Northwind Air Systems v. Terra's Garden , 273 So. 3d 1085 ( 2019 )

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 24, 2019.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D18-710
Lower Tribunal No. 16-15137
________________
Northwind Air Systems,
Appellant,
vs.
Terra's Garden, LLC,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Maria De Jesus Santovenia, Judge.
Graner Platzek & Allison, P.A. and Meredith A. Chaiken (Boca Raton), for
appellant.
No Appearance for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ., and LEBAN, Senior Judge.
FERNANDEZ, J.
Appellant, defendant below, Northwind Air Systems appeals the trial court’s
order denying Northwind’s amended motion to dismiss the third-amended
complaint with prejudice and for entry of final judgment. Appellee Terra’s Garden
LLC did not file an answer brief following issuance of an order to do so.1
Following review of Northwind’s initial brief and the appendix filed in this case,
we agree with Northwind and reverse.
On June 14, 2016, appellee/plaintiff Terra’s Garden LLC filed an unverified
complaint against Northwind, a Canadian corporation, for breach of contract,
breach of warranty of merchantability, and breach of warranty of fitness for a
specific purpose. Terra claimed in the complaint that jurisdiction was proper
because Northwind orally contracted with Terra “to improve [Terra’s] existing
systems with an industrial air vacuum machine.” On August 24, 2016, Northwind
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to attach
instruments upon which the alleged causes of action are brought, and failure to
state a cause of action for breach of warranty of fitness or a specific purpose. On
December 5, 2016, the trial court entered an agreed order on Northwind’s motion
to dismiss, allowing Terra twenty days to amend its complaint.
On January 18, 2017, Terra filed an unverified amended complaint, after
which Northwind moved to dismiss it. On March 24, 2017, the trial court held a
1 Appellee was ordered to file its answer brief within a time certain or be prevented
from filing an answer brief and participating in oral argument.
2
hearing on Northwind’s motion. The hearing was continued, and the trial court
ordered Terra to submit a memorandum of law to support its position that the court
had jurisdiction over Northwind. After Terra submitted the memorandum, on June
29, 2017, the hearing was continued. The trial court granted Northwind’s motion
to dismiss with leave for Terra to amend the complaint again.
On July 21, 2017, Terra filed a second amended complaint, asserting that the
parties orally contracted for Northwind to provide the equipment from Canada.
Terra claimed that “Defendants envisioned a continuing relationship with Plaintiff
in Florida by providing a ‘guarantee’ and a warranty over the equipment it
provided to Plaintiff.” Terra claimed that Northwind gave its warranty and
guarantee by email. Terra did not attach any supporting documents. Terra also
made reference to a purchase order that was also not attached to the second
amended complaint.
Northwind then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. At
the hearing on the motion on January 22, 2018, the trial court granted Northwind’s
motion to dismiss with leave for Terra to amend a fourth time to show there was
personal jurisdiction over Northwind. On January 29, 2018, Terra filed its third
amended complaint which was almost the same as the previous complaints, except
this time Terra attached a purchase order and emails. The purchase order
originally sent to Terra was numbered #MA529028. The purchase order attached
3
to the third amended complaint was numbered #NW528151. The email attached to
Terra’s complaint, indicated that Northwind stated, “What I can’t guarantee is the
efficiency of [Terra’s] operation.” Northwind also stated, “Unfortunately, you’ll
[referring to Terra] have to experiment somewhat, I think.” Terra claimed in its
third amended complaint that through email, Northwind guaranteed and warrantied
the equipment in Florida.
On February 13, 2018, Northwind filed an amended motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint. Northwind had previously provided affidavits from its
principal, John Doyle, and its president, Kevin Weaver. Terra did not provide a
rebuttal affidavit or any other sworn proof to rebut Northwind’s affidavits. On
April 11, 2018, the trial court conducted a non-evidentiary hearing and denied
Northwind’s amended motion to dismiss without prejudice, and gave Northwind
twenty days to file an answer. Northwind now appeals.
The standard of review on a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction is de novo. Castillo v. Concepto Uno of Miami, Inc.,
193 So. 3d 57, 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). We agree with Northwind that the trial
court erred in denying Northwind’s amended motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint because Terra did not meet its burden to establish proof of jurisdiction
over Northwind and because the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary
hearing.
4
In Tobacco Merchants. Association of the United States v. Broin, 657 So. 2d
939, 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), this Court stated:
“In determining whether a party is subject to in personam jurisdiction
in this state, the trial court must make two separate inquiries: 1)
whether sufficient facts have been alleged to bring the cause within
Florida's long-arm statute; and if so, 2) whether there have been
sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to satisfy federal
constitutional due process requirements.”
In addition, “A defendant wishing to contest the allegations of the complaint
concerning jurisdiction or to raise a contention of minimum contacts must file
affidavits in support of his position.” Id. “The burden is then placed upon the
plaintiff to prove by affidavit the basis upon which jurisdiction may be obtained.”
Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989). If the
affidavits cannot be reconciled, then “the trial court will have to hold a limited
evidentiary hearing in order to determine the jurisdiction issue.” Id. at 503. If a
plaintiff chooses not to file an affidavit to controvert the defendant’s affidavit, the
factual assertions of the defendant’s affidavit are treated as true. Archdiocese of
Detroit v. Green, 899 So. 2d 322, 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). If the plaintiff fails to
refute the allegations by providing sworn proof “as to the basis for jurisdiction, the
trial court must grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss.” Tobacco Merchs. Ass’n,
657 So. 2d at 941.
Terra claims that there is personal jurisdiction in Florida over Northwind, a
Canadian corporation, because Northwind has a website that one can access in
5
Florida and because Northwind has sold products in Florida. However, “[t]he
mere existence of a website does not show that a defendant is directing its business
activities towards every forum where the website is visible.” Trs. of Columbia
Univ. in City N.Y. v. Ocean World, S.A., 12 So. 3d 788, 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
In addition, here, Northwind filed the affidavits of its principal, John Doyle, and its
president, Kevin Weaver, in support of its position that Florida did not have
personal jurisdiction over it. Terra did not file any sworn proof to oppose these
affidavits. Northwind’s affidavits demonstrate that Northwind is headquartered in
Canada; it has never advertised in Florida; its sales in 2013 were less than 1% of its
total sales in Florida; in 2014, Northwind’s sales were less than .5% of total sales
in Florida; and in 2015, its sales in Florida were approximately 1% of its sales. The
affidavits further show that Northwind does not use its website to get sales from
Florida because there is no active link or web portal that a Florida buyer can
access. In addition, the affidavits indicate that of its website-generated sales, only
1/3 of 1% of Northwind’s total sales come from Florida. Furthermore, Northwind
did not solicit business from Terra. Terra contacted Northwind to purchase the
product from Northwind. The bill of sale was drafted in Canada and payment was
received in Canada. Consequently, the trial court erred in not granting
Northwind’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint.
6
Moreover, at a minimum, the trial court should have held an evidentiary
hearing to determine the jurisdiction issue, as required by Venetian Salami. In the
case before us, the hearing notice in the record does not demonstrate that the
hearing was an evidentiary one, and the order denying Northwind’s motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint does not give the reasoning the trial court
used to rule on the personal jurisdiction issue. Therefore, there is no way for this
Court to know if the hearing that was held was evidentiary.
Terra had four opportunities to show there was personal jurisdiction over
Northwind, and it was not able to do so. Thus, for these foregoing reasons, we
reverse the trial court’s order denying Northwind’s amended motion to dismiss the
third-amended complaint with prejudice and remand the case with instructions to
dismiss the third amended complaint with prejudice. Video Indep. Med.
Examination, Inc. v. City of Weston, 792 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
7