[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
__________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 14 2000
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 99-11767 CLERK
__________
D.C. Docket No. 98-08541-CV-KLR
FUTURE TECHNOLOGY TODAY, INC.,
a Florida Corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS,
an Illinois Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
__________
(July 14, 2000)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and BRIGHT*, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case presents the question of personal jurisdiction in a diversity case in
which the Appellant, Future Technology Today, Inc. ("FTT"), a Florida corporation,
*
Honorable Myron H. Bright, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
brought an action for breach of contract and conversion against the Appellee, OSF
Healthcare Systems ("OSF"), an Illinois corporation. The contract in question
required FTT to remediate OSF's computer systems to obtain year 2000 ("Y2K")
compliant status. OSF operates various health care facilities in the Midwest (seven
in Illinois, one in Michigan, and one in Iowa). It does no business in the usual sense
in any other state.
The factual predicate for a personal jurisdictional dispute between the parties
rests on circumstances indicating that, while FTT agreed to remedy the computer
systems located in Illinois, it performed, or attempted to perform, its remedial work
on data transmitted by the Internet from OSF to Appellant's workplace in Boca Raton,
Florida.
Prior to Appellee declaring the contract in default, the parties dealt with FTT
personnel who came to OSF's headquarters in Peoria, Illinois. Other communication
occurred between Peoria headquarters and Boca Raton by regular, first-class mail,
electronic mail, facsimile, or telephone.
After FTT filed its action in federal district court in Florida, the Appellee
moved for a dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court
considered the motion on affidavits, as well as by conducting an evidentiary hearing.
At the conclusion, the district court granted the motion and dismissed the action in an
2
Order dated May 17, 1999. The Appellant contends that personal jurisdiction over the
Illinois corporation exists under Florida long-arm statutes, Fla. Stat. § 48.193(a)
(carrying on a business or business venture in Florida);
Fla. Stat. § 48.193(b)
(committing a tort in Florida); and
Fla. Stat. § 48.193(g) (breaching a contract by
failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in Florida).
We affirm the district court. We have carefully considered the record, the
briefs, and the oral arguments of the parties. We conclude that the district court
opinion by the Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp fully and fairly discusses the issues
and has reached the correct result in the case.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM on the basis of the district court opinion in District
Court Case No. 98-8541-CIV-RYSKAMP, attached as an appendix hereto, dismissing
the action.
3
