Abdulfotikh Suleymanov v. Winston Premier Logistics, LLC, and Otabek Umarov

── Abdulfotikh Suleymanov v. Winston Premier Logistics, LLC, and Otabek Umarov ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: May 08, 2026 Category: General FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 5D2025-0443 LT Case No. 42-2024-CC-263 _____________________________ ABDULFOTIKH SULEYMANOV, Appellant, v. WINSTON PREMIER LOGISTICS, LLC, and OTABEK UMAROV, Appellees. _____________________________ On appeal from the County Court for Marion County. LeAnn Mackey-Barnes, Judge. Abdulfotikh Suleymanov, New Britain, Connecticut, pro se. David S. Romanik, of David S. Romanik, P.A., Ocala, for Appellees. May 8, 2026 PER CURIAM. Appellant Abdulfotikh Suleymanov appeals the Marion County Court’s final judgment entered against him and in favor of Appellees Winston Premier Logistics, LLC, and Otabek Umarov. Suleymanov argues the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. We agree and reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the case. Winston Premier, a Florida company conducting an interstate trucking business, and Umarov, its manager, filed suit against Suleymanov, a resident of Connecticut. Their complaint alleged that the parties reached an oral agreement whereby Umarov would personally loan Suleymanov money to pay the tuition for Suleymanov to become certified as an interstate truck driver and to support his family while he attended trucking school. The agreement provided Suleymanov would repay this loan in full if he drove a truck and trailer for Winston Premier for one year at a compensation rate of 70¢ per mile. After a cross-country delivery of vegetables to Connecticut went wrong, Suleymanov quit driving for Winston Premier approximately one month into the agreed- upon one-year period. As a result, Appellees filed suit. In response to the complaint, Suleymanov filed his Special Appearance & Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. In support of his motion, he filed an affidavit attesting that he had no contacts with the State of Florida. Suleymanov admitted he worked for Winston Premier and Umarov but averred he had never conducted business in Florida or entered into any contract to be performed in Florida. Umarov filed his sworn declaration in response, declaring, inter alia, that Winston Premier “hired” Suleymanov as a driver, that all payments Winston Premier made to him were from a bank account maintained in Florida, and that all damages sustained by Winston Premier accrued in Florida, the location of its only office. The trial court denied his motion. Ultimately, after entering a judicial default against Suleymanov, the court entered final judgment in favor of Winston Premier and Umarov. Suleymanov appeals this final judgment, arguing, as he did below, that because he did not have sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Florida the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. For a Florida trial court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant living outside the state, “due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum such 2 that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 500 (Fla. 1989) (citing Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)). In making this determination, the trial judge must decide “whether the defendant’s conduct in connection with the forum state is ‘such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’” Id. (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)). Florida’s long-arm statute, see § 48.193, Fla. Stat. (2023), provides two distinct ways in which personal jurisdiction may be obtained over a defendant: either by the nonresident defendant having done any of the acts enumerated in section 48.193(1) (specific jurisdiction); or where the nonresi