847 F. Supp. 2d 1370
S.D. Fla.2012Background
- Plaintiff William I. Koch sues Royal Wine Merchants, Inc. and its principals, alleging fraud, conspiracy to defraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and RICO and FDUTPA violations.
- Plaintiff alleges defendants and Rodenstock conspired to produce and sell counterfeit bottles labeled as rare vintages from prestigious vineyards.
- Defendants allegedly imported counterfeit wine and marketed it nationwide through a website, faxes, and emails, while knowing the wines were counterfeit.
- Plaintiff purchased thirty-two bottles for over $500,000, obtaining wine that is allegedly worthless.
- Defendants move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Sokolin and Oliveros, lack of standing, and lack of specificity in pleading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Sokolin and Oliveros. | Koch asserts nationwide RICO-related jurisdiction supports Florida jurisdiction. | Sokolin and Oliveros contend no statutory or constitutional basis for Florida jurisdiction. | Lack of statutory basis; dismissals for lack of personal jurisdiction. |
| Whether Koch has standing to sue. | Plaintiff alleges injury from purchasing counterfeit wine under the defendants' conduct. | Defendants challenge redressable injury and proximate causation. | Plaintiff has standing to pursue the case. |
| Whether the RICO claim is inadequately pled under Rule 9(b). | RICO claims described the overall scheme; plaintiff contends multiple predicate acts. | Defendants argue lack of particularity for predicate acts; insufficiency to meet 9(b) standards. | RICO claim dismissed for failure to plead two distinct, particularized predicate acts and causation. |
| Whether pendant state-law claims survive without a valid RICO claim. | State-law claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the RICO claim. | Without RICO, there is no basis for pendent personal jurisdiction over state claims. | State-law claims dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction and RICO dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) R.A., 119 F.3d 935 (11th Cir.1997) (nationwide service can establish personal jurisdiction under federal statute)
- ESAB Grp., Inc. v. Gentricut, Inc., 126 F.3d 617 (4th Cir.1997) (pendent personal jurisdiction doctrine under nationwide service context)
- IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir.1993) (common nucleus of operative fact supports pendent jurisdiction)
- Hemi Grp., LLC v. City of New York, 130 S. Ct. 983 (U.S. 2010) (proximate causation and injury required for RICO standing analysis)
- Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 547 U.S. 451 (U.S. 2006) (proximity between injury and violation; causation standard for RICO)
- Williams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc., 465 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir.2006) (proximate cause and injury requirements for RICO standing)
- Feinstein v. Resolution Trust Corp., 942 F.2d 34 (1st Cir.1991) (Rule 9(b) heightened pleading for fraud applies to RICO predicate acts)
- Pathman v. Grey Flannel Auctions, Inc., 741 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (settled pleading standards for tort-based jurisdictional analysis)
- Exhibit Icons, LLC v. XP Companies, LLC, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (jurisdictional basis where communications into Florida relate to fraud claims)
- Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 2002) (tortious acts in Florida may be proven without physical presence)
- Davis v. Powertel, Inc., 776 So.2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (FDUTPA as a statutory tort with different reliance requirements)
- Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., Ltd., 178 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir.1999) (statutory basis for jurisdiction and related arguments in diversity cases)