and interviewed him through its website, telephone communications, and electronic mail while he resided in Florida and that Aegis required him to submit to pre-employment screening in Florida. However, none of the four causes of action alleged in Gilbert’s complaint arose from these activities. Count I challenged the validity of a contract executed by Gilbert in Arkansas. Counts II and III alleged Aegis had an obligation to pay Gilbert additional monies for work he performed in Afghanistan. Count IV simply constituted a challenge to a forum selection provision. Because Gilbert’s “claims” did not arise from Aegis’ purported employment solicitation activities, specific jurisdiction was not established. See Crowe v. Paragon Relocation Res., Inc., 506 F.Supp.2d 1113, 1122 (N.D. Fla. 2007) (<HOLDING>); ’ see also DeLeon v. KBR, Inc., No. 11-00685
holding that nonresident limited partners did not have the necessary minimum contacts to sustain personal jurisdiction in florida although partnerships purpose was to develop property in florida holding that nonresident defendants failure to make payments in florida coupled with forum selection clause sufficient for court to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant holding no connection between nonresident defendants alleged age discrimination against job applicant and its solicitation activities in florida as was required to exercise specific jurisdiction holding in age discrimination case that plaintiffs dismissal did not give rise to an inference of discrimination when job was subsequently offered to an older individual holding age discrimination claim barred