Woodard-CM, LLC v. Sunlord Leisure Products, Inc, 1:20-cv-23104

Woodard-CM sued Sunlord for trademark/copyright claims in 2019 and resolved that suit via a Settlement Agreement prohibiting Sunlord (and its affiliates/agents) from using or selling certain "Enjoined Designs/Marks."
Woodard amended to add Albert Lord (founder/VP of Sunlord) and Sunrise Casual (a company Lord formed) alleging they participated in a scheme (the "Mallin Program") to reproduce and sell knock‑offs of Woodard’s Mallin designs.
Plaintiff alleges replicas were manufactured in factories owned by Lord or his family in China/Vietnam, marketed to and sold to Florida retailers (including Woodard’s customer Zing Patio), and that Lord traveled to Florida for meetings related to those sales.
Plaintiff further alleges Lord used shell entities (including Sunrise Casual) to reroute payments for the Enjoined Designs to conceal Sunlord’s involvement.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); Lord submitted an affidavit contesting jurisdiction but the court found it did not rebut key jurisdictional allegations.
Magistrate Judge Torres recommended denying the motion, finding a prima facie basis for specific jurisdiction under Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(2) (tortious act in Florida) for tortious interference and civil conspiracy; corporate‑shield defense inapplicable to alleged intentional torts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction under Fla. long‑arm §48.193(1)(a)(2) for tortious interference	Lord directed tortious acts at Florida (emails, sales to Florida retailers, travel to Florida, shipment to Zing Patio) causing injury in Florida	Lord's affidavit denies/ minimizes Florida contacts and argues corporate‑shield immunity	Denied: Amended complaint + exhibits make prima facie showing; Lord’s affidavit does not sufficiently rebut allegations
Jurisdiction based on civil conspiracy	Co‑conspirators committed overt acts in Florida (sales, meetings, use of Sunrise Casual) so conspirators are reachable	Conspiracy theory insufficient to impute Florida contacts to Lord/Sunrise Casual	Held: Sufficiently pleaded conspiracy and overt acts in Florida; jurisdiction may be exercised
Applicability of corporate‑shield doctrine	Lord acted as Sunlord’s agent and is immune from personal jurisdiction	Plaintiff alleges intentional torts—corporate‑shield inapplicable	Held: Corporate‑shield does not bar jurisdiction because alleged acts are intentional torts
Evidentiary weight of plaintiff's exhibits (emails, invoices)	Emails/invoices are relevant and reasonably reducible to admissible form; support jurisdictional facts	Exhibits are hearsay/irrelevant and should be ignored	Held: Exhibits are relevant; hearsay objections insufficient at pleading stage and do not defeat prima facie showing

Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2013) (nonresident defendant may be subject to jurisdiction where defendant’s acts outside the state cause injury inside the forum, including via website sales)
United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff must plead prima facie jurisdictional facts; defendant affidavit can shift burden if it contains specific factual denials)
Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 1999) (where defendant affidavit does not contradict complaint, court accepts complaint allegations as true for jurisdictional ruling)
Licciardello v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2008) (long‑arm permits jurisdiction for torts committed outside state that cause injury within the state)
Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2002) (physical presence not required; communications into Florida can constitute a tortious act within Florida)
Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (due‑process standard: defendant must have such minimum contacts that maintenance of suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice)