LA TELE PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. TV Azteca et al, No. 1:2016cv25347 - Document 115 (S.D. Fla. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting 39 40 Motions to Dismiss and Dismissing Defendants TV Azteca and Comarex for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 9/25/2018. See attached document for full details. (mmd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
LA TELE PRODUCTIONS, INC. v. TV Azteca et al Doc. 115 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF FLOR IDA M iam iDivision Case N um ber:16-25347-ClV -M O REN O LA TELE PRODUCTIONS,lNC., Plaintiff, VS. TV AZTECA ,COM A REX S.A.de CV, AZTECA INTERN ATIONAL CORP., AZTECA STATION S LLCJ and IN VESTM EN T M EDIA G ROU P, COR P., Defendants. / ORDER DISM ISSING DEFENDANTS TV AZTECA AND COM AREX FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION 1. Backzround This suitstem sfrom Defendants'alleged unlawfulagreementto produce, broadcast,and distribute Plaintiffs telenovelas1 Emperatriz and fas Dos Dianas.l Plaintiff is allegedly the owner of all rights,title,and interests in the telenovelas'scripts, storylines, characters, and themes.ln Decem ber2001, Plaintiffpum ortedly offered thetelenovelasto TV Azteca Comarex, , and Investm entM edia Group in Com arex'softice in CoralGables, Florida,butthey declined to purchase a license for them .Plaintifps agent, Fernando Fraiz, allegedly attended a National Association ofTelevision Program Executivesconference annually between 2001and 2010, and on severaloccasions,m etwith Comarex'spresident, M arcelV inay Sr.,in CoralGables,Florida, to offer the telenovelas to TV A zteca. ln 2010, Plaintiff allegedly learned that TV A zteca w as lTelenovelasareitshortserializedtelevision dramasthataresimilarto Am erican soap operas.. .( thatlairduring pr Ciime-timeview ing hours.''Grupo Televisa,S.A.v.Telemundo Comm c'nsGrp., Inc.,485F.3d 1233,1236(11th r.2007). 2LasD osD ianaswasallegedlyunlawfullyproduced by DefendantTV Azt ecaasCieloRojo. Dockets.Justia.com starting production of the telenovelas, and thatithad acquired them tluough itsprogramm ing distributor Com arex and lnvestment M edia Group. Thereafter,Plaintiff alleges it notified TV Azteca and Com arex thatPlaintiffow ned the exclusive rights to the telenovelas. On April8,2011,Plaintiff scounselallegedly sentDefendantsaletter, warning them that TV Azteca was violating Plaintiffs exclusive copyrightsto the telenovelas by producing them withoutPlaintiff'sauthorization. ln response,Com arex and TV A zteca produced a June 17 2011 , certified docum ent that transferred the telenovelas' copyrights back on Novem ber 3 1998. , Attached to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaintisa Venezuelan judge's orderdated July 12, 2011,detenuining thatthe certified docum entwas false and forged. Following this exchange , agents for Plaintiff and TV Azteca allegedly m et in M iami around July 2011 to discuss TV Azteca'sinfringem entofPlaintiff'scopyrights. A her this m eeting, the Defendants allegedly continued to broadcast the telenovelas globally,including in the United States, in violation ofPlaintiffs copyrights. Plaintiffcontends thatTV Azteca replicated every aspectofthe telenovelas, including the sam eplot,sequence of events,and characters.Thereplicasalso purportedly possessed sim ilardialogue, pace,mood,and tone.Plaintiffsubmitsthatthe alleged conspiracy isongoing to the presentday asevidenced by , Azteca lnternationalCorporation's offering ofTV Azteca's Ctcontent''ofthe telenovelas atthe , Conferencein M iam i, Floridain January 2018. Plaintiffseeksdamagesand injunctive relieffor:(1)Copyrightlnfringementunderthe CopyrightAct,l7 U.S.C.j 101,etseq.;(11)UnfairCompetition underFlorida law;and (111) Civil Conspiracy under Florida law . TV Azteca and Comarex move to dism iss the Am ended Complaintforlack ofpersonaljurisdiction,impropervenue, forum non conveniens,and under thedoctrineofjudicialestoppel. 2 Plaintiff submits that the Courthas personaljurisdiction over all of the Defendants pursuant to Florida's long-anu statute because they each comm itted tortious acts , or alternatively,agreed to com mittortiousactsin Florida. Forthe following reasons the Amended , Complaint is dism issed because the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met its burde n of establishingspeciticpersonaljurisdictionoverTV AztecaandComarex . 1I. LeealStandard On a motion to dismiss for lack ofpersonaljurisdiction, the courtaccepts as true a11 allegationsin thecom plaintand decideswhethertheplaintiffhasmetitsburden ofestablishing a primafacie case ofpersonaljurisdiction.Stubbs v.Wyndham Nassau ResortdrCrystalPalace Casino, 447 F.3d 1357, 1360 (11th Cir.2006).CtgW lhere the defendantchallengesthecourt's exerciseofjurisdictionoveritsperson,theplaintiffbearstheultimateburdenofestablishingthat personaljurisdiction ispresent.''Oldheld v.Pueblo DeBahia Lora, S.A.,558 F.3d 1210, 1217 (11thCir,2009). W hendetermining whetherpersonaljurisdiction existsoveradefendant, courtsgenerally partake in a two-step analysis. Verizon Trademark Servs., LLC v.Producers,lnc 810 F.Supp. ., 1321, 1323-25 (M .D. Fla. 2011).A courtmay exercise personal jurisdiction over a norlresidentif:(1)theforum state'slong-arm statuteconfersjurisdiction and (2)jurisdiction wouldnotSçoffendtraditionalnotionsoffairplay and substantialjustice''PVC Windoors,Inc v. . . Babbitbay Beach Constr, N M, 598 F. 3d 802,807 (11th Cir.2010) (citation and internal quotationsomitted).Courtsproceed tothesecond step only ifthelong-arm statuteprovidesfor jurisdiction.Id A courtmust strictly construe the long-arm statute in assessing whether a plaintiff has satisfied its burden ofproducing affidavits, docum ents,or testim ony thatovercom e adefendant'sevidencechallenging personaljurisdiction Sculptchair,Inc v.Century Arts,L/2 , . 94F.3d623,627(11thCir.1996)(citationsomitted) . 3 . 111. Analvsis DefendantsTV Azteca and Comarex argue thatthe Verified Am ended Com plaintshould bedismissedbecausetheCourtlackspersonaljurisdictionoverthem.Personaljurisdiction over anonresidentdefendantrequiresatwo-partanalysis.ExhibitIcons, LL C v.XP Companies,LL C, 609 F.Supp.2d 1282,1292 (S.D.Fla.2009).éiW henjurisdiction isbasedon afederalquestion arising undera statute thatissilentregarding service ofprocess, Rule 4(e)ofthe FederalRules of CivilProcedure directs us to look to the state long-arm statute in order to determine the existtnceofpersonaljurisdidion.''Sculptchair,Inc.,94F.3dat626-27.Here,theCourt'ssubject matterjurisdiction isbased on theCopyrightAct afederallaw devoid ofaserviceofprocess provision.3Ifthereisabasisforpersonaljurisdiction underthestatelong-arm statute, the Court mustnextdetermine whether(1)sufficientminimum contacts existto satisfy the Due Process ClauseoftheFourteenth Amendmentand (2)maintenanceofthesuitdoesnotoffendSttraditional notionsoffairplayand substantialjustice.''ExhibitIcons,LLC,609F.Supp.2dat1292(quoting lnternationalShoeCo.v.Washingtons326U.S.310(1945)). M inimum contactsin the contextofspecificpersonaljurisdiction4involvethreecriteria. First,the contads mustbe related to the plaintiff'seause of action orhave given rise to it. 1d. Second,the contacts must involve some purposeful availm ent of the privilege of conducting activitieswithin the forum,thereby invoking the benefits and protections ofitslaws. 1d Third, thedefendant's contactswithin the forum state m ustbe such thatitshould reasonably anticipate 3TheCopyrightActprovidesthatitlalny(temporaryorfinallinjunctionmaybeservedanywhereintheUnited Statesonthepersonenjoined..,''17U.S.C.j502(b).AlthoughPlaintiffseeksinjunctiverelietltheCourthasyetto makeadeterminationthatinjunctivereliefiswarranted,thus,section502(b)isinapplicableatthisstage. 4TheAmendedComplaintassertsonlyspeciticjurisdictionoverDefendantsddbecausetheyeachcommittedtortious actsinthisdistrict...''D.E.32! ll.TV AztecaandComarexagree:tç-f' heAmendedComplaintassertsonly speciticjurisdiction...andmakesnoallegationsthatwouldsubstantiategeneraljurisdiction...''D.E.39at2, 'D.E. 40at2.Indeed,Plaintiffstatesin itsResponsethatany partofTV AztecaorComarex'smotionsthatdealwith generalpersonaljurisdictionistçirrelevantandintheinterestofjudicialeconomywillnotbeaddressedby LATELE.''D.E.45at8n.6.Thus,theCourt'sanalysiswillcenteraroundspecificpersonaljurisdiction. being haled into courtthere. Id PlaintiffarguesthatDefendantsare subjectto specificpersonal jurisdiction pursuant to Florida's long-arm statute because they committed tortious actswhether in or out of the state- that caused Plaintiff injury in Florida See Fla. Stat. j . 48.193(1)(a)(2)5(é$A person . . . submitshim selforherself... tothejurisdiction ofthecourtsof thisstatefor...gcjommitting atortiousactwithinthisstate'');Posnerv.EssexIns.Co.,Ltd, . l78 F.3d 1209,1217 (11th Cir.1999)(holding thatpersonaljurisdiction is warranted under Florida's long-ann statute where the defendant comm itted tortious acts outside the state that caused injury in Florida)(emphasisaddedl;Robinson v.Giamarco drBill, P.C.,74 F.3d 253, 257(11thCir.1996)(same). In this case, TV Azteca submits the declaration6 of Rafael Rodriguez Sanchez, the DirectorofitsLegalDepartm ent, who statesthatTV Azteca did notengage in any broadcasting , distributing, or producing of the telenovelas in the United States and, in essence, refuted Plaintiffsallegation thatitoffered Defendants a license forthe telenovelas. D.E.39,Ex.A !! 18-19,28.Com arex subm its the declaration of M arcel V inay, Jr.,its Chief Executive O fficer, thatstates Com arex hasneverbroadcasted, licensed,orproduced the telenovelasatissue, D.E. 40,Ex.A ! 18,andneverhadbusinessdealingswith PlaintiffinFloridaorelsewhere, id.at!21. In response,Plaintiffseem sto maintain thatbecause a civilconspiracy hasbeen alleged, like in d-Y-d EquitableLfeIns.Co.v.Inhnity Fin.Grp.,LLC,608 F.Supp.2d 1349, 1354 (S.D.Fla. a 5Florida's long- arm stat m ewasamended in 2013.Casesdecided priorto2013 analyzed theç<tortiousact''version of Florida'slong-arm statuteassection48.193(l)( b),whichwasamendedtopresentday48.193(1)(a)(2).The substanceofthestatute,however, rem ained unchanged. 6itwhere()thedefendantsubmitsaffidavitscontrarytotheallegationsinthecomplaint, theburden shiftsbackto theplaintifftoproduceevidencesupportingpersonaljurisdiction, unlessthedefendant'saffidavitscontain only conclusoryassertionsthatthedefendantisnotsubjecttojurisdiction''Stubbsv.Wyndham NassauResortttCrystal PalaceCasino,447 F.3d 1357, 1360(1lt hCir.2006).çdWhere(theplaintiff'sqcomplaintandsupportingaffidavits anddocumentscontlictwiththe(dlefendants'affidavits,(thecourqmustconstrueallreasonableinferencesinfavor . oftheplaintiff''1ti 5 2009), Florida's long-arm statute is automatically satisfied. The critical phrase Plaintiff overlooksisthatkdatleastoneactinfurtherancegoftheconspiracy)...iscommittedinFlorida'' . 1d. The Verified Amended Complaintallegesthe following connectionsto Florida:(1)in December2001,Plaintiffoffered thetelenovelasto TV Azteca, Comarex,and Investm entM edia Group during a m eeting with Com arex's Vice President M arcelV inay Jr. in Coral Gables, Florida,D.E.32 ! 29;(2) on severaloccasions between 2001 and 2010,Fraiz attended the Conference in CoralGables,Floridaand offeredthetelenovelas'rightsto TV Azteca, id at!31; (3)In July2011,FraizandVinaySr.metin Miami,FloridatodiscussTV Azteca'sinfringement ofPlaintiffscopyrights,id at! 38;(4)from 2011to thepresent,TV Aztecawrongfully and intentionally produced,broadcasted,and distributed the telenovelasin the United States, id.atjf 42;(5) the foreign channels broadcasting the telenovelas are accessible online or on cable television in Florida, id. at ! 43; (6) the telenovelas broadcasted through TV Azteca's subsidiaries(including DefendantAztecaAmerica)areavailableonlinewith TV Azteca'slogo and rem ain accessible in Florida and throughoutthe United States, id at! 44, .and (7)Azteca lnternationalCom oration offered TV Azteca's contentofthe telenovelas atthe Conference in M iami,FloridainJanuary2018,id.at!76. The question iswhetherPlaintiffsproffered events are sufficientto find thatTV Azteca and Comarex comm itted atortiousactin Florida, thereby satisfying Florida's long-arm statute. 1. Florida'sLong-Arm Statute Florida's long-arm statute isnotsatisûed because Plaintiffhasfailed to m eetitsburden of establishing specificpersonaljurisdiction.In applying Florida Statute48.193(1)(a)(2),aperson who com m itsa tortious actoutside the state thatresults in harm w ithin the state generally confers personaljurisdiction overtheout-of-stateentity.Elandia1nt' 1,Inc.v.Ah Koy,690F.Supp.2d 1317,1329 (S.D.Fla.2010)(holding thatpersonaljurisdiction overan outofstate entity was properbecausethedefendantowedfiduciary dutiestotheplaintiffthatwereallegedlybreached). SeealsoRobinson,74 F.3d at257 (holdingthatthe long-arm statute extendsjurisdiction overa defendantwho allegedly caused injury in Floridaby negligently drahing and reviewing awill outsideofFlorida). TV Aztecaand Comarex7arenotsubjectto personaljurisdiction in Floridabyvirtueof the possibility thatthe telenovelas were broadcasted into Florida. The only allegations in the Amended Complaintthatallege aceessibility---eitherviathe internetorcabletelevision--ofthe telenovelasin Floridaare:(a)from 2011tothepresent,TV Aztecawrongfully and intentionally produced,broadcasted,and distributed the telenovelasin the United States, D. E.32 at! 42 (emphasisadded);(b)theforeign channelsbroadcastingthetelenovelasareaccessibleonlineor on cabletelevision in Florida,id.at! 43 (emphasisadded);and(c)thetelenovelasbroadcasted through FF Azteca% subsidiaries (including DefendantAzteca America)are available online with TV A zteca's logo and rem ain accessible in Florida, i d.at! 44 (emphasis added).The allegationsabovt donotsuggestthatTV Azteca orCom arex'sactionsoutsideofFloridaresulted intortiousinjuryin Floridaspec6 cally. lnstead,Plaintiffsuggests thatTV A zteca w rongfully broadcasted the telenovelas i*in the United States,t'but not specitk ally in Florida. Taking that wide-ranging allegation as true would mean that every state with a sim ilar long-arm statute would possess specifk personal jurisdiction overTV Azteca,simply by virtueofitsstatusasastatein theUnion.Such theory would surely run afoul of the Due Process Clause's fair warning requirement, because the defendantmusthave purposefully directed his activities atthe forum- in this case Florida, not 7Tobesure,PlaintiffdoesnotallegethatComarex wrongfully broadcastedthetelenovelasintoFlorida.The allegationscenteraroundTV Aztecaand itssubsidiaries. the United States.Thus, thatallegation,on its own, isinsufficientto giveriseto specificpersonal jurisdiction. Next, Plaintiff claim s that iiforeign channels'' and SITV Azteca's subsidiaries'' broadcasted the telenovelasthatare accessible in Florida. D.E.32!! 43-44.Florida'slong-arm statute surely does not contemplate impugning the alleged tortious acts of wholly unrelated entities- àd. foreign channels--onto TV Azteca. N or does Plaintiff cite to such authority . Howcver,thequestion ariseswhetherTV Aztecacan besubjectto specificpersonaljtuisdidion becauseoftheactionsofitsalleged subsidiaries. A corporation that engages in substantialactivity in a state,through a subsidiary, is subjecttopersonaljurisdiction in Florida.UniversalCaribbean Establishmentv Bard,543 So. . 2d447,448(F1a.4thDCA 1989).Todeterminewhetheraforeigncorporation isliablebased on a subsidiary's substantialactivity, the Courtmustconsiderthe ownership ofthe subsidiary , the business activities of the subsidiary, and the financialrelationship between the com oration and the subsidiary.Abramson v. WaltDisney Co.,132 F.App'x 273, 276 (11th Cir.2005)(applying section 48.193(1)(a)ofFlorida'slong-arm statute)(citing M eier v Sun Int1 Hotels,Ltd ,288 . F.3d 1264, 1272-73 (11th Cir. 2002)). '$To establish an agency relationship, the foreign corporation m ust exercise such control that the subsidiary's sole purpose for existence is to accomplish the aims of the foreign corporation and there is no evidence ofseparate interests. Evidenceofoperationalcontrolisnotsatistied wherethe foreign com oration'spoli cy statem ents m erely establish goals foritssubsidimiesand wherethe subsidiariesoperate with a çhigh degree ofautonom y.'''Id 8 Accepting Plaintiffs factual allegations as true, Plaintiff claims that G'TV Azteca's subsidiaries''broadcasted the telenovelas thatare accessible in Florida. D.E.32 ! 44.Plaintiff does not identify which of the subsidiaries it refers to but the Court presumes they are , Defendants Azteca International Corporation and Azteca Stations both allegedly incorporated in Delaware and conducting business in Florida. This allegation in the verified Amended Complaint,although am biguous, issufficientto stateaprimafaciecaseofjurisdiction under Florida's long-arm statute. However,the allegation was directly contradicted by Rafael Rodriguez Sanchez's declaration, wherein he explained that dlA zteca Am erica a subsidiary of , TV Azteca,operatescompletely independently from TV Azteca. Theirheadquartersare located in separate countries. They shareno officersordirectors, and have separate boardsofdirectors'' . D.E.39,Ex.A ! 20.Finally,Sanchez declared thatûSTV Azteca and Azteca America do not share accounts,or investmentsv''Id at! 21.Sanchez's allegations are sufficientto shiftthe burden back to Plaintiff to produce evidence in supportofjurisdiction H owever, although . Plaintiffsam ended complaintisvcrified, Plaintiffdid notprovide testim ony , orotherevidence, to rebut TV Azteca's declaration as set forth in the personaljurisdiction burden shihing - framework.8Abramson, 132F.App'xat276(stAfteraplaintiffhmsestablishedaprimafaciecase forjurisdiction and thedefendanthasfiled affidavitscontestingjurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden ofproving sufficientjurisdiction by affidavitsorothersworn statements''). Thus, . Plaintiffhas notmetitsburden to show thatthe telenovelasbeing broadcasted in Florida were caused by thetortiousactsofTV Azteca, oroneofitssubsidiaries. The nextinquiry iswhetherTV Azteca and Comarex are subjectto specific personal jurisdiction becauseofthe meetingsthatpurportedly occurred in Florida The Courtfinds that . BThe Verified Am ended Com plaintdoesnotprovideallegationsregardingtherelationship am ong thevarious Defendants. they are not.The Verified Amended Complaintalleges that:(a)in December2001,Plaintiff offered the telenovelasto TV Azteca,Comarex,and lnvestm entM edia Group during a meeting withVinay Jr.inCoralGables,Florida,D.E.32 at! 29;(b)on severaloccasionsbetween 2001 and 2010,Fraiz attended the Conference in CoralGables, Florida and offered the telenovelas' rightsto TV Azteca,id at! 31. ,(c)in July 2011,Fraiz and Vinay Sr.metin M iami,Floridato discussTV Azteca'sinfringementofPlaintiffscopyrights, id at!38;and (d)DefendantAzteca lnternational Corporation offered TV A zteca's content of the telenovelas at the Conference in M iam i,Florida in January 2018,id. at! 76.In essence,overthe span ofseventeen years,the rights to the telenovelas were allegedly offered to TV Azteca and Com arex atthe Conference and othernon-conference related meetings in Florida. Additionally,Plaintiffalleges thatFraiz and V inay, Sr. m et in M iam i to discuss TV A zteca's alleged infringem ent of Plaintiff s copyrights. Plaintiff's verified allegations regarding meetingsthatoccurred in Florida are sufficient tostateaprimafaciecaseofjurisdictionunderFlorida'slong-arm statute.Sanchez'sdeclaration statesthatESTV Azteca neverhad any discussions orbusiness dealings with PlaintiffLaTele in Floridaorelsewhere.''D.E.39,Ex.A !24.Additionally,CCTV Aztecarepresentativesmay travel sporadicallyto Floridagforthe Conference and)...to meetwith otherintemationalnetworks. These visits are neither constantnorm ethodical.''ld.at! 27.Import antly,Sanchez statesthat dsplaintiff(Jdid notoffertheNovelasto TV Azteca ...between 2001and 2010.''Id at! 28. Sim ilarly,the declaration of V inay, Jr.states thattdcomarex has neverhad any discussions or business dealingsw ith PlaintiffLaTele in Florida orelsew here.' 'D.E.40Ex.A !21. The allegations of Sanchez and V inay Jr. are sufticient to shiA the burden back to Plaintiffto produce evidence in supportofjurisdiction.Because Plaintiffhasfailed to provide 10 any evidenceto counterTV Azteca and Com arex'sallegations Plaintiffhasnotm etitsburden of , sufficiently alleging that the long-arm statute is satisfied under the th eory that the meetings betweenthepartiesin Floridagiverisetospecificpersonaljurisdiction Abramson,132 F.App'x . at276 (stating thatwhen a defendanthas filed affidavits contesting jurisdiction, the plaintiff bearstheburden ofrebutting by affidavitsorothersworn statem ents. ). Accordingly,the Am ended Complaint is dismissed because Plaintiff has not met its burden ofestablishing specitk personaljurisdiction underFlorida'slong ann statute over TV - Aztecaand Comarex. 2. M inim um Contacts Assuming arguendo thatPlaintiffhasm etitsburden and its allegations satisfy Florida's long-arm statute, thenextquestion iswhethersubjecting TV Azteca and Comarex to personal jurisdiction in thisCourtcomportswith theDueProcessClause W here a fol'um seeksto assert . specificpersonaljurisdiction overanonresidentdefendant, dueprocessrequiresthedefendantto have S'fairwarning''thata particularactivity may subjecthim to thejurisdiction ofa foreign sovereign.Robinson,74 F.3d at258(citingBurgerKi ng Corp.v.Rudzewicz 471 U .S.462,472 , (1985)(internalcitation omittedl).Thistifairwarning''requirementismetifthedefendanthas purposefully directed his activities atthe forum and the litigation results from alleged i njuries thatarise outoforrelate to those activities. Id (internalquotationsand citationsomitted). The defendant's contactwith the fonlm state should give rise to a reasonable anticipation ofbeing haled into courtthere. Id (internalcitationsomitted). TV Azteca and Com arex9 did not have suffcient contacts in Florida to satisfy due process. A m eeting in the forum state m ay constitute pup oseful availm ent if it involves significantnegotiations of im portanttenus. See Sea Lf/t Inc.v.Rehnadora Costarricense de Petroleo,S.A.,792 F.2d 989,993 (11th Cir.1986)(finding thatholdingmeetingsin thefol' um state to sign a boilerplatecontractwasnotsufficientforminimum contacts).In this case,the alleged m eetings thatoccurred in Florida can m ore aptly be referred to as (isolicitations.''Sea Lf/t Inc.,792 F.2d at994 (describing the defendant'sagent'spresence in Floridato discussa forthcoming business relationship as a (dsolicitation'' rather than a Ctmeeting'') t;A direct . solicitation by a foreign defendant of the business of a fonlm resident has been held to be çpurposeful availment' in cases where either a continuing relationship or some in- forum performance on thepartoftheplaintiffwascontemplated.' '1d.(internalquotationsand citations omitted).Here,Plaintiffalleges the partiesdiscussed transferring the rightsto the telenovelas were offered to TV Azteca and Comarex atseveralmeetings in Florida. These meetings are exactly the typesofsolicitationsthatthe Eleventh Circuitfound insuffcientin Sea L#i The . additionalm eeting held in July 2011 took place after the alleged infringem ent to discuss the infringement. That m eeting cannotbe said to be the type of ûspurposeful availm ent''ofthis forum to warrantfinding the Defendantscould have reasonably expected to be haled into court here. Rather,the meeting'spurposewasto discusswhateventually becamethesubjectofthis Case. Even if Plaintiff had sustained its onus of rebutting TV A zteca and Com arex's declarations,Plaintiffs burden ofestablishing m inim um contactshasnotbeen met. Atbest,the 9AscomparedtoTV Azteca, Com arex hasIessconnectiontoFloridabecause accordingtotheAm ended , Complaint,Comarexdidnotparticipate inthealleged meeting in July 2011between PlaintiffandTV Aztecato discusscopyrightinfringement. alleged m eetingsin Floridaare mere Sdsolicitations''to selltherightsto th e telenovelasordiscuss rem ediesforthe alleged infringem entofsaid rights. Notonly was a contractnotmem orialized , butthere isno allegation thatthere were tdnegotiations ofim portantt enns.''Sea L( /t lnc.,792 F.2d at993.Thus,neitherTV Azteca norCom arex purposely availed them selvesofthe benefits and protectionsof Florida law and even ifFlorida's long arm - statute is met,these Defendants should be dismissed because exercising personaljurisdiction over them would violate due process, Accordingly, Defendants TV Azteca and Com arex are DISM ISSED for lack of personaljurisdiction. DONE AND ORDERED in Cham bers at M iam i, Florida,this of September F 2018. FEDERI O RENO UN ITED ATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copiesfurnished to: CounselofRecord 13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
