Pollard v. Steel Systems Const. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-503-CIV-EPS.,81-503-CIV-EPS. |
| Citation | 581 F. Supp. 1551 |
| Parties | William POLLARD, Plaintiff, v. STEEL SYSTEMS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Barry Meadow, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff.
Paul C. Huck, Miami, Fla., Israel Abrams, North Miami Beach, Fla., Carl B. Schwait, Miami, Fla., for defendants.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on a motion to dismiss by Defendants INDUSTRIAL PESQUERA MONTEVERDE, C.A. (a.k.a. INPECA) and GUNTHER LISKEN and a second motion to dismiss and motion to quash service of process by Defendant INPECA. The Court having reviewed the same and being otherwise duly advised, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the original motion to dismiss by INPECA and GUNTHER LISKEN (Docket # 25) is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant INPECA's second motion to dismiss and motion to quash (Docket # 44) are GRANTED.
Given the fact that Plaintiff concedes in its memoranda that the first motion to dismiss, as it pertains to GUNTHER LISKEN should be granted, the Court dismisses Defendant LISKEN from this cause without further comment.
As to Defendant INPECA, it is the opinion of the Court that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant INPECA under F.S.A. Sections 48.181 and 48.193. Plaintiff contends that the Defendant was doing business in the State of Florida and as such, is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of the Florida long-arm statutes. It is settled law that Florida's long-arm statutes require more activities or contacts to sustain personal jurisdiction than is demanded by the Constitution. See Mallard v. Aluminum Company of Canada, 634 F.2d 236 (5th Cir.1981), American Baseball Cap v. Duzinski, 308 So.2d. 639 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.1975) and Youngblood v. Citrus Associates of the New York Cotton Exchange, Inc., 276 So.2d 505 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1973). Personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants in Florida is limited to situations where the cause of action arises from the doing of business in Florida or the cause has some other connection to a specified act committed in Florida. See Burger King Corporation v. CPM & F, Inc., 537 F.Supp. 651 (S.D.Fla.1982) and Bloom v. A.H. Pond, 519 F.Supp. 1162 (S.D.Fla.1981). This is the so called connexity requirement which must be satisfied before jurisdiction over a foreign defendant may be exercised. In addition, it has been consistently held that the language setting forth the contacts required by long-arm jurisdiction statutes must be strictly construed. See American Baseball Cap v. Duzinski, supra. Assuming that defendant INPECA had engaged in sufficient activities so as to be doing business within the state, it is the opinion of the Court that there is a lack of connexity between Defendant's business activity in Florida and the cause of action. There is no dispute that the Plaintiff was injured while working in Ecuador. Moreover, Plaintiff's allegations of negligence are all founded upon acts or omissions which occurred in Ecuador. Crown Colony Club, Ltd. v. Honecker, 307 So.2d 889 (Fla. 3d. Dist.Ct.App. 1973), lends ample support to INPECA's contention that the cause of action did not arise out of the Defendant's activities in Florida. While the Court recognizes that the facts of the instant case are not identical to those found in Crown Colony, they are sufficiently similar so as to buttress the Defendant's position that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it.
In an apparent attempt to obviate the Defendant's argument that the cause of action did not arise out of business INPECA had done in Florida, Plainti...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Santos v. Sacks
...permitted by the Constitution. Bloom v. A.H. Pond Co., Inc., 519 F.Supp. 1162, 1165 (S.D.Fla.1981); Pollard v. Steel Systems Construction Co., Inc., 581 F.Supp. 1551, 1552 (S.D.Fla. 1984). Further, plaintiffs, as the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction under the long-arm statute, have the ......
-
Carnival Corp. v. Gagliano
...See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984); Pollard v. Steel Sys. Constr. Co., 581 F.Supp. 1551 (S.D.Fla.1984); Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Cornerstone Bus., Inc., 872 So.2d 333, 336-37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Camp Illahee Investors, ......
-
Utility Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Cornett
...of Florida. See e.g., American Motors Corp. v. Abrahantes, 474 So.2d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); see also Pollard v. Steel Systems Construction Co. Inc., 581 F.Supp. 1551 (S.D.Fla.1984); Bloom v. A.H. Pond Co., 519 F.Supp. 1162 (S.D.Fla.1981). As Pollard and Bloom indicate, Florida's long-arm s......
-
Elmlund v. Mottershead, 3D99-1251.
...See also New York Marine Managers, Inc. v. Maitland Bros. Co., 746 F.Supp. 95 (S.D.Fla. 1990); Pollard v. Steel Systems Constr. Co., Inc., 581 F.Supp. 1551 (S.D.Fla. 1984); Milberg Factors, Inc. v. Greenbaum, 585 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA Affirmed. 1. The case against Carnival remains pending......