Libertad Act Lawsuit Against Pernod Ricard Dismissed- Plaintiff Argument About Duty Free Sales Don't Sway Court
/MARLENE CUETO IGLESIAS AND MARIAM IGLESIAS ALVAREZ V. PERNOD RICARD [1:20-cv-20157; Southern Florida District]
IPS Legal Group, P.A. (plaintiff)
Law Offices of Andre G. Raikhelson LLC (plaintiff)
Ainsworth & Clancy PLLC (plaintiff)
Carlton Fields P.A. (defendant)
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. (defendant)
Excerpts:
Defendant moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, in part, on the grounds that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Pernod is a French corporation organized under foreign law. Its principal place of business is located at 12 Place des Etats-Unis, 75783 Paris Cedex 16, France. And while Pernod is a foreign publicly traded company that, through its subsidiaries, does business in the State of Florida, Pernod does not maintain a registered agent in the State of Florida. Consequently, the Court found that Defendant’s contacts with the State of Florida alone were insufficient to establish the general jurisdiction requirements of the Florida Long Arm statute over Defendant. Furthermore, in dismissing the First Amended Complaint, the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege an alter-ego theory. However, even if Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that Pernod USA was the alter ego of Defendant Pernod for purposes of satisfying Florida’s long-arm requirement of “substantial and not isolated activity” in the state, Pernod’s connections with Florida are not “so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it] essentially at home” here.
The Court acknowledges that the Plaintiffs did add an allegation that one of Defendant’s United States subsidiaries “allows international travelers departing from the Miami Airport . . . to purchase Havana Club and Martell Cohiba Cognac, duty free.” (DE 57 ¶ 31). And in response to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs argue “Defendant’s action of marketing, selling, and distributing the Havana Club rum through PRSA’s web site to Florida Residents is more than sufficient to establish the minimum contacts necessary to enable Florida courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant.”
However, Plaintiffs fail to appreciate the fact that this allegation and argument regarding duty-free shops in international airports and generally accessible websites would render foreign corporations subject to personal jurisdiction in nearly every major city in the United States where a consumer has access to an airport and the internet. Courts in this circuit have routinely found that general and specific personal jurisdiction cannot be premised on allegations of similar or even more substantial contacts than these.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above and in the Court’s order dismissing the First Amended Complaint (DE 55), it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 64) for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
