{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2024-1834-2025-05-21","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2024-1834-2025-05-21)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-09","fingerprint":"ewai:us:85f6be","proof":"sha256:c026bda87c501f214edf1b191d7fa71dbe17ad9dc1258fcb102678dfc08ab184","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:fladistctapp-4d2024-1834-2025-05-21","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"FOURTH DISTRICT","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"JOHN AFFENITA, PRO-THOTICS TECHNOLOGY, INC., ADVANCED","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"BIOCEUTICALS LIMITED, LLC, NASS VALLEY GATEWAY, LTD., and","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"MARGARET AFFENITA, et al.,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Appellants,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"HOWARD I. STORFER,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"No. 4D2024-1834","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"[May 21, 2025]","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Broward County; Martin Bidwill, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE21001155.","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Saul Roffe of the Law Offices of Saul Roffe, Esq. P.C., Marlboro, New","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Jersey, and Ricardo A. Banciella of Ricardo A. Banciella, P.A., Miami, for","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"appellants.","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Scott M. Behren of Behren Law Firm, Weston, for appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"WARNER, J.","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"In Affenita v. Storfer, 355 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (Affenita I),","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"we affirmed the trial court’s order denying Howard Storfer’s motion to","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"vacate a default final judgment against John Affenita, Pro-Thotics","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Technology, Inc., Advanced Bioceuticals, LLC, and Nass Valley Gateway,","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Ltd., except for their claims of lack of personal jurisdiction. We remanded","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"for the court to conduct a hearing pursuant to Venetian Salami Co. v.","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989), to determine whether the court","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"had personal jurisdiction over the defendants. After a hearing, the court","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"determined it had personal jurisdiction over all defendants. We affirm the","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"court’s order as to Pro-Thotics and Nass without further comment. We","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"affirm the court’s order as to Affenita as well, because of the complaint’s","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"tort allegations. However, we reverse the order as to Advanced, because","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"no allegations were made to support jurisdiction over Advanced.","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Pro-Thotics is a New York corporation, licensed to do business in","paragraph_id":"para_33","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"Florida between 2014 and 2019, and selling durable medical equipment,","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"particularly orthotics and prosthetics. In April 2013, appellee Storfer","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"entered a Shareholder Agreement with Pro-Thotics. The Shareholder","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Agreement provided that appellee would own 50 of the Pro-Thotic’s 150","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"shares, and Pro-Thotics would own the rest. Appellee signed the","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"Shareholder Agreement in his personal capacity, while Affenita signed as","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"Pro-Thotics’ president. As of March 2018, Pro-Thotics had principal offices","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"in New York, New Jersey, and Florida.","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"At some point in 2017, Advanced purchased Pro-Thotics. Advanced’s","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"owners became Pro-Thotics officers. Advanced is a New Jersey corporation","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"formed to purchase other corporations, particularly those involved in pain","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"relief.","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"In March 2018, Nass, a Canadian company, executed a reverse merger","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"with Advanced, meaning Advanced and Pro-Thotics transferred all of their","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"shares to Nass in exchange for a majority stake in Nass. Nass operates in","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"the United States through its wholly owned subsidiary, Nass Valley","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Gardens (“NVG”), which has a principal office in Florida.","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"In January 2021, appellee, in his individual capacity, filed the original","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"complaint against Pro-Thotics and Affenita. Appellee alleged that, as an","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"owner of 50 Pro-Thotics shares, he should have been compensated when","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"Nass acquired Advanced and Pro-Thotics. In an amended complaint which","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"joined Advanced and Nass, appellee brought five counts. Count I alleged","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"Affenita and Pro-Thotics breached the Shareholder Agreement by failing to","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"compensate appellee after the Nass acquisition. Appellee also alleged that","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"Affenita and Pro-Thotics had promised but had failed to reimburse him for","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"$149,000 of company expenses. Count II alleged Affenita, Pro-Thotics and","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"Advanced were unjustly enriched when Affenita and Pro-Thotics retained","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"the benefit from the Nass acquisition without compensating appellee for","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"his shares in Pro-Thotics, as well as allowing those defendants to retain","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"the $149,000 without reimbursing him, would be unjust.","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"Count III alleged Affenita, Pro-Thotics and Advanced violated the","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) by selling all","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"Pro-Thotics’ shares, including appellee’s 50 shares, without paying","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"appellee for his shares. Count IV alleged Affenita, Pro-Thotics and","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"Advanced, breached a fiduciary duty to appellee based on the Shareholder","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"Agreement, which the two corporations allegedly breached by selling Pro-","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"Thotics without compensating appellee. Lastly, Count V alleged Nass","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"tortiously interfered with a business relationship, alleging that Nass knew","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"or should have known about the Shareholder Agreement and interfered","paragraph_id":"para_73","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"with the Shareholder Agreement by buying all Pro-Thotics’ shares without","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"compensating appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"None of the defendants answered the complaint. Defaults were entered,","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"resulting in a default final judgment. The defendants moved to vacate the","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"default, but the trial court denied the motions. The defendants appealed,","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"and we affirmed the trial court’s conclusions, except the court’s conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"that the defendants had waived their lack of personal jurisdiction defense.","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"Affenita I, 355 So. 3d at 441. We remanded for the trial court to consider","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"jurisdiction as to each defendant. Id. at 441–42. However, because the","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"defendants were otherwise defaulted, all allegations of the complaint","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"except for the jurisdictional allegations had been admitted by the default.","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"See Kotlyar v. Metro. Cas. Ins. Co., 192 So. 3d 562, 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"(“When a default is entered, the defaulting party admits all well-pled","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"factual allegations of the complaint.” (quoting Phadael v. Deutsche Bank","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Tr. Co. Ams., 83 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012))).","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"Pursuant to our mandate, the trial court first considered the","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"jurisdictional affidavits and then set the matter for a Venetian Salami","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"hearing. Affenita testified regarding his operation of Pro-Thotics and his","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"Florida contacts. Appellee testified that the Shareholder Agreement was","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"between himself and Pro-Thotics, and he provided evidence regarding the","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"relationships and activities of Pro-Thotics, Advanced, and Nass.","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"After hearing the evidence, the trial court found jurisdiction over each","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"defendant. As to Affenita, the court found general personal jurisdiction","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"pursuant to section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes (2020), because of","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"Affenita’s substantial and ongoing business in Florida “from 2014 until at","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"least 2019 if not the 2020’s.” The trial court also found that it had specific","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"personal jurisdiction over Affenita under section 48.193(1)(a), for operating","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"a business venture in this state, for committing a tort in this state, and for","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"breaching a contract by failing to perform obligations in this state. See","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"§ 48.193(1)(a)1., 2., 7., Fla. Stat. (2020). The trial court found personal","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"jurisdiction over Pro-Thotics for operating a business venture in this state.","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"§ 48.193(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2020). As to Advanced, the court found that it","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"had locations in Florida; thus, the court apparently found personal","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"jurisdiction over Advanced for operating a business venture in this state.","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"§ 48.193(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2020). From this order, the defendants appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Analysis","paragraph_id":"para_110","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"In Venetian Salami, our supreme court articulated the following test to","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"determine personal jurisdiction over a nonresident under Florida’s long-","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"arm statute:","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"In determining whether long-arm jurisdiction is appropriate","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"in a given case, two inquiries must be made. First, it must be","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"determined that the complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"facts to bring the action within the ambit of the statute; and","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"if it does, the next inquiry is whether sufficient “minimum","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"contacts” are demonstrated to satisfy due process","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"requirements.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"554 So. 2d at 502 (citation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"Additionally, we have discussed two different types of personal","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"jurisdiction:","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Personal jurisdiction can exist in two forms: “specific,” in","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"which the alleged activities or actions of the defendant are","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"directly connected to the forum state, and “general,” in which","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"the defendant’s connection with the forum state is so","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"substantial that no specific or enumerated relationship","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"between the alleged wrongful actions and the state is","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"necessary.","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"Caiazzo v. Am. Royal Arts Corp., 73 So. 3d 245, 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"Section 48.193(2), Florida Statutes, (2020), provides for general","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"jurisdiction: “A defendant who is engaged in substantial and not isolated","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"activity within this state, whether such activity is wholly interstate,","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"intrastate, or otherwise, is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"state, whether or not the claim arises from that activity.” In order to have","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the cause of","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"action must arise out of one of the acts enumerated in section 48.193(1)(a).","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"General personal jurisdiction may be established by an individual’s","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"business activities both in their personal capacity and on behalf of a","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"corporation. See May v. Needham, 820 So. 2d 430, 431 (Fla. 4th DCA","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"2002) (“[G]eneral jurisdiction over an individual may be based on that","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"individual’s activities as an employee on behalf of a corporation.”). The","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"substantial contact must continue reasonably close to the complaint’s","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"filing date. See Singer v. Unibilt Dev. Co., 43 So. 3d 784, 789 (Fla. 5th DCA","paragraph_id":"para_146","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"2010) (“[A] better interpretation focuses on the activities of the nonresident","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"during a reasonable period of time prior to filing the complaint, but not","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"necessarily up until the complaint is filed.”).","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"Several cases provide examples of how close to the commencement of","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"proceedings the activity must exist. In Murphy v. Murphy, 342 So. 3d 799,","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"804–05 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022), the court found that a husband who had","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"moved out of Florida about seven months before his former wife filed suit","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"against him was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida, even","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"though he had previously engaged in “robust contacts” within Florida, as","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"his current contact was not demonstrated as required by statute. In","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP v. Kar Kare Automotive Group, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"987 So. 2d 818, 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), we found a defendant was not","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"subject to general personal jurisdiction where the defendant had stopped","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"doing business in the state more than eighteen months before the plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"filed suit against the defendant. In Arch Aluminum & Glass Co. v. Haney,","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"964 So. 2d 228, 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), we found general personal","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"jurisdiction was not established where the defendant’s Florida contacts","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"ceased at least two years before the plaintiff’s suit was filed. Thus, while","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"substantial contact need not exist up to the commencement of suit to","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"establish general personal jurisdiction, such contact must be present","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"shortly before suit is filed.","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"Jurisdiction over Affenita","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"Regarding the trial court’s finding of general jurisdiction over Affenita,","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"the trial court did not affirmatively find that Affenita had continuous","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"contact with Florida through 2020, but found that Affenita had such","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"contact “until at least 2019 if not the 2020’s.” Affenita provided evidence","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"that he had been an officer of various Florida companies, but those","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"companies had all become inactive by September 2019. Appellee did not","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"show Affenita had Florida contacts after September 2019, except for","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"Affenita being a defendant in two lawsuits. Those lawsuits, however,","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"would not confer general jurisdiction. See Trs. of Columbia Univ. in City of","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"N.Y. v. Ocean World, S.A., 12 So. 3d 788, 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"(“Columbia’s participation in other lawsuits in Florida concerning subject","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"matters separate and distinct from this lawsuit does not create personal","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"jurisdiction over the university in this case.”).","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"As suit was not filed until January 2021, about fifteen months had","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"passed between the time Affenita had ceased conducting business in","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"Florida and the complaint’s filing date. Following Buckingham and","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"Murphy, we conclude that too much time had elapsed to subject Affenita","paragraph_id":"para_186","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"to general personal jurisdiction in Florida. The trial court thus erred in","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"finding personal jurisdiction over Affenita under section 48.193(2), Florida","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"Statutes (2020).","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"The trial court found specific personal jurisdiction over Affenita on","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"three grounds: under sections 48.193(1)(a)1., 48.193(1)(a)2., and","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"48.193(1)(a)7. As to section 48.193(1)(a)7. jurisdiction, premised upon","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"breach of the Shareholder Agreement, Affenita was not personally a party","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"to that agreement and did not personally owe any contractual duty to","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"appellee. Thus, section 48.193(1)(a)7. does not provide a basis for specific","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"personal jurisdiction over Affenita.","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"As to section 48.193(1)(a)1., which provides jurisdiction over","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"defendants operating a business in the state, and subsection (1)(a)2.,","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"which affords jurisdiction over defendants committing tortious acts in the","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"state, Affenita asserts the corporate shield doctrine exempts him from","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"jurisdiction. “Under the corporate shield doctrine, any activity in one’s","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"capacity as a corporate officer or director is exempted from consideration","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"in support of the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction over said officer or","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"director.” Carter v. Est. of Rambo, 925 So. 2d 353, 356 (Fla. 5th DCA","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"2006); see also Stomar, Inc. v. Lucky Seven Riverboat Co., 821 So. 2d 1183,","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“Because the individual defendants were acting","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"in their representative capacity on behalf of the limited liability company","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"in executing the brokerage agreement, the circuit court correctly","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"determined that it could not have personal jurisdiction over them under","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"section 48.193(1)(g).”). As Affenita acted in his corporate position","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"regarding the business operation, his activity in that capacity shields him","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"from personal jurisdiction pursuant to section 48.193(1)(a)1.","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"However, the corporate shield doctrine has its limitations where a tort","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"is committed in Florida. In Kitroser v. Hurt, 85 So. 3d 1084 (Fla. 2012),","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"our supreme court concluded that jurisdiction against a corporate","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"employee could be asserted where torts were committed in Florida:","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"Where an individual, nonresident defendant commits","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"negligent acts in Florida, whether on behalf of a corporate","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"employer or not, the corporate shield doctrine does not","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"operate as a bar to personal jurisdiction in Florida over the","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"individual defendant. Jurisdiction properly applies to “any","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"person” who commits torts “within this state.” § 48.193, Fla.","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"Stat. (2011). To hold otherwise would be tantamount to","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"providing corporate employees with a form of diplomatic","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"immunity and would abolish the legislative goal inherent in","paragraph_id":"para_226","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"adopting a long-arm jurisdictional statute: to provide an in-","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"state forum to hold those responsible who commit negligent","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"acts in Florida. Florida courts have personal jurisdiction over","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"nonresident defendants whose alleged negligent acts occur in-","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"state irrespective of whether these acts occurred for the","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"benefit of a corporate employer.","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"Id. at 1090.","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"Furthermore, “[a] corporate officer committing fraud or other","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"intentional misconduct can be subject to personal jurisdiction.” Doe v.","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"Thompson, 620 So. 2d 1004, 1006 n.1 (Fla. 1993). In State, Office of","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs v. Wyndham International,","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"Inc., 869 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), the court applied Doe to a","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"FDUTPA claim: “A deceptive or unfair trade practice constitutes a","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"somewhat unique tortious act because, although it is similar to a claim of","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"fraud, it is different in that, unlike fraud, a party asserting a deceptive","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"trade practice claim need not show actual reliance on the representation","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"or omission at issue.” Id. at 598. The court held that corporate officers or","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"employees could be individually liable, and thus subject to personal","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"jurisdiction, for committing a tort in Florida, depending upon their","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"involvement in the deceptive activity directed at Florida. Id. at 599.","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"Here, the complaint, now admitted because of the default, alleged that","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"Affenita and Pro-Thotics owed appellee a fiduciary duty under the","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"Shareholder Agreement because, under that agreement, appellee should","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"have been compensated when Pro-Thotics sold to Advanced. The","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"complaint also alleged a FDUTPA violation, claiming that Affenita and Pro-","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"Thotics engaged in deceptive practices by selling Pro-Thotics without","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"compensating appellee. Because the complaint alleges both a breach of","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"fiduciary duty and a FDUTPA violation, which occurred when the","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"defendant failed to pay appellee who was a Florida resident, long-arm","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"jurisdiction is available pursuant to section 48.193(1)(a)7., Florida","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"Statutes (2020). Thus, as to Affenita, the first criteria of personal","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"jurisdiction has been established.","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"Once a basis for long-arm jurisdiction has been determined, we must","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"determine whether the defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"Florida to satisfy due process, although neither the defendants/appellants","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"nor appellee address this in their briefs. The due process minimum","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction does not require a presence","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"in Florida, and contacts need not be continuous through the time of filing","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"the complaint. See Kapila v. RJPT, Ltd., 357 So. 3d 241, 252 (Fla. 2d DCA","paragraph_id":"para_266","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"2023) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476 (1985))","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"(“[T]he law is well settled that ‘minimum contacts’ do not require any","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"physical presence in the state, much less a continuing one.”); see also","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"Murphy, 342 So. 3d at 805 n.3 (“Prior contacts or activity would be relevant","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"to the question whether the former husband’s being hauled into a Florida","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"court was foreseeable.”).","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"Affenita served as an officer for several companies that did business in","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"Florida between 2014 and 2019, including Pro-Thotics. Appellee testified","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"that Affenita would visit Florida between two to five times a month for these","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"businesses. Affenita also signed as a guarantor on commercial leases for","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"Pro-Thotics. These actions are sufficient minimum contacts with Florida","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"to satisfy due process. See Kapila, 357 So. 3d at 252 (finding minimum","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"contacts where defendant “by its ‘own choice’ over a period of","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"years, . . . ‘deliberately “reached out beyond” its home—by, for","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"example, . . . entering . . . contractual relationship[s] centered’ in Florida,","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"for significant pecuniary gain”) (alterations in original). Therefore,","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"sufficient minimum contacts exist to find personal jurisdiction over","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"Affenita.","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"Jurisdiction over Advanced","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"As to Advanced, the complaint lists Advanced as a party in the title to","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"the counts for unjust enrichment, violation of FDUTPA, and breach of","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"fiduciary duty. However, no specific allegations are made in any of these","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"counts regarding Advanced, including no allegation that Advanced owed a","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"duty to the plaintiff and that Advanced breached that duty. In the unjust","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"enrichment count, the complaint only alleged that Affenita and Pro-Thotics","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"unjustly received compensation from the Pro-Thotics stock sale. As no","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"mention is made of Advanced in the operative allegations of these","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"pleadings, no basis for either general or specific personal jurisdiction has","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"been alleged. See Venetian Salami, 554 So. 2d at 502. Therefore, the trial","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"court erred in finding personal jurisdiction over Advanced.","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"Conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"As our prior opinion required, the trial court conducted a Venetian","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"Salami hearing. The court erred, however, in finding personal jurisdiction","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"over Advanced, because the operative complaint’s allegations fail to","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"support a cause of action against Advanced. While the court erred in","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"finding general personal jurisdiction over Affenita, the court correctly","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"found specific personal jurisdiction over him. Therefore, we affirm the trial","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"court’s order as it pertains to finding personal jurisdiction over Affenita,","paragraph_id":"para_305","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"Pro-Thotics, and Nass, but we reverse the order finding personal","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"jurisdiction over Advanced. We remand for the trial court to vacate the","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"default final judgment as to Advanced.","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"Affirmed in part and reversed in part.","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"* * *","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.","paragraph_id":"para_312"}],"word_count":2978,"cites":["471 U.S. 462"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"ad6735c921222497350d3035a548c44d4bc6139dda22c6778e18837d5b857c58","source_url":"https://4dca.flcourts.gov/pre_opinion_content_download/2452304","fetched_at":"2026-10-10T06:27:34.806+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/fladistctapp-4d2024-1834-2025-05-21","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2024-1834-2025-05-21","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2024-1834-2025-05-21","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2024-1834-2025-05-21","verification":{"stored_sha256":"ad6735c921222497350d3035a548c44d4bc6139dda22c6778e18837d5b857c58","recomputed_sha256":"ad6735c921222497350d3035a548c44d4bc6139dda22c6778e18837d5b857c58","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-10T06:27:37.081Z"}},"hash":"sha256:c026bda87c501f214edf1b191d7fa71dbe17ad9dc1258fcb102678dfc08ab184","version":"legal-2026-10-09","expires":"2026-10-11T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-09+legal-2026-10-09+2026-10-09T21:48:48","content_hash":"sha256:c026bda87c501f214edf1b191d7fa71dbe17ad9dc1258fcb102678dfc08ab184","revalidate_after":"2026-10-10T07:27:37.235Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2024-1834-2025-05-21","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2024-1834-2025-05-21"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2024-1834-2025-05-21"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2024-1834-2025-05-21"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/fladistctapp-4d2024-1834-2025-05-21","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-3d014978780f9a26501c6ee4e9f1920c","response_hash":"sha256:c026bda87c501f214edf1b191d7fa71dbe17ad9dc1258fcb102678dfc08ab184"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-04T10:29:59.627Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Afladistctapp-4d2024-1834-2025-05-21&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":13627}}