Advantus, Corp. v. Sandpiper of Cal., Inc.
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division
September 30, 2019, Decided; September 30, 2019, Filed
Case No. 3:18-cv-1368-J-34JRK
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on several motions. Plaintiff Advantus, Corp. initiated this action on November 16, 2018, by filing a five count Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 1) against Defendants Sandpiper of California, Inc. n/k/a DBJ Enterprises, Inc. (Sandpiper), PiperGear USA, Inc. (PiperGear), and Innovapro Corporation (Innovapro). On January 28, 2019, each Defendant filed a motion seeking dismissal or transfer of this action. See Innovapro Corporation's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20; Innovapro Motion); Defendant PiperGear USA, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Pursuant [*2] to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 22; PiperGear Motion); Defendant Sandpiper of California, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 23; Sandpiper Motion). Defendants argue that dismissal is warranted because this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. Alternatively, Defendants request the transfer of this action to the Southern District of California as a more convenient forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Innovapro also moves to dismiss the Complaint for improper venue and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), for failure to state a claim. On June 28, 2019, following limited-purpose discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction, Advantus filed Plaintiff's Amended Consolidated Response to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 87; Response). Thereafter, with leave of Court, each Defendant filed a reply. See Defendant Sandpiper of California, Inc.'s Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to its Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 88; Sandpiper Reply); Innovapro Corporation's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 89; Innovapro Reply); Defendant PiperGear USA, Inc.'s Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to its Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, [*3] Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 91; PiperGear Reply), all filed on July 10, 2019. In accordance with the Court's instructions, Advantus filed a consolidated sur-reply on August 23, 2019. See Plaintiff, Advantus, Corp.'s Sur-Reply (Doc. 101; Sur-Reply). Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for review.
I. Standard of ReviewRead The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169337 *; 2019 WL 4751725
ADVANTUS, CORP., Plaintiff, v. SANDPIPER OF CALIFORNIA, INC., n/k/a DBJ Enterprises, Inc., PIPERGEAR USA, INC., and INNOVAPRO CORPORATION, Defendants.
Prior History: Advantus, Corp. v. Sandpiper of Cal., Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132380 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 7, 2019)
PiperGear, products, merchandisers, personal jurisdiction, manufacturing, website, allegations, military, sales, false advertising, advertising, conspiracy, consumers, buyers, customers, witnesses, wallets, imported, brand, contends, catalogs, long-arm, motion to dismiss, convenience, contacts, presentations, promotion, Reply, tortious act, fraudulent