UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, et al., 

Defendants.

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

AGREED MOTION TO RESET/EXTEND DATE FOR PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS WPP PLC’S, YOUNG & RUBICAM LLC’S AND BCW LLC’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND FOR OTHER RELIEF

Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this agreed motion 

to reset the deadline for Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ WPP plc, Young & Rubicam LLC 

and BCW LLC (the “WPP Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction [D.E. 

93] (and by operation of procedure, the WPP Defendants’ reply to such response), and to adjourn 

the joint status report currently due on January 3, 2022, and in support thereof state as follows:

1. Plaintiffs recently completed jurisdictional discovery relating to matters raised by

Young & Rubicam LLC and BCW LLC, in connection with the WPP Defendants’ motion to 

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

2. On Friday December 3, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their notice of intent to file a motion 

for leave to amend their complaint to include additional facts learned through jurisdictional 

discovery and respectfully requested that the Court enter an order postponing the hearing 

scheduled for December 15, 2021.

3. On December 6, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to postpone the 

December 15, 2021 hearing, and canceled the hearing. [D.E. 159] 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2021 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

4. Pursuant to the Judge Otazo-Reyes’s September 27, 2021 scheduling Order [D.E. 

133] as amened by the December 7, 2021 order [D.E. 162], Plaintiffs’ Response to the WPP 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 93] is due on December 8, 2021.

5. On Tuesday December 7, 2021, the parties had an additional telephone conference, 

at which time Defendants stated that they will not consent to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend 

the Complaint. However, the parties continue to agree that the Plaintiffs’ upcoming Motion for 

Leave to Amend the Complaint will impact the Court’s consideration of the pending Motions to

Dismiss, and agree that Plaintiffs should not have to respond to the WPP Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss [D.E. 93] until after the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Leave to Amend the 

Complaint (and then, only if necessary). Therefore, the parties respectfully request that the Court 

adjourn Plaintiffs’ deadline to file their response to WPP Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 93] 

sine die.

6. The Parties have also agreed to the following briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ 

upcoming motion (which will be submitted to the Court on a separate motion):

a. Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint on or before 

December 20, 2021;

b. Defendants shall file their response to the motion on or before January 19, 2022;

c. Plaintiffs’ shall file their reply to the Motion on or before February 18, 2022.

7. Under this proposed schedule, the briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to 

Amend the Complaint is not expected to be complete until February 18, 2022. The Parties therefore 

also request that the joint status report regarding the pendency and scope of the Defendants 

multiple motions to dismiss [D.E. 88, 89, 91, and 93] which was ordered in the Court’s December 

6, 2021 order [D.E. 159], and is currently scheduled for January 3, 2022, be adjourned to March 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2021 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

21, 2022, or until a date after there has been a determination on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave 

to Amend, as such determination may obviate the need for the remaining briefing on the WPP 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or the continued hearing..

8. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this motion and adjourn

Plaintiffs’ time to respond to the WPP Defendants Motion to Dismiss [D.E. 93], and adjourn the 

joint status report until March 21, 2022, or ten (10) days after a ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Leave to Amend.

9. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(2), a proposed order granting the motion is attached

hereto as Exhibit “A.”

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)(A), undersigned counsel for the movants certify that they

have conferred with all parties on the relief sought in this motion in a good faith effort to resolve

the issues, and that Defendants agree to the relief sought herein, subject to all defenses including 

defenses as to personal jurisdiction.

Dated: December 8, 2021

Respectfully Submitted,

RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NUÑEZ P.A.

By: /s/ Paulino A. Núñez Jr. 

Paulino A. Núñez Jr.

Florida Bar No. 814806

Primary email: pan@rtgn-law.com

255 Alhambra Circle

Suite 1150

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Telephone: (305) 350-2300

BERENTHAL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

By: /s/ David W. Berenthal 

David W. Berenthal

Florida Bar No. 159220

E-mail: dwb@berenthalaw.com

45 East 72nd Street

Suite 5C

New York, NY 10021

Telephone: (212) 302-9494

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2021 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 8, 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing

was filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send a notification of the

filing to all counsel and parties of record.

By: /s/ David W. Berenthal 

David W. Berenthal

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2021 Page 4 of 4