards and brochures in New Jersey and South Carolina; and donated a trip to the resort as part of a fundraiser for New Jersey's Recreational Fishing Alliance.

In its reply, Pueblo did not challenge Oldfield's factual assertions; rather, it argued that, as a matter of law, the facts failed to establish that it was within the reach of the Florida Long-Arm Statute or Rule 4(k)(2).

Because the material facts relating to the personal jurisdiction issues were not in dispute, there was no need for an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, after hearing argument of counsel, the court issued its ruling. In an order entered on March 27, 2007, the district court denied Pueblo's motion to vacate the default judgment. It held that, although Pueblo lacked sufficient contacts with Florida to satisfy its long-arm statute, Pueblo was amenable to personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) because the rule's conditions had been met. First, Oldfield's claim arose under maritime law because the injury occurred on navigable waters and the claim had a sufficient nexus with maritime activity. Second, Pueblo's activities in the United States demonstrated that Pueblo had purposefully established minimum contacts with the United States, such that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction would not offend constitutional due process.18

Pueblo now appeals the district court's decision, presenting one issue: whether the district court erred in finding that Pueblo's contacts with the United States were sufficient to satisfy Rule 4(k)(2)'s second requirement, that the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction is "consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States."

II.

It goes without saying that, where the defendant challenges the court's exercise of jurisdiction over its person, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of establishing that personal jurisdiction is present.19 See e.g., Stubbs v. Wyndham Nassau Resort & Crystal Palace Casino, 447 F.3d 1357, 1360 (11th Cir.2006). We have consistently held that the issue of whether personal jurisdiction is present is a question of law and subject to de novo review. Sculptchair, Inc. v. Century Arts, Ltd., 94 F.3d 623, 626 (11th Cir.1996).20 This standard applies whether the issue is raised by way of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) or a motion to set aside a judgment under Rule 60(b)(4). See Sloss Indus. Corp. v. Eurisol, 488 F.3d 922, 925 (11th Cir.2007) (applying de novo review over in personam jurisdiction challenge brought under Rule 60(b)(4)); Cable/Home Commc'n Corp. v. Network Prods., Inc., 902 F.2d 829, 855 (11th Cir.1990) (applying de novo review in Rule 12(b)(2) context). This is so because "`[a]n in personam judgment entered without personal jurisdiction over a defendant is void as to that defendant.'" Sloss Indus. Corp., 488 F.3d at 924 (quoting Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 442 (D.C.Cir.1987)). While it is true that we generally review a district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a default judgment under...

To continue reading

Request your trial
345 cases
  • In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • 20 Junio 2019
    ...... See Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A. , 558 F.3d 1210, 1218 & n.22 ......
  • Interim Healthcare, Inc. v. Interim Healthcare of Se. La., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • 10 Junio 2020
    ...... Mosseri , 736 F.3d 1339, 1350 (11th Cir. 2013); Oldfield v . Pueblo De Bahia Lora , S . A ., 558 F.3d 1210, 1217 ......
  • Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Letyagin
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • 7 Agosto 2012
    ...... Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1218–19 ......
  • Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin & Parr
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 3 Agosto 2009
    ...... See Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1219 n. 22 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Personal Jurisdiction, Process, and Venue in Antitrust and Business Tort Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort litigation
    • 1 Enero 2014
    ...courts.” ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, 293 F.3d 707, 714 (4th Cir. 2002). 168. See Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1220 n.26 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing law review articles critical of the sliding scale but ultimately declining to take an explicit position......
  • Chapter § 5.04 TOUR OPERATORS, WHOLESALERS AND PUBLIC CHARTERS
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Travel Law
    • Invalid date
    ...Fico Travel, 2011 WL 5920918 (D.N.J. 2011) (DOSHA provides exclusive remedy). Eleventh Circuit: Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S. A., 558 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2009) ("Richard Oldfield . . . while searching the internet at his home [in Florida] . . . came across the website for Parrot Bay......
  • Chapter § 1.03 TRAVEL ABROAD, SUE AT HOME
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Travel Law
    • Invalid date
    ...Italy; jurisdiction over Portuguese bus driver under Colorado long-arm statute). Eleventh Circuit: Oldfield v. Pueblo Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2009) (injury during fishing trip at Parrot Bay Village in Costa Rica; no jurisdiction under Florida long-arm statute); Stubbs v. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT