Background
Cattleya PTC, a Swiss private trust company, sued Rafael Lopes Brasileiro Martim and MME Martim, LLC for conversion, unjust enrichment, and imposition of a constructive trust. Cattleya alleged that it transferred $10 million to the defendants for investment, but they failed to provide the investment proceeds, account for the money, or return it on demand.
The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of standing, failure to join an indispensable party, forum non conveniens, a contractual forum-selection clause, and an arbitration agreement. They submitted no affidavits or testimony, instead asking the circuit court to take judicial notice of pleadings from a voluntarily dismissed federal action. One of those pleadings included a contract between Martim, LLC and Cattleya’s sole owner—not Cattleya itself—that required International Chamber of Commerce arbitration in London. The circuit court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District dismissed the portions of the appeal challenging the rejection of the standing and indispensable-party arguments. Because no Florida rule authorizes an interlocutory appeal from a nonfinal order denying dismissal on those grounds, the court lacked jurisdiction to review them.
The court had jurisdiction to review the forum non conveniens, forum-selection, and arbitration rulings, but affirmed them. The defendants supplied no sworn evidence supporting dismissal for forum non conveniens, and the current complaint did not establish that London arbitration was an adequate alternative forum. The complaint also alleged that the defendants were located in Miami-Dade County, which weighed against their claim that litigating there would be unduly burdensome.
The defendants likewise failed to establish that the forum-selection or arbitration provisions bound the litigants. Cattleya and R. Martim were not parties to the contract containing those provisions, while the individual who contracted with Martim, LLC was not a party to the lawsuit. Although legal theories such as veil piercing might sometimes overcome those gaps, the record contained no affidavits or testimony establishing facts that would permit that result.
Key Takeaways
- A Florida district court lacks interlocutory jurisdiction to review the denial of dismissal for lack of standing or failure to join an indispensable party.
- A party seeking forum non conveniens dismissal ordinarily must support its motion with affidavits or other sworn evidence unless the complaint itself establishes the necessary facts.
- Forum-selection and arbitration provisions generally cannot be enforced by or against nonparties without record evidence supporting a recognized exception to ordinary contract principles.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that judicial notice of unsworn pleadings from another lawsuit does not substitute for competent evidence supporting forum non conveniens dismissal or contractual arbitration. Parties seeking interlocutory relief must build a record establishing both an adequate alternative forum and a legal basis for applying the disputed contract to the actual litigants.
It also illustrates the limited scope of Florida interlocutory appellate jurisdiction: review may be available for arbitration, forum-selection, and forum non conveniens rulings, but not for every ground included in the same nonfinal dismissal order.