Filing # 191803735 E-Filed 02/12/2024 11:24:59 PM
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
`IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
`
`CASE NOS:
`2021-025928-CA-01
`2023-001158-CA-01
`
`
`
`ELENA BOURLAKOVA as natural
`guardian and representative for her
`three Minor Children and
`VERONICA BOURLAKOVA as
`natural guardian and representative for her
`three Minor Children,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`STEVEN LANDAU, individually and as trustee,
`THOMAS BUTLER, individually and as trustee,
`NATALIA ROUSSO, NIKOLAI KAZAKOV,
`VERA KAZAKOV, SEMEN ANUFRIEV,
`IGOR KRUTOY and OLGA KROUTOIA.
`
`
`Defendants.
`_______________________________________________/ &
`VERONICA BOURLAKOVA, in
`her individual capacity,
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`NIKOLAI KAZAKOV, VERA KAZAKOVA,
`HEMAREN STIFTUNG, a Panamanian Foundation,
`and EDELWEISS INVESTMENTS, INC,
`a Panamanian corporation,
`Defendants.
`_________________________________________/
`
`COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO
`STAY THE KAZAKOVS’ AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS PENDING APPEAL
`
`
`
`
`www.royblack.com | 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 | p 305.371.6421 f 305-358-2006
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Counter-Defendants file this reply in further support of their Motion to Stay pending
`
`appellate review (the “Motion” D.E. 461) of this Court’s Orders denying Counterclaim
`
`Defendants’ motions to dismiss based on forum non conveniens (the “Orders” D.E. 432 in the
`
`Children’s Case, and D.E. 124 in the Protective Case).
`
`ARGUMENT
`I. The Motion is Not Procedurally Flawed
`
`As is clear from the Motion and the argument at the hearing on the motions to dismiss
`
`based on forum non conveniens (“FNC”), Counter-Defendants do not view their claims in the
`
`Amended Complaint and those in the Amended Counterclaims in the Children’s Case as
`
`interrelated or requiring any of the same proof. Indeed, none of the claims in the Amended
`
`Complaint require any analysis of the alleged oral Russian partnership or the alleged theft of
`
`partnership, estate and/or family assets held by either the Kazakovs or the Counter-Defendants.
`
`D.E. 96, Ex. A. The only claims in the Amended Complaint on which the finder of fact must reach
`
`a verdict relate to the Children’s rights, under Florida law, to assets under the 2017 Florida Land
`
`Trust, and the Defendants’ involvement in the theft of those specific assets located in Florida. Id.
`
`None of the claims involve the Children’s rights to assets outside of Florida.1 Indeed, the lack of
`
`interrelatedness of the claims in the Amended Complaint and those in the Amended Counterclaims
`
`are precisely why undersigned counsel has not been able to find a single case in Florida state court
`
`
`1 The Kazakovs’ Response in Opposition (“Response”) further underscores this point. (D.E. 472)
`In an Amended Complaint totaling 213 paragraphs, 149 of which are factual paragraphs, the
`Kazakovs only cite to five paragraphs that even they allege, in any way, overlap with the Amended
`Counterclaims, and indeed, none of those paragraphs involve any of the actual causes of actions
`raised in the Amended Complaint. Id. at pp. 14-15.
`1
`
`
`www.royblack.com | 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 | p 305.371.6421 f 305-358-2006
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`in which FNC applied to a counterclaim.2 There are, however, several federal cases in which courts
`
`have dismissed just counterclaims.3 See, e.g., Israel Discount Bank Ltd. v. Schapp, 505 F.Supp.2d
`
`651, 659 (C.D. Ca. 2007) (collecting cases); Trujillo v. Banco Central Del Ecuador, 35 F.Supp.2d
`
`908, 916 (S.D. Fla. 1998) (concluding that counterclaim should be dismissed in light of “numerous
`
`ongoing proceedings” in other countries addressing the same issues of fact raised by the
`
`counterclaim). Moreover, an FNC analysis can and should be done on a claim-by-claim basis,
`
`including counterclaims. See, e.g., Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v. Feldman, 2016 WL 183360, at *4
`
`(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2016).
`
`While the Kazakovs falsely assert that the Counter-Defendants seek an unfair advantage
`
`by seeking a stay of the majority of their counterclaims and are trying to prevent them from
`
`pursuing their related counterclaims, the Motion belies that assertion. Indeed, in the Motion,
`
`Counter-Defendants do not seek the stay of Butler or Rousso’s counterclaims, or the Kazakovs’
`
`counterclaim related to the Children’s rights under the 2017 Trust (Count XII).
`
`The Kazakovs’ argument that a stay pending appeal would only apply to a stay of the
`
`Orders is nonsensical because the Orders allow the counterclaims to proceed rather than dismissing
`
`them. Notably the Kazakovs do not cite case law for this proposition. Instead, the Kazakovs cite
`
`
`2 While Counter-Defendants disagree that the claims in the Amended Complaint and those in the
`Amended Counterclaims are interrelated and that the same proof is required for both (Response at
`n.4), without waiving that position if the Court deems a stay of the entire case appropriate pending
`appeal, Counter-Defendants do not oppose such an order.
`3 “The federal doctrine of forum non conveniens has been codified in Florida Rule of Civil
`Procedure 1.061(a).” Kawasaki Motors Corp. v. Foster, 899 So.2d 408, 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
`Thus, federal cases on FNC are instructive.
`
`
`2
`
`
`www.royblack.com | 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 | p 305.371.6421 f 305-358-2006
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`to Estrella v. Camperos, No. 2011CA35080, 2013 WL 6171475 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. March 20,
`
`2013) (report and recommendation) for the unremarkable proposition that discovery is not
`
`automatically stayed pending an appeal of a denial of FNC. Response at n.5. Indeed, the magistrate
`
`in Estrella, ruling on a motion for a protective order, specifically held that “any stay of merits
`
`discovery . . . must issue from the Court or from the Third District Court of Appeal.” Estrella,
`
`2013 WL 5171475 at *2. That is precisely the type of relief Counter-Defendants seek here – a stay.
`
`The purpose of a stay “is, generally, to stay further judicial proceedings in the trial court . . . or to
`
`stay execution of an order or judgment.” Hirsch v. Hirsch, 309 So.2d 47, 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, contrary to the Kazakovs’ assertion, a stay pending appeal is not limited
`
`to only a stay of the specific order under appeal.
`
`II. The Motion Was Filed in Good Faith, Not to Achieve Delay
`
`Counter-Defendants agree that Loudmila and Veronica would prefer to litigate the
`
`worldwide conspiracy to steal their family’s global assets and determine the rightful owners of
`
`various entities in England. That is precisely why they brought their action in England prior to
`
`bringing any action in the United States.4 Veronica and Elena only brought the Children’s claims
`
`in Florida in their representative capacities because the assets of the 2017 Trust, of which the
`
`Children are beneficiaries, are located here and the trust was created here.
`
`Ironically, the Kazakovs accuse the Counter-Defendants of filing the motion to stay for
`
`
`4 Loudmila first brough her claim in England on July 16, 2020 (the “London Case”). See D.E. 359,
`Ex. A at ¶23. On July 12, 2022, Veronica brought her application to join the London Case as a
`claimant. Id. at ¶22. Notably, the Kazakovs did not bring any counterclaim until December 12,
`2022, long after both Loudmila and Veronica filed their claims in London. See D.E. 146.
`3
`
`
`www.royblack.com | 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 | p 305.371.6421 f 305-358-2006
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`purposes of delay. The notice of appeal was timely filed (shortly after the holiday season) on
`
`January 10, 2024. The Motion was filed a week later. It was counsel for the Kazakovs who sought
`
`an extension of time to respond to the Motion.5 D.E. 466. While it is certainly true that counsel for
`
`Counter-Defendants sought one extension of time to file their appellate brief that can hardly be
`
`considered deliberately seeking to cause delay when the request was made well in advance of the
`
`deadline, and the brief will be filed on February 19, 2024, only a little over a month after the notice
`
`of appeal. Moreover, as the Court and counsel for the Kazakovs are well-aware in the two weeks
`
`before the holiday season began, there were three hearings on dispositive motions that the parties
`
`prepared for and argued. Less than a week after the last hearing, the holidays began and numerous
`
`counsel were on previously scheduled vacations during those two holiday weeks. Seeking a short,
`
`20-day extension to file their appellate brief under the circumstances is hardly a dilatory tactic.
`
`The Kazakovs’ speculation that the Counter-Defendant sought to utilize discovery from
`
`the Kazakovs in this case for use in other courts is just that – speculation. Indeed, it is the Kazakovs
`
`who have refused to produce a single document in response to discovery propounded on them. By
`
`contrast, and contrary to the Kazakovs’ attempts to besmirch the Counter-Defendants as gaming
`
`the system and seeking to engage in one-sided discovery, Elena and Veronica, as representatives
`
`for the Children produced over 400 pages of discovery on the merits of the Amended Complaint,
`
`as well as photos and videos proving that several of the allegations in the Amended Counterclaims
`
`
`5 Indeed, opposing counsel has made a habit of seeking last minute requests for extension of time
`on various issues including discovery matters and then filing a motion for extension of time thereby
`ensuring that their requested extensions are effectively granted. See, e.g., D.E. 443, 460;
`Opposition to D.E. 443 at D.E. 446 and Notice of Hearing at D.E. 458. Thus, perhaps those in
`glass houses should not throw stones.
`
`4
`
`
`www.royblack.com | 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 | p 305.371.6421 f 305-358-2006
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`relating to the Florida assets are demonstrably false. Until only very recently, January 24 to be
`
`exact, the Counter-Defendants had a legitimate basis for refusing to submit to discovery on the
`
`Amended Counterclaims – they had a pending motion to dismiss based on lack of personal
`
`jurisdiction.6 On the other hand, the Kazakovs had and have no such legitimate basis to refuse
`
`discovery, and yet they have refused altogether, and to this date have not produced a single
`
`document.
`
`With regard to the Protective Case, as repeated ad nauseam, that case was filed with the
`
`intent to preserve the statute of limitation but was not intended to be prosecuted unless related
`
`cases in foreign jurisdictions were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. At the hearing, counsel
`
`made clear that the entire case should be dismissed or stayed. Motion at Ex. 1. Additionally, the
`
`two Panamanian foundations in the Protective Case also assert the affirmative defense of FNC.7
`
`See Protective Case, D.E. 43, and 44.
`
`The Kazakovs purport to be concerned about a stay impacting the trial in the Children’s
`
`Case scheduled for October of this year. However, they are well-aware and always have been that
`
`their Amended Counterclaims put a trial in October as an untenable aspiration. Indeed, on January
`
`
`6 Regarding Elena’s deposition, which was on the merits of the Amended Complaint and
`jurisdictional discovery on the Amended Counterclaims, counsel instructed Elena not to answer
`questions that went directly to the merits of the Amended Counterclaims and were beyond the
`scope of jurisdictional discovery. To the extent that there are disagreements about the
`appropriateness of those objections and instructions, those will be litigated in due course. It is
`undisputed that Elena sat for a deposition over the course of two full days. It can hardly be said
`that she refused to engage in any discovery or sought to delay without cause.
`7 The Kazakovs in their Answer and their Amended Answer asserted FNC as their first affirmative
`defense. See Protective Case D.E. 9, 12. However, only after Veronica moved to dismiss their
`counterclaim on FNC grounds in March 2023 (D.E. 21), did the Kazakovs remove FNC as an
`affirmative defense for clear strategic reasons. See D.E. 45.
`5
`
`
`www.royblack.com | 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 | p 305.371.6421 f 305-358-2006
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`23, 2024, after a delay in responding to the Plaintiffs’ first set of interrogatories by over two weeks,
`
`Vera Kazakova identified the witnesses who have knowledge of the issues raised in the Amended
`
`Counterclaims. Each and every witness listed resides outside of the United States, and outside of
`
`this Court’s subpoena reach. See Ex. 1 at Rog. 4. Indeed, six reside in Russia, two in Ukraine, one
`
`in France, one in Latvia, and one in Switzerland. Moreover, if this court determines that it does
`
`not have personal jurisdiction over Semen Anufriev, which it should not, he is included as a person
`
`with knowledge of the allegations in the Amended Counterclaims, and he resides in Latvia.
`
`Attempts to depose these witnesses will require letters rogatory and will take months as the
`
`Kazakovs well-know. Their concern for October 2024 is thus disingenuous, as are their arguments
`
`that Florida is an appropriate venue for the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`III. The Kazakovs Fail to Successfully Refute That There Is Likelihood of Success or
`A Likelihood of Harm
`
`The Kazakovs fail to address the fact that stays of proceedings in lower tribunals should be
`
`“liberally granted” where the interlocutory appeal involves venue or personal jurisdiction.8 Amend.
`
`to Fla. R. App. P., 894 So. 2d 202, 216 (Fla. 2005). Indeed, the predecessor to Florida Rule of
`
`Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(A), Rule 4.2, which allowed for interlocutory appeals from orders
`
`“relating to venue” “was interpreted to permit an appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss
`
`based on ‘forum non conveniens’ grounds,” because “[t]he doctrine of forum non conveniens was
`
`held to sufficiently relate to venue so as to be appealable.” Bedingfield v. Bedingfield, 417 So.2d
`
`
`8 This makes eminent sense because if a defendant or counter-defendant has to answer and assert
`affirmative relief or forego such relief, they would waive their rights and could prejudice their
`appeal.
`
`6
`
`
`www.royblack.com | 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 | p 305.371.6421 f 305-358-2006
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1047, 1051 n.4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (Hurley, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part)
`
`(reasoning agreed with in Thomas v. Thomas, 724 So.2d 1246, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); S. Ry.
`
`Co. v. McCubbins, 196 So.2d 512, 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (finding that under former Florida
`
`Appellate Rule 4.2, denial of motion to dismiss on the doctrine of FNC was an order “relating to
`
`venue”).
`
`Moreover, since the Kazakovs cannot legitimately deny the overlap between their
`
`Amended Counterclaims and the pre-filed case brought by Loudmila in England, they instead
`
`attempt to re-litigate the issue of whether England has jurisdiction over the case, even though it
`
`was fully litigated there.9 See Response at pp.7-8. They also seek to reframe the Joinder Decision
`
`and underplay the detailed and thorough analysis done by the English court, which is similar to
`
`the Kinney factors. Indeed, the English court carefully examined the parties’ arguments, the
`
`overlap between the claims in the London Case and those brought here. See D.E. 359, Ex. A at ¶¶
`
`187-212. The outcome of that analysis was the English court asserting that by far the most
`
`appropriate forum for the claims brought by Loudmila and Veronica, which and are essentially the
`
`mirror image of the Amended Counterclaims, and one of which is whether the alleged partnership
`
`existed, is England. The judge there held: “It is highly desirable that the claims and defences of all
`
`those players should be brought forward and resolved at the same time in the same set of
`
`proceeding in the appropriate forum (England)” and that “the case for England as the appropriate
`
`forum is also overwhelming when compared to Florida.” Id. at ¶¶ 211, 221. Such gamesmanship
`
`
`9 Notably, in the Kazakov’s challenge to jurisdiction of the English court, they argued that the
`claims related to the alleged partnership, dissipation of assets, etc. belonged in Monaco. D.E. 292,
`Ex. D, at ¶ 68.
`
`7
`
`
`www.royblack.com | 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 | p 305.371.6421 f 305-358-2006
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`and attempts to undermine the principles of comity should not be countenanced.10
`
`The Kazakovs continue to try to make more of the aborted RICO action than there is. As
`
`all parties are aware, Loudmila, Elena and Veronica filed that action, did not attempt service on
`
`any of the defendants, and voluntarily dismissed it in short order. While one could infer that the
`
`Bourlakovas did consider whether Florida was an appropriate forum for the claims regarding the
`
`alleged oral Russian partnership and theft of worldwide assets, it is quite a leap to state that it was
`
`their choice of forum. Response at p. 9. Indeed, the fact that they chose not to prosecute the case,
`
`not to even attempt to effect service and then voluntarily dismissed the case is evidence to the
`
`contrary – that they in fact recognized and concluded that Florida was not an appropriate forum
`
`for those claims. They have consistently maintained that stance.
`
`Moreover, the Kazakovs continue to ignore the individuality of the Counter-Defendants.
`
`They conflate Loudmila, Elena and Veronica, asserting that “in the aggregate” they “voluntarily
`
`sought affirmative relief in Florida related to this matter not once but three times.” Response at p.
`
`9. You cannot “aggregate” separate individuals. Moreover, as the Court is well-aware, Elena and
`
`Veronica brought the Children’s Case in their representative capacity, not as plaintiffs
`
`themselves.11 As discussed in the preceding paragraph, the aborted RICO action is a red herring.
`
`
`10 While admitting that Mr. Kazakov filed a “Defence and Counterclaim” in the London Case,
`opposing counsel baldly asserts that “important differences exist” between the counterclaim there
`and the ones brought here. Response at p. 9. However, he fails to identify a single such “important
`difference.” We also note that an English judgment will be easily enforceable in European
`jurisdiction by virtue of various European conventions, such as the Brussels Recast Regulation
`and the Lugano Convention.
`11 We recognize that this Court does not agree with that position and has held otherwise; however,
`that ruling is currently pending before the Third District Court of Appeals on a writ filed by
`Counter-Defendants, and with all due respect, they maintain that this issue was wrongly decided.
`8
`
`
`www.royblack.com | 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 | p 305.371.6421 f 305-358-2006
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Elena and Loudmila prosecuted no claims in their individual capacities in this forum. And
`
`Veronica only filed and maintained one action in this forum in her personal capacity, and has
`
`maintained all along, it was only filed to avoid a lapse of the statute of limitation, which is why
`
`she did not attempt service.
`
`Further, the Kazakovs’ assertion that Butler, Landau and Rousso could not be brought into
`
`the London Case is also a red herring. Butler, Landau and Rousso are not parties to the Amended
`
`Counterclaims. Moreover, none of them are alleged to have participated in anything other than the
`
`theft of assets held in Florida by the 2017 Florida Land Trust from its beneficiaries, the Children.
`
`Further if Hemaren is an indispensable party to the Second Amended Counterclaim in the
`
`Protective Case as alleged in the Response then it would also be an indispensable party to the
`
`London Case. But notably, Mr. Kazakov has made no such allegation in the London Case even
`
`though he seeks a declaration from that court that neither Loudmila nor Veronica have any interest
`
`in Edelweiss. D.E. 427, Ex. 1 at ¶ 278.7. Indeed, neither does Edelweiss, a party to the London
`
`Case. Id. at Ex. 3.
`
`While Elena and Gliner are not parties to the London Case, the Amended Counterclaims
`
`establish that court certainly has jurisdiction over Gliner, a London resident. Moreover, if the
`
`Kazakovs want a written agreement by Elena that she will agree to the jurisdiction of the London
`
`court in that action, they could simply ask for one. However, counsel for Elena’s in-court
`
`representation should suffice. See, e.g., Kawasaki, 899 So. 2d at 412.
`
`The Kazakovs also incorrectly assert that affidavits or depositions are required to establish
`
`the private interests or convenience of the parties. Response at pp. 11-12. However, here, no such
`
`9
`
`
`www.royblack.com | 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 | p 305.371.6421 f 305-358-2006
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`evidence was required because those were established on the face of the Amended Counterclaims.
`
`See Motion at pp. 8-9. Similarly, it is evident from the Amended Counterclaims and Vera
`
`Kazakov’s interrogatory responses that Florida will be a far more challenging and expensive
`
`jurisdiction for the Amended Counterclaims. All of the testimonial evidence regarding the
`
`Amended Counterclaims will come from non-United States residents, outside of Florida. Several
`
`witnesses are residents of England and other European countries, which are certainly closer to
`
`London than Miami; a third-grader could tell you that.12 Affidavits are, thus, unnecessary.
`
`The Kazakovs have made clear that they have no respect for comity or the concept of a
`
`first-filed case. Loudmila Bourlakova filed her claim in London July 2020, long before the
`
`Kazakovs brought their Amended Counterclaims, and long before the Children’s Case was filed
`
`here. That is her preferred forum and the Kazakovs have only taken improper advantage of Elena
`
`and Veronica’s attempts to prosecute their children’s rights on their children’s behalves, as any
`
`good mother would do, by bringing the Amended Counterclaim in the Children’s Case to
`
`circumvent the first-filed London Case. It is thus, absurd and manipulative to suggest that the
`
`remedy for the Kazakovs’ own improper machinations is for Loudmila and Veronica to dismiss
`
`the London Case.
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the reasons set forth herein as well as in the Motion, this Court should stay the
`
`Kazakovs’ Amended Counterclaims pending appeal.
`
`
`12 While it is certainly true that Elena’s residence in Canada is closer to Miami than London, her
`family lives in London. And just because the Kazakovs repeat a lie often enough does not make it
`true – Elena does not own a home on Fisher Island, and she testified to that fact during her two-
`day deposition. Ex. 2, Sept. 13, 2023, Tr. at 8:23-9:3; 35:2-4.
`10
`
`
`www.royblack.com | 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 | p 305.371.6421 f 305-358-2006
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Dated: February 12, 2024.
`
`BLACK SREBNICK, P.A.
`201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300
`Miami, Florida 33131
`Tel: (305) 371-6421
`Fax: (305) 358-2006
`rblack@royblack.com
`mneyra@royblack.com
`zmarkoe@royblack.com
`theller@royblack.com
`civilpleadings@royblack.com
`
`By: /s/ Roy Black
`Roy E. Black
`Florida Bar. No. 126088
`Maria D. Neyra
`Florida Bar No. 0074233
`Zaharah R. Markoe, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 504734
`Tazio A. Heller, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 1031521
`
`ABALLÍ MILNE KALIL, P.A.
`One SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 2250
`Miami, Florida 33131
`Tel: (305) 373-6600
`Fax: (305) 373-7929
`Email: hmilne@aballi.com
`Email: ckalil@aballi.com
`Email: rtischler@aballi.com
`Email: mdeblinger@aballi.com
`
`By: /s/ Hendrik G. Milne
`Hendrik G. Milne, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 335886
`Craig P. Kalil, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 607282
`Renee R. Tischler, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 26939
`Matthew R.D. Deblinger, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 123525
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this 12th day February 2024, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing was electronically filed via the Florida Courts e-Filing Portal, which will serve this
`
`Notice on all counsel of record via this Court’s e-service system.
`
`/s/ Roy E. Black
`Roy Black, Esq.
`
`11
`
`www.royblack.com | 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 | p 305.371.6421 f 305-358-2006
`
`

`

`Exhibit “1”
`
`www.royblack.com | 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 | p 305.371.6421 f 305-358-2006
`
`

`

`From: Peter H. Levitt <PLevitt@shutts.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 2:47 PM
`To: Roy Black <RBlack@royblack.com>; Maria D. Neyra <MNeyra@royblack.com>; Zaharah R. Markoe
`<zmarkoe@royblack.com>; Tazio Heller <theller@royblack.com>; Lance Shinder
`<LShinder@royblack.com>; Kyle A. Johnson <kjohnson@royblack.com>; Barbara Andrade
`<BAndrade@royblack.com>; Maite de Para <MdePara@royblack.com>; Hendrik Milne
`<hmilne@aballi.com>; Kalil, Craig <CKalil@aballi.com>; Renee R. Tischler <rtischler@aballi.com>;
`Matthew Deblinger <mdeblinger@aballi.com>; Weiss, Jennifer <jweiss@aballi.com>; Danvers-Holmes,
`Jasmine <Jdanvers-holmes@aballi.com>
`Cc: Aliette D. Rodz <ARodz@shutts.com>; John W. Bustard <JBustard@shutts.com>;
`yisrael.hiller@asserson.com; akaplan@klugerkaplan.com; Rod Coleman <rfc@colemanattorneys.com>;
`'Julie Feigeles' <jf@womenatlawfl.com>
`Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT 2021-025928-CA-43 ELENA BOURLAKOVA, et. al. vs. STEVEN
`LANDAU, et. al. - Counter-Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories to Counter-Plaintiff Vera Kazakov
`
`Dear Counsel,
`
`Attached please find Vera Kazakova’s Answers to First Set of Interrogatories.
`
`Regards,
`
`Peter H. Levitt
`Partner | Shutts & Bowen LLP
`Tel: (305) 415-9447
`200 South Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 4100, Miami, FL 33131
`Bio | E-Mail | vCard | www.shutts.com
`
`
`
`
`
`From: Maite de Para <MdePara@royblack.com>
`Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 2:11 PM
`To: Peter H. Levitt <PLevitt@shutts.com>; Aliette D. Rodz <ARodz@shutts.com>
`Cc: John W. Bustard <JBustard@shutts.com>; yisrael.hiller@asserson.com;
`allison.khaskelis@asserson.co.uk; Rod Coleman <rfc@colemanattorneys.com>;
`akaplan@klugerkaplan.com; Hendrik Milne <hmilne@aballi.com>; Renee R. Tischler
`<rtischler@aballi.com>; Matthew Deblinger <mdeblinger@aballi.com>; Roy Black
`<RBlack@royblack.com>; Maria D. Neyra <MNeyra@royblack.com>; Zaharah R. Markoe
`<zmarkoe@royblack.com>; Tazio Heller <theller@royblack.com>; Lance Shinder
`<LShinder@royblack.com>; Kyle A. Johnson <kjohnson@royblack.com>; Weiss, Jennifer
`<jweiss@aballi.com>; Kalil, Craig <CKalil@aballi.com>; Danvers-Holmes, Jasmine <Jdanvers-
`holmes@aballi.com>; Barbara Andrade <BAndrade@royblack.com>; Maite de Para
`<MdePara@royblack.com>
`Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT 2021-025928-CA-43 ELENA BOURLAKOVA, et. al. vs. STEVEN
`LANDAU, et. al. - Counter-Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories to Counter-Plaintiff Vera Kazakov
`
`EXTERNAL: This email originated from outside of the SHUTTS email system. Do not respond, click any
`links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
`
`
`
`

`

`In the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and For Miami-Dade
`County, Florida
`2021-025928-CA-01
`Elena Bourlakova, et. al. vs. Steven Landau, et. al.
`Counter-Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories to Counter-Plaintiff Vera
`Kazakov
`BLACK SREBNICK, P.A.
`201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300
`Miami, Florida 33131
`T: (305) 371-6421
`
`Roy Black, Esq., Rblack@royblack.com
`Lance W. Shinder, Esq., Lshinder@royblack.com
`Maria Neyra, Esq., MNeyra@royblack.com
`Zaharah Markoe, Esq., zmarkoe@royblack.com
`Kyle Johnson, Esq., KJohnson@royblack.com
`Tazio Heller, Esq. theller@royblack.com
`
`
`
`Court:
`
`Case Nos.:
`Case Styles:
`Document Served:
`
`Served By:
`
`
`
`
`
`Maite de Para
`Paralegal
`
`O 305-371-6421
`www.royblack.com
`
`
`
`
`Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client
`or other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or
`recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for
`delivering it to the intended recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
`immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in any manner.
`The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may be
`unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
`
`
`

`

`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
`JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
`MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 21-025928-CA-01 (43)
`
`ELENA BOURLAKOVAasnatural guardian
`for her three minor children, and VERONICA
`BOURLAKOVAasnatural guardian for her
`three minorchildren,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`STEVEN LANDAU, e¢a/.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`ANSWERSTO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES TO VERA KAZAKOVAAeNSENEESINTERROGATORIESTOVERA
`KAZAKOVA
`
`Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff Vera Kazakova, by undersigned counsel, answers the
`
`Interrogatories served on December8, 2023asfollows.
`
`DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
`
`Please refer to these definitions and instructions in providing your answers. Unless
`otherwise clearly indicated by the context thereof, the following definitions and instructions shall
`apply to eachofthe interrogatories set forth below:
`
`“Communication” means, without limitation, any oral, written, telephonic, radio,
`1.
`video or electronic transmission or exchange of information, demands or questions, including but
`not
`limited to, conversations, meetings, discussions,
`telephone calls,
`telegrams,
`telecopies,
`telexes, seminars, conferences, writings, letters, messages, notes, texts, messagesof any kind, or
`memoranda.
`
`“Document” or “Documents” meansall “writings and recordings.” The definition
`2.
`is intended to include all documents, agreements, correspondence, records, accounting and
`financial records, workbooks,ledgers, reconciliations, contracts, bills, invoices, bills of lading,
`inventories, loans, financial data, memoranda, notes, or other writings, formal or informal in
`nature, diaries, statements, telegrams, draft, work papers, paper and magnetic tapes, charts,
`computercards andprintouts, electronically or magnetically stored information or data, minutes,
`
`

`

`publications, calendars, telephonepads, bulletins, directives, logs,listings, texts, messages of any
`kind, including but not limited to WhatsApp, Signal, Viber, and social media posts,
`in your
`actual or constructive possession, custody or control, or of which you have knowledge of the
`existence, and whether prepared, published or released by you or by any other person orentity.
`Without limitation on the foregoing, the term "documents"shall include any copy whichdiffers
`in any respect from the original or other versions of the documents, such as copies containing
`notations, insertions, corrections, marginal notes or any variations.
`
`3.
`
`“Identify” or “Identification” means when used asto:
`
`to state his/her or his/her (i) full and customarily used name(s);
`a) An individual,
`(ii)present or last known homeandbusiness address, including street name and number, city or
`town and zip code;(iii) present or last knownposition, job title and job description;
`
`b) A person other than an individual, to state its (i) legal nameand any other name used
`and type of organizationor entity; (ii) address of principal place of business; and(iii)jurisdiction
`and date of incorporation or organization, if known;
`
`c) Documentsto state (i) the name and date of the document, the name and address of
`the person(s) originating the document, the name and address, if any, of every other recipient(s)
`to whom the document is addressed, the names and addresses ofall other persons having
`knowledge of its contents or whereabouts; and the organization, firm or agency with which any
`such persons were connected as of the date of the document; and (ii) whether You are in
`possession of or have under Your controlthe original or a copy of the document, and,if not in
`possession of an original or copy, the name and address ofthe custodian of each original copy,
`and the name and address of each person who You believe presently is in possession of the
`original or copy of such document. In lieu of identifying particular documents when such
`identification is requested, the document may, at Your option, be