DICO CO., INC. v. MEEKINS, INC

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 81-836.

Attorney(S)

Gerald B. Wald of Murai, Wald Biondo, Miami, for appellants. Steve E. Moody of Moody Jones, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee, Meekins, Inc.

Judges

BERANEK, Judge.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Meekins, Inc., a Florida corporation, filed suit against Dico Company, Inc. and Dyneer Corporation, both foreign corporations, alleging breach of warranty and design negligence related to two block unloaders purchased by Meekins. The unloaders had been furnished, installed, and mounted by Concrete Equipment, Inc., a Florida corporation acting as a distributor for Dico. Dico was alleged to be doing business in Florida through Concrete Equipment and was a wholly owned subsidiary of Dyneer, which later sold Dico to a foreign corporation. Dico and Dyneer moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction under Florida's long arm statute, asserting they were not doing business in Florida and were not subject to service of process. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, and the defendants appealed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over defendants Dico Company, Inc. and Dyneer Corporation under Florida's long arm statute.
Whether the plaintiff sufficiently substantiated jurisdictional allegations against each defendant.
Whether the defendants made a prima facie showing that the long arm statute did not apply to them.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

Both Dico and Dyneer argued they were foreign corporations not conducting business in Florida and thus not subject to Florida's jurisdiction.
They supported their motion to dismiss with a memorandum and affidavits asserting lack of contacts with Florida.

Appellee's Arguments

Meekins submitted the deposition of Concrete Equipment's manager and a distribution agreement between Dico and Concrete Equipment to substantiate jurisdictional allegations.
Plaintiff contended that Dico was doing business in Florida through its distributor and exercised control over the distributor and the product, establishing jurisdiction under the long arm statute.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Pace Carpet Mills v. Life Carpet Tile Co., 365 So.2d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)	Burden of proof under the long arm statute: plaintiff must allege sufficient jurisdictional facts; defendant must make prima facie showing of inapplicability; plaintiff must then substantiate jurisdictional allegations.	Used to explain the shifting burdens of proof regarding jurisdictional facts and to assess whether plaintiff substantiated allegations against Dyneer and Dico.
AB CTC v. Morejon, 324 So.2d 625 (Fla. 1975)	Establishing jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant requires showing control over the distributor or property in the distributor's hands.	Applied to determine that plaintiff substantiated jurisdictional allegations against Dico by demonstrating control over its Florida distributor and the product.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first acknowledged the jurisdictional framework under Florida's long arm statute, noting the initial burden on the plaintiff to allege sufficient facts, the defendant's burden to make a prima facie showing of inapplicability, and the plaintiff's subsequent duty to substantiate jurisdictional allegations, as established in Pace Carpet Mills. The court found that Dyneer successfully demonstrated a lack of contacts with Florida, and the plaintiff failed to substantiate jurisdiction over Dyneer, rendering the trial court's denial of Dyneer's motion to dismiss erroneous.

Conversely, the court determined that the plaintiff substantiated jurisdictional allegations against Dico through the deposition of Concrete Equipment's manager and the dealership agreement, demonstrating that Dico exercised control over its Florida distributor and the product. Applying the principle from AB CTC v. Morejon, the court concluded that the jurisdictional requirements for a non-resident defendant were met as to Dico. Accordingly, the denial of Dico's motion to dismiss was proper.

Holding and Implications

The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss as to Dico Company, Inc., and reversed the denial as to Dyneer Corporation.

The direct effect of this decision is that jurisdiction over Dico was properly established and maintained, allowing the case to proceed against Dico, while jurisdiction over Dyneer was not established, resulting in dismissal of claims against Dyneer. The opinion does not establish new precedent but applies existing jurisdictional principles to the facts at hand.

Show full summary ...

DICO COMPANY, INC., AND DYNEER CORPORATION, APPELLANTS, v. MEEKINS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND CONCRETE EQUIPMENT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES.

BERANEK, Judge.

Defendants, Dico Company, Inc., and Dyneer Corporation, appeal from an order denying their motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction under the long arm statute. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).

Plaintiff, Meekins, Inc., filed suit against Dico and Dyneer for breach of warranty and design negligence involving two block unloaders which Meekins had purchased. The complaint alleged that the unloaders had been furnished, installed, and mounted by Concrete Equipment, Inc., a Florida corporation. Defendant Dico, a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Iowa, allegedly manufactured the unloaders and was doing business in Florida through its distributor, Concrete Equipment. Dico was further alleged to be a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant Dyneer who subsequently sold Dico to a corporation outside the United States.

Both defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction maintaining they were foreign corporations not doing business in Florida and were not subject to service of process. In support of their motion, the defendants furnished a memorandum and two affidavits. In response, the plaintiff filed the deposition of the manager of Concrete Equipment, Inc., and an agreement between Dico and Concrete Equipment whereby the latter was appointed a distributor of Dico products. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and both defendants appeal.

Generally, the burden of pleading under the long arm statute rests first with the plaintiff to allege sufficient jurisdictional facts to show compliance with the statute. The burden then shifts to the defendant to make a prima facie showing of the inapplicability of the long arm statute. Thereafter, the plaintiff is required to substantiate the jurisdictional allegations. Pace Carpet Mills v. Life Carpet Tile Co., 365 So.2d 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Defendant Dyneer affirmatively demonstrated its lack of contacts with Florida. We find that the plaintiff did not substantiate the jurisdictional allegations as to Dyneer and the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss. As to Dico, it is clear that the plaintiff did substantiate its jurisdictional allegations through the deposition and dealership agreement between Dico and Concrete Equipment. To establish jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant under the long arm statute there must be a showing of control by the defendant over the distributor or over the property in the hands of the distributor. AB CTC v. Morejon, 324 So.2d 625 (Fla. 1975); Pace Carpet Mills, supra. The plaintiff demonstrated several instances of control by Dico over the dealer and the product. We believe the court's jurisdiction was adequately established and the motion to dismiss was properly denied as to Dico.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.