ConSeal International Incorporated v. Bolster America, Inc.
0:16-cv-61027
| S.D. Fla. | Nov 7, 2016Background
- Conseal International (Plaintiff) manufactures RatX, sold through retailers including Home Depot and Ace Hardware; Defendants Bolster America and David Bolster market a competing product, RatGon.
- Plaintiff alleges Defendants made false statements to retailers, sales reps, and government officials about RatX’s testing, legality, market status, and that RatGon was EPA-exempt and that Defendants were licensees of Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff sued under the Lanham Act (false advertising and unfair competition) and state-law claims: tortious interference, trade libel, and unfair competition.
- Defendants initially challenged personal jurisdiction but later waived that challenge and filed an amended motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) attacking pleading sufficiency of the Amended Complaint.
- The Court found the Rule 12(g) prohibition on successive motions barred Defendants from raising new Rule 12(b)(6) challenges to Counts I, II, and V, but considered the reasserted challenge to Count III (tortious interference).
- The Court denied dismissal of Count III, finding Plaintiff adequately pleaded identifiable customers (Home Depot, Ace), plausibly pleaded interference under Rule 8, and that Defendants could not reassert a jurisdictional challenge they had waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants may raise new Rule 12(b)(6) challenges after withdrawing earlier motion and consenting to jurisdiction | Plaintiff: successive motion is improper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g) | Defendants: raised merits challenges to multiple counts in amended motion | Court: 12(g) bars new 12(b)(6) challenges to Counts I, II, and V; those challenges are improper |
| Sufficiency of tortious interference pleading (identifiable customers) | Plaintiff: alleges business relationships with identifiable retailers (Home Depot, Ace) | Defendants: allegations are too vague; no identifiable customers pleaded | Court: Plaintiff sufficiently alleged identifiable customers at this stage; survives Rule 8 pleading standard |
| Need for heightened specificity about nature/volume/duration of relationships | Plaintiff: Rule 8 governs; no heightened specificity required | Defendants: claim more specific factual detail required to state claim | Court: no heightened Rule 9 standard required; factual allegations are plausible under Rule 8 |
| Alleged failure to plead when/where/how interference occurred in Florida and jurisdictional hooks | Plaintiff: Defendants waived personal jurisdiction challenge; no need for extra specificity | Defendants: attack lack of allegations as to time/place/means within state | Court: jurisdictional challenge waived; additional specificity beyond Rule 8 not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions need not be accepted; applies Rule 8 plausibility framework)
- Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333 (pleadings construed in plaintiff’s favor on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. S. Everglades Restoration Alliance, 304 F.3d 1076 (limits consideration on motion to dismiss to complaint and central documents)
- Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So.2d 812 (defines elements of tortious interference under Florida law)
- Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949 (documents central to the claim may be considered on a motion to dismiss)