ZION WILLIAMSON v. PRIME SPORTS MARKETING, LLC
N/A in provided text (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's complaint must allege sufficient jurisdictional facts on its face to bring a non-resident defendant within the scope of Florida's long-arm statute. Relying on legal presumptions or facts presented only in subsequent affidavits is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction at the pleading stage.
Facts:
- In early 2019, Gina Ford, owner of the Florida-based Prime Sports Marketing, LLC, traveled to North Carolina to discuss representing Duke University basketball player Zion Williamson.
- On April 15, 2019, Williamson declared for the NBA Draft.
- On April 20, 2019, Williamson, a resident of South Carolina, signed a Marketing and Branding Agreement with Prime Sports at his home in North Carolina.
- The agreement contained a choice-of-law provision stating it would be governed by Florida law but did not contain a provision consenting to jurisdiction in Florida courts.
- In May 2019, Ford met with Williamson in California, where Williamson allegedly made misrepresentations to obtain Prime Sports' confidential marketing plan.
- On May 31, 2019, Williamson formally terminated his agreement with Prime Sports.
- Williamson subsequently signed with a different marketing agent, Creative Artist Agency, LLC.
Procedural Posture:
- Williamson first sued Prime Sports in federal court in North Carolina, seeking a declaration that their agreement was unenforceable.
- Prime Sports Marketing, LLC, subsequently filed a lawsuit against Zion Williamson in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida (a state trial court), alleging breach of contract and torts.
- Williamson filed a motion to dismiss the Florida action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied Williamson's motion to dismiss.
- Williamson (Appellant) appealed the trial court's non-final order to the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida, with Prime Sports (Appellee) defending the lower court's ruling.
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 plaintiff's complaint, which fails to explicitly allege that a non-resident defendant's tortious acts were directed to Florida or that contract performance was required in Florida, allege sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within Florida's long-arm statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Lindsey, J.
No. The complaint fails to allege sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the ambit of Florida’s long-arm statute. The court applied the first prong of the two-part 'Venetian Salami' analysis, which requires the plaintiff to plead sufficient facts to satisfy the long-arm statute before the court considers constitutional minimum contacts. The court found Prime Sports' complaint deficient on all asserted grounds. For the breach of contract claim, the complaint did not allege that payment was required to be made in Florida, and the legal presumption that a debt is paid at the creditor's residence cannot substitute for a specific jurisdictional allegation in the complaint. For the 'carrying on business' claim, a single transaction was insufficient to constitute a 'general course of business.' Finally, for the tort claim, the complaint failed to allege that Williamson's alleged misrepresentations were made in or directed to Florida, which is necessary for a tortious act to occur 'within this state' for jurisdictional purposes.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict pleading requirements for establishing personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants in Florida. It clarifies that a plaintiff cannot rely on post-complaint affidavits or legal presumptions to cure a complaint that is facially deficient in its jurisdictional allegations. The ruling emphasizes that the defendant's own purposeful contacts with the forum state—not the plaintiff's location—are the central focus of the jurisdictional inquiry. For future litigants, this case serves as a strong reminder to draft complaints with specific, detailed factual allegations that directly link the defendant's conduct to Florida to satisfy the long-arm statute.
