Forrest, 839 So.2d 839, 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing Nichols v. Paulucci, 652 So.2d 389, 393 n. 5 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)). Fourth, Ocean World asserts that Columbia submitted itself to Florida jurisdiction by filing lawsuits in Florida, thereby availing itself “of the benefits offered by the Florida judicial system.” However, Columbia’s participation in other lawsuits in Florida concerning subject matters separate and distinct from this lawsuit does not create personal jurisdict , 701 So.2d 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (finding "continuous systematic business contacts” where the defendant sold 50,000 office chairs for approximately $1,000,000.00 per year over several years to a Miami distributor); Garris v. Thomasville-Thomas County Humane Soc’y, Inc., 941 So.2d 540, 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>); Banco Inversion, S.A. v. Celtic Fin. Corp.,
holding that texasbased organization was subject to general jurisdiction in florida because it solicited contributions from florida residents using internet websites holding that texasbased organization was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in florida even though it did not maintain office or have any employees or agents in florida on a regular basis personal jurisdiction was ultimately exerted because organization solicited contributions from florida residents using local television stations and internet websites holding defendant had requisite contacts under section 481932 florida statutes where it solicited consulting and other services from a florida corporation in which a substantial amount of the services sought by defendant were performed in florida holding that general jurisdiction existed where defendant directed significant advertisement towards residents of florida targeting the populous florida market  solicited donations from floridians and had ongoing relationship with several florida animal aid organization including arrangements under which it regularly transferred animals to them for adoption in florida holding new york could lawfully modify a florida custody decree because florida court had right under florida law to change the decree