Clarifying Personal Jurisdiction in Florida for Internet-Based Defamation and Amendment Practice

1. Introduction

In Nadejda Jastrjembskaia v. inCruises, LLC (11th Cir. Dec. 30, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit addressed critical questions about:

When a Florida court can exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants accused of defamation that was published online;
The interplay between Florida’s long-arm statute and due-process limits on general and specific jurisdiction;
The procedural requirements for amending pleadings post-dismissal, including local-rule mandates for attaching proposed amendments; and
The standards for allowing jurisdictional discovery and for finding amendment futile.

The appeal arose from the dismissal of a Florida resident’s suit against two foreign limited-liability companies (inCruises, LLC and inGroup International, LLC) for alleged defamation, civil conspiracy, and unfair trade practices. The district court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied leave to amend or conduct jurisdictional discovery. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit’s per curiam opinion held:

The plaintiff failed to plead facts establishing either general or specific personal jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute (Fla. Stat. § 48.193).
General jurisdiction was lacking because neither defendant was “at home” in Florida (not incorporated nor headquartered there), and registration to do business in Florida did not suffice.
Specific jurisdiction was lacking because the amended complaint did not allege that the online defamatory posts were actually accessed in Florida—merely “accessible” nationally does not satisfy the test.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) for leave to amend, since she never attached a proposed second amended complaint (Local Rule 15.1 violation) nor showed how additional facts would cure the jurisdictional defects.
The request for jurisdictional discovery was properly denied for lack of diligence, specificity, and a demonstrated need.

The judgment was affirmed in all respects.

3. In-Depth Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

Cable/Home Communications Corp. v. Network Products, Inc. (Eleventh Circuit, 1990): Prima facie burden on plaintiff to allege sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington (U.S. Supreme Court, 1945): The foundational due-process standard requiring “minimum contacts” with the forum.
Daimler AG v. Bauman (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014): General jurisdiction is limited to a corporation’s state of incorporation and principal place of business, except in “exceptional” circumstances.
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown (U.S. Supreme Court, 2011): Corporations must be “essentially at home” in the forum for general jurisdiction.
Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall (Florida Supreme Court, 2010): Specific jurisdiction for online defamation requires that the defamatory content be accessible and accessed in Florida.
Sculptchair, Inc. v. Century Arts, Ltd. (Eleventh Circuit, 1996): Two-step personal-jurisdiction analysis—long-arm statute first, then due process.
SkyHop Technologies, Inc. v. Narra (Eleventh Circuit, 2023): Recent reaffirmation of the “connexity” requirement for specific jurisdiction under Florida law.
Waite v. All Acquisition Corp. (Eleventh Circuit, 2018): A foreign entity’s registration in Florida does not equate to consent to general jurisdiction.
Posner v. Essex Insurance Co., Ltd. (Eleventh Circuit, 1999): Principles governing the grant of jurisdictional discovery—diligence, specificity, and materiality.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

General Jurisdiction: Under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2) and due-process limits (Daimler, Goodyear), a foreign corporation is “essentially at home” only where it is incorporated or has its principal place of business. Neither inCruises nor inGroup met those criteria. Registration to do business in Florida, despite being mandatory under state law, does not, by itself, render a defendant subject to general jurisdiction (Waite).

Specific Jurisdiction: Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(2) reaches “tortious acts within this state.” Under Internet Solutions, an online defamation plaintiff must allege the defendant’s statements were both accessible and accessed by Florida residents. The amended complaint alleged only that the Russian-language posts were “accessible” widely, but not that any Florida user actually accessed them. Thus, there was no prima facie showing of minimum contacts arising out of the alleged defamation.

Amendment Standards: Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) mandates liberal amendment, but justice does not require amendments that are procedurally defective or futile. Local Rule 15.1 required attachment of a proposed amended complaint; plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply. The district court reasonably found, even after reviewing hundreds of pages of social-media exhibits, that no set of additional allegations could cure the jurisdictional defects. Granting leave to amend would have been futile.

Jurisdictional Discovery: A party seeking discovery to establish jurisdiction must show diligence in pursuing it, specify what additional facts are sought, and demonstrate that those facts would likely establish jurisdiction (Posner). The plaintiff neither pursued discovery before dismissal nor articulated what targeted discovery would yield. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request.

3.3. Impact on Future Cases

Plaintiffs suing for online defamation in Florida must allege both accessibility and actual access in Florida to meet specific-jurisdiction requirements.
General jurisdiction remains tightly confined to incorporation and principal place of business; state registration alone is insufficient.
Federal district courts in Florida will strictly enforce local-rule requirements (e.g., attaching proposed amended pleadings), and will deny untimely, procedurally defective amendment motions.
Requests for jurisdictional discovery post-dismissal must demonstrate diligence and a clear nexus between the sought evidence and jurisdictional allegations.
Counsel should anticipate jurisdictional challenges early, tailor their complaints with detailed personal-jurisdiction allegations, and propose amendments pre-answer or pre-deadline.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

General vs. Specific Jurisdiction: General: Defendant’s contacts with the forum are so “continuous and systematic” that it is treated as “at home” (e.g., incorporated or headquartered there). Specific: Defendant has minimum contacts (by act or omission) giving rise to the actual lawsuit.
Florida’s Long-Arm Statute (Fla. Stat. § 48.193): Enumerates nine bases for exercising jurisdiction over nonresidents, including:
“Accessible and Accessed” Standard (Internet Solutions): For online defamation, it is not enough that an allegedly defamatory statement can be read in Florida; the plaintiff must allege someone in Florida actually read it.
Futility of Amendment: An amendment is futile if it would not survive a motion to dismiss. Courts will refuse to allow pleading amendments that cannot cure the identified defects.
Jurisdictional Discovery: Limited discovery aimed solely at establishing personal jurisdiction. Parties must show what precise information they hope to gain and why it matters to jurisdiction.

5. Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Jastrjembskaia v. inCruises, LLC reaffirms and clarifies the rigorous pleading and procedural requirements for establishing personal jurisdiction in Florida, especially in the digital age. Plaintiffs must plead detailed jurisdictional facts and comply with local-rule mandates for amendments. Online defendants will face specific jurisdiction only if defamatory content is both accessible and demonstrably accessed in Florida. This precedent will guide plaintiffs and courts in resolving jurisdictional challenges to internet-based tort claims and shape amendment and discovery practices in federal litigation in Florida.