Gibbons v. Brown
716 So. 2d 868 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Filing a prior, concluded lawsuit in a state is not, by itself, a 'substantial and not isolated activity' sufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute, nor does it create the necessary 'minimum contacts' to satisfy constitutional due process for a subsequent, separate lawsuit arising from the same incident.
Facts:
- Donna Brown, a Florida resident, and Martine Gibbons, a Texas resident, were passengers in a car driven by Brown's husband, Clarence Brown.
- On August 24, 1994, the vehicle was involved in a head-on collision near Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
- Brown alleged that Gibbons negligently directed the driver to turn the wrong way onto a one-way road, which caused the accident and resulted in Brown's injuries.
- In 1995, Gibbons initiated a lawsuit in a Florida court against Clarence Brown, the driver, regarding the same automobile accident.
- This prior 1995 lawsuit, which named a different defendant, was assumed by the court to be concluded by the time the present action was filed.
Procedural Posture:
- Donna Brown sued Martine Gibbons in the Circuit Court for Duval County, Florida, a state trial court.
- Gibbons filed a motion to quash service of process and, alternatively, a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied Gibbons' motions.
- Gibbons, as the Appellant, appealed the trial court's non-final order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, with Brown as the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-resident defendant subject herself to general personal jurisdiction in a Florida court for a tort committed outside of Florida, merely by having previously filed a separate lawsuit in Florida against a third party arising from the same incident?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A non-resident defendant does not subject herself to general personal jurisdiction in Florida for a tort committed elsewhere simply because she previously filed a separate lawsuit in Florida against a third party related to the same event. To exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident, Florida courts apply a two-pronged test: the action must fall under Florida's long-arm statute, and it must satisfy the constitutional due process requirement of minimum contacts. Here, Brown's claim fails both prongs. Gibbons' single, prior lawsuit against a different party, which is now concluded, does not constitute the 'substantial and not isolated activity' required for general jurisdiction under section 48.193(2) of the Florida Statutes. Even if it did, exercising jurisdiction would violate due process. The 'constitutional touchstone' is whether the defendant purposefully availed herself of the forum's laws such that she could 'reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.' Gibbons' 1995 lawsuit against Mr. Brown does not create a sufficient contact to make it reasonable for her to anticipate being sued in Florida by Mrs. Brown in a separate action years later.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of personal jurisdiction based on prior litigation activities within a forum state. It establishes that a non-resident's use of a state's courts as a plaintiff does not create a permanent or indefinite submission to that state's jurisdiction for all future related cases brought by different parties. The ruling reinforces the high bar for establishing general personal jurisdiction, requiring ongoing and continuous contacts rather than isolated past actions. This protects non-resident defendants from being indefinitely subject to a state's judicial power merely for having once sought redress in its courts, thereby upholding the principles of due process.
Unlock the full brief for Gibbons v. Brown