Case 6:16-cv-00677-RBD-GJK Document 47 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID 318
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`ORLANDO DIVISION
`
`
`LIGHTING SCIENCE GROUP
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 6:16-cv-677-Orl-37GJK
`
`
`v.
`
`SUNCO LIGHTING, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`This cause is before the Court on the following:
`
`1.
`
`Defendant Sunco Lighting, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Lack of
`
`Personal Jurisdiction and for Improper Venue or in the Alternative, for a
`
`Change of Venue (Doc. 26), filed June 23, 2016;
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant Sunco Lighting, Inc’s
`
`Motion
`
`to Dismiss or Change Venue or
`
`[sic] and
`
`Incorporated
`
`Memorandum of Law (Doc. 27), filed July 11, 2016; and
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Sunco Lighting, Inc.’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Its
`
`Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and for
`
`Improper Venue or in the Alternative for a Change of Venue (Doc. 34),
`
`filed July 21, 2016.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This patent infringement action is one of several brought in this Court by
`
`patentee Lighting Science Group Corporation (“Plaintiff”) concerning United States
`
`Patents numbered 8,672,518 (“‘518 Patent”) and 8,967,844 (“‘844 Patent”), which are
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00677-RBD-GJK Document 47 Filed 10/20/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID 319
`
`
`
`
`both titled “Low Profile Light and Accessory Kit for the Same” (“Light Kit Patents”).
`
`
`
`(See Doc. 1.) Defendant moved for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3) (Doc. 26), Plaintiff responded (Doc. 27), and Defendant
`
`replied (Doc. 34). Defendant’s Motion is now ripe for adjudication.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A defendant may “dispute personal jurisdiction” by filing a Rule 12(b)(2) motion
`
`arguing that a plaintiff cannot meet its ultimate burden to establish that: (1) a basis for
`
`jurisdiction exists under Florida's Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. § 48.193 (“Florida
`
`Statute”); or (2) defendant’s contacts with Florida are sufficient to satisfy the Due
`
`Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.1
`
`Initially, a plaintiff must “plead sufficient material facts to establish a basis for
`
`personal
`
`jurisdiction.” Whitney
`
`Info. Network,
`
`Inc. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC,
`
`199 F. App’x 738, 741 (11th Cir. 2006). If unrefuted, the court accepts the well-pled
`
`facts as true. See Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1350
`
`(11th Cir. 2013). However, if the defendant submits non-conclusory declarations refuting
`
`the well-pled jurisdictional facts, then the burden “shifts back to the plaintiff to produce
`
`evidence supporting jurisdiction.” See Whitney, 199 F. App’x at 741. If the record
`
`evidence conflicts, courts must “construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the
`
`non-movant plaintiff,” and rule in its favor that jurisdiction exists if “such inferences are
`
`sufficient to defeat a motion for judgment as a matter of law.” PVC Windoors, Inc. v.
`
`1 See Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989)
`(holding that “the due process requirement of minimum contacts” is not “automatically”
`satisfied by “mere proof of any one of the several circumstances enumerated” in the
`Florida Statute); see also Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1217
`(11th Cir. 2009) (“It goes without saying that, where the defendant challenges the
`court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over its person, the plaintiff bears the ultimate
`burden of establishing that personal jurisdiction is present.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00677-RBD-GJK Document 47 Filed 10/20/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID 320
`
`
`
`
`Babbitbay Beach Constr., N.V., 598 F.3d 802, 809–10 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting the
`
`
`
`different standard after an evidentiary hearing where the court “determines the
`
`credibility of witness testimony, weighs the evidence, and finds the relevant jurisdictional
`
`facts”).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Plaintiff is a Florida corporation and Defendant is a California company that sells
`
`allegedly infringing products to Amazon.com for shipment throughout the United States.
`
`(See Doc. 3; Doc. 3-1, ¶¶ 2, 6, 7.) Indeed, Defendant admits that more than 100 of the
`
`allegedly infringing products were purchased by Florida consumers and were shipped to
`
`those consumers in Florida by Defendant or its agent. (See id. at ¶ 8.) Accordingly,
`
`Defendant’s jurisdictional challenge is due to be rejected. Further, given the deference
`
`accorded to a Plaintiff’s choice of forum—particularly when the forum is the Plaintiff’s
`
`home as is the case here—the Court finds that transfer of this action to a Federal
`
`District Court in California is not warranted.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Sunco
`
`Lighting, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and for
`
`Improper Venue or in the Alternative, for a Change of Venue (Doc. 26) is DENIED.
`
`DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on October 20, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00677-RBD-GJK Document 47 Filed 10/20/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID 321
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Copies:
`
`Counsel of Record
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`