Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Envtl. Mfg. Sols., LLC v. Fluid Grp. Ltd.

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division

May 9, 2018, Decided; May 9, 2018, Filed

Case No: 6:18-cv-156-Orl-40KRS

Opinion

Report and Recommendation

TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:

MOTION: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 21)

FILED: March 6, 2018

I. BACKGROUND.

Plaintiffs Environmental Manufacturing Solutions, LLC ("EMS") and Heartland Energy Group, Ltd. ("HEG") instituted this action in state court on January 4, 2018. Doc. No. 2. In their verified complaint, they alleged that Defendants Fluid Energy Group, Ltd. ("Fluid") and Clay Purdy tortiously interfered with their business relationships and violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"). Id. Defendants were served [*2]  in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, on January 11, 2018. Doc. Nos. 35-36. Defendants removed the case to this Court on January 30, 2018, alleging that the Court could exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the parties are completely diverse. Doc. No. 1. After receiving briefing and evidence from the parties, I issued an Order concluding that the parties are completely diverse. Doc. No. 34.

Plaintiffs filed a verified amended complaint on February 21, 2018. Doc. No. 14. Defendants then moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them, service of process was insufficient, and the tortious interference and FDUTPA counts failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Doc. No. 21.1 In support of their motion, they submitted a declaration from Purdy, who is the CEO and Chairman of Fluid. Doc. No. 21-1. Defendants also referred to evidence submitted in support of a previous motion to dismiss, which was denied as moot after Plaintiffs amended their complaint. Doc. Nos. 8-1 through 8-4. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion, asking that the Court deny the motion or, in the [*3]  alternative, grant them leave to amend. Doc. No. 41. The motion to dismiss has been referred to me for issuance of a report and recommendation, Doc. No. 23, and it is now ripe for decision.

II. RELEVANT FACTS.2

Read 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.

2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131382 *

ENVIRONMENTAL MANUFACTURING SOLUTIONS, LLC and HEARTLAND ENERGY GROUP, LTD., Plaintiffs, v. FLUID GROUP, LTD. and CLAY PURDY, Defendants.

Subsequent History: Adopted by, Judgment entered by, Objection overruled by, Motion granted by Envtl. Mfg. Solutions v. Fluid Energy Group, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202892 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 30, 2018)

Prior History: Envtl. Mfg. Sols, LLC v. Fluid Energy Grp, Ltd, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135732 (M.D. Fla., Mar. 6, 2018)

CORE TERMS

Defendants', amended complaint, alleges, motion to dismiss, customers, recommend, Plaintiffs', consumer, personal jurisdiction, products, tortious interference, contacts, tortious act, long-arm, district court, service of process, causation, cases, insufficient service, do business, lack of personal jurisdiction, business relationship, misrepresentations, parties, identification number, forum state, traditional notions of fair play, report and recommendation, exercise jurisdiction, communications