Knepfle v. J-Tech Corporation et al

Filing 148

ORDER: "HJC Corporation's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying HJC's Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Request for Certification Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)" is denied. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Barber on 4/24/2020. (ZRN)

Case 8:18-cv-00543-TPB-CPT Document 148 Filed 04/24/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID 864

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
SHEILA KNEPFLE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:18-cv-543-T-60CPT

J-TECH CORP., J&P CYCLES,
LLC, LEMANS CORP., and
HJC CORP.,
Defendants.

/

ORDER DENYING “HJC CORPORATION’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
DENYING HJC’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B)”
This matter is before the Court on “HJC Corporation’s Motion for
Reconsideration of Order Denying HJC’s Motion to Dismiss and Alternative
Request for Certification Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b),” filed on January 6, 2020.
(Doc. 132). On December 11, 2019, the Court denied HJC Corp.’s motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 129). Now, HJC requests that the Court
reconsider its ruling or, in the alternative, certify the question for interlocutory
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Upon review, of the motion, court file, and
record, the Court finds as follows:

Page 1 of 4

Case 8:18-cv-00543-TPB-CPT Document 148 Filed 04/24/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID 865

Motion for Reconsideration
In its motion, HJC argues that reconsideration is necessary to correct clear
errors of law and/or fact and to prevent manifest injustice. Upon review, the Court
finds that there are no clear issues of law or fact that warrant reconsideration of the
December, 11, 2019, Order. See (Doc. 129). Furthermore, motions for
reconsideration “should not be used to raise arguments which could, and should,
have been made earlier.” Beeders v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, 8:09-cv-458-T17EAJ, 2009 WL 3013502, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2009) (quoting Prudential Sec.,
Inc. v. Emerson, 919 F. Supp. 415, 417 (M.D. Fla. 1996)). HJC’s new facts and
arguments could – and should – have been raised at an earlier stage, and it has
provided no explanation as to why these issues were not raised in either its motion
to dismiss or at the hearing. Consequently, the motion for reconsideration is
denied.
Interlocutory Review
HJC alternatively requests that the Court certify its December 11, 2019,
Order for interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). An appeal of a non-final
order is only proper where: “(1) the order involves a controlling question of law; (2)
there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (3) an immediate appeal
would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Hunter v.
Chrysler Canada, Inc., 6:09-cv-1050-Orl-35GJK, 2010 WL 11507702, at *1 (M.D.
Fla. Aug. 4, 2010). Interlocutory review under § 1292(b) is to be used only to resolve
“abstract legal issues or issues of pure’law.” PFM Air, Inc. v. Dr. Ing. hc. F. Porsche

Page 2 of 4

Case 8:18-cv-00543-TPB-CPT Document 148 Filed 04/24/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID 866

A.G., 751 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1269 (M.D. Fla. 2010) ( internal quotation omitted)
(denying interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction). Motions seeking interlocutory review of
motions to dismiss denied for lack of personal jurisdiction are frequently
denied. See, e.g., Hunter, 2010 WL 11507702, at *1; PFM Air, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 2d
at 1269.
HJC contends that the Court’s December 11, 2019, Order involves a
controlling issue of law because the Eleventh Circuit has not yet settled on which
stream of commerce test to adopt. Although this may be true, the Order does not
involve a controlling question of law since the Court applied both legal tests. As
such, the Order does not present a legal question of which stream of commerce test
to apply. Instead, the controlling question presented by the Order is the factual
question of whether HJC possesses sufficient minimum contacts with
Florida. Reviewing this question would require the Eleventh Circuit to engage in a
“highly intensive evaluation of the facts.” See PFM Air, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 2d at 1269
(citing McFarlin, 381 F.3d at 1258). This is not the appropriate subject for
interlocutory review. Additionally, interlocutory review would not materially
advance the ultimate termination of this case since “the litigation will continue
whether or not Florida can exercise personal jurisdiction over [HJC] because
Florida does have jurisdiction over [the other defendants]. If this Court were to
certify the matter for interlocutory appeal a trial would not be avoided and

Page 3 of 4

Case 8:18-cv-00543-TPB-CPT Document 148 Filed 04/24/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID 867

litigation would be substantially lengthened.” See id. Therefore, HJC’s request to
certify the December 11, 2019, Order for interlocutory review is denied.
It is therefore
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1. “HJC Corporation’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying HJC’s
Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Request for Certification Under 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b)” is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 24th day of
April, 2020.

TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4