Millner v. Plutus Enterprises LLC et al, No. 1:2021cv23436 - Document 38 (S.D. Fla. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER denying 26 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 6/22/2022. See attached document for full details. (mmd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Millner v. Plutus Enterprises LLC et al Doc. 38 Case 1:21-cv-23436-FAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2022 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATESDISTRIUT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP FLURIDA M iam iD ivision ' , CaseNum ber:21-23436-CIV-M ORENO JA/OB M ILLNER, Pléintiff, V S. PLUTUS MNTERPRJSE% LLC,FLUYD SCOTT AGEE,JR.,STEFAN DZSSALINES, 1th LEVEL COM M UNICATION S,LLC,and DON GILLETTE,, Defendants. ' / ORDER DENYING M OTION TO bISM ISS ' ' , .. . . ! ' ' . .. Plaintiff,JacobMillner,allegesheisavictim ofapytamidschemepepetratedbythe j ' . Defendants.PlaintifffiledariAménctedComplaintassertingclaimspnderthùRacketeer lnflùenced qnd CorruptO rganizatiônsA ctand the Florida D eceptive and UhfairTrade Practices A ct.D efendant7thLevèlCom m unications, LLC m ovesto dism iss arguing' a lack ofpersonal jurisdictionandfaillzretostateaclaim underIUCO andtheFDUTPA.TheCouttdeniesthe motion fipdingthatRICO ppvidls?ornàiionwideseryiceandtherefore,thereispersonal . '' . . ' . . jurisdictionovertheDefendant.ThéAmèndedComplaintalst ?pleadstheRICO andfrauduleht indticementclaimswitltsuffiqiçntparticularity.ltlaysoutthçroleofeachdefendM téndwhat each defendantdid and said to futther the 11. 111:w . % 1pyram id schem e.Finally,the A l ended Com plaintstatesaclaim undeitheFloridaDeceptivearfdUnfairTradePracticesAct. AccordinglJy,themotiofltodig'miss' ts'denidd. ' Tl-lls cAusE uam e before'the courtupon Defendafat'j'M otioh to bismiss (D.E.26), tiled on Februarv3.2022. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-23436-FAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2022 Page 2 of 11 THE COURT has considered the m otion,the response,the pertinent portipns of the record,and being otherw isewfully gdvised in the prem ises;it'is ADJUDGED thatthe m otioh is DENIED.Defendant7th LevelCùm mupications,LLC shallanswerthe com plaintby June.30.2022. 1. B ackeround ' Plaintiff, Jacob M illner,filedthiscase againstvariouDefendants,iflcluding 7, thLevej Com municgtiqns,LLC,foritsrolein an unlawfulpyrnm id schem e.7thLevelfiled a motion to y ' ' dism isstheAmended Complaint.TheAmended Com plaintallegesthattheschem e,lcnown as OPM W ealth,preyed on'individualsseeking to gaih financialindependeqceby m aking false, . ' . fraudulent,qnd deceptive prom ises of exponentiàlincom e gen'eration to unsuspecting victim s interested iilcryptocurrency. . . ' DefendantsFloyd ScottAgèe,Jr.and Stefan D essalines established OPM W eélth,w hich . q . wasamulti-levelmarketfngbusinesswhererevenuewasderivedfrom investmentof cryptocurrency by subsequentpalicipants.OPM W ialth operated apyram id schemeselling variousm embership levèlsofitsPluttisPlan.Defendant7thLevelCom munications,LLC wasthe principalfnatketing a41(1salestenm ofdhestratingtheongoing fraud carried outby OPM W ealth. . DefendantDon Gillette,aresidentofM iami,Florida,wabartaffiliateand prom oterofOPM W ea1th afld targetedupsgàpectingindividualdwith falsetextm eqiagesalld phtlllecallsto lure them into the schem i. , ThèAm ended ComplainiéxplainsthatOPM W ea: 1th tlffered to consumersadigital franchisewith digitalproducts,inctudingknow-how on generating cryptöcprrency wealth. Patronswouldpay ariinitialbuy-invaluedattensoftllusandsofdollars,buttheonlywayto . m akemonçy through theOPM W ea1th progtam wasby lurihg othersinto. thçprogram and earningcom missionjwhen they purçhased plans.Plaintiffallegeshe and al1otherinvestorslost Case 1:21-cv-23436-FAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2022 Page 3 of 11 th . r t .'''' ' ' ' ' - theirinvestm ent.7 Level'Cöm municationsallegedly prbvided the dired sle:representatives, . ' . . W ho wetereferred tô ascoaches.Oncs apötentialvictim becnme entrappedj7thLevelwould pair ' . . . . ).. . . . . . , theindivtdualwithacoack whosejobwastocloàeihesale.Piaintiffalsoallegestlkat7t!'Level . . . . . k,. . '' ' , . ' . . .. . . Communicationslegitipizèd.opv W ea1thbasedon iisowneyJereiy Miner'sputportedsales . . ' . acumehandrelationsùijwithexistihgcompanles,likeGoogle.Minerandltisteam alsoposted. ' J . kideosenticingvictimstobtïythejjouspjau. . . .., . . y . . . . . J .' ' . lette,asanagentofOiiM On orabciutAptil6,202û,Gil . '. . , . .. Wea1th,directly contacted ' . . . . . Plaintiffto promotethe scheme,claimingheeàrned $146,40) within 1 weeks.Overthenextfew ' Weeks, PlaihtiffwaspresstlredandinundatedwitltfraudulentpromisesfroinAgee,Dessalinçs, ' . . and the 7tl''Levelcoach. H e relied ph the coach'srepresehtationstb finalizehisdecisionto . . 'pahicipate. Pl aintiftpurchasedOPV . . . . . . .gey,, ). tita. Wealth'smpstqxpènsivè'plan,the.;:ZeusPacka . totalöfk.1. '985Bi' tcoin,whichhajavalueofover$1t0,000.'Plaihtiffneve'rr'eceived any digital ' . ' . .. .. ' .' . . ' , . ' ' ' ' ' . orjhysicalptodudsprbnîisedtmdertheplap.èlaintiffheverclosedany dealsfottheschenleand . . . did hotp ake atly motzey. A. CausesofàctionjrlthtAmendedComplaint ' .. , ' . . . . , . Cotmt1ofPlairitiffsAmtridedComplaihtisaRICO claim undet18U.S.C.j 1962/) . . . . . .. againsta1lDefendants.Inthlsslaim,Plaiptifféxplaiflshow thebefendantsconductedthéaffairs ' . ofaracketeeringente 'rjrise.Spec'ifically,7thL.evelCom mpnicatiinsprovided salesptaffto. . promotethefraudulentscheme.Theùompanytcàuted7thLevel'àSEDone. FotYouCl .osirtjTeam'' asakeyc'omponenttotheih'vestofs'successfrom the' program.* 7thLevelparyicijatedinmedia . interviewpEandrryrkqtlngvikeostopromotetheplanand..it!Giôachès'dr wei,ethédired liaisonkto thè victims'.The ùoachejm adefqlàeand deceptiverepréselltAtionstothevictims,includipg the ' . . plaintiff@. lqaintiffalleg' esthattheDrfendantsconductedthea/f 'a 'irsofàràéketeerinj'enteiprise . N ' : . byviolatihg18U.S.C.j1343b .yusihgthewife,rdio,Nd. t/evisioncolpmunicationtodtvisea . . . Case 1:21-cv-23436-FAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2022 Page 4 of 11 dchemetodefraudvittims.Thecomplaintalsoallegesthèy' dolated 18C.S.C.j 1956by launderingtheproceedsoftheirillegalactivi' tybyknoWilklyconcealingthenamre,thelocation, ' ' . . andthe sourceoftheproceedsof. thelrillegalactivity.Finally,theAm'çhded Cgmplaintalleges inCount1thatDefendantsviolated18U.S.C.j1957tny.kYowingly'engaginginmonetary transactionsin crilninally derivedpropetïy ofa valuegreater.than $10,000 stem mizig from theit illegalactivi' ty. Count2isalsöaRICO claim under18U.S.C.j.1962(d)fotconspiracyto conductthe ' , affairsofaracketeering enterprise.Theclaim assertsthata11Defendantsintentionally conspired to engagein arackeseering activity in connection with OPM W ea1th.Itallegesthatthe Defendantsltnew theirpredicateactsfonned apattern ofracke' teering activity ànd agreed to perform thoseactstopep etuatetheschem e. C.ount3isaFlotidaRICU claiinagainstal1Defendahtsunder5:772.103. ,Fla.Stat.The ' . cléim assertstheillegalprzdicateactsthattookplaceitlFlorida,includingorgarfizedfraudin , violationbfj817.034(4)(a),Fla.' Stat.,communidationsfrattdin violatiorfofj817.034(4)(b), ' . . Fla.Stat.andtheft,'inviolationofj812.014(1). Count4isazlaim underthe.FloridaDeceptiveandUnfairTradePracticesAct,j 50. 1*201r501.2135 Fl 'Stat.TheAm'endedConlplaintallegesthat$hedeceptivetradepractices . a. . causedPlaintifftottans?er'hisBitcgihtoOPV W ea1thforinves 'tmentreturnsarfdpropertythat w as notdelivered. . Count5isagaudulentinduéement'claim tmderFloridalaw against21theDefendants.lt . ' assel' tsthatDefendatltsintendedPlaintifftobeinducedtoinvestbyrefyingontheirstatementsof factto him ,w hich w ere false and'deceptive.Plaintiffallegesthàthe suffered dnm agesbecause , hereliedon theirfraujulentstatementà. Case 1:21-cv-23436-FAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2022 Page 5 of 11 Defendant7thLevelCorpm tmicationsfiled am otiop to dismissarguing thattheCourt lackspersonaljurisdiction.7thLevelCommunicationsis'aM issourilimitedliabilitycompany with itsprincipalplace qfbtlsinessi' n M issourianditsonly lherizber,Jeremy M iner,isa citizen . .? ' . . . otphoenixjArizona.Initsmotiontodisfniss,7thLevelalsoarguestiatPlaintifffailstoppperly stateclaim sunderthefederaland FloridaRICO statutesandtheFloridaDeceot veand Unfair A. i . . . . . Trade PracticesA ct. II. L egalA nalysis M otion to Strike Beforeaddressi' ng themeritsofthem otiön to disiniss# the Courtfinds7* Level'sm otion . to striketheAm ended Com plaintshould bedenied.In thiscase,theUout' tgranted apriormotion to dism issfiledby D efendant7t1LevelComm unicétions,wheriPlaintifffailed tofile an oppositionmemorandum withinthetimeallotted intocalRule7.1(c)(1).AftertheCoul'sorder graniingthatmotion,thePlaintifffilçd atimely Am ended Complaintasallowed by FederalRule ofCiyilPrbceduze15( a)(1)(B).tn.thiscase, Plaintiffneverintçnde dto(soppos e''the'mption to *ex<' k . . *.* ' '. .m dismissand thul,wasnotrequired to filearesponseundertheLocalRule. M oreover,Fedem l . . . ' ' , Rule ofcivilProcedute 83 $:l-equireja districtcourt'slocalrulesto be consistentw ith. the FederalRulesofCivilProcedure.''Rèesev.Herbert,527F.1d 1253,1266n.20(1. 1thCir.2008). , vh-c--.wiIl--t----t---,.1(-)(l)i----- --th-ti-i-----i-t--t-itàr-d---lR-l--rci-il Procedute 15(a)(1)(B),whichallowsthefilingofan amendedcömplaint21'days. afterservicebf amotionunderRule12Y).Accordingly,themotiontostrikeisdeniedandtheCotirtvacatesits prior dism issalorderasto D efendant7th LevelC bm m unications;LLC. B..Pefsonalàurisdiction In itsm otion to dism iss,D efyndant7tl1L eveI'Com lhunications àrguesthatthere isno . . personaljgrisdictionbçcausetheteisnospeciscjurisdictionunderFlorida'sLongAzm Statute Case 1:21-cv-23436-FAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2022 Page 6 of 11 oràfqderalstatute.Ptaintiffaskextsthat. becauseitbrihgsclaimsunderthefederalRICO statute, . theanalysijunderFloridb'sLong-Arm Statuteistnisplacèd.TllidCourtagreeswithPlaintit q . '. Rlco provtdesfornationwideG'tenueandprocess''under18U.S.C;51965oftheRICO statpte. , . ' . ' ' . TheEleventhCircuitheldthatCtlwlhen afederalstatmeprovidesfornationwideserviceof process,itbzcotnesthestatmorybasiàforpersonaljurisdiction.''SeeRepublicofpanamav. Bccllioldings,(Lux. ),v%. A,,119F.3d 935,942(11thCir.199. 7).Section 1965(' d)providesfor serviceinanyjudicialdistrictwhereadefendantisfound,anditihthesdtlrceofpersonal jurisdictionover7thLevelinthiscase,notFlorida'slong-arlh statuteasitcotltends.District courts'haverepeatedly ruledconsistentlywithkepùblicofpqhamaholdiùgthenationwide serviceofprocessprpvisioncanbeusedtoexeiùisepersonaljurisdictionoverfederalRICO . . ' ' . . . defendants.Prouv.Giatla,62F.supj.3d 1365,1373.(S.D.Fla.2014)(statingthatwhere personaljurisdictionisestablished'tpderthefederalRICO statute,courtsmayeyercisependent . . . . . .' . .. personalju. risdiction o 'vertherelate d.statelaw claimsl;Banldtldntick CoasttoCoqst (. ' . ' . . Contractors,947F.Supp.480,484(S.D.Fla.1996)(statingthatbecauseRICO providesfor nationwideserviceofprpcess,it' is'thestatutorybasisforpersonaljurisdiction inaRICO action, ' . ' i' . . notFlorida'slong-arm statutelelnit:replybrief,Defeljdant7tnLevelUbmmtmicationsconcedes thispoint,àsitm ust. kather,ithLzvelComrhtmicationsarguesinreplythatdueprocess'considerationsarenot metItarguesthatthereisnopaiiozïpidéclass,andPlaintif/isrmtfrom Flvida.OnlyDefendant . . G illette is in Florida' tm d none ofthe alleged co' nductas to Plaintiffclccuryed inaFlorida.l'7th LeveladdsthatPlaintiffhasneveteven been Fithin theten'itorialboundaries' ofFlorida,and therefore,çxerctsingpersonaljurisdictionhereisuttreasynable.UnberR. 1CO'snationwide serviceofprocessprovision,adefendantisollly requiredto havem ininw m contactswith the TheXmendedComplainiallegéstéatDefendantDonGillettetargetédPlaintifffrom Flöfidà. 6 Case 1:21-cv-23436-FAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2022 Page 7 of 11 United Statesasa wholeto satisfy dueprocessand enableacourtto exetciseperlonal jurisdictionoversuohdefendant.Pr6u,62F.Supy.3dat1372-73.Thereiàhorequirementthata ' , . . defendantestablish minimum contactswith theforlzm dijtrictitself,butrather,a defendant's PresencewithintheUnitedStatessatis/esanydueproceksconcernswherenationwideserviceof . Processisauthorized.Yheonly caveattothisgeneralruleisthàtifadefendantsatisfiesits Gdburdenofdemonstptihgthatassertionofjurisdictioninthisforum willmakelitigation (so gravely difficultandinconvenient'tha llbeataEseveredisadvantageincompayison Eto l thewi . Plaintiftl,''which7tI 'Levelhasnotattemptedtodohere.Republicofpanama,119F.3dat948. Here,Plaintiffhasestablishedaprimafaciècaseofpersonaljurisdiction against7th Leyel.TheAm ehded Complaintidentifes7thLevçlasa M issourilim itrd liabili' ty com pany and Jeremy M iher,itsownerand solerpem ber,wasserved in Arizena.TheAmended Complaint ' . ' , ' ' . . . seeksrelieftl'om 7tl 'Level'se ongfulconducttmderRICO andidevifiesj1965sthebasisof . ' ' . ' ' ' jurisdiction ofitsclaims.PttrsuanttoRICO'Snationwide:erviceqfprocessprovision,7thLevel, ttsacompany reslding in theCriited Statbs,hassuffcielltm iniljw fn contactsFith theUnited Statesto satiéfy cohstitutionaldueprocessrequirem enssapd thus,isgubjecttothepersonàl . jurisdictioùofthisCourt.See18U.S.C.j1965(d);seealsqBanW tlantic,947F.Supp.vt488 ' : ' . ' ' (&$gA)defend% t'smerepresettc:'wfthinthe' united Statesebtablishesçminimum contacts'and . ' . . satistiesany dueprocessùoncernsthàtm ày existwhere qatiohwideselwici ofprocessis authôrized.''). 7 . C .RICO and FratldulentInducem qntClaims Defendanttnoves'todismiss'theIUCOandfrauxlentiitdtzcementèlaimsunderFeèeral ' RuleofCivilProcedure9(b)forfailuretopleadfraudwithspecificity.TheEleventhCircuithas . .. . . . . , ' ' ; .. . . . :( . . .. repeatedly statedthatkule9(b)issatisfiedwhereaplaihtiffàlleges preciselywhatstatements Case 1:21-cv-23436-FAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2022 Page 8 of 11 weremadein whatdocumeùtsororalreprèsentationsorwàatomissionsweremade,and(2)the tim eand placeofeach such statem ehtand'theperson responsibleformaking(or,intheçaseof . ppissions,notmaking)same,andthe(3)conten2tofsuch jtatementsandthemarmerinwhich . . .. . ' . .. . . . . . .. . . ' . theym isledtheplajntiff,ahd(4)wlptthedefendantobtainedasaconjequenceofthefwud.'' '1237(1lthCir.i008)tcitingTellèv.Dean Witter M izzaro v.HomeD epot,Inc.,544 F.3d1230, ' . . ' w . . . . ' ' ' . . . . . Reynolds,Inc.,494F.3d956,972(11th Cir.2007)andquotin' gZiembav.Cascadelpt'lInc.,256 F.3d 1194,1202 (11thCit.2001));AmbrosiaCoaldnCont vt.Co.v.PagesM orales,482F.3d 1309,1316 (11th Cir.2007).Underf tlkule9(b),itissufficienttopleadthewho,what,when, . where,andhow oftheallegedlyfalsestatemelitiandthenallegegenerailythatthosestatement; werem ade with the requisiteintent.''M izparo,544 F.3d at12)7. TheAmendçdComplaintmeetsRule9(b)'sheightened'fleadingstandard.Plaintiffhas 'identified 7thLevel, botài ndividuallyandcolledivèlywithotherDefeùdants,tohavetkgeted Plaihtiffthroughdeceptivemarketingmaterialsandthzoughaaentsàctilm on itsbehalfio ftaudulently m isrepresenttpPlaintiff,thepurpèse,performanéçhistory,prodpcts.ofthe OPM . . ' . W ealth'schùmeand;moreimportantly,Plaintiff'sabilitytolpate' substantial,immediatepassiv'e incomefrom hispttrchasd' ofaPlutugPlan franchiselevel.'TheAmended Complaintalso idpntifiesJeremyM inerasakeydeyelöperandpromoterofthefalse,flùudulent,anddeceptive . .. . . . .. a.j ddvertisem entmaterialsand theorgénizerandorchèstratorofthe 'tcöachus''supplied by 7.. 1 . . ' , . ' . Level,whöwere,in reality,the çlèsing agentsthatspokedirectly with victim s,includihg Plaintiff.7thLevelcoàchesmade falseanddeczptive statbm'entsandrepresentationsgbtmtthe ' . schem eto attractvictims,including Plaintifllinto buyinginto theprogram .TheAm ended complaintalso statesthata7tb't-evelcoachwasapplintedtoassisttheèlaintiffand mischafacterizedtheirpenatum öfihescheme.Astothetimeframe,theAltxndeéComplaint Case 1:21-cv-23436-FAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2022 Page 9 of 11 assertthat'/thLevelinundated thePlaintiffwith m arketing m aterialsand verbalprom ises begimlingon April6,2020 to M ay 6,2020.Finally,theAm ended Com plaintprovides screenshots ofcharts and graphicsthat7thLevel, inconjunctiönwith otherdefendants,posted ' 0nlinetotargetvictims.ThçCouttiindsthisissufficientlypled. Plaintiff arguesthatthe A m ended Com plaintim properly lum psthe D efendantstogether. . ' - ''' *- . ThisAmendedcomplatntisnotashotgunpleàding,whichassel' tslçmultipleclaimsagainst . multipledefendantsWithoutspecifyingwhichoftiedefendanfsareresyonsibleforwhichactsor omissions,orwhich ofthe defendantstheclaim isbroughtagainst.''Weiland v.Palm Beach C/pa@ Shert ' sO.f#t?d,792F.3d 1313,1323(1lth Clr.2015).Thisisnotthetypeqfpleadi .ng thatfailsto givethe defendantjadequatenoticeoftheclaim sorthegroundsupon which each claim rests.Rather,theAm ended Complaintstatesallegatioùsasto each defendant,ahd specitically setsforth71hLevel'srolçinthescheme.Accordingly,theCourtdoesn?tfindthe Plkintiffkmpropèrlylumpsthedefendantstogether. DzfendantalgoargtfestiatPlgintifffailstopleadthe'RICO conspiracyclaim with particularity.Districtcourtgin thiscircuithavespecificallyheldthatçûltule9(b)'sparticularity . requirèmeùtdoesnotépplytoRICU'collspiracyclaims.''fn/':Sahlen& Assoc&,Sec.Litig.,773 ç.supp.742,370(s.o.p-la.1991)(citingo-ualieyv.o' geill,8ttf-.2d1557,1560(1ltcir. 1989)).. W heretheallegations,réadintheirtotality,clyarly suggestthat'suchan agreemintto conspirewasmade,theparticutarityrequirementjdbnotapply.fJ. Here,Plaihtiff.allegestha, t7thLevelconspiredwiththeotherDef:nd .antstofurthera rcketeering enterprise.specincélly,theAmendectComplailltallegesOPM Wealtàh' ired7th LeveltopromcjtetheplantV oughitsteam ofcoaches,whtjwere'focttsedonclosingdealswith 9 Case 1:21-cv-23436-FAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2022 Page 10 of 11 unsuspectingvictimsi)fthepyramidscheme.Accordingly,tv Cout'tdeniestilemotionto ' . . dismissand findstheAmended Complaintsufticiently statesaqlaim forRICO conspiracy. Florida'sDeceptiveand UnfairTradePracticesAct tthLevelmovestodismi 'ssthe'FloridaDeceptiveandUnfairTradèPraçticesict' claim .. ' . ' .u . ' arguingtheteisnotasufficientconnectiontoFlorida.In so arguing,7tnLevelacknowledgesthat Floridacourtshavefound thattheFloridaDeceptivèand UllfàirTradePracticesActisnot limitedtoprovidingreliefioFloridaconsumers,norisitlimitedtoconductoccurringentirely withinthestate.SeeM illenium Comm ' ns& Fu@llment,Inc.v.OfpceofAttorney Gen.ofFla., 761So.2d 1256,1262(F1a.3dDCA 2000)(findingthattileFDUTPX appliestonon-resident consumers);BarnextOm hore,Ltd v.FerrettiGrp.,USA,lnc.,No.10-23869,2012 WL 1570057,(S.D.Fla.M ay 2,2012)(recognizingthatthere.arenogeographicalorrçsidential restrictionscontainedintheexpiesslanguageofthestatuteanddet' lyingsummaryjudgmenton a ' . FDUTPA'c1aim becausesopeoftheactivitybccurredoutsideofFlorida). TheFloridaDbceptiveahctunfairTradepracticesAciisintended'tx oprotectthe ' cohsumingpublicand legitim ateenterprisesfrom those who engagein unfairp ethodsöf . competitiolt,orunconscionéble,'deçèptive,cifunfairactsorpracticesirftheconductofahy trade orcommefcd,''Barnext,2012W L 1570057,at*5(quoting' Fla.Stat.j501.202).Florida.statute ' . y , j501.203definesûttradèorcommerce'das(çtheadverti$ing,soliciting,prdvidinj,offering,or ' diàtributing,'w hetherby sa'le. . .'protherwise,ofanygoöd',;.whereveru sijftmfctf''Id 'tquoting Fla.Stat.j501.203(emphasisaèdedl).TheActisCidesigrtedtoprotectnotonlytherightsof litigants,butalsojhérights'ofth8consumingpublicatlarge.''Holtv.O ' BriehImpottsofFort Myers,Inc.,862 So.2d87,89(F1a.2dDCA 2003). ,7 Levelnevçrtheless Although Florida 1aw allow sfora broad interpretation ofthe act . . . -- ï ' . . ' '' ' ' . arguestheclalm shoulbbedismtsFçdbecausethereisan insufficientcohnectiontoFlortda.Even Case 1:21-cv-23436-FAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/22/2022 Page 11 of 11 . '. . iftheCourtgaveFDUTPA themorelimitedre'adingthat7tl 1Levelsuggesss,theAmetlded Com plaintallegejthat7t1' Levelqpgaged Fith Florida'bash ed DefepdantDoflGillet' te arld the otherDrferj(taptsindqceptiveqndtmfair. tradepractices.Don Gillet'tetaiaetedPlaiptifffrom Florida.Theje allegationsare suffcientto state a claim underthe A cttm d therefore,the Court deniesthem otion todism iss. ( D ON E AN D ORD ERED in Cham bersatM iam i,Flor yw q R ida,this z J, '' of-Ju 'n 'e2022. . . .A ' ''ee > < --.. FEIjXRJCO-AC-NfI3REN: UN1t- STATESDISTRICT JUDGE Copiesfurnished to: counselofkecord .
]]>
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.
