Facts
- Florida residents bought short-term, high-interest promissory notes issued by K.D. Trinh Investments, Inc., a Canadian company, through Florida-based independent agents, including Bernard Wendt.
- Investors sued Wendt in a Florida class action, alleging the notes were worthless and violated Florida securities laws.
- Wendt filed a third-party complaint against Marvin Horowitz and his Michigan law firm, alleging negligent legal advice and related conduct caused Wendt’s exposure to liability.
- K.D. Trinh retained Horowitz (in Michigan) to advise on U.S. securities matters, including Florida.
- Wendt alleged Horowitz advised that the notes were not securities under Florida law and that the agents did not need Florida securities licenses.
- During a Florida regulatory investigation, Horowitz—while remaining outside Florida—communicated in writing with Florida regulators and acted on K.D. Trinh’s behalf.
- Wendt alleged Horowitz negligently drafted loan documents intended for Florida transactions and negligently communicated with Florida regulators, causing harm in Florida.
Issues
- Whether a nonresident “commits a tortious act within” Florida under § 48.193(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by directing telephonic, electronic, or written communications into Florida when the alleged tort arises from those communications.
- Whether physical presence in Florida is required to satisfy the “tortious act” prong of Florida’s long-arm statute.
Decision
- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court decision that had rejected jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court held that “committing a tortious act” in Florida under § 48.193(1)(b) can be satisfied by telephonic, electronic, or written communications into Florida, if the cause of action arises from those communications.
- The Court clarified that the statutory long-arm analysis is separate from the constitutional due process analysis, which must still be addressed on remand.
- The Court did not decide whether in-state injury alone (without qualifying communications) is sufficient under § 48.193(1)(b).
Legal Principles
- Physical presence in Florida is not required for a nonresident to commit a tortious act in Florida for purposes of § 48.193(1)(b).
- A nonresident satisfies § 48.193(1)(b) when the alleged tort arises from telephonic, electronic, or written communications purposefully directed into Florida.
- Personal jurisdiction requires a two-step analysis: (1) whether the long-arm statute applies, and (2) whether exercising jurisdiction satisfies due process (minimum contacts and fair play).
Conclusion
Florida’s long-arm statute permits personal jurisdiction over a nonresident whose allegedly tortious conduct consists of communications directed into Florida, so long as the claim arises from those communications; the case was remanded for further proceedings, including any due process evaluation.