62 F. Supp. 3d 1365
S.D. Fla.2014Background
- Plaintiff, Blek Le Rat, sues Defendant Giarla and several dba galleries for conversion, civil theft, and racketeering activity arising from a consignment sale and subsequent nonpayment.
- Plaintiff alleges eleven artworks were sold on payment plans; Plaintiff received $83,000 of $187,000 owed.
- Defendant contends the only agreement was for a San Francisco exhibition and that purchases largely occurred in California; he allegedly did not remit funds or return unsold art.
- Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages approximately $819,000, and replevin of artworks valued about $170,000.
- Court addresses personal jurisdiction, venue, and both federal RICO and state-law claims; replevin elements hinge on in rem jurisdiction.
- Court ultimately grants in part and denies in part the motion to dismiss and transfers request is denied; second amended complaint required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Giarla | RICO nationwide service authorizes jurisdiction; aggregate nation-wide contacts support jurisdiction. | No sufficient minimum contacts with Florida; mainly California activity. | Specific and general jurisdiction found; jurisdiction over Giarla proper. |
| Whether Plaintiff fails to state a federal RICO claim with sufficient specificity | RICO predicate acts described; emails show misrepresentations related to scheme. | Content of emails/acts not specified; lacks pleading of pattern and causation. | RICO counts dismissed for failure to plead predicate acts with required particularity. |
| Whether pendent state-law claims remain after RICO dismissal | State claims should proceed under pendent jurisdiction. | Without viable RICO, pendent jurisdiction over state claims should drop. | State-law claims dismissed unless independent jurisdiction exists. |
| Whether in rem jurisdiction supports replevin of California-held property | Property located in galleries controlled by Defendants; seeks replevin in Florida. | Property located in California; Florida in rem jurisdiction not shown. | In rem jurisdiction lacking; replevin count dismissed. |
| Whether venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida | Substantial events occurred in Florida; Plaintiff resides there. | Events centered in California; transfers favored. | Venue proper in Southern District of Florida; transfer denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A., 119 F.3d 935 (11th Cir.1997) (nationwide service enables personal jurisdiction with federal statute)
- Koch v. Royal Wine Merchants, Ltd., 847 F. Supp. 2d 1370 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (pendent personal jurisdiction if federal claims arise from common nucleus of facts)
- IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049 (2d Cir.1993) (pendent jurisdiction when federal and state claims derive from related conduct)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985) (plaintiff must plead conduct, enterprise, and pattern of racketeering)
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (minimum contacts require purposeful targeting of the forum)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (analyze purposeful availment and forum-state relationships)
- Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, 559 U.S. 1 (2010) (proximate causation and injury requirement in RICO context)
- Center Capital Corp. v. Gulfstream Crane, LLC, 2009 WL 4909430 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (replevin and in rem considerations; not a reporter cite; included for context)