Page 1 of 3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-23104-CIV-WILLIAMS/TORRES

WOODARD-CM, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

SUNLORD LEISURE PRODUCTS, INC., d/b/a

PATIO RENAISSANCE, et al., 

Defendants. 

 / 

OMNIBUS ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ 

Reports and Recommendations (collectively, the “Reports”) (DE 142; DE 143) on 

Defendants Pfahl Enterprises, Inc.’s and Justin Pfahl’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 79)1

(“Report 142”), and Defendant Prestige International Investments Co., Ltd.’s Motion to 

Dismiss (DE 119)2 (“Report 143”). Plaintiff and Defendants Pfahl Enterprises, Inc. and 

Justin Pfahl filed Objections and Responses to the Objections (DE 146; DE 148; DE 149; 

DE 152) to Report 142, and Plaintiff filed Objections and Defendant Prestige filed a 

Response to the Objections (DE 147; DE 153) to Report 143.3 

1 Plaintiff filed a Response (DE 91) to Defendants Pfahl Enterprises, Inc.’s and Justin 

Pfahl’s Motion, to which the Pfahl Defendants filed a Reply (DE 112).

2 Plaintiff filed a Response (DE 120) to Defendant Prestige International Investments Co., 

Ltd.’s Motion, to which Defendant Prestige filed a Reply (DE 122).

3 Because the motions to dismiss underlying both Reports raise similar arguments, and 

the resulting Objections and Responses to each report are similar, the Court considers 

both Reports together.

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2022 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3 

 Upon a careful review of the Reports, the Motions, the Responses and Replies, 

the Objections and Responses, and the record, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. Judge Torres’ Report (DE 142) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

a. Defendants Pfahl Enterprises, Inc.’s and Justin Pfahl’s Motion to Dismiss 

(DE 79) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

i. Defendants Pfahl Enterprises, Inc.’s and Justin Pfahl’s Motion is 

GRANTED IN PART, and Count XIX and Count XXIV are 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendants Pfahl Enterprises, 

Inc. and Justin Pfahl. 

ii. Defendants Pfahl Enterprises, Inc.’s and Justin Pfahl’s Motion is 

GRANTED IN PART, and Count XXVI is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE as to Defendants Pfahl Enterprises, Inc. and Justin 

Pfahl.

iii. Defendants Pfahl Enterprises, Inc.’s and Justin Pfahl’s Motion is 

DENIED IN PART as to Counts XX, XXI, XXII, and XXIII.

4

4 Defendants Pfahl Enterprises, Inc. and Justin Pfahl object to Report 142 only as to its

recommendations on Counts XX, XXI, XXII, and XXIII (DE 148 at 1), relying largely on 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). The Defendants assert that the Amended 

Complaint does not contain sufficiently pled allegations as to their knowledge of any 

conspiracy or wrongdoing such that would give rise to the relevant claims. However, 

under Iqbal, “[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that 

allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Further, under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8, the Amended Complaint does set forth sufficiently pled allegations to survive 

a motion to dismiss. Defendants may raise these objections again, after discovery, in a 

motion for summary judgment.

The Court notes that the Amended Complaint is replete with allegations as to Defendants 

Pfahl and Pfahl Enterprises, and such allegations sufficiently plead Counts XX, XXI, XXII, 

and XXIII at this stage in the proceedings. The relevant assertions against Defendants 

Pfahl and Pfahl Enterprises include but are not limited to: (1) that the Pfahl Defendants 

engaged in an email exchange regarding the alleged Enjoined Designs at issue in the 

underlying Settlement Agreement; (2) that the Pfahl Defendants were included on an 

email thread regarding “tear sheets” of the Enjoined Designs; (3) that the Pfahl 

Defendants “marketed and promoted the Enjoined Designs,” and displayed samples of 

those same designs; and (4) that the Pfahl Defendants “had knowledge” of the Settlement 

Agreement and “intentionally and unjustifiably interfered” with Plaintiff’s contractual and 

business relationships. (DE 44 at 10; 43, 76.) Such statements provide a basis for the 

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2022 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3 

2. Judge Torres’ Report (DE 143) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

a. Defendant Prestige International Investments Co., Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss 

(DE 119) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

i. Defendant Prestige International Investments Co., Ltd.’s Motion is 

DENIED IN PART as to Counts V, VI, XXII, XXIII.

ii. Defendant’s Prestige International Investments Co., Ltd.’s Motion is 

GRANTED IN PART and Count IV and Count XXIV are DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendant Prestige International 

Investments Co., Ltd. 

iii. Defendant’s Prestige International Investments Co., Ltd.’s Motion is

GRANTED IN PART and Count XXVI is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE as to Defendant Prestige International Investments 

Co., Ltd. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 25th day of March, 

2022. 

Court to reasonably infer that the Pfahl Defendants may be liable for the misconduct 

alleged. 

Pfahl and Pfahl Enterprises also object to Report 142 on the grounds that the report

“misapplied” Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Imperial Premium Fin., LLC, 904 F.3d 

1197, 1215 (11th Cir. 2018). Sun Life outlines the elements of a tortious interference with 

contractual relations claim. Upon review, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’ conclusion

that Sun Life rebuts Pfahl’s and Pfahl Enterprises’ assertion that knowledge of the 

Settlement Agreement must be pled with specificity. See Sun Life, 904 F.3d at 1215 

(noting the plaintiff “need not have pled [the Defendant’s] knowledge of the relevant 

contract with specificity” even under the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 9(b)).

Case 1:20-cv-23104-KMW Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2022 Page 3 of 3