Background
Plaintiffs Frida Kahlo Corporation and Frida Kahlo Investments, S.A., based in Florida, sued Defendants Mara Cristina Teresa Romeo Pinedo and Familia Kahlo S.A. de C.V. for tortious interference and declaratory relief. The Defendants sent cease-and-desist letters to Plaintiffs’ licensees in Florida, claiming rights to the Frida Kahlo brand. The district court dismissed the case, ruling it lacked personal jurisdiction over Pinedo under Florida’s corporate shield doctrine and that the Defendants lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Florida for due process.
The court’s reasoning
The Eleventh Circuit held that the corporate shield doctrine did not apply to Pinedo because the cease-and-desist letters identified her as the represented party in her individual capacity. The court further found that the Due Process Clause did not bar personal jurisdiction. The court applied the effects test, finding the intentional torts were directly aimed at Florida and caused foreseeable injury there. The court also found the traditional minimum contacts test was satisfied because the letters were tortious and directly related to the claims. Finally, the court determined that exercising jurisdiction comported with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, noting Florida’s interest in adjudicating torts committed within its borders.
What it means going forward
The decision allows Florida courts to assert personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants who send tortious cease-and-desist letters into the state, even if the defendants have no other physical presence there.