TRUDEL
v.
LIFEBIT BIOTECH

M.D. Fla. | 2023-03-24
No. 8:22-cv-1823
District Court, M.D. Florida (2023)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court held that the plaintiffs' amended complaint failed to establish a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs alleged improper termination and coercion into settlement agreements by their employer, Defendant Lifebit Biotech. After removal to federal…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Long Arm Statute Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress Failure To State A Claim Personal Jurisdiction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Long Arm Statute cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

1260, 1275 (11th Cir. 2009). Pleading a prima facie case requires the plaintiff to allege sufficient facts “to support a reasonable inference that the defendant can be subjected to jurisdiction within the state.” Bracewell v. Nicholson Air Services,

The issue of personal jurisdiction was squarely presented in Defendant’s initial motion to dismiss, and the Court’s Order granting that motion made it clear that Plaintiffs needed to include more detailed information in an amended complaint to address this issue. See (Docs. 7; 21). Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint does not adequately address this issue. The conclusory allegations fail to allege which of the acts listed in the long arm statute provide a basis for personal jurisdiction and otherwise fails to plead a prima facie case that personal jurisdiction exists. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted, and this action will be dismissed. As a result, it is unnecessary to address Defendant’s additional arguments that the amended complaint fails to state a claim for relief. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 1. “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof’ (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (Doc. 23) and this action are DISMISSED. 3. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and thereafter close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 24th day of March, 2023.

PY 2G

bh

-TOMBARBER i (asstsi‘“‘i;té;™

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Footnotes
1 On December 7, 2022, the Court directed the parties to file memoranda addressing issues of subject matter jurisdiction, specifically including the citizenship of the parties and amount in controversy. (Doc. 28). Based on the submissions, the Court concludes that this is an action between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, diversity jurisdiction is present. Inc., 680 F. 2d 103, 104 (11th Cir. 1982). When a defendant challenges jurisdiction and supports its position by affidavit, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish jurisdiction by affidavits or other competent proof. Polskie Linie Oceaniczne v. Seasafe Transport A/S, 795 F. 2d 968, 972 (11th Cir. 1986). Where no evidentiary hearing is held, the plaintiff’s burden is to establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction – that is, a case that would withstand a motion for directed verdict. Madara v. Hall, 916 F. 2d 1510, 1514 (11th Cir. 1990). Here, Defendant has contested personal jurisdiction. Defendant, an international biotech company that assists clients with assessing and analyzing biomedical data, is incorporated in the State of Delaware and headquartered in London, England. Defendant alleges that both plaintiffs worked for it remotely, and Defendant believes Trudel resided in Colorado and Dold resided in Vermont. As such, Defendant maintains it has only attenuated contact with the State of Florida and generated no business revenue in Florida past or present. See (Doc. 8). Defendant claims that its contacts with the State of Florida are insufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw