Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 4, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Jaimini Vyas v. American Van Lines, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 4D2025-2265

• Disposition: Reversed

• Opinion

• Authorities (11)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Reversed

Combined Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

JAIMINI VYAS,
Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN VAN LINES, INC.,
Appellee.

No. 4D2025-2265

[March 4, 2026]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Corey A. Cawthon, Judge; L.T. Case No.
062025CC007665AXXXSO.

Jaimini Vyas, Brooklyn, New York, pro se.

Vincent O’Brien and Alice E. Solomon of O’Brien & Solomon, LLP,
Pembroke Pines, for appellee.

MAY, J.

Personal jurisdiction is questioned in this appeal from an order denying
the defendant’s motion to dismiss a small claims action brought by a
moving company. The defendant argues that the trial court erred in
denying his motion because the court lacks personal jurisdiction over him
as a non-resident and because venue is both improper and inconvenient. 1
We agree that the trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant
and reverse on that issue only.

• The Facts

1 The defendant also argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion
because the plaintiff failed to state a proper cause of action and committed fraud
upon the court by seeking to enforce a fabricated contract. We do not address
those issues because the trial court’s order is appealable at this stage only on the
issues of personal jurisdiction and venue. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(A),
(a)(3)(C)(i), (a)(3)(C)(viii).
The defendant, a New York resident, hired the plaintiff to move certain
household items from a storage unit in Colorado to his home in New York.
The plaintiff is a Florida corporation that maintains its headquarters in
Broward County.

The defendant electronically signed an interstate bill of lading contract
on November 7, 2023, based on an estimate of about $4,200. He also
signed a separate document titled “terms and conditions” that was
incorporated into the contract.

The defendant arranged for a friend to meet the plaintiff at the storage
facility in Colorado to assist the plaintiff in accessing the facility and
unlocking the storage unit. The defendant signed a broad power of
attorney, which designated the friend as his agent and gave him full
authority to modify or execute contracts on the defendant’s behalf.

The friend met the plaintiff at the storage facility on November 15, 2023.
On that date, he signed a new interstate bill of lading contract based on a
new on-site estimate of about $7,400, which included a full inventory of the
contents of the storage unit. The friend did not sign a new copy of the terms
and conditions.

The defendant refused to pay the new amount and refused delivery of his
belongings.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims. The plaintiff attached: (1) the interstate bill of lading
contract the defendant signed on November 7, 2023; (2) the terms and
conditions the defendant signed on November 7, 2023; and (3) the
interstate bill of lading contract the defendant’s friend signed on November
15, 2023.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant was “subject to Florida jurisdiction,”
pursuant to section 15 of the terms and conditions he signed on November
7, 2023. Section 15 provided:

AGREED MANDATORY CHOICE OF LAW, VENUE
AND JURISDICTION. If a lawsuit becomes necessary to
resolve any dispute between [the plaintiff] and
[defendant], said suit shall and must only be brought in
circuit or county court in and for Broward County, Florida.
Suits involving dispute[s] over interstate shipments must be
limited to the governing federal law. Both parties agree to
submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Florida Courts and

2
agree given the relationship to the state, such exercise is
reasonable and lawful. [The defendant] consents to
jurisdiction in Broward County, Florida and hereby
waives the right to be served within the State of Florida.

(Emphasis added).

The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds.
Relevant to this appeal, he argued: (1) venue in Florida was both improper
and inconvenient and could not be established under section 15 of the
terms and conditions because that document was not part of the contract
the plaintiff was seeking to enforce, i.e., the “new” contract the friend
signed on November 15, 2023; and (2) the court lacked personal
jurisdiction over him because there was no basis for the exercise of
jurisdiction under the long-arm statute and he lacked sufficient minimum
contacts with the state to satisfy due process.

Regarding minimum contacts, the defendant submitted an affidavit
attesting that he is a New York resident, has never visited Florida, does not
own or lease any Florida property, does not maintain a Florida office,
does not conduct business in Florida, and has no contacts to Florida.

The plaintiff responded that the defendant had consented to both venue
and jurisdiction in signing the November 7, 2023, terms and conditions.
The defendant replied that section 15 of the terms and conditions, to the
extent it applies in this case, was insufficient to establish personal
jurisdiction based on consent, because the contract did not meet the
requirements of sections 685.101 and 685.102, Florida Statutes (2023).
The defendant also argued that the plaintiff failed to rebut his evidence
that he lacked sufficient minimum contacts with the state to satisfy due
process requirements.

Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the motion
to dismiss without explanation. From this order the defendant now
appeals.

• The Analysis

The defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion
to dismiss on the grounds of venue and personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff
maintains its position that the defendant consented to both venue and
personal jurisdiction by signing the terms and conditions of the parties’
initial contract on November 7, 2023.

3
We have de novo review of the trial court’s rulings on both venue and
personal jurisdiction. See Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. v. Ooi, 386 So. 3d
218, 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (citations modified); Guarino v. Mandel, 327
So. 3d 853, 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (citation modified).

We find no merit in the defendant’s venue argument. In section 15 of
the terms and conditions, the parties agreed to litigate “any dispute”
between them in Broward County. That broad language includes the
current dispute over the validity of the “new” contract the defendant’s
friend signed on November 15, 2023. Mandatory forum-selection clauses,
such as the clause in section 15, are generally presumed valid and
enforceable. See Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Trade Link Cap., Inc., 358
So. 3d 458, 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (citation modified). The defendant did
not show that enforcing the clause in this case would be “unfair, unjust,
or unreasonable.” Corsec, S.L. v. VMC Int’l Franchising, LLC, 909 So. 2d
945, 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quoting Manrique v. Fabbri, 493 So. 2d 437,
440 n.4 (Fla. 1986)).

As to personal jurisdiction, whether a Florida court can exercise
personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant requires a two-step
analysis: (1) whether the complaint sufficiently alleges a basis for
jurisdiction under the long-arm statute, section 48.193, Florida Statutes
(2023); and (2) whether the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts
with the state to satisfy due process requirements. Karisma Hotels &
Resorts Corp. v. Hoffman, 400 So. 3d 10, 14 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (citing
Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989)).

Here, the only basis for personal jurisdiction alleged in the complaint
is section 15 of the terms and conditions, specifically the selection of
Broward County as the mandatory forum and the provision that the
defendant “consents to jurisdiction in Broward County, Florida.” The
defendant argues that, even if section 15 is enforceable to establish venue
in this case, it is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction on the court.

Generally, “[a]n agreement alone is insufficient to confer personal
jurisdiction on Florida courts.” Jetbroadband WV, LLC v. MasTec N. Am.,
Inc., 13 So. 3d 159, 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (citing McRae v. J.D./M.D.,
Inc., 511 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1987)); see Ware v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 258 So. 3d
478, 481-82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). As an exception to this rule, section
48.193(1)(a)9. permits the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a
non-resident who “[e]nter[s] into a contract that complies with s. 685.102.”

4
To comply with section 685.102, the contract must contain a choice-of-
law provision pursuant to section 685.101. Together, the two statutes
provide that the contract must:

(1) contain a choice of law provision providing for the application of
Florida law;

(2) contain a provision by which the defendant agrees to submit to the
jurisdiction of the Florida courts;

(3) involve consideration of at least $250,000;

(4) not violate the United States Constitution;

(5) either bear a substantial or reasonable relationship to Florida or have
at least one of the parties be a resident of Florida, be incorporated under
the laws of Florida, or maintain a place of business in Florida;

(6) not be “[f]or labor or employment” or relate to any transaction for
“personal, family, or household purposes”; and

(7) if applicable, not conflict with section 671.105(2) or section 655.55.

§§ 685.101(1), (2), 685.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2023) (emphasis added). See
Bach v. Vladigor Invs., Inc., 325 So. 3d 41, 44 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021);
Corporate Creations Enters. LLC v. Brian R. Fons Attorney at Law P.C., 225
So. 3d 296, 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). When these requirements are met,
the court can exercise personal jurisdiction without conducting a separate
minimum contacts analysis. Bach, 325 So. 3d at 44.

Section 48.193(1)(a)9. does not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction
in this case because the parties’ contract does not comply with section
685.102. As the defendant argues, the contract does not involve
consideration of at least $250,000. In addition, section 15 provides for the
application of federal law, not Florida law, and the contract involves a
transaction for personal, family, or household purposes. §§ 685.101(1),
(2)(c), 685.102(1), Fla. Stat. (2023).

The defendant is also correct that, even if the plaintiff had pled another
basis for personal jurisdiction, it failed to show the defendant has the
requisite minimum contacts with Florida to allow the court to exercise
jurisdiction consistent with due process requirements. See Karisma
Hotels & Resorts, 400 So. 3d at 14 (citing Venetian Salami, 554 So. 2d at
502).

5
The defendant sufficiently contested minimum contacts by submitting
an affidavit attesting that he is a New York resident, has never visited
Florida, does not own or lease any Florida property, does not maintain a
Florida office, does not conduct business in Florida, and has no contacts
to Florida. The plaintiff failed to submit any evidence rebutting those
allegations. See Karisma Hotels, 400 So. 3d at 14 (citing Venetian Salami,
554 So. 2d at 502); Kent v. Marmorstein, 120 So. 3d 604, 606 (Fla. 4th DCA
2013). 2

In summary, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to
dismiss on the issue of personal jurisdiction for two reasons: (1) the
plaintiff did not plead a sufficient basis for jurisdiction under the long-arm
statute, and (2) even if the plaintiff had, it failed to meet its burden of
proving the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state to
satisfy due process requirements.

Reversed and remanded.

LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.

---

Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.

2 The plaintiff suggests that minimum contacts exist because the defendant
initiated and maintained contact with the plaintiff, a Florida corporation, through
its website, phone calls, and emails. However, the plaintiff failed to submit any
evidence to support its position. Even if the plaintiff had, those facts would be
insufficient to show that the defendant had sufficient contacts with Florida to
allow the exercise of personal jurisdiction consistent with due process
requirements. See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) (stating that the
minimum contacts analysis “looks to the defendant’s contacts with the forum
State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there”). The
defendant did not “purposefully avail” himself of the privilege of conducting
business within Florida such that he should have “reasonably anticipate[d] being
haled into court there.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474-75
(1985) (citation modified); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S.
286, 297 (1980).

6