ERAN FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC

v.

ERAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

(EFS) to reconsider my previous order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss EFS’s Amended Complaint. ECF Nos. 90, 81. EFS seeks reconsideration of my finding that it failed to allege this Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendant Ningbo Morelux Import Export Co. Ltd. (Morelux I&E). ECF No. 90 at 11-12. With the instant motion for reconsideration, EFS contends that I raised the personal jurisdiction issue sua sponte and that it was not given an opportunity to show that Morelux I&E “has deep and pervasive contacts in Florida.” ECF No. 91 at 5. After conducting a de novo reconsideration of the issues raised by EFS, I reject its claim that it “had no notice” of the need to address the Court’s personal jurisdiction over Morelux I&E, and I reach the same conclusion regarding the Court’s lack of jurisdiction over that Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

In EFS’ original Complaint, EFS alleged that Defendant Eran Industries Ltd. used alter ego entities, including Morelux I&E, to breach a contract it had with EFS to manufacture lighting products in China. ECF No. 1. In response to that Complaint, Morelux I&E filed an Answer that included an affirmative defense objecting to this Court’s personal jurisdiction over it. ECF No. 40 at 5. Thereafter, EFS filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 83), which Defendants, including Morelux I&E, moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). ECF No. 81. I granted that motion as it pertained to Morelux I&E without prejudice but without leave to amend. ECF No. 90 at 12. The order states in relevant part: “Given that there are no facts alleged in the Amended Complaint attributing any unlawful acts directly to Morelux I&E, insufficient facts showing this Court’s jurisdiction over the entity, and because I have already rejected Plaintiff’s alter ego theory of personal jurisdiction, Morelux I&E must be dismissed from this lawsuit without prejudice, but without leave to amend.” Id.

With the instant motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), EFS now claims that “Morelux I&E did not join in th[e] [personal jurisdiction] aspect of the motion” and thus, “the issue was [ ] not addressed by Plaintiff” in its response. ECF No. 91 at 4.

DISCUSSION

In deciding a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), courts have broad discretion and may grant reconsideration if the movant establishes any of the designated grounds for relief such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, etc. See Guevara v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 15-24294-CIV, 2017 WL 6597978, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2017) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). A movant can also seek relief under the catchall provision of subsection (b)(6), namely, “any other reason that justifies relief,” but this “is an extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” Id. (quoting Cavaliere v. Allstate Ins. Co., 996 F. 2d 1111, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993)). A motion for reconsideration “cannot be used to relitigate old matters, [or] raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry to judgment.” Guevara, 2017 WL 6597978, at *1 (quoting Smith v. Ocwen Fin., 488 Fed. Appx. 426, 428 (11th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). “The party seeking relief has the burden of showing that absent such relief, an extreme and unexpected hardship will result.” Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F. 2d 677, 680 (11th Cir. 1984) (citation and internal quotations omitted). As an initial matter, I note that I granted Morelux I&E’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as well as Rule 12(b)(2). Therefore, EFS’s argument that it did not have an opportunity to refute the lack of personal jurisdiction aspect of the motion ignores that I also dismissed Morelux I&E because “there [were] no facts alleged in the Amended Complaint attributing any unlawful acts directly to Morelux I&E.” ECF No. 90 at 12. Since the Amended Complaint against Morelux I&E would have been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) regardless of my determination that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction, EFS’s motion for reconsideration on that one issue must fail because it is moot. In any event, I find that EFS was given adequate warning that the Court’s ability to exercise personal jurisdiction over Morelux I&E was a contested issue. Indeed, the opening paragraph of Defendants’ motion to dismiss specifically states that it was brought on behalf of all Defendants (except Mr. Ye, who has not been served) and that it sought dismissal under both Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(b)(2). ECF No. 81 at 2. This opening statement, in addition to the jurisdictional affirmative defense previously raised by Morelux I&E in its Answer, was sufficient to put EFS on notice that this Court’s personal jurisdiction over Morelux I&E was very much in dispute. Thus, EFS had the opportunity to address the Court’s personal jurisdiction over Morelux I&E, but it failed to do so.¹

Even now in its motion for reconsideration, EFS does not put forth sufficient facts to support its claim that Morelux I&E “has deep and pervasive contacts in Florida.” ECF No. 91 at 5. Instead, it relies upon one reference in an affidavit by Defendant Ye that Defendant EI Belize used Morelux I&E to export its products to Plaintiff. ECF No. 91 at 5 (citing ECF No. 39-1 at ¶ 14). Even if EFS had included this lone fact in its Amended Complaint, it would not have been sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss by Morelux I&E under either Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(b)(2). Simply

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF 91) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers this 22nd day of May, 2023, at West Palm Beach in the Southern District of Florida.

BRUCEE.REINHART

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE