Millennium Funding, Inc. v. 1701 Mgmt. LLC

576 F.Supp.3d 1192

MILLENNIUM FUNDING, INC., a Nevada corporation, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.1701 MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a LiquidVPN, a Puerto Rico limited liability company, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 21-cv-20862-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed December 13, 2021

Joel Benjamin Rothman, Craig Anthony Wirth, SRipLaw, PLLC, Boca Raton, FL, Joycelyn S. Brown, IPS Legal Group, P.A., Miami, FL, Kerry S. Culpepper, Pro Hac Vice, Culepper IP, LLLC, Kona, HI, for Plaintiffs Millennium Funding, Inc., Hunter Killer Productions, Inc., Voltage Holdings, LLC.

Joel Benjamin Rothman, Craig Anthony Wirth, SRipLaw, PLLC, Boca Raton, FL, Joycelyn S. Brown, IPS Legal Group, P.A., Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs AMBI Distribution Corp., Hannibal Classics, Inc., I Am Wrath Productions, Inc., Rupture Cal, Inc., FSMQ Film, LLC, LHF Productions, Inc., Speed Kills Productions, Inc., Nikola Productions, Inc., LF2 Productions, INc., After Productions, LLC, Rambo V Productions, Inc., FW Productions, LLC, Screen Media Ventures, LLC, MON, LLC, Millennium SPVH, Inc., Colossal Movie Productions, LLC, Eve Nevada, LLC, Millennium Media, Inc., Bodyguard Productions, Inc., SF Film, LLC, Paradox Studios, LLC, Morgan Creek Productions, Inc., Badhouse Studios, LLC, After II Movie, LLC, Day of the Dead Productions, Inc., Wonder One, LLC, Killing Link Productions, LLC, 211 Productions, Inc., Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, Outpost Productions, Inc., Venice PI, LLC, Bedeviled, LLC, Justice Everywhere Productions, LLC, Millennium IP, Inc., Definition Delaware, LLC, State of the Union Distribution and Collections, LLC, Yar Productions, Inc.

Joel Benjamin Rothman, SRipLaw, PLLC, Boca Raton, FL, for Plaintiffs Hitman Two Productions, Inc., Glacier Films I, LLC, 42 Ventures, LLC.

Richard James Mockler, III, The Solomon Law Group, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Defendant Charles Muszynski.

Adam Colby Losey, Losey PLLC, Orlando, FL, for Defendant VPNetworks, LLC.

1701 Management, LLC, San Juan, PR, Pro Se.

AUH2O, LLC, Pro Se.

ORDER ON QUADRANET'S MOTION TO DISMISS

BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants Quadranet, Inc.’s ("QI") and Quadranet Enterprises, LLC's ("QE," and collectively with QI, "Quadranet") Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. [108] ("Motion to Dismiss"). Plaintiffs Millennium Funding, Inc., Hunter Killer Productions, Inc., Voltage Holdings, LLC, 211 Productions, Inc., AMBI Distribution Corp., After Productions, LLC, After II Movie, LLC, Morgan Creek Productions, Inc., Eve Nevada, LLC, Bedeviled LLC, Millennium Media, Inc., Colossal Movie Productions, LLC, Day of Dead Productions, Inc., YAR Productions, Inc., FSMQ Film, LLC, FW Productions, LLC, I Am Wrath Production, Inc., Killing Link Distribution, LLC, Badhouse Studios, LLC, LF2 Productions, Inc., LHF Productions, Inc., Venice PI, LLC, Rambo V Productions, Inc., Rupture CAL, Inc., MON, LLC, SF Film, LLC, Speed Kills Productions, Inc., Millennium IP, Inc., Nikola Productions, Inc., Wonder One, LLC, Bodyguard Productions, Inc., Millennium SPVH, Inc., Outpost Productions, Inc., Definition Delaware LLC, Hannibal Classics Inc., Justice Everywhere Productions LLC, State of the Union Distribution and Collections, LLC, Paradox Studios, LLC, Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, Screen Media Ventures, LLC and 42 Ventures, LLC's (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a Response in Opposition, ECF No. [117] ("Response"), to which Quadranet filed a Reply, ECF No. [123] ("Reply"). The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on March 3, 2021, seeking injunctive relief and damages against Charles Muszynski, 1701 MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a LIQUIDVPN ("LiquidVPN"), and DOES 1-100 ("Does 1-100"). See ECF No. [1]. On May 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") adding Quadranet, AUH2O, LLC, and others as Defendants. See ECF No. [24]. On July 30, 2021, Quadranet filed their first Motion to Dismiss. See ECF No. [83]. On August 17, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") adding VPNETWORKS, LLC d/b/a TorGuard ("TorGuard") as a Defendant. See ECF No. [96]. Plaintiffs assert against Quadranet, among others, contributory copyright infringement based upon material contribution ("Count III"); vicarious infringement ("Count IV"); negligence ("Count VI"); fraud ("Count VII"); and equitable estoppel ("Count VIII"). See generally id. ; see also ECF No. [117] at 15. The bases for Plaintiffs’ claims against Quadranet are that Quadranet leased servers that were used for copyright infringement, and that Quadranet published false Whois records to prevent Plaintiffs from contacting LiquidVPN, TorGuard, and Does 1-100. See generally ECF No. [96].

On August 31, 2021, Quadranet filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. [108]. In the Motion, Quadranet argues that Plaintiffs’ SAC is a shotgun pleading, Counts III, IV, and VI-VIII fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Quadranet, and venue is improper. See generally id. Plaintiffs respond that the SAC is not a shotgun pleading, Counts III, IV, and VI-VIII do state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Quadranet, and the venue is proper. See generally id. On September 20, 2021, Quadranet's Reply followed. See ECF No. [123].

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Personal Jurisdiction

"A plaintiff seeking to establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant ‘bears the initial burden of alleging in the complaint sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case of jurisdiction.’ " Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri , 736 F.3d 1339, 1350 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer , 556 F.3d 1260, 1274 (11th Cir. 2009) ). "Once the plaintiff pleads sufficient material facts to form a basis for in personam jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the defendant to challenge plaintiff's allegations by affidavits or other pleadings." Carmouche v. Carnival Corp. , 36 F. Supp. 3d 1335, 1388 (S.D. Fla. 2014), aff'd sub nom. Carmouche v. Tamborlee Mgmt., Inc. , 789 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2015). A defendant challenging personal jurisdiction must present evidence to counter the plaintiff's allegations. Internet Sols. Corp. v. Marshall , 557 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2009).

"Where ... the defendant submits affidavit(s) to the contrary, the burden traditionally shifts back to the plaintiff to produce evidence supporting jurisdiction." Meier ex rel. Meier v. Sun Int'l Hotels, Ltd. , 288 F.3d 1264, 1269 (11th Cir. 2002) ; see also Internet Sols. Corp. , 557 F.3d at 1295 ; Cable/Home Commc'n Corp. v. Network Prods., Inc. , 902 F.2d 829, 855 (11th Cir. 1990). If the defendant makes a sufficient showing of a lack of personal jurisdiction, "the plaintiff is required to substantiate the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint by affidavits or other competent proof, and not merely reiterate the factual allegations in the complaint." Polskie Linie Oceaniczne v. Seasafe Transp. A/S , 795 F.2d 968, 972 (11th Cir. 1986). Conclusory statements, "although presented in the form of factual declarations, are in substance legal conclusions that do not trigger a duty for Plaintiffs to respond with evidence of their own supporting jurisdiction." Posner v. Essex Ins. Co. , 178 F.3d 1209, 1215 (11th Cir. 1999).

In addressing whether personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant exists, "[t]he district court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true, to the extent they are uncontroverted by the defendant's affidavits." Madara v. Hall , 916 F.2d 1510, 1514 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Morris v. SSE, Inc. , 843 F.2d 489, 492 (11th Cir. 1988) ). "[W]here the plaintiff's complaint and the defendant's affidavits conflict, the district court must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Id.

Furthermore, a court must conduct a two-part inquiry when deciding the issue of personal jurisdiction. Sculptchair, Inc. v. Century Arts, Ltd. , 94 F.3d 623 (11th Cir. 1996). First, the court must determine whether the applicable state statute governing personal jurisdiction is satisfied. Sculptchair , 94 F.3d at 626. Florida's long-arm statute recognizes two kinds of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant: general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. See Fla. Stat. §§ 48.193(1) – (2) ; see also easyGroup Ltd. v. Skyscanner, Inc. , No. 20-20062-CIV, 2020 WL 5500695, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2020). The Eleventh Circuit has held that the reach of Florida's long-arm statute is a question of state law, and that federal courts must adhere to the statutory constructions offered by the Florida Supreme Court and Florida's District Courts of Appeal. See Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. , 736 F.3d at 1352. If the requirements of the long-arm statute are satisfied, under either general jurisdiction or specific jurisdiction, then the court must also consider the federal Due Process Clause.

Future Tech. Today, Inc. v. OSF Healthcare Sys. , 218 F.3d 1247, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2000).

The court's analysis of the Due Process Clause depends on three factors: (1) defendant's purposeful availment of the forum state; (2) the cause of action arising out of the activities of which the defendant purposefully availed himself; and (3) reasonable foreseeability of the defendant being haled into court in the forum state. See id. (citing Burger King v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) ). In addition, the court must determine whether exercising jurisdiction will comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, meaning the court must balance: "(a) the burden on the defendant; (b) the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute; (c) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining...