UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23287-DPG 

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

CLAIM OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY 

NELSON MULLINS 

Mark F. Raymond 

mark.raymond@nelsonmullins.com 

Jonathan Etra 

jonathan.etra@nelsonmullins.com 

2 South Biscayne Blvd. 21st Floor 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: 305-373-9400 

ALLEN & OVERY LLP 

Andrew Rhys Davies (admitted pro hac vice) 

andrewrhys.davies@allenovery.com 

Justin L. Ormand (admitted pro hac vice) 

justin.ormand@allenovery.com 

1221 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10020 

Telephone: 212-610-6300 

Attorneys for Defendant Imperial Brands plc

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 1 of 17
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................2

I. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PLEADS NO BASIS FOR 

PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER IMPERIAL .............................................................2

A. Plaintiffs Have Pleaded No Basis to Impute the WPP Defendants and 

Habanos’s Alleged Jurisdictional Contacts to Imperial ...........................................3

B. Even If Imputed to Imperial, the Other Defendants’ Alleged Jurisdictional 

Contacts Do Not Establish a Prima Facie Case for Personal Jurisdiction ...............5

1. The Court lacks specific jurisdiction as there is no connection 

between Plaintiffs’ Title III claim and any post-2017 promotional 

activity..........................................................................................................5

2. The alleged use of globally-accessible social-media platforms to 

promote Cuban cigars that cannot be sold in the United States does 

not create minimum contacts with this forum..............................................6

C. Plaintiffs Do Not Respond to Imperial’s Showing that It Would Be 

Unconstitutionally Unreasonable to Exercise Jurisdiction over Imperial in 

the Transnational Context of this Case ....................................................................8

D. The Action Cannot Be Transferred to New York Because Imperial Is Not 

Subject to Personal Jurisdiction There Either ..........................................................9

II. DUE PROCESS PROHIBITS THE APPLICATION OF TITLE III TO 

IMPERIAL’S CONCEDEDLY “NON-U.S.” BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ........................10

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................10

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 2 of 17
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 

751 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2014) .....................................................................................................6 

Amberson Holdings LLC v. Westside Story Newspaper, 

110 F. Supp. 2d 332 (D.N.J. 2000) ............................................................................................7 

Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Sup. Ct. of Cal., Solano Cnty., 

480 U.S. 102 (1987) ...............................................................................................................8, 9 

Barth v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc., 

206 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (E.D. Pa. 2016) .......................................................................................9 

Belik v. Carlson Travel Grp., Inc., 

864 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ......................................................................................4 

Calder v. Jones, 

465 U.S. 783 (1984) ...................................................................................................................7 

Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 

334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................7 

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 

571 U.S. 117 (2014) ...................................................................................................................9 

De Fernandez v. Crowley Holdings, Inc., 

No. 21-cv-20443, 2022 WL 860373 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2022) ................................................4 

Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Int’l, Inc., 

593 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................7 

Don’t Look Media LLC v. Fly Victor Ltd., 

999 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................3 

Durham v. LG Chem, Ltd., 

No. 1:20-cv-01277-SDG, 2021 WL 1573899 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 22, 2021) ..................................9 

Ellis v. Celebrity Cruise Lines, Inc., 

No. 10-cv-20541, 2010 WL 6730808 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2010) ...............................................4 

Fidrych v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 

952 F.3d 124 (4th Cir. 2020) .....................................................................................................6 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 3 of 17
iii

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 

141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) ...........................................................................................................5, 8 

Genterra Grp., LLC v. Sanitas USA, Inc., 

No. 1:20-cv-22402, 2021 WL 148887 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2021) ...............................................2 

Gerling Glob. Reinsurance Corp. of Am. v. Gallagher, 

267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001) ...............................................................................................10 

Glen v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 

7 F. 4th 331 (5th Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................................5 

Glen v. Club Méditerranée, S.A., 

450 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2006) ...............................................................................................10 

GreatFence.com, Inc. v. Bailey, 

726 F. App’x 260 (5th Cir. 2018) ..............................................................................................7 

Havana Docks Corp. v. Carnival Corp., 

No. 19-cv-21724, 2022 WL 831160 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2022) ................................................4 

In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig., 

510 F. Supp. 3d 1175 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2020) ........................................................................4 

L.H. v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 

No. 21-cv-22894, 2022 WL 1619637 (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2022) ...........................................3, 4 

Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 

736 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................................6, 8 

Macrotrend Cap. Grp. Inc. v. Edwards, 

No. 18-cv-61327, 2019 WL 2106421 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2019) ................................................8 

McCullough v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 

268 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (Gayles, J.) ...................................................................9 

Noble House, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 

No. 20-cv-62080, 2021 WL 896219 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2021) ..................................................2 

Palm Partners LLC v. Palm Beach Treatment Ctr., LLC, 

No. 9:17-cv-80582, 2017 WL 5668050 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2017) ...........................................3 

Pettaway v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 

No. 1:19-cv-3689-MHC-CCB, 2020 WL 10229077 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 7, 2020)

report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:19-cv-3689-MHC-CCB, 

2020 WL 10229093 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 24, 2020) .........................................................................7 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 4 of 17
iv

Philpot v. Kos Media LLC, 

No. 16-cv-01523ATBCM, 2017 WL 2270248 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2017),

report and recommendation adopted, No. 16-cv-1523ATBCM, 

2017 WL 2269531 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2017) ...........................................................................7 

Piazenko v. Pier Marine Interiors GMBH, 

314 So. 3d 438 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) ..........................................................................................2 

Prevail Legal, Inc. v. Gordon, 

No. 20-cv-07173-BLF, 2021 WL 1947578 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021) .....................................7 

Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A., 

119 F.3d 935 (11th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................4 

Snow v. DirecTV, Inc., 

450 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................4 

TriOptima AB v. Quantile Techs. Ltd., 

No. 2:19-cv-00390-JRG, 2020 WL 11613655 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2020) ...............................7 

Waite v. All Acquisition Corp., 

901 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................7 

Walden v. Fiore, 

571 U.S. 277 (2014) ...............................................................................................................7, 8 

Statutes 

22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(iii)............................................................................................................4 

22 U.S.C. § 6081(5) .......................................................................................................................10 

22 U.S.C. § 6081(6) .......................................................................................................................10 

22 U.S.C. § 6081(11) .....................................................................................................................10 

28 U.S.C. § 1631 ..............................................................................................................................9 

Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(2) ..............................................................................................................2 

Rules 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k) ......................................................................................................................2, 9 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)....................................................................................................................1 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................1 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 5 of 17
v

Other Authorities 

31 C.F.R. § 515.204 .........................................................................................................................8 

31 C.F.R. § 515.578(a)(1) ................................................................................................................6 

31 C.F.R. § 515.578(a)(4)(ii)(A) .....................................................................................................6 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 6 of 17
Defendant Imperial Brands plc (“Imperial”) submits this reply in further support of its 

motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and (6).1

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

Imperial showed in its motion that the SAC fails to plead a prima facie case of personal 

jurisdiction over this British corporation, with respect to a claim arising from the alleged use of 

real property in Cuba (the “RRHSC Property”) to produce cigars that cannot be sold in this 

forum. Plaintiffs respond with a single limited, unsustainable theory of specific jurisdiction—that 

“secondary actor[]” Imperial, Resp. at 10, is subject to personal jurisdiction here because, 

beginning in 2017, Defendant Habanos and its alleged advertising agency, the WPP Defendants, 

used social-media platforms run by U.S. companies to promote Habanos cigars online. 

For three independent reasons, Plaintiffs’ theory of jurisdiction fails as a matter of law. 

First, the SAC pleads no basis to impute the other defendants’ alleged jurisdictional contacts to 

Imperial. Second, even if the other defendants’ alleged contacts were imputed to Imperial, the 

post-2017 promotional conduct post-dates by several years the last alleged act of “trafficking” in 

the RRHSC Property. The SAC fails, therefore to plead that this Title III “trafficking” claim 

arises from or relates to the alleged jurisdictional contacts. Third, personal jurisdiction cannot be 

based on the use of globally-accessible social-media platforms. The fortuity that those socialmedia platforms happen to be run by U.S. companies does not establish constitutionallysufficient minimum contacts with this forum, in the context of a claim that arises from the 

alleged use of real property overseas to produce a product that can only be sold overseas. For 

these reasons, and those set forth more fully below, the SAC should be dismissed without further 

leave to amend. 

1 Capitalized terms have the meanings assigned to them in Imperial’s memorandum of law 

dated April 20, 2022 [DE 226 (“Mot.”)]. Plaintiffs’ response [DE 247] is cited as “Resp.” 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 7 of 17
2 

ARGUMENT 

I. THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PLEADS NO BASIS FOR PERSONAL 

JURISDICTION OVER IMPERIAL 

Imperial demonstrated in its motion that the SAC fails to plead a prima facie case of 

personal jurisdiction over Imperial, a British corporation that is not alleged to have committed 

any suit-related conduct in this forum. Mot. at 4–17. Plaintiffs offer no response to much of 

Imperial’s motion. They do not respond to Imperial’s showing that the Court lacks general 

jurisdiction over this U.K.-incorporated, U.K.-headquartered corporation, Mot. at 4–5, and 

thereby concede the point.2 And they disavow any argument to base specific jurisdiction on the 

alleged use of the confiscated RRHSC Property in Cuba, or, indeed, on anything that Imperial 

has itself done. See Resp. at 6 (“[J]urisdiction over Imperial is not based on its trafficking in 

Cuba.”); see also id. at 16.3

Instead, Plaintiffs contend that the federal long-arm statute, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k),4

authorizes specific jurisdiction over “secondary actor[]” Imperial, Resp. at 10, because the WPP 

Defendants used “US Internet, networking and social media services,” id., to help Habanos

2

See Genterra Grp., LLC v. Sanitas USA, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-22402, 2021 WL 148887, at 

*7 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 15, 2021) (“Failing to respond to an argument in a motion to dismiss is equal 

to conceding that argument.”). 

3 Plaintiffs also offer no response to—and thereby concede—Imperial’s showing that 

Imperial cannot be subjected to jurisdiction based on allegations that non-party Tabacuba

maintains offices in a portion of the RRHSC Property. Mot. at 8.

4 Plaintiffs’ response contains an unexplained citation to Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(2), Resp. 

at 11, but Imperial has shown that due process does not permit state long-arm jurisdiction here. 

Mot. at 5 n.4. And § 48.193(1)(a)(2) is inapplicable for the additional reason that the SAC does 

not plead that Imperial “committed a substantial aspect of the alleged tort in Florida.” Piazenko 

v. Pier Marine Interiors GMBH, 314 So. 3d 438, 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (citations and 

quotation marks omitted); see also Noble House, LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. 

20-cv-62080, 2021 WL 896219, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2021) (Florida long-arm statute requires 

a “direct affiliation, nexus, or substantial connection between the cause of action and the 

activities within the state”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 8 of 17
3 

publicize Cuban cigars online, see id. at 6–7, 10, 13–17; see also id. at 13 (“Imperial, through 

Habanos and the WPP Defendants expressly contracted with U.S. companies such as Twitter 

and Facebook for the use of their U.S. based internet services.”) (emphasis added). But 

jurisdictional contacts the WPP Defendants allegedly created while providing advertising 

services to Habanos provide no basis for jurisdiction over Imperial. 

A. Plaintiffs Have Pleaded No Basis to Impute the WPP Defendants and 

Habanos’s Alleged Jurisdictional Contacts to Imperial 

The SAC alleges that it was Habanos, not Imperial, that purportedly hired WPP-affiliated 

entities to promote Habanos Cuban cigars online. Mot. at 6–7 & n.5; see SAC ¶¶ 22 & n.11, 36, 

41–42, 54–56, 62. Even if any jurisdictional contacts the advertising agency allegedly created in 

the course of that engagement were imputed to Habanos, Imperial has shown—and Plaintiffs do 

not contest—that the SAC contains none of the extraordinary factual allegations that could 

justify imputing those alleged jurisdictional contacts a second time, to Imperial. See Mot. at 6–

7.5 To the contrary, the SAC dooms any veil-piercing argument, by acknowledging that Imperial 

held only a non-controlling, indirect fifty-percent interest in Habanos, and by asserting that 

Habanos was “controlled by Cuba,” not by Imperial. SAC ¶¶ 7, 9, 35, 91; Resp. at 2.6

Plaintiffs also cannot impute the WPP Defendants’ alleged jurisdictional contacts to 

Imperial by labeling the WPP Defendants “agents” of Imperial. Resp. at 3, 6, 9–11 & n.13, 17–

5

See also Don’t Look Media LLC v. Fly Victor Ltd., 999 F.3d 1284, 1294 (11th Cir. 2021) 

(jurisdictional contacts would be not imputed between corporations, absent “any allegations to 

support disregarding corporate separateness”); L.H. v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., No. 21-cv-22894, 

2022 WL 1619637, at *5 (S.D. Fla. May 23, 2022) (similar).

6

If Plaintiffs contend that the SAC’s “information and belief” assertions plead a basis for 

veil piercing, Resp. at 9 n.12, they are wrong. None of those assertions has any bearing on veil 

piercing. SAC ¶¶ 34–35, 77. And, in any event, a complaint cannot plead an alter-ego theory by 

making “information and belief” assertions that are, in substance, “largely legal conclusions.” 

Palm Partners LLC v. Palm Beach Treatment Ctr., LLC, No. 9:17-cv-80582, 2017 WL 5668050, 

at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 18, 2017) (cited in Resp. at 9 n.12). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 9 of 17
4 

19; see also SAC ¶¶ 14–15, 20, 61, 64, 82, 84. Such conclusory assertions of “agency” do not 

support the imputation of jurisdictional contacts. See Marriott Int’l, 2022 WL 1619637, at *5, 7–

8; Ellis v. Celebrity Cruise Lines, Inc., No. 10-cv-20541, 2010 WL 6730808, at *1 (S.D. Fla. 

July 15, 2010); see also In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig., 510 F. Supp. 3d 1175, 

1193–94 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2020) (“‘labels and conclusions’” are “insufficient to establish a 

prima facie case of jurisdiction”) (citing, inter alia, Snow v. DirecTV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, 1318 

(11th Cir. 2006)). No factual allegation in the SAC supports any inference that the WPP 

Defendants were Imperial’s agents.7 To the contrary, the only non-conclusory allegation is that it 

was Habanos that retained the WPP Defendants. SAC ¶¶ 22 & n.11, 36, 41–42, 54–56, 62. 

Plaintiffs are incorrect, too, that Title III provides that “all trafficking by Habanos and the 

WPP Defendants is attributed to Imperial” for jurisdictional purposes, Resp. at 8, so that 

Imperial is subject to personal jurisdiction “even if all Imperial did was to ‘profit[] from 

trafficking’ by or through Habanos,” Resp. at 8 (quoting 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A)(iii)) (brackets 

in original); see also Resp. at 10–11. Title III does not address personal jurisdiction. And even if 

it did, the Due Process Clause limits Congress’s authority to create personal jurisdiction. See 

Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A., 119 F.3d 935, 942, 946 (11th Cir. 

1997). Plaintiffs’ argument mistakenly conflates the question of whether Imperial has created 

constitutionally sufficient jurisdictional contacts with this forum (it has not), with the separate 

question of whether the alleged conduct satisfies the statutory definition of trafficking.8 The 

7 The SAC contains nothing comparable to the factual allegations that pleaded an agency 

relationship in Belik v. Carlson Travel Group., Inc., 864 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1311 (S.D. Fla. 2011) 

(cited in Resp. at 9 n.12) (complaint contained “factual allegations of Carnival’s 

acknowledgment that SinglesCruise would act for it”). 

8

See De Fernandez v. Crowley Holdings, Inc., No. 21-cv-20443, 2022 WL 860373, at *5 

(S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2022) (cited in Resp. at 10) (complaint’s allegations pleaded the trafficking 

element of a Title III claim); Havana Docks Corp. v. Carnival Corp., No. 19-cv-21724, 2022 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 10 of 17
5 

same error undermines Plaintiffs’ attempt to base jurisdiction on assertions that Imperial has 

“continued” to engage in trafficking during the pendency of this lawsuit by engaging in conduct 

unconnected to this forum, including by disposing of its interest in Habanos. Resp. at 8–9. 

B. Even If Imputed to Imperial, the Other Defendants’ Alleged Jurisdictional 

Contacts Do Not Establish a Prima Facie Case for Personal Jurisdiction 

Even if the other Defendants’ alleged jurisdictional contacts were imputed to Imperial, 

due process precludes the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction based on the alleged use, 

“[b]eginning in 2017,” of “U.S.-based internet services run by U.S. companies (Twitter, 

Instagram and YouTube)” to promote Habanos Cuban cigars online. Resp. at 5–7, 12–14, 17–18. 

As Imperial has shown: (1) nothing connects the alleged post-2017 promotional activity to the 

RRHSC Property, and (2) in any event, using a globally-accessible website to promote products 

worldwide (in this case, Cuban cigars that cannot be sold into the United States) does not create 

minimum contacts with this forum, even if “U.S.-based internet services” are used. Mot. at 11–

13. 

1. The Court lacks specific jurisdiction as there is no connection between 

Plaintiffs’ Title III claim and any post-2017 promotional activity 

As Imperial has shown, to avoid dismissal, the SAC needed to plead a prima facie case of 

personal jurisdiction, by alleging sufficient facts to permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude 

that personal jurisdiction exists. Mot. at 4. But as Imperial has also shown, allegations about 

Habanos’s use, beginning in 2017, of social-media platforms to promote Cuban cigars do not 

satisfy the ‘“arise out of or relate to’” requirement of specific jurisdiction, Ford Motor Co. v. 

Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1025–26 (2021), because those activities 

WL 831160, at *44 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2022) (cited in Resp. at 10) (same). Glen v. Am. Airlines, 

Inc., 7 F. 4th 331, 336 (5th Cir. 2021) (cited in Resp. at 10–11), concerned subject-matter 

jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 11 of 17
6 

substantially post-date Habanos’s last alleged use of the RRHSC Property in 2010. Mot. at 12. 

[See also DE 227 at 12–15]. Plaintiffs offer no response and thereby concede the point. 

2. The alleged use of globally-accessible social-media platforms to 

promote Cuban cigars that cannot be sold in the United States does 

not create minimum contacts with this forum 

Imperial has also shown that due process prohibits the exercise of personal jurisdiction 

based on allegations that Habanos used social-media platforms to promote Cuban cigars online. 

Mot. at 11–12. As courts in this Circuit and elsewhere have recognized, allowing jurisdiction 

based on the use of websites that are “accessible to all but targeted at no one in particular,” 

Fidrych v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 952 F.3d 124, 143 (4th Cir. 2020), would impermissibly create “de 

facto universal jurisdiction” with “no limiting principle,” Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC 

v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 801–03 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Mot. at 11–12.9

Plaintiffs attempt to circumvent this case law on the basis that Twitter, Instagram, and 

YouTube used are “run by U.S. companies” and that Habanos’s use of those portals therefore “is 

in violation of U.S. law.” Resp. at 4–5, 7, 10, 13, 17–18. Although it is irrelevant to the question 

of jurisdiction, Plaintiffs are incorrect that the alleged use of social-media platforms to promote 

Habanos products violated U.S. law. The Cuban Asset Control Regulations specifically permit

U.S. businesses to provide social-media services to Cuban businesses, 31 C.F.R. § 515.578(a)(1), 

including businesses that are controlled by Cuba, see id. § 515.578(a)(4)(ii)(A). 

Moreover, due process does not permit the exercise of specific jurisdiction based on the 

fortuity that the social-media platforms are run by non-party U.S. companies. Given the U.S. 

dominance in social media, Plaintiffs’ approach would result in limitless jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ 

argument overlooks that specific jurisdiction must be “based on the defendant’s own affiliation 

9

See also Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1357 (11th Cir. 2013) 

(“We are not saying that the mere operation of an interactive website alone gives rise to 

purposeful availment anywhere the website can be accessed.”) (emphasis in original).

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 12 of 17
7 

with the state, rather than the ‘random, fortuitous, or attenuated’ contacts it makes by interacting 

with other persons affiliated with the state.” Waite v. All Acquisition Corp., 901 F.3d 1307, 1312 

(11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014)). Put differently, the 

incidental U.S. nationality of the social-media companies does not make the United States the 

“focal point” of the misconduct on which this claim is based, Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789 

(1984), consisting of foreign defendants’ alleged use of real property overseas to produce a 

product that cannot be sold in this forum. Courts applying these core principles consistently hold 

that jurisdiction cannot be based on the fortuitous in-forum location of third-party internet-based 

service providers and their servers. GreatFence.com, Inc. v. Bailey, 726 F. App’x 260, 261 (5th 

Cir. 2018) (citing Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 402 

(4th Cir. 2003)).10

Plaintiffs’ argument also overlooks that “merely contracting with a forum resident” does 

not authorize specific jurisdiction. Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Int’l, Inc., 593 

F.3d 1249, 1268 (11th Cir. 2010). Instead, the court must “focus[] on the substance of the 

transaction” to determine whether “the nonresident defendant’s conduct” created minimum 

contacts with the forum. Id. (emphasis in original). Here, the “substance” of “the nonresident 

defendant’s conduct,” id., comprises the alleged use of social-media platforms to promote 

Habanos products worldwide. For the reasons Imperial has already articulated, Mot. at 11–12, 

10 See also Prevail Legal, Inc. v. Gordon, No. 20-cv-07173-BLF, 2021 WL 1947578, at *5–

6 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021) (location of third-party internet hosting vendor in the forum did not 

create minimum contacts); TriOptima AB v. Quantile Techs. Ltd., No. 2:19-cv-00390-JRG, 2020 

WL 11613655, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2020) (same); Pettaway v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC,

No. 1:19-cv-3689-MHC-CCB, 2020 WL 10229077, at *6–8 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 7, 2020) (same), 

report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:19-cv-3689-MHC-CCB, 2020 WL 10229093 (N.D. 

Ga. Aug. 24, 2020); Philpot v. Kos Media LLC, No. 16-cv-01523ATBCM, 2017 WL 2270248, at 

*11 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2017) (same), report and recommendation adopted, No. 16-cv1523ATBCM, 2017 WL 2269531 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2017); Amberson Holdings LLC v. 

Westside Story Newspaper, 110 F. Supp. 2d 332, 336 (D.N.J. 2000) (same). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 13 of 17
8 

that geographically-nonspecific conduct does not constitute purposeful availment of this forum. 

And that conclusion is reinforced by Plaintiffs’ recognition that the social-media platforms were 

not interactive [DE 100 at 10], such that no U.S. (or non-U.S.) person could purchase Habanos 

products from them (and, of course, Cuban cigars cannot be sold into the United States in any 

event, see 31 C.F.R. § 515.204). 

Finally, Plaintiffs misplace their extensive reliance, see Resp. at 13–14, on the Supreme 

Court’s ruling that Ford Motor Company was subject to specific jurisdiction for product-liability 

claims in states where it had “advertised, sold, and serviced” vehicles. Ford Motor Co., 141 S. 

Ct. at 1028. That conduct, through which Ford “systematically served a market” in the forum, 

id., is not remotely comparable to Habanos’s use of social-media platforms for the worldwide 

promotion of products that cannot be sold in this forum.11 Plaintiffs are also mistaken that Ford 

supports the exercise of specific jurisdiction based on their forum residence. See Resp. at 14. The 

Ford plaintiffs were injured in their states of residence because Ford had purposefully availed 

itself of the privilege of doing business there. See Ford Motor Co., 141 S. Ct. at 1031–32. Here, 

by contrast, Plaintiffs’ residence supplies the only link to the forum, and that is not a 

constitutionally permissible basis for jurisdiction. Walden, 571 U.S. at 285. 

C. Plaintiffs Do Not Respond to Imperial’s Showing that It Would Be 

Unconstitutionally Unreasonable to Exercise Jurisdiction over Imperial in 

the Transnational Context of this Case 

Imperial has shown that, even if Plaintiffs had pleaded the purposeful-availment and 

relatedness elements of specific jurisdiction, dismissal would still be required under Asahi Metal 

11 For the same reason, Plaintiffs are not assisted by cases involving specific jurisdiction 

over defendants who (a) purposefully used an interactive website to sell counterfeit goods to 

Florida residents, see Louis Vuitton Malletier, 736 F.3d at 1357 (cited in Resp. at 12), and 

(b) defamed Florida residents by sending emails to Florida companies and by posting defamatory 

statements online, see Macrotrend Cap. Grp. Inc. v. Edwards, No. 18-cv-61327, 2019 WL 

2106421, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2019) (cited in Resp. at 12). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 14 of 17
9 

Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County, 480 U.S. 102 (1987), due to the 

“substantive policies,” id. at 115, of the United Kingdom, where Imperial is based, and the 

limitations that U.K. law imposes on Imperial’s ability to defend a Title III action. See 

Mot. at 15–17. Plaintiffs offer no response. This action should be dismissed accordingly. 

D. The Action Cannot Be Transferred to New York Because Imperial Is Not 

Subject to Personal Jurisdiction There Either 

There is no basis for Plaintiffs’ request to transfer this action to New York, instead of 

dismissing it for lack of personal jurisdiction. Resp. at 18–19. Even if 28 U.S.C. § 1631 

authorizes a transfer to cure a lack of personal jurisdiction, see, e.g., Durham v. LG Chem, Ltd.,

No. 1:20-cv-01277-SDG, 2021 WL 1573899, at *4 n.25 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 22, 2021) (“transfer 

under § 1631 might only be proper where the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, not 

personal jurisdiction”) (emphasis in original), it does not permit transfer to another court that 

also lacks jurisdiction, see, e.g., Barth v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc., 206 F. Supp. 

3d 1026, 1032 n.8 (E.D. Pa. 2016); see 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (action may be transferred to a court 

where it “could have been brought at the time it was filed”). As Imperial lacks the nationwide 

contacts for national long-arm jurisdiction under Rule 4(k), it is not subject to jurisdiction in 

New York either. 

The contention that Imperial’s “agent[s],” the WPP Defendants, are subject to general 

jurisdiction in New York gets Plaintiffs nowhere. Resp. at 19. Plaintiffs allege no facts to support 

the conclusory “agent” label, supra at 3–4, and, in any event, Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 

117 (2014), rejected this “general-jurisdiction-by-agency theory,” McCullough v. Royal 

Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 268 F. Supp. 3d 1336, 1347–49 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (Gayles, J.). 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 15 of 17
10 

II. DUE PROCESS PROHIBITS THE APPLICATION OF TITLE III TO 

IMPERIAL’S CONCEDEDLY “NON-U.S.” BUSINESS ACTIVITIES 

As Imperial has shown, the Fifth Amendment prohibits the application of Title III to 

concededly “non-U.S” activities that Imperial, a British company, allegedly conducted with 

Habanos, a Cuban company, involving the use of real property in Cuba for purposes of a 

business that cannot include the United States. See Mot. at 17–20. Plaintiffs ignore the argument, 

other than to contend—incorrectly, and without citation of law—that Title III can properly be 

applied because, beginning in 2017, Habanos allegedly promoted its products using globallyaccessible social-media platforms operated by U.S. entities. Resp. at 18. That allegation does not 

permit the application of Title III to Imperial, for the same reasons that it does not permit the 

exercise of personal jurisdiction over Imperial. 

As the Eleventh Circuit has recognized, in the context of a due process challenge such as 

this one, legislative purpose is important in identifying the “the regulated subject matter.” 

Gerling Glob. Reinsurance Corp. of Am. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228, 1236–40 (11th Cir. 2001) 

(emphasis in original). The express purpose of Title III is not to regulate the use of U.S.-based 

social-media platforms, but rather to deter foreign investors from doing business in Cuba. Glen v. 

Club Méditerranée, S.A., 450 F.3d 1251, 1255 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing 22 U.S.C. § 6081(5), (6), 

(11)). Domestic law cannot be applied when—as here—the regulated subject matter comprises 

the business dealings of foreign nationals, relating to “persons, property, and events” outside the 

jurisdiction. Gerling Glob. Reinsurance Corp. of Am., 267 F.3d at 1238. 

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court should dismiss the SAC as against Defendant 

Imperial Brands plc without further leave to amend, and grant such other and further relief as the 

Court may consider appropriate. 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 16 of 17
Dated: June 13, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Mark F. Raymond

NELSON MULLINS 

Mark F. Raymond 

mark.raymond@nelsonmullins.com 

Jonathan Etra 

jonathan.etra@nelsonmullins.com 

2 South Biscayne Blvd. 21st Floor 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: 305-373-9400

ALLEN & OVERY LLP 

Andrew Rhys Davies (admitted pro hac vice) 

andrewrhys.davies@allenovery.com 

Justin L. Ormand (admitted pro hac vice) 

justin.ormand@allenovery.com 

1221 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10020 

Telephone: 212-610-6300

Attorneys for Defendant Imperial Brands plc

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 264 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/13/2022 Page 17 of 17