RAFFERI GROUP, LLC v. LAMOS, 2:21-cv-16941

Rafferi Group (NJ LLC) contracted with Intercon (FL LLC) and Harvest Pack (CA corp) to buy nitrile gloves; Intercon-Harvest delivered 7,840 boxes allegedly labeled 100-count but containing 53–74 gloves per box.
Rafferi shipped the gloves to the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM); TDEM returned the shipment and Rafferi incurred return costs.
Rafferi sued Intercon, Harvest, Amwear USA, Inc. (and individual owners) asserting consumer fraud, common-law fraud, breach of warranty, implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and (against Intercon-Harvest) breach of contract.
Amwear moved to quash service and to dismiss for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; Rafferi moved to amend to cure citizenship-pleading defects.
The Court denied Amwear’s motion to quash because Amwear’s counsel agreed to accept service; the Court administratively terminated (without prejudice) Amwear’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and granted limited jurisdictional discovery, staying further proceedings pending resolution.
Key jurisdictional disputes: incomplete citizenship allegations for diversity jurisdiction; whether Amwear USA or a separate entity (Amwear Safety Pro) manufactured the gloves; whether the manufacturer purposefully directed activities at New Jersey (specific personal jurisdiction).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of service	Counsel accepted service via email; therefore service is proper	Service was defective under Rule 4 and state rules because follow-up mailing to agent was not made	Motion to quash denied: counsel’s acceptance waived challenge to service
Subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity)	Will amend complaint to plead members/citizenships showing complete diversity and $75k+ amount	Complaint fails to allege citizenships of LLC members and corps’ principal places of business, so diversity jurisdiction is uncertain	Motion to dismiss for lack of SMJ administratively terminated without prejudice pending jurisdictional discovery and possible amendment
Personal jurisdiction (specific)	Amwear/TactSquad has directed sales/marketing to NJ; alleged manufacturer (Amwear SP) knew gloves would be resold to Rafferi in NJ	Amwear USA contends it was wrongfully sued; Amwear SP (separate CA entity) made the gloves and did not purposefully avail itself of NJ; contacts are unrelated product lines	Motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction administratively terminated without prejudice; limited jurisdictional discovery authorized
Jurisdictional discovery & amendment	Requests discovery to establish citizenship and contacts and leave to amend complaint	Opposes or disputes factual bases for jurisdiction	Court grants limited jurisdictional discovery under Magistrate Judge supervision and stays further proceedings pending schedule

Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2015) (complete diversity requires all plaintiffs be diverse from all defendants)
GBForefront, L.P. v. Forefront Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 888 F.3d 29 (3d Cir. 2018) (LLC citizenship is the citizenship of each of its members)
IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998) (two-step personal jurisdiction inquiry governing long-arm and due process)
Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2009) (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93 (3d Cir. 2004) (plaintiff’s allegations taken as true but court examines jurisdictional evidence)
Time Share Vacation Club v. Atl. Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1984) (plaintiff must sustain jurisdictional facts through affidavits/evidence)
O'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co., Ltd., 496 F.3d 312 (3d Cir. 2007) (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful direction, relatedness, and fairness)
Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003) (jurisdictional discovery is ordinarily permitted unless claims are clearly frivolous)
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011) (jurisdictional inquiry focuses on defendant’s actions, not mere expectations)
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) (relatedness requirement: forum contacts must give rise to or relate to the plaintiff’s claim)