Defendant cites no authority for this assertion and raises it for the first time in its Reply. (See generally Def.'s Mot.; Def.'s Reply); see also ripKurrent LLC v. Richard Ballard IRA LLC, 530 F.Supp.3d 1281, 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (arguments “raised for the first time in the reply brief are deemed waived” (quoting In re Egidi, 571 F.3d 1156, 1163 (11th Cir. 2009))).
When reviewing a contractual relationship for minimum contacts, “[t]he focus must always be on the nonresident defendant's conduct, that is, whether the defendant deliberately engaged in significant activities within a state or created continuing obligations with residents of the forum.” ripKurrent LLC v. Richard Ballard IRA LLC, 530 F.Supp.3d 1281, 1293 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (citing Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Int'l, Inc., 593 F.3d 1249, 1268 (11th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original).
; ripKurrent LLC v. Richard Ballard IRA LLC, 530 F.Supp.3d 1281, 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (applying same in district court motion practice).
Movant's Reply asserts that a second plea deal, not referenced in the Motion, was never communicated to Movant. Movant's allegations regarding this second, uncommunicated plea offer have been advanced for the first time in Movant's Reply and need not be considered. See Herring v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 397 F.3d 1338, 1342 (11th Cir. 2005) (“As we repeatedly have admonished, ‘[a]rguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before a reviewing court.'”); ripKurrent LLC v. Richard Ballard IRA LLC, 530 F.Supp.3d 1281, 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (applying same in district court motion practice). Nor has Movant met his burden of showing prejudice.
(cleaned up); see also ripKurrent LLC v. Richard Ballard IRA LLC, 530 F.Supp.3d 1281, 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (Ruiz, J.) (“If the plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case of jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the defendant to make a prima facie showing that the court lacks personal jurisdiction.”)
First, because these arguments were advanced for the first time in a reply, they are not properly before this Court. See ripKurrent LLC v. Richard Ballard IRA LLC, 530 F.Supp.3d 1281, 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (“[A]rguments not properly presented in a party's initial brief or raised for the first time in the reply brief are deemed waived.” (quoting In re Egidi, 571 F.3d 1156, 1163 (11th Cir. 2009))). Second, these arguments are yet another attempt to dispute the merits of Avini's claim. BioGenus argues Avini cannot demonstrate redressability because BioGenus has not developed the new REDOX product, and therefore a judicial remedy cannot redress any purported harm.
Florida law applies to Sam's veil-piercing claim because this Court is sitting in diversity and WPP is a Florida corporation. See ripKurrent LLC v. Richard Ballard IRA LLC, 530 F.Supp.3d 1281, 1298 n.3 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (“[G]enerally the law of the state of incorporation or formation applies when determining alter ego liability.”);
The Court has reviewed comment c, its illustrations, and the cases cited therein, and agrees with the Report that Florida law governs the veil piercing analysis. See ripKurrent LLC v. Richard Ballard IRA LLC, 530 F.Supp.3d 1281, 1298 n.3 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (“[G]enerally the law of the state of incorporation or formation applies when determining alter ego liability.”). Accordingly, it is
Florida law applies in this case because this Court is sitting in diversity and Judgment Debtor is a Florida corporation. See ripKurrent LLC v. Richard Ballard IRA LLC, 530 F.Supp.3d 1281, 1298 n.3 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (“[G]enerally the law of the state of incorporation or formation applies when determining alter ego liability.”);