S.A.S.B. Corporation v. Concordia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2:16-cv-14108

Plaintiffs (two businesses) sued Concordia, Shionogi, Lachlan, Zylera and John Does alleging unsolicited fax advertisements for the prescription lice treatment Ulesfia, asserting TCPA and conversion claims.
Concordia is a Barbados/Luxembourg-organized affiliate claiming it licensed Ulesfia from Shionogi and delegated U.S. distribution to Lachlan, which in turn used Zylera; Concordia says it did not send or authorize the faxes and has minimal Florida contacts.
Shionogi is a Delaware corporation that licensed Ulesfia to Concordia and asserts it neither marketed Ulesfia in the U.S. nor sent or authorized the faxes.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim (arguing the faxes are informational, not advertisements, and that they were not the senders).
The Court permitted jurisdictional discovery, found the jurisdictional questions intertwined with the merits, and declined to decide jurisdiction now; it also denied the 12(b)(6) dismissal because resolving whether the faxes are advertisements or who the sender was requires factual development.
Court denied Concordia’s motion to dismiss and Shionogi’s joinder; allowed defendants to renew arguments at summary judgment; ordered case scheduling and warned of dismissal for failure to serve Lachlan.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction (Florida)	Tortious acts (TCPA faxes and conversion) occurred in Florida, establishing long-arm jurisdiction	Defendants lack sufficient Florida contacts; did not send or authorize faxes; minimal Florida ties	Court reserved ruling on jurisdiction because issues are intertwined with the merits and factual record is incomplete
Are the faxes "advertisements" under the TCPA?	Faxes promote prescribing/sales of Ulesfia and thus are commercial advertisements	Faxes are informational about drug use and not commercial advertisements	Court declined to resolve at motion to dismiss; factual inquiry required
Who is the "sender" under the TCPA?	Defendants caused or are liable for the faxes as parties whose product is advertised	Defendants contend they did not send, authorize, review, or benefit from the faxes	Court held the complaint states plausible allegations but deferred resolution to later stage; defendants can re-assert at summary judgment
Conversion claim	Plaintiffs assert conversion based on improper use/receipt of faxed materials	Defendants argue lack of responsibility and insufficient contacts	Court denied dismissal of conversion claim for same reasons as TCPA claim; factual record needed

Future Tech. Today, Inc. v. OSF Healthcare Sys., 218 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.) (prima facie personal jurisdiction standard and construing affidavits)
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir.) (three-part specific jurisdiction test and Calder effects analysis)
Palm Beach Golf Ctr.-Boca, Inc. v. Sarris, 781 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir.) (definition of "sender" under TCPA)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct.) (plausibility standard for complaints)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct.) (pleading standard and plausible inference requirement)
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Sup. Ct.) (minimum contacts and due process foundation for personal jurisdiction)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (Sup. Ct.) (effects test for purposeful availment)
Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir.) (factors for fairness in personal jurisdiction analysis)