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. 

DEFENDANT IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT 

CORPORACIÓN HABANOS, S.A.’S MOTION DATED NOVEMBER 4, 2021 

Defendant Imperial Brands plc (“Imperial”) respectfully submits this response to 

Defendant Corporación Habanos, S.A.’s (“Habanos”) motion dated November 4, 2021 [DE 141], 

which seeks several forms of relief pertaining to the evidentiary hearing the Court has scheduled 

for December 15, 2021 and to the order in which Habanos’s arguments for dismissal should be 

addressed, and states as follows: 

1. Imperial has moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(1), (2), and (6) on that grounds that: (a) the allegations in the amended complaint 

do not make out a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction [DE 88 at 4–17]; (b) applying Title III 

of the Helms-Burton Act here, based on the amended complaint’s allegations about Imperial’s 

non-U.S. business, would violate limitations the Fifth Amendment places on Congress’s legislative 

jurisdiction [id. at 17–20]; (c) plaintiffs lack Article III standing because, based on the amended 

complaint’s allegations, this lawsuit does not seek to remedy any concrete harm caused by 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2021 Page 1 of 3
2 

defendants [DE 91 at 7–11]; and (d) the amended complaint’s allegations do not plausibly state a 

Title III claim [id. at 12–24]. 

2. The United States has filed a Statement of Interest stating that Imperial’s personaljurisdiction argument raises “substantial questions,” and asking this Court to address that argument 

for dismissal before reaching the constitutional challenge to Title III. [DE 125 at 2]. This Court 

has acceded to that request. [DE 134]. 

3. All of Imperial’s arguments for dismissal present purely facial challenges to the 

sufficiency of the allegations in the amended complaint. Because Imperial has made a purely legal, 

facial challenge to the amended complaint, Imperial submitted no evidence in support of its 

arguments for dismissal. Plaintiffs correctly acknowledged that Imperial’s personal-jurisdiction 

argument, in particular, presents “a purely ‘facial’ challenge,” and that therefore “‘the Court’s 

review is limited to the allegations in the Amended Complaint.’” [DE 100 at 8 (quoting DE 88 at 

5 n.4)]. Plaintiffs have sought no jurisdictional discovery from Imperial. 

4. Under these circumstances, any evidence to be adduced at the December 15, 2021 

evidentiary hearing can have no impact on the adjudication of Imperial’s purely facial challenges 

to the sufficiency of the allegations in the amended complaint. 

5. So that Imperial can be prepared to address the issues this Court plans to cover on 

December 15, 2021, Imperial respectfully requests that the Court provide guidance as to whether 

it intends to hear argument on December 15, 2021 on Imperial’s motions to dismiss. If so, Imperial 

proposes that such oral argument precede the taking of any evidence that may be relevant to any 

other defendant’s motion. 

 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2021 Page 2 of 3
3 

6. Imperial is available at the Court’s convenience should the Court find it useful to 

hold a conference to address these matters with the parties. 

Dated: November 15, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

 Miami, Florida 

/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 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/15/2021 Page 3 of 3