In short: The Third DCA affirmed orders keeping a tortious interference suit against a Brazilian company and its CEO in Miami. Personal service in Brazil by a Brazilian attorney was valid without letters rogatory, the contract’s Brazil arbitration and venue clauses did not cover a tort claim about a separate subcontract, and forum non conveniens could wait for discovery.
The Facts
In 2011, Asperbras, a Brazilian company, and its CEO hired Good Hope Development, LLC, a Florida company with Brazilian members, to help find financing for contracts Asperbras hoped to win with the Republic of Guinea. The contract promised Good Hope a finder’s fee, excluded financing from Credit Suisse, and sent disputes to arbitration and courts in Brazil. Good Hope subcontracted the search to a Brazilian company, Netplan, and agreed to split its fee.
Without Good Hope’s knowledge, Netplan dealt directly with Asperbras, which advanced Netplan money and separately hired it to obtain a Credit Suisse letter of credit. Asperbras later cancelled its contract with Good Hope. Good Hope lost a breach-of-contract arbitration in Brazil, then sued in Miami-Dade circuit court for tortious interference with its subcontract with Netplan. A federal court, after removal, found those claims were outside the arbitration agreement and sent the case back. Back in state court, the trial court denied Asperbras’s motion to quash service made in Brazil, denied dismissal for improper venue and res judicata, and deferred forum non conveniens until after discovery.
The Decision
The Third District affirmed. On service, it held that personal service in Brazil by a Brazilian attorney in good standing was legally sufficient under both Florida and Brazilian law. Brazil is a party to the Inter-American Service Convention, which offers a central-authority route, but Florida courts may accept another method that does not conflict with a self-executing treaty or that the foreign country does not prohibit. Asperbras offered no clear and convincing evidence that the service was invalid, and it did not dispute that the returns complied with Florida law.
On venue, the tortious interference claim concerned the Good Hope and Netplan subcontract, not the Asperbras contract, so the Brazil arbitration and venue clauses did not govern it. On forum non conveniens, the court approved the trial court’s decision to treat the issue as not yet ripe, allow discovery, and let the defendants renew the motion, expressing no view on the merits.
The Law
When this case was decided, out-of-state service was governed by section 48.194, Florida Statutes, read together with any applicable treaty. Since 2023, Florida has a dedicated statute, section 48.197, Florida Statutes, for service in a foreign country. It allows service by any internationally agreed means (such as the Hague Service Convention); where no agreed means applies or a treaty allows other methods, it allows the foreign country’s own procedure, a method directed in response to a letter rogatory, or, unless the foreign country’s law prohibits it, personal delivery or clerk-sent mail requiring a signed receipt; and it allows other court-ordered means, including email, if reasonably likely to give actual notice. Section 48.194 now addresses service in other U.S. states.
Forum-selection and arbitration clauses reach only the disputes they describe. A tort claim about a separate relationship, here a subcontract with a third party, may fall outside them even if the parties have a contract with a foreign venue clause.
Current law (2026): Chapter 2022-190 created s. 48.197 (Service in a foreign country), effective for service on or after Jan. 2, 2023 (with ch. 2025-13 adjustments for service on or after Oct. 1, 2025). Section 48.194 in 2026 covers service in other U.S. states only.
Lessons
- Letters rogatory are not always required to serve a foreign defendant. Check the treaty, the foreign country’s law, and now section 48.197.
- A defendant challenging foreign service needs real evidence, not just the argument that a treaty channel existed.
- Losing a contract arbitration abroad does not necessarily bar a separate tort claim about a different relationship.
- Forum non conveniens may be deferred until discovery shows where the witnesses and evidence actually are.
Watch the Oral Argument
This is the recording of the actual oral argument, posted on the channel. What lawyers and judges say at argument is not the ruling; the decision is summarized above.
Sue in São Paulo? Forum Clause, Tort Claim & Service in Brazil | Asperbras v. Good Hope, 3D16-1292
Go Deeper
- When Your Teenager Accepts the Summons: Default in a Partition Case (Tan v. Hua)
- How to Vacate a Default or Final Judgment in Florida: Rule 1.540 and Its Limits
Frequently Asked Questions
How do you serve a lawsuit on someone in a foreign country under Florida law?
Section 48.197 allows service by internationally agreed means such as the Hague Service Convention; if none applies, by the foreign country’s own procedure, a letter rogatory, or, unless that country prohibits it, personal delivery or signed-receipt mail sent by the clerk; or by other court-ordered means, including email.
Are letters rogatory required to serve a defendant in Brazil?
Not necessarily. In Asperbras, the Third DCA upheld personal service in Brazil by a Brazilian attorney, finding it valid under Florida and Brazilian law and not in conflict with the Inter-American Service Convention. The answer can vary by country and treaty, so check current law before serving.
Does a foreign arbitration clause stop me from suing in Florida?
Only for disputes the clause covers. In Asperbras, the contract sent disputes to Brazil, but the court held a tort claim about interference with a separate subcontract was not covered, so it could proceed in Miami. Whether a clause reaches tort claims depends on its wording and on how closely the claim relates to the contract.
When can a Florida court dismiss for forum non conveniens?
The court weighs whether another forum is adequate and available and whether private and public interests favor it. In Asperbras, the court approved deferring that decision until discovery, allowing the defendants to renew the motion later. Defendants should not assume an early ruling is the last word on forum.
Talk to a Florida civil litigation and appeals lawyer
Weidner Law, P.A. has handled Florida civil litigation and appeals for more than 25 years. If you need a civil litigation lawyer, call (727) 954-8752 or email weidner@mattweidnerlaw.com.
Read the law yourself, free: every Florida statute and court rule is on floridarules.net.
This article is general information about Florida law, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it, watching the videos, or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.
