Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Asperbras Tecnologia Industrial E Agronegocios Ltda. v. Good Hope Development, LLC
Citation: 213 So. 3d 1061Docket: 16-1292
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 7, 2017; Florida; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida, in an opinion filed on March 8, 2017, addressed the appeal by Asperbras Tecnologia Industrial e Agronegócios Ltda. and its CEO, Jose Roberto Colnaghi, concerning a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The court affirmed the lower tribunal's decision, which denied Asperbras' motion to quash and dismiss Good Hope Development, LLC's Amended Complaint. Asperbras argued that the case lacked personal jurisdiction, had improper venue, and was subject to forum non conveniens. The background involves a contract between Asperbras and Good Hope, in which Good Hope was to facilitate a financial credit line for Asperbras' dealings with the Republic of Guinea, with specific exclusions regarding financing from Credit Suisse. Good Hope subcontracted this task to Netplan Servicios Empresarias LTDA, who allegedly approached Asperbras for an advance on the finder’s fee without Good Hope's consent. Asperbras subsequently engaged Netplan to secure a letter of credit from Credit Suisse, leading to a breach of contract claim against Asperbras by Good Hope after Asperbras canceled their contract. The Brazilian arbitration determined that Asperbras did not interfere with the Good Hope/Netplan arrangement. Good Hope's subsequent lawsuit, based on alleged tortious interference, was initially removed to federal court but was remanded back to state court. In state court, Asperbras filed multiple motions, all of which were denied, including those related to service of process and improper venue. The trial court allowed further discovery on forum non conveniens and required Good Hope to specify its damages more clearly. Asperbras appealed the court's rulings. The trial court's order on the motion to quash service of process is reviewed de novo, confirming that service was legally sufficient under both Florida and Brazilian law. Good Hope provided evidence of engaging a Brazilian attorney in good standing who personally served the Appellants in Brazil, which is recognized as valid service there. The Appellants did not contest the validity of the service under Florida law. The court noted that Brazil, as a signatory to the Inter-American Service Convention, allows for service via a foreign central authority, and the method used did not violate any international agreements or Brazilian law. Service on Asperbras by the Brazilian attorney was lawful and effective, giving proper notice in accordance with Florida law. Venue was deemed proper in Miami-Dade County, with Good Hope's tortious interference claims concerning a separate contract with Netplan, thus not governed by the Asperbras/Good Hope contract or its arbitration provisions. The trial court found the forum non conveniens motion premature, permitting discovery before any renewed objections. The court affirmed the denial of Asperbras’ motions to quash service and dismiss the complaint, remanding for further proceedings.