Moo Young v. Air Canada, 83-1007
| Decision Date | 29 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1007,83-1007 |
| Citation | 445 So.2d 1102 |
| Parties | Derrick Waverly MOO YOUNG, Appellant, v. AIR CANADA, a foreign corporation; and Venezolana International De Aviacion, S.A., a foreign corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Thomas R. Trompeter of Casuso & Trompeter, South Miami, for appellant.
Walters, Costanzo, Russell, Zyne & Newman and E.J. Rickenback of Miller & Cliff, Miami, for appellee/Air Canada.
J. Michael Nifong, Sandra S. Barker of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Miami, for appellee/Venezolana De Aviacion, S.A.
Appellant, Derrick Waverly Moo Young, sued appellees, Air Canada and Venezolana International de Aviacion, S.A., both foreign corporations, in the Broward County circuit court and attempted to obtain service of process pursuant to Section 48.181, Florida Statutes (1981). The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over appellees and Moo Young appealed.
Essentially, the amended complaint alleged that Moo Young operated a business involving the shipping of agricultural products and other goods; his principal place of business is Broward County, Florida. Air Canada and Venezolana jointly operate a weekly cargo flight between San Jose, Costa Rica, and Toronto, Canada. Moo Young alleged that appellees breached their agreement with him whereunder he was to have the right to ship goods on this flight on an exclusive basis.
Air Canada filed a motion for more definite statement. Venezolana and Moo Young filed a joint motion to vacate a default judgment against Venezolana. Thereafter, appellees filed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Moo Young contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his action for want of jurisdiction over appellees.
Moo Young claims that the trial court had jurisdiction over the appellees because they both do business in Florida, namely, transporting persons and goods by air. In addition, Moo Young contends that appellees waived the right to contest personal jurisdiction because their motions prior to the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction constituted general appearances before the trial court.
Appellant is wrong on both counts. The alleged contract between Moo Young and appellees did not involve any activity in Florida of the type necessary to create the minimum contacts required for jurisdiction. The weekly flight went from San Jose to Toronto; there was simply no nexus alleged between the performance of the contract and the appellees' business in Florida. As stated in Venezolana's brief:
The oral contract at issue in this case had no nexus whatsoever with the State of Florida. The action is predicated upon an alleged breach of an alleged oral contract between MOO YOUNG and VIASA [appellee Venezolana] for an exclusive shipment of certain agricultural products on a once a week flight jointly operated by VIASA and Defendant, Air Canada from San Jose, Costa Rica to Toronto, Canada. Other than allegations that Plaintiff resides in Broward County, Florida, made phone calls to the defendants, and that VIASA operates an airline with regularly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bakalarz v. Luskin
...was not error or an abuse of discretion for the trial court to find personal jurisdiction over the appellant. See Moo Young v. Air Canada, 445 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), rev. dismissed, 450 So.2d 489 (Fla.1984); Cumberland Software, Inc. v. Great Am. Mortgage Corp., 507 So.2d 794 (Fla.......
-
Fincantieri-Cantieri Navali Italiani S. P.A. v. Yuzwa, 3D16–1015
...the relevant inquiry here is whether Yuzwa's cause of action arises from Fincantieri's business in Florida. See Moo Young v. Air Canada, 445 So.2d 1102, 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) ("The fact that a non-resident does business in Florida is not enough to obtain jurisdiction over it. In addition......
-
Segalis v. Roof Depot USA, LLC
...L.P., 83 So.3d 934, 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citing Ginsberg v. Lamour, 711 So.2d 182, 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ; Moo Young v. Air Canada, 445 So.2d 1102, 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) ). The law is clear and well-established that a simple notice of appearance by counsel does not constitute a gene......
-
Compania Helvetica De Navegacion S.A. v. Zorilla
...with the State of Florida to justify substitute longarm service. Corley v. Milliken, 389 So.2d 976 (Fla.1980); Moo Young v. Air Canada, 445 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); National League for Nursing v. Bluestone, 388 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Third, the plaintiff did not attempt to es......