COLOPLAST CORPORATION, ET AL.
v.
MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A foreign medical device manufacturer lacks personal jurisdiction in Florida for a pure bill of discovery seeking insurance reimbursement when the claims lack a substantive connection to the defendant's Florida activities, even when additional allegations are added under the business-venture prong of Florida's long-arm statute.
[1] A foreign defendant's insurance reimbursement claims arising from its products lack the substantive connection to the defendant's in-state activities required to establis…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“MSP has brought a number of these cases across the country, and, as a result, was 'on notice from the outset that the [alleged pleading deficiency, in this case standing,] would be front and center.'”
Court's rationale for denying leave to amend and instructing dismissal with prejudice, citing MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Hereford Ins. Co.
Coloplast Corporation and Coloplast Manufacturing US, LLC are foreign medical device manufacturers. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC filed a pure bill …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bill Of Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal Stateof Florida
Opinion filed July 23, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D24-1527 Lower Tribunal No. 19-17355-CA-01
Coloplast Corporation, et al., Appellants, vs. MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami- Dade County, Valerie R. Manno Schurr, Judge.
King & Spalding LLP and Val Leppert, for appellants. MSP Recovery Law Firm and, Aida M. Landa, and Janpaul Portal, for appellees.
Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ.
FERNANDEZ, J.
2
Defendants Coloplast Corporation and Coloplast Manufacturing US, LLC, (collectively, “Coloplast”) appeal the trial court’s order denying their second amended motion to dismiss. In MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Coloplast Corp., 353 So. 3d 705, 707-08 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023),
(“Coloplast I)” this Court held that MSP did not allege a basis for personal
jurisdiction over Coloplast in Florida for a pure bill of discovery suit that was almost identical to the case currently before this Court. We held that MSP’s insurance reimbursement claims lack a “substantive connection” to Coloplast’s activities in Florida. Id. MSP now contends that its current case before this Court is different because MSP added more allegations under the business-venture prong of Florida’s long-arm statute. § 48.193(1)(a)(1), Fla. Stat. (2023). Thus, it argues, Coloplast I is inapplicable. However, in our recent opinion in Atrium Medical Corporation v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, 402 So. 3d 1188,
1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), we did not agree with MSP’s position that it had established jurisdiction for a pure bill of discovery against Coloplast, a foreign medical device manufacturer, including under the business venture prong. We thus held Coloplast I was “directly on point” and applicable. Id. Accordingly, Coloplast I is applicable here, and the trial court erred in denying
Coloplast’s motion to dismiss.
3
In addition, in Coloplast I, MSP filed three complaints, none of which
alleged sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction. In the case before us now, MSP has filed three complaints in the underlying action. Because MSP is not able to amend the complaint to show the claim’s required causal connection to Florida, we remand the case and instruct the trial court to dismiss with prejudice. See MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Hereford Ins. Co., 2022 WL118387, at *5, *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2022) (denying leave to amend following dismissal in part after MSP amended the complaint once because “MSP has brought a number of these cases across the country, and, as a result, was ‘on notice from the outset that the [alleged pleading deficiency, in this case standing,] would be front and center.’”), aff’d, 66 F. 4th 77 (2d Cir. 2023).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.