UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-cv-23287-GAYLES

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

_____________________________/ 

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Corporación Habanos, S.A.’s 

(“Habanos”) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (hereafter, “Habanos’ Motion to 

Dismiss”) [ECF No. 225]; Defendant Imperial Brands plc’s (“Imperial”) Motion to Dismiss the 

Second Amended Complaint (hereafter, “Imperial’s Motion to Dismiss”) [ECF No. 226];

Defendants WPP plc (“WPP”), Young & Rubicam LLC (“Y&R”), and BCW LLC’s (“BCW”) 

(WPP, Y&R, and BCW, together, “WPP Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended 

Complaint (hereafter, “WPP Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss”) [ECF No. 229]; and Imperial, 

Habanos, and WPP Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (hereafter, 

“Joint Motion to Dismiss”) [ECF No. 227]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Alicia M. 

Otazo-Reyes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive 

matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 234]. 

On November 2, 2022, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report (the “2022 Report”) 

recommending that Habanos’ Motion to Dismiss be granted for improper venue pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and that Imperial’s Motion to Dismiss, WPP Defendants’ 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 360 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 1 of 4
2

Motion to Dismiss, and the Joint Motion to Dismiss be denied as moot. [ECF No. 286]. The 

Plaintiffs timely objected to the 2022 Report [ECF No. 294]. On March 31, 2023, the Court 

adopted the 2022 Report as to Judge Otazo-Reyes’ finding that venue is improper as to Habanos 

but remanded the case “for further proceedings and a report and recommendation as to whether 

Imperial and the WPP Defendants waived the defense of improper venue” and to “address other 

issues if warranted.” [ECF No. 307 at 5–6].

Judge Otazo-Reyes subsequently ordered the parties to brief the issues on remand. [ECF 

No. 316]. The WPP Defendants and Imperial filed their post-remand briefs on May 19, 2023, [ECF 

Nos. 318, 319, 320]. Plaintiffs filed their Responses on July 22, 2023, to which Defendants 

subsequently replied on August 11, 2023. [ECF Nos. 328, 329, 330, 333, 334, 335]. 

On September 28, 2023, Judge Otazo-Reyes held a Post-Remand Hearing. [ECF Nos. 340, 

341]. After the hearing, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority to which Defendants 

responded. [ECF Nos. 342, 343, 344]. On November 28, 2023, Judge Otazo-Reyes entered her 

Supplemental Report and Recommendation (“Supplemental Report”) which vacated the 

recommendations in her 2022 Report except as to Habanos’ Motion to Dismiss. [ECF No. 345].

In her Supplemental Report, Judge Otazo-Reyes recommended that Imperial’s Motion to Dismiss 

and the WPP Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted in part for lack of personal jurisdiction 

and that the Joint Motion to Dismiss be granted in part for failure to state a claim. Id. Plaintiffs 

subsequently filed their objections to the Supplemental Report, and Defendants’ filed responses to 

those objections. [ECF Nos. 347, 350, 351, 352]. Plaintiffs filed their reply is support of the 

objections to the Supplemental Report on February 2, 2024. [ECF No. 357].

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 360 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 2 of 4
3 

objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings 

that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific 

objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint 

Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 

208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Otazo-Reyes’ well-reasoned analysis 

and conclusion that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Imperial and WPP Defendants would 

be improper. Given that the Court previously dismissed the claims against Defendant Habanos on 

improper venue grounds and because the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the remaining 

defendants, it need not reach Judge Otazo-Reyes’ additional recommendations. See Posner v. 

Essex, 178 F.3d 1209, 1214 n. 6 (11th Cir. 1999) (“A court without personal jurisdiction is 

powerless to take further action.”); Courboin v. Scott, 596 F. App'x 729, 735 (11th Cir. 2014)

(vacating portion of district court’s order addressing merits after finding lack of personal 

jurisdiction). Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss is therefore denied as moot. 

CONCLUSION

After careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

(1) Judge Otazo-Reyes’ Supplemental Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 345], 

is ADOPTED in part; and

(2) Imperial’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 226] is GRANTED IN PART for lack of 

personal jurisdiction; 

(3) WPP Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 229] is GRANTED IN PART for 

lack of personal jurisdiction; and 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 360 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 3 of 4
4

(4) The Joint Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 227] is DENIED as moot.

(5) This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

(6) This case is CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 8th day of April, 2024. 

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 360 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 4 of 4