Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Joseph Mosseri
736 F.3d 1339
11th Cir.2013Background
- Louis Vuitton sued Mosseri in the Southern District of Florida for trademark counterfeiting/infringement and false designation; Mosseri was served but did not respond, leading to a default judgment; Louis Vuitton sought statutory damages and costs under 15 U.S.C. §1117; Louis Vuitton later identified Mosseri as behind pendoza.com and lazata.com via expedited discovery; district court held evidentiary hearing on personal jurisdiction and found Mosseri connected to the Florida transactions; Mosseri moved under Rule 60(b)(4) to vacate the default judgment arguing lack of service and lack of personal jurisdiction, which the district court denied; Mosseri appeals to challenge jurisdiction and the denial of the Rule 60(b)(4) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Florida long-arm statute supports personal jurisdiction over Mosseri | Louis Vuitton asserts tortious acts in Florida via the websites and sales. | Mosseri contends insufficient Florida contacts. | Yes; Florida statute satisfied for specific jurisdiction. |
| Whether due process supports Mosseri’s personal jurisdiction | Louis Vuitton shows purposeful availment and relatedness. | Mosseri argues lack of sufficient minimum contacts. | Yes; purposeful availment and relatedness shown; due process satisfied. |
| Waiver and corporate shield considerations on jurisdiction | None indicating waiver undermining jurisdiction; corporate shield not dispositive. | Mosseri raises corporate shield defense. | Waived; corporate shield inapplicable to intentional torts. |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(4) vacation of default judgment was proper given jurisdiction | Judgment not void; jurisdiction established. | Rule 60(b)(4) voids judgments only where void. | Affirmed; district court did not err in denying vacatur. |
Key Cases Cited
- Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2008) (tortious acts for purposes of Florida long-arm statute; website injury in Florida)
- Fraser v. Smith, 594 F.3d 842 (11th Cir. 2010) (arising out of/related to contacts with forum in jurisdiction analysis)
- Toys ‘R’ Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003) (purposeful availment analysis in international torts)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects test for purposeful availment in intentional torts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (three-part due process test for specific jurisdiction)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (minimum contacts and relation to forum state)