Organizacion Miss America Latina, Inc. v. Juan Arturo Ramirez Urquidi
712 F. App'x 945
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ramirez licensed OMAL trademarks to run Texas pageants (2013–2015); OMAL terminated the 2015 agreement after unpaid fees and demanded cessation of trademark use.
- Ramirez acknowledged termination and promised to stop using OMAL logos in a February 23, 2016 email; OMAL sent further cease-and-desist letters in March 2016.
- OMAL sued Ramirez and Texas Pageant Productions, LLC (TPP) on June 16, 2016 for breach of contract and Lanham Act infringement; clerk entered default July 13, 2016; district court entered default judgment August 4, 2016.
- Appellants later moved under Rule 60(b) to set aside the default judgment; the district court denied the motion on March 28, 2017.
- On appeal Appellants raised three issues: (1) whether the court should have set aside the default, (2) whether Florida had personal jurisdiction over TPP, and (3) whether an evidentiary hearing on damages was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OMAL) | Defendant's Argument (Ramirez/TPP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to set aside the default judgment under Rule 60(b) | OMAL argued Appellants were served and default was properly entered | Appellants blamed disorganization and sought relief for excusable neglect; argued defenses (e.g., franchise v. license) | Denied relief: district court reasonably found intentional/reckless evasion, so excusable neglect not shown |
| Personal jurisdiction over TPP | OMAL argued Ramirez acted as TPP’s agent and TPP submitted to Florida jurisdiction | Appellants said TPP had no Florida contacts; Ramirez’s Texas citizenship does not confer Florida contacts on TPP | Vacated as to TPP: court lacked specific jurisdictional allegations; Ramirez’s acts alone didn’t subject TPP to Florida jurisdiction |
| Need for evidentiary hearing on damages under Rule 55 | OMAL elected statutory damages under the Lanham Act and calculated a sum by multiplying per-violation statutory amounts | Appellants argued Lanham Act damages are generally unliquidated so a hearing was required | No abuse of discretion: damages were calculable (statutory per-violation totals and ascertainable contract damages); hearing not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2009) (personal-jurisdiction review is de novo in default-vacatur context)
- Sloss Indus. Corp. v. Eurisol, 488 F.3d 922 (11th Cir. 2007) (excusable neglect is an equitable, totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry)
- Compania Interamericana Export-Import v. Compania Dominicana de Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948 (11th Cir. 1996) (if defendant displayed intentional or reckless disregard for proceedings, court need make no further findings to deny vacatur)
- Rolling Greens MHP v. Comcast, 374 F.3d 1020 (11th Cir. 2004) (LLC citizenship follows members for diversity purposes)
- Adolph Coors Co. v. Movement Against Racism and the Klan, 777 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1985) (default judgment awarding money generally requires a hearing unless damages are liquidated or mathematically ascertainable)