Florida’s Borrowing Statute and the Restatement’s “Most Significant Relationship” in Multistate Defamation

Introduction

The Eleventh Circuit’s May 23, 2025 decision in John P. Middleton v. The Hollywood Reporter LLC addresses a recurring problem in modern defamation litigation: when an allegedly defamatory statement is published in multiple states and the plaintiff resides in one state, but much of the underlying conduct and publication decisions occur in another. Plaintiff John Middleton, a Florida domiciliary who originally conducted business and sued in California, brought a federal defamation action in Florida against The Hollywood Reporter LLC, its writer Gary Baum, and his former associate Roy Lee. The district court applied Florida’s “borrowing statute” (Fla. Stat. § 95.10), concluded that California’s one-year statute of limitations governed under Florida choice-of-law principles, and dismissed the complaint as time-barred. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, clarifying how Florida courts must apply the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 145 and 150—and the presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s domicile—to determine which state’s statutes of limitations applies in multistate defamation actions.

Summary of the Judgment

The court’s ruling can be encapsulated in three core holdings:

Florida’s borrowing statute bars any action “arising in another state” whose statute of limitations has expired. It is designed to prevent forum shopping by plaintiffs who would otherwise file stale claims in Florida.
To decide where a cause of action “arose,” Florida applies the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 “most significant relationship” test, considering (a) where the injury occurred; (b) where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (c) the domiciles of the parties; and (d) where the parties’ relationship is centered. A presumption under § 150 favors the plaintiff’s domicile as the forum of the “most significant relationship,” unless other contacts outweigh that presumption.
Applying those principles, the Eleventh Circuit held that California had the most significant relationship: the allegedly defamatory statements concerned events in California, the defendants live and operate there, and the parties’ dispute originated in California. Therefore California’s one-year limitation period applied, and Middleton’s Florida-filed claims—brought more than one year after publication—were time-barred.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007): Plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions.
EEOC v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Sols., 852 F.3d 1018 (11th Cir. 2016): Permitting review of a proposed amended complaint when the district court denies leave to amend on futility grounds.
Grupo Televisa, S.A. v. Telemundo Communications Group, Inc., 485 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2007): Federal diversity actions apply forum state choice-of-law rules.
Bates v. Cook, Inc., 509 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1987) & Celotex Corp. v. Meehan, 523 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1988): Florida’s borrowing statute and purpose—to discourage forum shopping.
Judge v. American Motors Corp., 908 F.2d 1565 (11th Cir. 1990): Florida’s use of the Restatement § 145 factors to decide where a tort cause of action arose.
Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686 (11th Cir. 2016): In a multistate defamation case, New York law (publishing state) applied over Florida law.
Unpublished decisions such as Nix v. ESPN, Inc., 772 F. App’x 807 (11th Cir. 2019) and Frey v. Minter, 829 F. App’x 432 (11th Cir. 2020), which applied §§ 145 and 150 in analogous contexts.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit’s de novo choice-of-law analysis proceeded in four steps:

Borrowing Statute Applies: Under Fla. Stat. § 95.10, if the cause of action “arose” elsewhere and that jurisdiction’s limitations period has expired, Florida courts must apply that statute of limitations.
Identify Potentially Applicable Statutes: Defamation claims carry a two-year limitation in Florida (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(5)(h)) but only one year in California (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(c)). Middleton’s claim was timely under Florida law but untimely under California law.
Determine Where the Action “Arose”: The Restatement § 145 “most significant relationship” factors guide this determination:

(a) Place of Injury: Neither state overwhelmingly dominated: the article was nationally published, Middleton suffers reputational harm in multiple jurisdictions.
(b) Place of Conduct: The source of the allegedly false statements, The Hollywood Reporter’s editorial decisions and interviews, all occurred in California.
(c) Parties’ Domicile & Business: Middleton is domiciled in Florida, but the defendants live and work in California.
(d) Center of the Relationship: The plaintiff’s original dispute with Lee, the provision of information to the media, and the feud described in the article all emanated from California.

Consider § 150 Presumption: While § 150 presumes the plaintiff’s domicile state (Florida) applies in multistate defamation, that presumption yields if another state has a more significant relationship. Here California’s contacts outweighed the domicile presumption.

3. Impact

This decision provides critical guidance for litigants and courts in defamation or other tort cases with multistate elements:

Florida plaintiffs cannot evade shorter limitation periods by filing in Florida when the predominant conduct and relationship ties point elsewhere.
Defendants in media-driven defamation suits will find Florida more amenable only when the “center of gravity” lies in-state—e.g., local injury, local editorial decisions, or a Florida-domiciled defendant.
Counsel must plead and prove facts addressing all § 145 and § 150 contacts at the outset. A proposed amended complaint must demonstrate why the domicile presumption should govern if they seek to avoid an adverse borrowing-statute analysis.
Other jurisdictions with borrowing statutes may view this decision as a persuasive blueprint for integrating Restatement §§ 145 and 150 in defamation actions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Borrowing Statute (Fla. Stat. § 95.10): Florida will “borrow” another state’s limitations period when the claim “arose” there and its deadline has passed. This prevents filing stale claims in a plaintiff-friendly forum.
Restatement § 145 (“Most Significant Relationship”): A four-factor test to identify which state’s law governs a tort: (1) where injury occurred; (2) where conduct causing injury occurred; (3) domiciles of the parties; and (4) location of their relationship.
Restatement § 150 Presumption: In multistate defamation, the state of the plaintiff’s domicile presumptively applies—unless another state’s contacts are stronger in the § 145 analysis.
Forum Shopping: Choosing a court that applies a statute of limitations more favorable to the plaintiff, even though the actual events or relationships point elsewhere.

Conclusion

John P. Middleton v. The Hollywood Reporter reaffirms that Florida’s borrowing statute—interpreted through Restatement §§ 145 and 150—will bar defamation claims governed by shorter out-of-state limitation periods when the “center of gravity” of the dispute lies outside Florida. Plaintiffs domiciled in Florida must show that Florida, not another jurisdiction, has the “most significant relationship” to their claims. Defendants can invoke Florida’s borrowing statute to enforce a more restrictive out-of-state deadline when the conduct, publication decisions, and relationship origins are anchored elsewhere. This decision will guide counsel drafting or opposing defamation complaints in multistate contexts, emphasizing careful choice-of-law pleading and early challenge to limitations issues.