Facts
- Hugo International, Inc., a women’s shoe wholesaler headquartered in Miami-Dade County, used Edward and Brian Fontana (residents of Pinellas County) as sales agents who traveled nationally for Hugo.
- Hugo alleged that, while still working for Hugo, the Fontanas traveled to California and agreed to represent a competitor, Sideout Shoe Company.
- Hugo further alleged the Fontanas disclosed Hugo’s confidential commercial information and induced Hugo’s exclusive Hong Kong supplier to stop supplying Hugo and instead supply Sideout.
- Hugo sued the Fontanas in Miami-Dade County for tortious interference with a business relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of FDUTPA.
- The Fontanas moved to dismiss or transfer for improper venue, asserting they resided in Pinellas County and none of the alleged tortious conduct occurred in Miami-Dade County.
- Hugo conceded the alleged tortious acts did not occur in Miami-Dade County but argued venue was proper there because Hugo felt the financial impact at its Miami-Dade headquarters.
- The trial court denied the motion; the Fontanas appealed the venue ruling.
Issues
- Under Florida’s general venue statute, does a tort claim “accrue” in the county where the plaintiff experiences economic loss, even if the defendants reside elsewhere and the alleged tortious acts occurred outside the county?
Decision
- The appellate court reversed the order denying dismissal or transfer for improper venue.
- Venue did not lie in Miami-Dade County because the causes of action did not accrue there.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings in a proper venue.
Legal Principles
- Under § 47.011, Florida Statutes, an action must be brought in the county where the defendant resides, where the cause of action accrued, or where the property in litigation is located.
- For venue purposes, a tortious interference claim accrues in the county where the overt acts constituting the interference occurred.
- Economic impact felt at a plaintiff’s headquarters does not, by itself, establish venue in that county when the defendants reside elsewhere and the alleged overt tortious acts occurred outside the county.
Conclusion
The court held that Miami-Dade County was an improper venue because the alleged overt acts of interference occurred in California and the defendants resided in Pinellas County; the plaintiff’s claim of financial harm at its headquarters did not shift where the causes of action accrued for venue purposes.