Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 1 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`MIAMI DIVISION
`CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM
`
`EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of themselves
`and all others similarly situated
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`___________________________________________/
`
`SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT SAM TRABUCCO’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL
`RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), 12(b)(6), AND 9(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................................................................................. 1
`THE FAC’S ALLEGATIONS .................................................................................................. 2
`I.
`The FAC Is A Tale Of Two Halves. ............................................................................. 2
`II.
`The FAC Mentions Mr. Trabucco In Just Four Paragraphs. ........................................ 3
`III.
`The FAC Asserts Four Counts, Each Of Which Is Apparently Asserted
`Against All Defendants. ................................................................................................ 4
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 4
`I.
`Service At A House Where The Defendant Does Not Reside Is Invalid. ..................... 4
`A.
`Plaintiffs Bear The Burden Of Showing Valid Service On Mr.
`Trabucco. .......................................................................................................... 4
`Plaintiffs’ Purported Service On Mr. Trabucco Fails Under Federal,
`Florida, and Maine Law. ................................................................................... 5
`Plaintiffs Otherwise Fail To Establish Personal Jurisdiction Over Mr.
`Trabucco. ...................................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`As A California Citizen, Mr. Trabucco Is Not Subject To General
`Jurisdiction In Florida. ...................................................................................... 7
`Plaintiffs Fail To Allege A Prima Facie Case For Specific Personal
`Jurisdiction Over Mr. Trabucco Under Florida’s Long-Arm Statute. .............. 8
`i.
`No Factual Allegations Describe A “Tortious Act” By Mr.
`Trabucco, Let Alone One Committed Within Florida. ......................... 9
`No Factual Allegations Demonstrate Mr. Trabucco Carried On
`A “Business Venture” In This State. ................................................... 10
`Plaintiffs Cannot Rely On A “Conspiracy Theory” Of Personal
`Jurisdiction. ......................................................................................... 11
`Exercising Personal Jurisdiction Over Mr. Trabucco Would Violate
`Due Process. .................................................................................................... 11
`Plaintiffs Also Fail To State A Claim Against Mr. Trabucco. .................................... 12
`A.
`The Eighteen-Defendant FAC Is A Shotgun Pleading That Scarcely
`Mentions Mr. Trabucco. ................................................................................. 12
`The FAC Fails To State A Claim Against Mr. Trabucco Under The
`Florida Securities And Investor Protection Act. ............................................. 15
`The FAC Fails To State A FDUTPA Claim Against Mr. Trabucco. .............. 16
`The FAC Fails To State A Claim Against Mr. Trabucco For Civil
`Conspiracy. ..................................................................................................... 17
`The FAC’s Declaratory-Judgment Claim Should Be Dismissed As
`Duplicative. ..................................................................................................... 19
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 20
`
`III.
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez,
`480 F.3d 1043 (11th Cir. 2007) ......................................................................................... 18
`
`Bailey v. Trenam Simmons, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye & O’Neill, P.A.,
`938 F. Supp. 825 (S.D. Fla. 1996) ..................................................................................... 15
`
`Banco de los Trabajadores v. Cortez Moreno,
`237 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ................................................................................ 17
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................................... 11
`
`Bicz v. Colliers Int’l Detroit, LLC,
`2019 WL 4714373 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2019) .................................................................. 11
`
`United States ex rel. Clausen v. Lab’y Corp. of Am., Inc.,
`290 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................... 18
`
`Coccaro v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co,
`648 F. App’x 876 (11th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................... 19
`
`Courboin v. Scott,
`596 F. App’x 729 (11th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................... 7
`
`Covenant Imaging LLC v. Viking Rigging & Logistics, Inc.,
`2020 WL 12442002 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2020) .................................................................. 11
`
`Cox v. Quigley,
`141 F.R.D. 222 (D. Me. 1992) ............................................................................................. 6
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) ................................................................................................... 6, 7, 11
`
`Dillon v. Axxsys Int’l, Inc.,
`185 F. App’x 823 (11th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................... 15
`
`Ferenchak v. Zormati,
`572 F. Supp. 3d 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2021) ................................................................................ 7
`
`Fly Braz. Grp., Inc. v. Gov’t of Gabon, Afr.,
`709 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (S.D. Fla. 2010) ................................................................................ 4
`
`Gentry v. Harborage Cottages-Stuart, LLP,
`2008 WL 1803637 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2008) .................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown
`564 U.S. 915 (2011) ............................................................................................................. 6
`
`Heck v. Bank Liberty,
`86 So. 3d 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) ................................................................................... 6
`
`Helix Elec., Inc. v. Power Design, Inc.,
`295 So. 3d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) .................................................................................... 9
`
`Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consol. Invs.,
`553 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................... 4
`
`International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945) ....................................................................................................... 6, 12
`
`Island Wifi Ltd., LLC v. AT&T Mobility Nat’l Accounts, LLC,
`2021 WL 210536 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2021) ....................................................................... 10
`
`Kais v. Mansiana Ocean Residences, LLC,
`2009 WL 825763 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2009) ...................................................................... 16
`
`Kammona v. Onteco Corp.,
`587 F. App’x 575 (11th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................... 6
`
`Klayman v. Cable News Network,
`2023 WL 2027843 (11th Cir. Feb. 16, 2023) .................................................................... 13
`
`Lewis v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
`530 F. Supp. 3d 1183 (S.D. Fla. 2021) ........................................................................ 10, 11
`
`Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri,
`736 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................... 7
`
`Maale v. Francis,
`258 F.R.D. 533 (S.D. Fla. 2009) .......................................................................................... 4
`
`Magluta v. Samples,
`256 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Mama Jo’s Inc. v. Sparta Ins. Co.,
`2018 WL 3412926 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2018) ...................................................................... 19
`
`Marrache v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc.,
`17 F.4th 1084 (11th Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................... 16
`
`Mathis v. City of Lakeland,
`2023 WL 2568814 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2023) .................................................................... 14
`
`McCullough v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.,
`268 F. Supp. 3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2017) ................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`Melgarejo v. Pycsa Pan., S.A.,
`537 F. App’x 852 (11th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................ 7, 10
`
`Metnick & Levy, P.A. v. Seuling,
`123 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) ................................................................................... 9
`
`Moss v. Est. of Hudson,
`252 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) ................................................................................... 6
`
`MSP Recovery Claims, Series 44 LLC v. Great Am. Ins. Co.,
`2021 WL 8343191 (S.D. Fla. June 11, 2021) ...................................................................... 8
`
`NHB Advisors, Inc. v. Czyzyk,
`95 So. 3d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ..................................................................................... 9
`
`Omni Cap. Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd.,
`484 U.S. 97 (1987) ............................................................................................................... 4
`
`Rattner v. 1809 Brickell LP,
`2022 WL 4770402 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2022).................................................................... 14
`
`Reef Clematis LLC v. Reef and Fum Bar Grp. LLC,
`2009 WL 5217077 (S. D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2009) ..................................................................... 6
`
`Sculptchair, Inc. v. Century Arts, Ltd.,
`94 F.3d 623 (11th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................. 10
`
`SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of America Securities, LLC,
`764 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................... 17
`
`Snow v. DirectTV, Inc.,
`450 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................... 8
`
`Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. v. Imperial Premium Fin., LLC,
`904 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................... 18
`
`Taylor v. Greene,
`2010 WL 5248502 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 16, 2010) .................................................................... 19
`
`Tippens v. Round Island Plantation L.L.C.,
`2009 WL 2365347 (S.D. Fla. Jul. 31, 2009) ...................................................................... 17
`
`United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer,
`556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................... 7
`
`UTC Indus., Inc. v. Pres. Fin. Corp.,
`976 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) .................................................................................... 17
`
`Vision Int’l Prod. Inc. v. Liteco S.R.L.,
`2007 WL 9700539 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2007)........................................................................ 8
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`Walden v. Fiore,
`571 U.S. 277 (2014) ....................................................................................................... 7, 11
`
`Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off.,
`792 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................. 12, 13, 14
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2201 ...................................................................................................................... 19
`
`Fla. Stat. § 48.031(1)(a) ............................................................................................................. 5
`
`Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a) ............................................................................................................. 8
`
`Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(1) ...................................................................................................... 10
`
`Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(2) ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(6) ...................................................................................................... 10
`
`Fla. Stat. § 517.07 ................................................................................................................ 4, 15
`
`Fla. Stat. § 517.07(1)................................................................................................................ 15
`
`Fla. Stat. § 517.211 .................................................................................................................. 15
`
`Fla. Stat. § 517.211(1)........................................................................................................ 15, 16
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) ................................................................................................................ 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(A) ...................................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(B) ...................................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(C) .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ............................................................................................................ 17, 18
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).............................................................................................................. 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5).............................................................................................................. 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).............................................................................................................. 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(1).............................................................................................................. 1
`
`Me. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1) ................................................................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT1
`
`In the wake of FTX’s ongoing bankruptcy, Plaintiffs sue eighteen defendants in their
`
`First Amended Class Action Complaint (“FAC”). Suing over alleged losses from FTX’s
`
`Yield-Bearing Accounts (“YBAs”), Plaintiffs principally target celebrities who allegedly
`
`promoted FTX. Plaintiffs also target FTX employees or officers who allegedly participated in
`
`the offer and sale of YBAs. Plaintiffs thus bring all of their claims on behalf of “FTX
`
`consumers” against those who allegedly “promoted, assisted in, and/or actively participated in”
`
`FTX’s offerings and sales of YBAs.
`
`Specially Appearing Defendant Sam Trabucco (“Mr. Trabucco”) is not among the
`
`celebrity defendants, and he was not an FTX employee or officer. And there are no allegations
`
`that Mr. Trabucco “promoted, assisted in, and/or actively participated in” FTX’s offerings and
`
`sales of YBAs.
`
`In fact, the FAC barely mentions Mr. Trabucco at all. The FAC alleges that
`
`Mr. Trabucco “fiercely traded crypto” (whatever that might mean), once served as a co-CEO
`
`of Alameda Research, LLC (“Alameda”) and, in some unspecified way, “helped oversee
`
`Alameda’s expansion” before he voluntarily left Alameda well before the FTX bankruptcy.
`
`That is all the sprawling 96-page FAC says about Mr. Trabucco. Aside from those few, sparse
`
`allegations, the FAC does not allege any actual conduct by Mr. Trabucco, much less any
`
`wrongful conduct or any conduct related in any way to FTX’s YBAs. The FAC’s failure to
`
`make any such allegations makes clear that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. This case
`
`should therefore be dismissed as to Mr. Trabucco.
`
`
`1 In accord with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(1), Mr. Trabucco moves jointly to dismiss the claims
`against him under Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6), and raises each motion in the
`alternative. Mr. Trabucco’s joint presentation of these three grounds for dismissal does not
`waive (and should not be construed to waive) any objections to service or personal jurisdiction
`over Mr. Trabucco. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (“No defense or objection is waived by joining it with
`one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or in a motion.”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`But this Court need not even consider the Rule 12(b)(6) grounds for dismissal, because
`
`the claims against Mr. Trabucco can and should be dismissed as a threshold matter for either
`
`of two other reasons.
`
`First, Plaintiffs failed to serve Mr. Trabucco properly. The Court thus lacks jurisdiction
`
`over him. Plaintiffs admit they did not serve the summons and FAC on Mr. Trabucco. Instead,
`
`as their return of service recites, Plaintiffs served Mr. Trabucco’s mother at an address in
`
`Maine. But Plaintiffs’ FAC acknowledges that Mr. Trabucco does not reside at the Maine
`
`address; the FAC alleges that he resides thousands of miles away, in California.
`
`Second, in addition to this patent service defect, this Court otherwise lacks personal
`
`jurisdiction over Mr. Trabucco. As a California citizen, Mr. Trabucco is not subject to
`
`all-encompassing general jurisdiction in Florida. Further, the FAC fails to allege any facts
`
`supporting a prima facie case for specific jurisdiction. Again, the FAC alleges no facts
`
`regarding any conduct by Mr. Trabucco, much less any purposeful act or wrongful conduct
`
`directed at or made within Florida that could suffice to establish specific jurisdiction over
`
`Mr. Trabucco.
`
`For these reasons and as further described below, the Court should dismiss all claims
`
`against Mr. Trabucco for improper service, lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively,
`
`failure to state a claim.
`
`THE FAC’S ALLEGATIONS
`
`I.
`
`The FAC Is A Tale Of Two Halves.
`
`The first half of the FAC chronicles the alleged history of FTX, beginning with its
`
`founding in 2019, when Defendants Sam Bankman-Fried (FTX’s co-founder and CEO), Gary
`
`Wang (FTX’s co-founder), and Nishad Singh (FTX’s Director of Engineering) allegedly
`
`established FTX “as an exchange or marketplace for the trading of [cryptocurrency] assets.”
`
`FAC ¶ 75. The FAC alleges that FTX’s business included the “offer and sale” of YBAs to FTX
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`users. Id. ¶ 5. The FAC also alleges that Bankman-Fried launched a “quantitative crypto trading
`
`firm, Alameda Research, in November 2017.” Id. ¶ 76. The FAC alleges that, in late 2022, FTX
`
`collapsed because of a liquidity crisis, potentially leaving YBA-holding customers with losses.
`
`Id. ¶¶ 5, 127-28. The FAC also alleges that FTX’s collapse was hastened by Bankman-Fried’s
`
`“secret transferr[ing] [of] at least $4 billion in customer funds from FTX to Alameda without
`
`telling anyone.” Id. ¶ 130 (emphasis omitted).
`
`The second half of the FAC focuses on celebrities and athletes who allegedly promoted
`
`or endorsed FTX, including Tom Brady, Gisele Bündchen, Kevin O’Leary, Udonis Haslem,
`
`David Ortiz, Stephen Curry, the Golden State Warriors, Shaquille O’Neal, William Trevor
`
`Lawrence, Shohei Ohtani, Naomi Osaka, and Larry David. Id.¶¶ 30-42, 204-32. The FAC
`
`alleges that these “brand ambassadors” falsely represented FTX as a “safe” place to buy and
`
`sell crypto. E.g., id. ¶¶ 194, 204. The FAC also claims that the YBAs amount to “securities”
`
`and that the celebrity defendants were required to disclose any payments they received from
`
`FTX for their alleged promotional work. E.g., id. ¶¶ 1-2, 5, 30.
`
`II.
`
`The FAC Mentions Mr. Trabucco In Just Four Paragraphs.
`
`The FAC does not allege that Mr. Trabucco ever served as an officer, director, or
`
`employee of FTX, or that he was paid to promote FTX or its YBAs. In fact, the FAC barely
`
`mentions Mr. Trabucco at all. The entirety of the allegations mentioning Mr. Trabucco span
`
`just four of the FAC’s 280 paragraphs:
`
` “Trabucco, the former Co-CEO of Alameda Research, LLC, is a citizen
`and resident of the State of California” (FAC ¶ 45);
`
` “Sam Trabucco [was] also part of the group and upon moving to Hong
`Kong the group lived like college students and fiercely traded crypto”
`(id. ¶ 78);
`
` “After Defendant Bankman-Fried established FTX in 2019, Defendant
`Ellison began taking more responsibility at Alameda Research along with
`Sam Trabucco, who served as CEO” (id. ¶ 79); and
`
` Mr. Trabucco was appointed “Co-CEO of Alameda” in October 2021;
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`allegedly “helped oversee Alameda’s expansion beyond its initial
`market-neutral, but relatively low-profit business as a market maker for
`low volume cryptocurrencies into risker trading strategies, according to
`a Twitter thread;” and Mr. Trabucco “depart[ed] from” Alameda in
`August 2022 (id. ¶ 80).
`
`Apart from these bare mentions of Mr. Trabucco’s name in these four background
`
`
`
`paragraphs, the FAC alleges nothing at all about Mr. Trabucco or anything he supposedly did.
`
`III. The FAC Asserts Four Counts, Each Of Which Is Apparently Asserted Against
`All Defendants.
`
`The FAC alleges four counts, apparently against all of the eighteen defendants, for
`
`allegedly violating Section 517.07 of the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act
`
`(Count I), the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count II), “civil conspiracy”
`
`(Count III), and for a declaratory judgment that “the YBAs were securities,” “the Deceptive
`
`FTX platform did not work as advertised,” and unspecified Defendants “were paid exorbitant
`
`sums of money to peddle FTX” (Count IV).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`Service At A House Where The Defendant Does Not Reside Is Invalid.
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs Bear The Burden Of Showing Valid Service On Mr. Trabucco.
`
`Valid service of process “is a jurisdictional requirement: a court lacks jurisdiction over
`
`the person of a defendant when that defendant has not been served.” Hemispherx Biopharma,
`
`Inc. v. Johannesburg Consol. Invs., 553 F.3d 1351, 1360 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks and
`
`citation omitted). As this Court recognized in the March 17, 2023 paperless order (ECF No.
`
`101), service of process protects a defendant’s right to due process. See also Omni Cap. Int’l,
`
`Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) (explaining the purpose of the service
`
`requirement). Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the validity of service. Maale v. Francis,
`
`258 F.R.D. 533, 541 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Fly Braz. Grp., Inc. v. Gov’t of Gabon, Afr., 709 F. Supp.
`
`2d 1274, 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 specifies how a plaintiff may serve an individual
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`defendant. Under that rule, a plaintiff may serve an individual defendant by “delivering a copy
`
`of the summons and of the complaint to the individual personally” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(A)),
`
`“leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with someone of
`
`suitable age and discretion who resides there” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(B)), or “delivering a
`
`copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(C). In addition, a plaintiff may serve a defendant by following the
`
`state-law service requirements of the state where the action pends (here, Florida) or where
`
`service is purportedly made (here, Maine). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Purported Service On Mr. Trabucco Fails Under Federal,
`Florida, and Maine Law.
`
`On its face, the putative return of service (ECF No. 81) shows that Plaintiffs failed to
`
`properly serve Mr. Trabucco. The process server purported to effect “substitute service,” and
`
`the scribbled return says that “Carol the Defendants [sic] mother Received The Documents” at
`
`an address in Maine. Id. The return shows no delivery to Mr. Trabucco “personally” (Fed. R.
`
`Civ. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(A)), and Mr. Trabucco’s mother is not an agent “authorized by appointment
`
`or by law to receive service of process” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(C)). The address in Maine is
`
`not Mr. Trabucco’s “dwelling or usual place of abode” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(B)). Plaintiffs
`
`know this—their FAC alleges that Mr. Trabucco “is a citizen and resident of the State of
`
`California.” FAC ¶ 45.
`
`Neither the law of Florida (where this action pends) nor of Maine (where Plaintiffs
`
`attempted service) permits service on a relative at an address where the defendant does not
`
`reside. Fla. Stat. § 48.031(1)(a) (“Service of original process is made by delivering . . . at his
`
`or her usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older
`
`and informing the person of their contents”) (emphasis added); Me. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1) (“[t]he
`
`summons, complaint, and notice regarding Electronic Service shall be served together . . . by
`
`delivering a copy of the summons, complaint, and notice regarding Electronic Service to the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`individual personally or by leaving copies thereof at the individual’s dwelling house or usual
`
`place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein”)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`Courts applying both Florida law and Maine law consistently recognize that a
`
`“dwelling” or “usual place of abode” means the place where the defendant actually resides,
`
`not where his family (even his nuclear family) resides at the time of the attempted service. See,
`
`e.g., Reef Clematis LLC v. Reef and Fum Bar Grp. LLC, 2009 WL 5217077, at *1 n.1 (S. D.
`
`Fla. Dec. 30, 2009) (applying Florida law); Heck v. Bank Liberty, 86 So. 3d 1281, 1283 (Fla.
`
`1st DCA 2012) (quashing service where, at the time of attempted service, the defendant did not
`
`live at the residence where the defendant’s wife received service); Kammona v. Onteco Corp.,
`
`587 F. App’x 575, 578 (11th Cir. 2014). Cox v. Quigley is instructive. There, the District of
`
`Maine quashed attempted service on the defendant’s parent where, as here, the defendant did
`
`not reside at the address where a parent was served. 141 F.R.D. 222 (D. Me. 1992). Here,
`
`Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Trabucco “resides” in California, not in Maine, where Plaintiffs
`
`purported to effect service. As a result, Plaintiffs failed to properly serve Mr. Trabucco.
`
`In sum, service at the address in Maine was invalid under federal, Florida, and Maine
`
`law governing service of process.2 The Court thus lacks personal jurisdiction over
`
`Mr. Trabucco, and the claims against him should be dismissed for this reason alone.
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiffs Otherwise Fail To Establish Personal Jurisdiction Over Mr. Trabucco.
`
`Personal jurisdiction requires a defendant to have “minimum contacts with the State
`
`such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
`
`substantial justice.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 126 (2014) (citing Goodyear
`
`
`2 Any suggestion that Mr. Trabucco waived any objection to defective service by appearing in
`this action would be incorrect. As the Court recognized in its March 17, 2023 paperless order
`(ECF No. 101), a defendant’s “actual knowledge of a suit does not cure insufficient service of
`process.” Id. (quoting Moss v. Est. of Hudson, 252 So. 3d 785, 787 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 923 (2011), which in turn quotes International
`
`Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). International Shoe and progeny
`
`identify two types of personal jurisdiction that comport with due process: general jurisdiction
`
`and specific jurisdiction. Daimler, 571 U.S. at 121-22. General jurisdiction permits a court to
`
`adjudicate any claim against the defendant (regardless of the claim’s connection to the forum
`
`state); specific jurisdiction permits a court to adjudicate only those claims arising from or
`
`relating to the defendant’s suit-related contacts with the forum state. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S.
`
`277, 284 (2014).
`
`Both general and specific jurisdiction require (1) statutory authorization and
`
`(2) compliance with due process. At the first step, courts “look to the long-arm statute” of the
`
`forum state to “determine whether it authorizes exercising [personal] jurisdiction over the
`
`defendants.” Courboin v. Scott, 596 F. App’x 729, 734 (11th Cir. 2014); Melgarejo v. Pycsa
`
`Pan., S.A., 537 F. App’x 852, 858-59 (11th Cir. 2013). As discussed below, Plaintiffs’ factual
`
`allegations fail at both steps: Nothing in Florida’s long-arm statute would allow the Court to
`
`exercise personal jurisdiction over Mr. Trabucco and, in any event, the exercise of personal
`
`jurisdiction would violate due process here.
`
`Plaintiffs bear “the initial burden of alleging in the complaint sufficient facts to make
`
`out a prima facie case of jurisdiction.” Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339,
`
`1350 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1274 (11th Cir.
`
`2009)). For the reasons explained below, Plaintiffs’ factual allegations fail to meet that burden.
`
`A.
`
`As A California Citizen, Mr. Trabucco Is Not Subject To General
`Jurisdiction In Florida.
`
`For an individual defendant, the “paradigm forum” for exercising “general jurisdiction
`
`is the individual’s domicile.” Daimler, 571 U.S. at 137. Here, Plaintiffs acknowledge that Mr.
`
`Trabucco is not domiciled in Florida; rather, Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Trabucco “is a citizen
`
`and resident of the State of California.” FAC ¶ 45; see Ferenchak v. Zormati, 572 F. Supp. 3d
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 155 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 14 of 28
`
`
`1284, 1291 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (collecting authority that a citizen and resident of a state other than
`
`Florida is not domiciled in Florida). And Mr. Trabucco, who did not consent to personal
`
`jurisdiction in Florida, was “not present within the forum when served with process,” as
`
`discussed in Section I(B) above. See, e.g., McCullough v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 268
`
`F.Supp.3d 1336, 1350-51 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (“Federal courts throughout the United States have
`
`held … that general jurisdiction over any individual comports with due process only in these
`
`three scenarios,” namely, where the individual (1) is domiciled in the state, (2) consents to
`
`personal jurisdiction, or (3) is served