Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. BPI Technologies Corp.

Filing 36

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered denying 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 10 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 12 Motion for More Definite Statement (Lyness, Paul)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-14694-GAO
SUNOVION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BPI TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Defendant.

ORDER
March 28, 2016
O’TOOLE, D.J.
After review of the pleadings and oral argument, the several pending motions are resolved
as follows:
BPI Technologies Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2) (dkt. no. 10) is DENIED. The parties’ submissions support the following factual
conclusions:
BPI affirmatively solicited business from Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc.—a corporation
with its principal place of business in Massachusetts—through its voluntary response to
Sunovion’s Request for Proposals. BPI employees traveled to Massachusetts multiple times in
connection with BPI’s pursuit of Sunovion’s business. Pursuant to the parties’ signed Statement
of Work, BPI undertook and contracted to provide services to personnel at Sunovion’s facility in
Massachusetts. In the spring and summer of 2014, BPI representatives met on multiple occasions
with Sunovion personnel in Massachusetts. Additionally, BPI mailed an invoice to Sunovion in
Massachusetts and received payment from Massachusetts for services that were in part to be
rendered in Massachusetts. Under the circumstances, Sunovion has shown that the exercise of

personal jurisdiction over BPI satisfies both the Massachusetts long-arm statute and the
requirements of due process. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, §3(b) and (c); Cossart v. United
Excel Corp., 804 F.3d 13, 19-22 (1st Cir. 2015).
BPI’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) (dkt. no. 12)
is DENIED. Venue is proper because, as noted above, a substantial part of the events giving rise
to Sunovion’s claims occurred in this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
BPI’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (dkt. no. 8)
is DENIED. Sunovion’s complaint contains sufficient factual allegations which, if accepted as
true, state plausible claims for relief at this stage in the litigation.
BPI’s Motion for More Definite Statement (dkt. no. 12) is DENIED. In light of the liberal
pleading requirements under the Federal Rules and the availability of pretrial discovery
procedures, further specificity is not necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e).
The Clerk shall set a scheduling conference for May 2, 2016. Pursuant to Local Rule 16.4,
the Court encourages the parties to consider resolution of the disputes by settlement or other
alternative dispute resolution program, including the District’s court-sponsored mediation
program.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

2