McKenzie v. Reuter

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McKenzie v. Reuter

9 So. 3d 770, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6900, 2009 WL 1531793

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 3, 2009

DocketNos. 4D08-2738, 4D08-2739, 4D08-2740

StatusPublished

This text of 9 So. 3d 770 (McKenzie v. Reuter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McKenzie v. Reuter, 9 So. 3d 770, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6900, 2009 WL 1531793 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This court sm, sponte consolidates these three cases.

We affirm the non-final order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in all respects but one. With regard to Brenda Lawson, we find that her investment in Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Florida, Inc. and operation of a lending company purchased by Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Florida, Inc. did not produce sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to support personal jurisdiction over her. We reject the individual appellants’ assertion of the corporate shield doctrine because there is a sufficient basis to bring this case under the fraud or intentional misconduct exception to the doctrine. See Doe v. Thompson, 620 So.2d 1004, 1006 n. 1 (Fla.1993); Edelstein v. Marlene D’Arcy, Inc., 961 So.2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Nothing in this brief opinion addressing personal jurisdiction should be construed as a ruling on the viability of any claim or defense.

Affioyned, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded.

GROSS, C.J., FARMER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This court sm, sponte consolidates these three cases.

We affirm the non-final order denying appellants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in all respects but one. With regard to Brenda Lawson, we find that her investment in Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Florida, Inc. and operation of a lending company purchased by Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Florida, Inc. did not produce sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to support personal jurisdiction over her. We reject the individual appellants’ assertion of the corporate shield doctrine because there is a sufficient basis to bring this case under the fraud or intentional misconduct exception to the doctrine. See Doe v. Thompson, 620 So.2d 1004, 1006 n. 1 (Fla.1993); Edelstein v. Marlene D’Arcy, Inc., 961 So.2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Nothing in this brief opinion addressing personal jurisdiction should be construed as a ruling on the viability of any claim or defense.

Affioyned, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded.

GROSS, C.J., FARMER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 So. 3d 770, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 6900, 2009 WL 1531793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenzie-v-reuter-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack