Coloplast Corporation v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1527
• Status: Published

Opinion

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. 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.

2 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.