United Technologies Corp. v. Mazer

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Evidence

EvidencePersonal JurisdictionPleadingHearsayRule 12(b)(6)Rule 12(b)(2)Florida long-arm statuterespondeat superior

Facts

UTC alleged that West-Hem's president, Russell Mazer, acquired stolen Pratt & Whitney tooling blueprints from a Pratt worker and used West-Hem's account, employees, office, and equipment to receive, copy, store, invoice, and ship the blueprints to APM in Belgium. UTC claimed Mazer acted as West-Hem's president and within the scope of his employment, and that West-Hem then invoiced APM about $25,000 for the blueprints. As to APM, UTC alleged that APM's managing director Loetschert, while staying in Florida, helped plan the purchase, helped set the price, contributed cash, and arranged shipment to Belgium. APM submitted Loetschert's affidavit specifically denying those Florida-based allegations, and UTC responded mainly with an investigative report recounting Mazer's statements.

Issue

Whether UTC's amended complaint stated non-speculative claims against West-Hem by sufficiently alleging that Mazer acted within the scope of his employment and for West-Hem's benefit, and whether Florida courts could exercise personal jurisdiction over APM based on UTC's allegations and evidentiary showing. A related evidentiary issue was whether Mazer's statements in the investigative report could be used to rebut Loetschert's affidavit.

Rule

At the pleading stage, a complaint survives Rule 12(b)(6) if its factual allegations, taken as true, raise a right to relief above the speculative level; a corporation may be liable under respondeat superior when the employee's conduct was of the kind he was employed to perform, occurred within the time and space limits of employment, and was activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer. For Florida personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must allege a prima facie basis under the long-arm statute, and once the defendant submits specific affidavit denials, the plaintiff must respond with competent evidence. Hearsay within hearsay cannot be used unless each layer fits a hearsay exception.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A Colorado manufacturer sued a Swiss repair company in federal court in Miami, alleging Florida-based conduct by the Swiss company’s manager. The defendant submitted a sworn affidavit specifically denying that its manager negotiated or funded anything in Florida. In response, the plaintiff offered a memorandum written by a customs investigator in Atlanta summarizing an interview in which a third party claimed the manager had helped arrange the deal while staying in Tampa.

Should the court consider the memorandum as competent evidence to rebut the affidavit?

Explanation. When a defendant rebuts jurisdictional allegations with specific affidavit denials, the plaintiff must respond with competent evidence. A report that merely records what another person said presents hearsay within hearsay. Under the majority opinion’s reasoning, even if the report itself might fall within a records exception, the embedded declarant’s statements are still inadmissible unless that second layer independently fits an exception or exclusion. (Derived from United Technologies Corp. v. Mazer (n.d.).)