Plaintiff Files Appeal Against Expedia In Libertad Act Lawsuit

MARIO DEL VALLE, ENRIQUE FALLA, MARIO ECHEVARRIA V. EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM L.P., HOTELS.COM GP, ORBITZ, LLC, BOOKING.COM B.V., BOOKING HOLDINGS INC. Initial defendants were: TRIVAGO GMBH, BOOKING.COM B.V., GRUPO HOTELERO GRAN CARIBE, CORPORACION DE COMERCIO Y TURISMO INTERNACIONAL CUBANACAN S.A., GRUPO DE TURISMO GAVIOTA S.A., RAUL DOE I-5, AND MARIELA ROE 1-5, [1:19-cv-22619 Southern Florida District; 20-12407 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals]

Rivero Mestre LLP (plaintiff)
Manuel Vazquez, P.A. (plaintiff)
Baker & McKenzie, PPL (defendant)
Scott Douglass & McConnico (defendant)
Akerman (defendant)

Appellant’s Initial Brief (2 September 2020)

Excerpts:

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The district court erred for the following reasons:

First, it was error to refuse to exercise personal jurisdiction over appellees under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(1) or § 48.193(1)(a)(2), because the order ignored the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations of factors the order itself cited as relevant to personal jurisdiction, mischaracterized what it said had been alleged, and disregarded extensive authority in and out of this Circuit demonstrating the correctness of personal jurisdiction in similar circumstances. The order’s failure to note, let alone credit, those allegations and authorities compels reversal.

Second, it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss the complaint in an order barring any motion for leave to amend, on the first motion to dismiss that was briefed and submitted for decision, during a worldwide pandemic and unprecedented lockdown, with initial discovery pending. The order on appeal improperly assumed that investigating the claim could have easily been done during the confusion and dislocation of the pandemic and lockdown, which frustrated efforts to investigate and conduct discovery as to any allegations in any case. Further, the order’s makeweight footnote, which “noted” in dicta (with no analysis) that amendment would be “futile” for one of the appellants, and “possibly” for another, never could have supported dismissal of the complaint as a matter of law, much less a dismissal without leave to amend, because there are three plaintiff/appellants, not two.

Third, it was an abuse of discretion to deny appellants’ request to wait for jurisdictional discovery that would have indisputably confirmed all jurisdictional allegations (as it has in three related cases). The order on appeal addressed the very first motion to dismiss that was briefed and submitted for decision in this case, during the dislocation of a worldwide pandemic and unprecedented lockdown, while initial discovery requests were pending. It was an abuse of discretion to punish appellees for “failing” to do what couldn’t reasonably have been done.

In sum, the complaint was legally sufficient, the order’s dismissal was error, and even if that were not so, any dismissal should have been with leave to amend.