Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 1 of 5
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF RESPONSE TO MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TO EXTEND
`DEADLINE FOR PARTIES TO HOLD A SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
`The theme in this case is: No good deed goes unpunished. As Ordered by the Court,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs properly scheduled and noticed a Joint Scheduling Conference by Zoom for all
`
`Defendants. While some Defendants agreed, accepted the invitation, and provided input on the
`
`report (including Defendant Samuel Bankman-Fried) counsel for some of the FTX Celebrity Brand
`
`Ambassadors declined to provide any input and instead requested Plaintiffs cancel the Zoom
`
`conference, so that they could instead “simply seek an extension of time from the Court.”1
`
`As professionalism and ethics dictate, they represented they would simply seek an
`
`extension of time, attach a copy of Plaintiff’s position email and concluded to Plaintiffs that “[w]e
`
`hope you will consent to a brief extension.” See ECF No. 87-2 at 3. Although Plaintiffs even agreed
`
`not to oppose Defendants’ request for extension (though Plaintiffs are ready and willing to proceed
`
`in accordance with the Court’s Order to hold a scheduling conference and file a joint conference
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs circulated a proposed draft Joint Scheduling Report with a Proposed Scheduling Order
`for purposes of expediting the conferral process with Defendants. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy
`of that report that includes input received from Defendant Bankman-Fried.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 2 of 5
`
`Edwin Garrison, et al. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.
`Case No. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM
`
`report, see ECF No. 82), Defendants could not help themselves but to take advantage of the
`
`opportunity to again create a misleading record with needless attacks on Plaintiffs and their
`
`counsel. This included the same counsel who previously informed Plaintiffs they would discuss
`
`the request for a Status Conference with all of the Defendants, only to fail to respond and instead
`
`file attacks upon Plaintiffs.
`
`Certainly, the Court alone will decide when the Joint Conference Report is due. However,
`
`Plaintiffs are constrained to file this brief response simply to set the record straight.
`
`Since this action commenced on November 16, 2022, and particularly since filing the
`
`Consolidated Amended Complaint on December 16th, Plaintiffs have worked assiduously to effect
`
`service on all 18 Defendants, many of whom are some of the most high-profile celebrities in the
`
`country. Although these Defendants are well-known public figures, tracking them down to
`
`physically serve them is a monumental task, especially when they and their counsel (some of whom
`
`are likely counsel who advised these celebrities in committing the very conduct for which they
`
`have now been sued) have taken every step to make doing so as difficult as possible. Attached as
`
`Composite Exhibit B is just a small sampling of the documents (from impartial process servers)
`
`evidencing the difficulties Defendants have caused Plaintiffs in delaying service of process on
`
`many of them, despite the admitted fact that they have all been aware this action was brought
`
`against them in November.2
`
`For instance, Shaquille O’Neal, who is now the final Defendant actively evading service
`
`of process on a weekly basis (see Comp. Ex. B for some of the attempts to serve him thus far),
`
`
`2 Plaintiffs’ counsel have enlisted the help of multiple process serving firms to locate and serve
`Defendants, and the materials in Comp. Ex. B are a small sampling of the documents evidencing
`some of these service attempts. They are attached for illustrative purposes, only, and are not a
`comprehensive record of Plaintiffs’ service attempts over the past months.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 3 of 5
`
`Edwin Garrison, et al. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.
`Case No. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM
`
`was quoted in national news days after this Action commenced, attempting to disclaim any
`
`responsibility for his actions, admitting in response to news of the suit that, while he did falsely
`
`claim in his promotions that he was “all in” on FTX, he in fact personally avoided cryptocurrency
`
`and claiming “I was just a paid spokesperson.”3 While the process servers continue their repeated
`
`attempts to serve Mr. O’Neal, Plaintiffs’ counsel even reached out to counsel at the Miami office
`
`of Carlton Fields who recently represented Mr. O’Neal in many different litigation with Notice of
`
`Commencement and Request for Waiver of Service forms. They declined to forward the materials
`
`to Mr. O’Neal. See Comp. Ex. B.4 It took over half a dozen attempts at personal service on Mr.
`
`Brady, before he told his counsel to finally accept the Request for Waiver of Service form that was
`
`sent to them nearly a month prior. See Comp. Ex. B.5
`
`For other Defendants, Plaintiffs’ counsel have reached out to their agents and other
`
`representatives, who apparently have been told by Defendants not to cooperate, to pass along any
`
`messages regarding the lawsuit, or to inform Plaintiffs as to who these Defendants have retained
`
`to represent them in this action.
`
`In short, although they may be famous and well-known, when celebrities do not want to be
`
`served with a Complaint, with practically limitless resources at their disposal, including multiple
`
`
`3 See “Shaq distances himself from crypto and FTX collapse: ‘I was just a paid spokesperson,’”
`dated December 15, 2022, published at https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/15/shaq-on-crypto-ftx-
`post-collapse-i-was-just-a-paid-spokesperson.html (accessed March 9, 2023), a copy of which is
`also attached in Comp. Ex. B.
`4 As another example, Udonis Haslem evaded service, and the server had to pursue his former
`wife, Mrs. Haslem to effect service, because she fled the house and ran past a stop sign in her car
`while the process server was parked outside the home taking notes in their car. See Comp. Ex. B.
`
` Brady’s counsel ultimately claimed the original Request for Waiver of Service form was deficient
`because it was not emailed to them along with a copy of the Notice of Commencement of Action
`form, which is a form that is in practice largely dispensed with when counsel requests the waiver
`of service form to begin with.
`
` 5
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 4 of 5
`
`Edwin Garrison, et al. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.
`Case No. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM
`
`homes, constant travel, and various staff members and counsel who can keep them at arm’s length
`
`from the public, serving them with formal process is an undertaking.
`
`Finally, despite still not opposing Defendants’ request, Plaintiffs are mindful of the Court’s
`
`directive that “A motion for extension of time is not self-executing.... Yet, by filing these motions
`
`on or near the last day, and then sitting idle pending the Court's disposition of the motion, parties
`
`essentially grant their own motion. The Court will not condone this.” See ECF No. 5 (quoting
`
`Compere v. Nusret Miami, LLC, 2020 WL 2844888, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2020) (internal
`
`citations omitted)). Thus, immediately after receiving the Court’s order requiring a joint
`
`conference and joint scheduling report by Friday, March 10, 2023, Plaintiffs took necessary and
`
`appropriate actions to circulate a draft JSR, set a Zoom and invite all counsel to cooperate.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Plaintiffs repeat they have no objection if the Court decides to extend the deadline. If the
`
`Court is not amenable to granting Defendants’ request (which Plaintiffs respectfully submit an
`
`appropriate date would be April 14, 2023, the date the Court already ordered all Defendants to
`
`respond to the complaint, see ECF No. 49), the Court consider the draft Joint Scheduling Report
`
`for purposes of establishing a case management order attached as Exhibit A. Moreover, Plaintiffs
`
`respectfully request that if Mr. O’Neal continues to evade service under these circumstances, the
`
`Court consider entering a Show Cause order, requiring him to finally appear in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 5 of 5
`
`Edwin Garrison, et al. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.
`Case No. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM
`
`Dated: March 9, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Adam Moskowitz
`Adam M. Moskowitz
`Florida Bar No. 984280
`adam@moskowitz-law.com
`Joseph M. Kaye
`Florida Bar No. 117520
`joseph@moskowitz-law.com
`THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
`2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
`Coral Gables, FL 33134
`Telephone: (305) 740-1423
`
`By: /s/ David Boies
`David Boies
`(Pro Hac Vice)
`Alex Boies
`(Pro Hac Vice)
`BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`333 Main Street
`Armonk, NY 10504
`Phone: (914) 749–8200
`dboies@bsfllp.com
`
`By: /s/ Stephen Neal Zack
`Stephen Neal Zack
`Florida Bar No. 145215
`BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
`100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2800
`Miami, FL 33131
`Office: 305-539-8400
`szack@bsfllp.com
`
`Co-Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing was filed on March 9, 2023,
`
`via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of
`
`record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Adam M. Moskowitz______
` ADAM M. MOSKOWITZ
`
`5
`
`