Biscayne Bay Brewing Company, LLC v. LA Tropical Holdings, B.V.
1:20-cv-24180
S.D. Fla.
Apr 9, 2021

Background

  • Plaintiff Biscayne Bay Brewing Company (BBBC), a Miami craft brewer, markets Tropical Bay IPA and filed this declaratory and tort action against La Tropical Holdings B.V., Cerveceria La Tropical USA LLC (La Tropical USA), Heineken USA, and Lagunitas (all Heineken affiliates).
  • La Tropical Holdings claims rights in TROPICAL/LA TROPICAL marks (acquired post-2017) and its counsel sent BBBC a cease-and-desist; BBBC filed a USPTO application for TROPICAL BAY IPA, which was published and opposed by La Tropical Holdings; USPTO found no likelihood of confusion.
  • BBBC alleges defendants interfered with its sponsorship and sales relationship with Inter Miami (MLS) after Heineken/affiliates asserted exclusives with MLS, causing Inter Miami to stop purchases and demand termination of the sponsorship.
  • BBBC asserts causes of action for declaratory judgment (non-infringement/abandonment), tortious interference, FDUTPA (deceptive/unfair trade practices), and common-law unfair competition.
  • Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction (over La Tropical Holdings), failure to present a justiciable controversy (re: licensees), failure to state tortious interference/FDUTPA/unfair competition claims, and for Rule 8 deficiencies.
  • Court denied the motion to dismiss in full (April 9, 2021), finding (among other things) specific personal jurisdiction over La Tropical Holdings and that BBBC plausibly pleaded interference, FDUTPA, and unfair competition claims.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Personal jurisdiction over La Tropical Holdings BBBC: La Tropical Holdings marketed the brand in Miami, its counsel's letter says it invested in a Wynwood brewery—so Florida contacts support jurisdiction La Tropical Holdings: Dutch parent with separate US affiliates; not "at home" in Florida and declarations deny Florida operations Court: Specific jurisdiction exists based on counsel's letter and related contacts; general jurisdiction not shown; denial of dismissal for lack of PJ
Declaratory judgment against Lagunitas & La Tropical USA BBBC: Licensees/sublicensees and participated in cease-and-desist activity, showing willingness to enforce marks Defendants: As licensees who never sued, no actual case or controversy against them Court: Appel declaration admits joint cease-and-desist; licensees showed preparedness to enforce rights—they remain defendants to Counts I–III
Tortious interference with Inter Miami contract BBBC: Defendants knew of sponsorship and unlawfully pressured MLS/Inter Miami (including alleged statutory violations), causing termination and damages Defendants: No unjustified interference; privilege to interfere with at-will contracts Court: BBBC plausibly alleged knowledge, intentional unjustified interference (including alleged statutory violations), and damages; contract had fixed term, so privilege doesn't apply—Count IV survives
FDUTPA claim (deceptive/unfair trade practices) BBBC: Defendants used deceptive/unfair practices to induce MLS/Inter Miami to stop dealing with BBBC, causing direct damages Defendants: No deceptive/unfair acts pleaded; damages are speculative/consequential and not recoverable under FDUTPA Court: BBBC plausibly alleged unfair/deceptive conduct and direct damages from lost sponsorship benefits—Count V survives
Common-law unfair competition & Rule 8 pleading challenge BBBC: Allegations of interference and unfair trade practices support unfair competition; complaint identifies actions by each defendant Defendants: Complaint lumps defendants and fails to give individualized notice under Rule 8 Court: Unfair competition claim survives because underlying claims survive; complaint gives sufficient notice—Rule 8 challenge denied

Key Cases Cited

  • Sculptchair, Inc. v. Century Arts Ltd., 94 F.3d 623 (11th Cir. 1996) (two-step personal-jurisdiction framework: state long-arm then due process analysis)
  • Stubbs v. Wyndham Nassau Resort and Crystal Palace Casino, 447 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff's prima facie burden on jurisdiction and effect of defendant affidavits)
  • Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 557 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2009) (procedural posture for jurisdictional proof and evidentiary shifting)
  • Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2008) (Rule 12(b)(6) — accept allegations as true and construe in plaintiff's favor)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim; discovery not unlocked by conclusory allegations)
  • Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts/Due Process test for jurisdiction)
  • Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (jurisdictional inquiry focuses on defendant's contacts with the forum)
  • Goodyear Dunlop Tire Ops., S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction requires affiliations so continuous/systematic as to render defendant "at home")
  • Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (paradigmatic forums for general jurisdiction are state of incorporation and principal place of business)
  • BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) (clarifying limits on general jurisdiction)
  • Carmouche v. Tamborlee Mgmt., Inc., 789 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2015) (general-jurisdiction test applied to corporations)
  • Waite v. All Acquisition Corp., 901 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2018) (Florida long-arm and due-process analysis)
  • Meier ex rel. Meier v. Sun Intern. Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2002) (conflicts between plaintiff allegations and defendant affidavits resolved in plaintiff's favor at jurisdictional stage)
  • Duty Free Ams. v. Estee Lauder Cos., Inc., 797 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015) (tortious-interference analysis and role of justification/privilege)
Read the full case