Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 34 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1251
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
`MEDICAL SCHOOL and CARMEL
`LABORATORIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 17-868-CFC-SRF
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`L’ORÉAL S.A. and L’ORÉAL USA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants
`
`
`DEFENDANT L’ORÉAL S.A.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO
`MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Jeffrey L. Moyer (#3309)
`Katharine L. Mowery (#5629)
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 N. King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`moyer@rlf.com
`mowery@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`L’Oréal S.A. and L’Oréal USA, Inc.
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Dennis S. Ellis
`Katherine F. Murray
`Paul Hastings LLP
`515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA, 90071
`(213) 683-6000
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C., 20005
`(202) 551-1990
`
`
`Dated: December 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 34 Filed 12/11/18 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 1252
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS ARE PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE. ......................... 3
`
`THE R&R CORRECTLY RECOMMENDS DISMISSAL UNDER RULE
`12(b)(2), AS PLAINTIFFS’ AGENCY THEORY CANNOT SUPPORT A
`FINDING OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION. .................................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid A 12(b)(2) Dismissal By Merely Alleging An
`Agency Relationship. ............................................................................................. 4
`
`Plaintiffs Have Put Forth No Evidence Establishing An Agency
`Relationship Between L’Oréal S.A. And L’Oréal USA. ....................................... 6
`
`V.
`
`PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO CONDUCT
`JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY. .................................................................................. 8
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 34 Filed 12/11/18 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 1253
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Applied Biosystems, Inc. v. Cruachem, Ltd.,
`772 F. Supp. 1458 (D. Del. 1991) ..........................................................................................4, 5
`
`Asanov v. Gholson, Hicks & Nichols, P.A.,
`209 F. App’x 139 (3d Cir. 2006) ...............................................................................................7
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...............................................................................................................2, 4
`
`C.R. Bard Inc. v. Guidant Corp.,
`997 F. Supp. 556 (D. Del. 1998) ................................................................................................4
`
`Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale,
`542 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................................7
`
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co. Ltd.,
`792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................4
`
`Cupp v. Alberto-Culver USA, Inc.,
`308 F. Supp. 2d 873 (W.D. Tenn. 2004)....................................................................................5
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) .................................................................................................................5
`
`Gibbs v. Coupe,
`192 F. Supp. 3d 503 (D. Del. 2016) ...........................................................................................1
`
`Hansen v. Neumueller GMBH,
`163 F.R.D. 471 (D. Del. 1995) ..................................................................................................8
`
`Jurimex Kommerz Transit G.M.B.H. v. Case Corp.,
`65 F. App’x 803 (3d Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................5
`
`Ketterson v. Wolf,
`No. 99-689-JJF, 2001 WL 940909 (D. Del. Aug. 14, 2001) .....................................................8
`
`Kuhn Constr. Co. v. Ocean & Coastal Consultants, Inc.,
`844 F. Supp. 2d 519 (D. Del. 2012) ...........................................................................................5
`
`L.C. 1 v. Delaware,
`No. 07-675-GMS-LPS, 2009 WL 814631 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2009) ..........................................3
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 34 Filed 12/11/18 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 1254
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Nespresso USA, Inc. v. Ethical Coffee Co. SA,
`263 F. Supp. 3d 498 (D. Del. 2017) ...................................................................................2, 5, 7
`
`Page(s)
`
`Patterson by Patterson v. FBI,
`893 F.2d 595 (3d Cir. 1990).......................................................................................................3
`
`Round Rock Research LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc.,
`
`967 F. Supp. 2d 969 (D. Del. 2013) ..........................................................................................5
`
`Sieg v. Sears Roebuck & Co.,
`855 F. Supp. 2d 320 (M.D. Pa. 2012) ........................................................................................1
`
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Alcatel S.A.,
`2005 WL 1268061 (D. Del. May 27, 2005) ...............................................................................5
`
`Time Share Vacation Club v. Atl. Resorts, Ltd.,
`735 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1984).........................................................................................................2
`
`VanDiver v. Martin,
`304 F. Supp. 2d 934 (E.D. Mich. 2004) .................................................................................1, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 34 Filed 12/11/18 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 1255
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This Court should overrule Plaintiffs University of Massachusetts Medical School and
`
`Carmel Laboratories, LLC’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Objections to the Report and
`
`Recommendation (“R&R”) (D.I. 31) in their entirety. Plaintiffs’ Objections are comprised solely
`
`of arguments that have already been thoughtfully considered, and rejected, by the Magistrate.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiffs do nothing more than reiterate their argument that L’Oréal S.A. is subject
`
`to specific personal jurisdiction in this forum under an agency theory, asserting that L’Oréal
`
`USA, Inc. (“L’Oréal USA”) is L’Oréal S.A.’s agent. Plaintiffs fail to point to anything
`
`specifically from the underlying record that the R&R misconstrued in holding that the Court
`
`lacks personal jurisdiction over L’Oréal S.A. This alone provides sufficient grounds to overrule
`
`the Objections. See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“An
`
`‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested
`
`resolution . . . is not an ‘objection’ . . . .”).
`
`Putting this procedural infirmity aside, Plaintiffs’ Objections also should be overruled
`
`because they are substantively deficient. Plaintiffs assert that, because the First Amended
`
`Complaint (“FAC”) concludes that there exists an agency relationship between L’Oréal S.A. and
`
`L’Oréal USA, then the FAC is not amenable to a Rule 12(b)(2) challenge. (D.I. 32 at 2.)
`
`Plaintiffs are mistaken. First, while at the pleading stage the Court must accept facts alleged in a
`
`complaint as true, it need not — and should not — accept conclusions of law. See Gibbs v.
`
`Coupe, 192 F. Supp. 3d 503, 506 (D. Del. 2016) (noting that allegations that are no more than
`
`conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth); Sieg v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 855 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 320, 327 n.3 (M.D. Pa. 2012) (“The court will not consider statements of legal
`
`conclusions in examining whether personal jurisdiction exists.”). Moreover, Plaintiffs’ position
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 34 Filed 12/11/18 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 1256
`
`
`
`is at odds with well-settled pleading standards, which make clear that a complaint does not
`
`“suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” See Ashcroft
`
`v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (alteration in original). Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ complaint
`
`that the R&R “brushed [] aside” ample evidence proving up their agency theory is belied by the
`
`numerous pages in the R&R devoted to considering, and rejecting, this so-called evidence. (D.I.
`
`32 at 3.) While L’Oréal S.A. offered an uncontroverted declaration demonstrating that L’Oréal
`
`USA operates as a separate and independent legal entity from L’Oréal S.A. and that L’Oréal
`
`USA does not act as L’Oréal S.A.’s agent in any capacity (D.I. 25, ¶¶ 2-4), Plaintiffs rely on a
`
`mish-mash of unauthenticated, irrelevant evidence to support their claim. The R&R correctly
`
`concludes that Plaintiffs’ unsupported and conclusory allegations are insufficient to overcome
`
`L’Oréal S.A.’s Motion to Dismiss.
`
`Finally, the R&R correctly concluded that Plaintiffs are not entitled to jurisdictional
`
`discovery. Plaintiffs’ Objections should be overruled.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that L’Oréal S.A. is properly subject to this
`
`Court’s jurisdiction. See Nespresso USA, Inc. v. Ethical Coffee Co. SA, 263 F. Supp. 3d 498, 502
`
`(D. Del. 2017) (plaintiffs have the prima facie burden to establish personal jurisdiction). When,
`
`as here, a defendant challenges jurisdiction, plaintiffs must come forward with evidence, not
`
`speculation, to defeat that challenge. See Time Share Vacation Club v. Atl. Resorts, Ltd., 735
`
`F.2d 61, 67 n.9 (3d Cir. 1984). That is, Plaintiffs must demonstrate “with reasonable
`
`particularity, that sufficient minimum contacts have occurred between the defendant and the
`
`forum to support jurisdiction.” (D.I. 31 at 7.) To do so, a plaintiff must produce “sworn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 34 Filed 12/11/18 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 1257
`
`
`
`affidavits or other competent evidence,” since a Rule 12(b)(2) motion “requires resolution of
`
`factual issues outside the pleadings.” (D.I. 31 at 7 (quoting Time Share Vacation Club, 735 F.21
`
`at 67 n.9).) See also Patterson by Patterson v. FBI, 893 F.2d 595, 604 (3d Cir. 1990) (“Once [a
`
`12(b)(2)] motion is made, plaintiff must respond with actual proofs . . . .”) (emphasis added). As
`
`Plaintiffs failed to meet this burden, the R&R correctly recommends dismissal.
`
`III.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS ARE PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE.
`
`This Court should overrule Plaintiffs’ Objections as procedurally improper. “An
`
`‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested
`
`resolution . . . is not an ‘objection’ . . . .” VanDiver, 304 F. Supp. 2d at 937; see also L.C. 1 v.
`
`Delaware, No. 07-675-GMS-LPS, 2009 WL 814631, at *2-4 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2009) (objections
`
`to R&R dismissal were “without merit” when “the magistrate judge properly analyzed the
`
`specific, substantive allegations of the complaint” and “correctly cited the relevant statutes . . .”
`
`and case law). That is precisely what Plaintiffs’ Objections do here. While Plaintiffs disagree
`
`with the R&R’s recommendation that L’Oréal S.A. be dismissed, they fail to do anything else.
`
`For instance, Plaintiffs do not address the R&R’s consideration of: (i) the allegations in the FAC
`
`(D.I. 31 at 20-24); (ii) the arguments advanced in Plaintiffs’ Opposition to L’Oréal S.A.’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss (id.); (iii) the unrebutted Declaration of Roy Rabinowitz in Support of
`
`L’Oréal S.A.’s Motion to Dismiss (id. at 22-23); and (iv) the wealth of case law supporting
`
`dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction particularly over a foreign company. (Id. at 20-24).
`
`Plaintiffs’ Objections are nothing more than a disagreement with the Magistrate’s ruling, and
`
`should be overruled.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 34 Filed 12/11/18 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 1258
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`THE R&R CORRECTLY RECOMMENDS DISMISSAL UNDER RULE 12(b)(2),
`AS PLAINTIFFS’ AGENCY THEORY CANNOT SUPPORT A FINDING OF
`PERSONAL JURISDICTION.
`
`The Court should adopt the recommendation to dismiss L’Oréal S.A. from this case, as
`
`the undisputable evidence shows that L’Oréal S.A. is not subject to personal jurisdiction in this
`
`forum. Plaintiffs’ sole argument to the contrary rests on an untenable agency theory. “In order
`
`to establish jurisdiction under the agency theory, the plaintiff must show that the defendant
`
`exercises control over the activities of the third-party.” Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co. Ltd.,
`
`792 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Relevant factors “include the extent of overlap of officers
`
`and directors, methods of financing, the division of responsibility for day-to-day management,
`
`and the process by which each corporation obtains its business.” Applied Biosystems, Inc. v.
`
`Cruachem, Ltd., 772 F. Supp. 1458, 1463 (D. Del. 1991). “The court must avoid ‘the notion that
`
`a parent company can be held liable for the obligations of a subsidiary [under the agency theory]
`
`purely on the basis of domination and control.’” C.R. Bard Inc. v. Guidant Corp., 997 F. Supp.
`
`556, 560 (D. Del. 1998) (alteration in original). As L’Oréal S.A. does not share a principal-agent
`
`relationship with L’Oréal USA, Plaintiffs cannot rely on an agency theory to haul L’Oréal S.A.
`
`into this forum.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid A 12(b)(2) Dismissal By Merely Alleging An Agency
`Relationship.
`
`Plaintiffs’ conclusion that a domestic subsidiary is an “agent” of its foreign parent does
`
`not establish an agency relationship, and cannot serve as a basis for the Court to assert personal
`
`jurisdiction over L’Oréal S.A. (D.I. 32 at 2.) Indeed, this logic turns well-settled pleading
`
`standards on their head, as a plaintiff must do more than assert conclusions. See Ashcroft, 556
`
`U.S. at 678 (“Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 34 Filed 12/11/18 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 1259
`
`
`
`factual enhancement.’”) (alteration in original) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
`
`557 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiffs’ position is belied by the very authority they cite to support it.1
`
`Under Plaintiffs’ theory, foreign parent entities would be subject to personal jurisdiction
`
`wherever their U.S. subsidiaries reside. But this is not the law. See, e.g., Cupp v. Alberto-Culver
`
`USA, Inc., 308 F. Supp. 2d 873, 878 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) (holding that while “corporate
`
`relationships may be a factor in assessing forum contacts, [] a company does not purposefully
`
`avail itself of the forum merely by owning some or all of a corporation subject to jurisdiction in
`
`the forum[;]” rather, “[p]ersonal jurisdiction must be based on something that the defendant itself
`
`has done involving the forum, or on evidence that the presumed corporate separation between
`
`parent and subsidiary is a fiction . . . .”); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 760-61 (2014).
`
`Delaware courts routinely dismiss foreign companies under Rule 12(b)(2) when they are named
`
`under an “agency theory.” See Nespresso, 263 F. Supp. 3d at 505; Applied Biosystems, 772 F.
`
`Supp. at 1469-70; Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Alcatel S.A., 2005 WL 1268061, at *3 (D. Del. May
`
`27, 2005); Round Rock Research LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 969, 978 (D.
`
`Del. 2013). The R&R correctly disposed of Plaintiffs’ deficient agency theory on a Rule
`
`12(b)(2) challenge.
`
`
`
`
`1 See Kuhn Constr. Co. v. Ocean & Coastal Consultants, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 2d 519, 526,
`531 (D. Del. 2012) (declining to consider the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) argument against
`intentional interference tort claim because there were insufficient facts to determine if the
`defendant was an agent that interfered with contracts of its principal); Jurimex Kommerz Transit
`G.M.B.H. v. Case Corp., 65 F. App’x 803, 804, 808 (3d Cir. 2003) (allowing agency allegations
`to move past the pleading stage despite a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge because the plaintiff
`specifically alleged that it had past dealings with the parent and produced affidavits evincing the
`parent’s financial control of the transaction at issue).
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 34 Filed 12/11/18 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 1260
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Put Forth No Evidence Establishing An Agency Relationship
`Between L’Oréal S.A. And L’Oréal USA.
`
`Plaintiffs’ assertion that the R&R “brushed [] aside” supposedly “substantial evidence”
`
`demonstrating an agency relationship between L’Oréal S.A. and L’Oréal USA ignores the R&R.
`
`(D.I. 32 at 3.) The R&R devotes several pages to considering each piece of “evidence” that
`
`Plaintiffs point to in their Objections, and rightfully concludes that none support an agency
`
`theory.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs assert that an unauthenticated Internet document, which states that L’Oréal S.A.
`
`“‘defines . . . global strategy and spearhead[s] the portfolio of innovations’ for the international
`
`group’s ‘skin care’ ‘line[] of business[,]’” is somehow proof that L’Oréal USA is L’Oréal S.A.’s
`
`agent with respect to the design and development of the Accused Products. (D.I. 32 at 4.) This
`
`is an illogical leap, to say the least. As the R&R correctly reasons, “L’Oréal S.A.’s overall
`
`strategic guidance is not sufficient evidence of agency, as it does not establish that L’Oréal S.A.
`
`controlled L’Oréal USA regarding matters of patent infringement.” (D.I. 31 at 22 (citing
`
`Nespresso USA, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 3d at 505).)2
`
`While L’Oréal S.A. has put forth affirmative evidence discrediting Plaintiffs’ agency
`
`theory, Plaintiffs have not provided evidence demonstrating that the Court should exercise
`
`jurisdiction over L’Oréal S.A. Indeed, the hodgepodge of documents Plaintiffs cobbled together
`
`in their Opposition to L’Oréal S.A.’s Motion to Dismiss was not only irrelevant to the question
`
`of personal jurisdiction, but often contradicted the arguments advanced by Plaintiffs, as the R&R
`
`correctly points out. (See D.I. 31 at 23 (“Plaintiffs further argue that jurisdiction is proper over
`
`
`2 Plaintiffs similarly assert, without explanation, that a 2006 publication authored by a
`L’Oréal S.A. scientist about adenosine is somehow relevant to a personal jurisdiction analysis.
`(D.I. 32 at 4.)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 34 Filed 12/11/18 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 1261
`
`
`
`L’Oréal S.A. because L’Oréal Paris’ RevitaLift Triple Power Deep-Acting Moisturizer is a
`
`L’Oréal Group brand, not a L’Oréal USA brand. . . . However, plaintiffs’ own evidence
`
`contradicts the point they attempt to prove because the Internet document entitled ‘L’Oréal USA
`
`Facts and Figures’ explicitly lists L’Oréal Paris as a L’Oréal USA brand”).) The R&R is correct
`
`on this, as L’Oréal Paris is indeed a L’Oréal USA brand. (See D.I. 13, ¶ 34 and Exs. 6, 12,
`
`thereto.)
`
`Plaintiffs also assert that L’Oréal S.A. is somehow subject to personal jurisdiction in this
`
`case under an agency theory because it owns intellectual property in the United States. While it
`
`is unclear what, if any, connection this fact has to an agency argument, in any event, this alone
`
`cannot support a finding of personal jurisdiction. See Nespresso, 263 F. Supp. 3d at 504 (finding
`
`personal jurisdiction inappropriate despite foreign entity owning patents covering the accused
`
`products). Neither can the fact that L’Oréal S.A. responded to Plaintiffs’ correspondence
`
`regarding the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 32 at 4.) Though the R&R properly refused to consider the
`
`letter because “its contents are not quoted or specifically referenced in the FAC or attached
`
`thereto[,]” even if it had, this would not have supported a finding of personal jurisdiction. (D.I.
`
`31 at 13, n.3.) See Asanov v. Gholson, Hicks & Nichols, P.A., 209 F. App’x 139, 142 (3d Cir.
`
`2006) (“‘normal incidents’ of legal representation, such as making phone calls and sending
`
`letters, do not, by themselves, establish purposeful availment to support the assertion of personal
`
`jurisdiction”); Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale, 542 F.3d 879, 885 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[S]ending letters
`
`to another state . . . is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction in that state.”). As such,
`
`Plaintiffs’ agency theory puts forward no viable basis of personal jurisdiction for L’Oréal S.A.
`
`Thus, the R&R correctly rejects Plaintiffs’ agency theory and recommends dismissal for lack of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 34 Filed 12/11/18 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 1262
`
`
`
`personal jurisdiction.
`
`V.
`
`PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO CONDUCT
`JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY.
`
`The Court should deny Plaintiffs belated request for jurisdictional discovery. “[A] court
`
`cannot permit discovery as a matter of course simply because a plaintiff has named a particular
`
`party as a defendant. The court must be satisfied that there is some indication that this particular
`
`defendant is amenable to suit in this forum.” Hansen v. Neumueller GmbH, 163 F.R.D. 471, 475
`
`(D. Del. 1995). Because the FAC gives no indication that L’Oréal S.A. is amenable to suit in
`
`this forum, and because this error is uncorrectable in light of the evidence offered by L’Oréal
`
`USA (see D.I. 25), jurisdictional discovery would be inappropriate. See Ketterson v. Wolf, No.
`
`99-689-JJF, 2001 WL 940909, at *4 (D. Del. Aug. 14, 2001) (denying jurisdictional discovery
`
`where plaintiffs did not affirmatively plead requisite facts to establish a basis for the court’s
`
`jurisdiction). Moreover, it would be incredibly burdensome to force L’Oréal S.A., a foreign
`
`entity, to engage in such discovery where Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing.
`
`Plaintiffs have asserted claims over L’Oréal USA, the entity that sells the Accused Products in
`
`the United States. As the Court has allowed Plaintiffs’ claims against L’Oréal USA to proceed
`
`past the pleading stage, the parties should focus on litigating those claims, rather than engaging
`
`in irrelevant, international discovery.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, L’Oréal S.A. respectfully requests that the Court overrule
`
`Plaintiffs’ Objections to the R&R.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 34 Filed 12/11/18 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 1263
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Dennis S. Ellis
`Katherine F. Murray
`Paul Hastings LLP
`515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA, 90071
`(213) 683-6000
`
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul Hastings LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C., 20005
`(202) 551-1990
`
`Dated: December 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Frederick L. Cottrell, III
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Jeffrey L. Moyer (#3309)
`Katharine L. Mowery (#5629)
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 N. King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`moyer@rlf.com
`mowery@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`L’Oréal S.A. and L’Oréal USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`