IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL
`CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
`CASE NO: 2023-027148-CA-01
`SECTION: CA11
`JUDGE: Spencer Eig
`Avtomoll Trading House LLC
`Plaintiff(s)
`vs.
`Matsenko, Zhanna Valdimirovna
`Defendant(s)
`____________________________/
`FINAL JUDGMENT BY JUDGE
`DOCKET ENTRY #1
`    THIS MATTER came before the Court on a 2-day Non-Jury Trial commencing March 28, 2025
`and continuing on April 11, 2025.  Pursuant to the findings of fact, and evaluating the evidence and
`testimony before the Court, the Court respectfully DENIES to Domestication of Foreign (Russian)
`Judgment. The Plaintiff shall take nothing from this action and the Court reserves jurisdiction to
`enforce this Order and rule on the issues of attorney’s fees.
`THE NATURE OF THE RUSSIAN "JUDGMENT" SUBJECT TO THESE PROCEEDINGS
`    The purported judgment subject to these proceedings imposes “subsidiary liability” in the
`bankruptcy proceeding (Russian case number A19-925/2016) on the several individuals, one of
`whom was the Defendant Zhanna Matsenko.
`    In Russian law, subsidiary liability refers to situations where a person is held liable for the debts
`or actions of another, typically a company.
`    In the instant case, under the Russian law, subsidiary liability refers to the situation where
`Defendant Zhanna Matsenko, along with other parties, found responsible by a Russian bankruptcy
`Case No: 2023-027148-CA-01 Page 1 of 9
`Filing # 221521689 E-Filed 04/22/2025 12:28:22 PM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`court and was held personally liable for ProdTreyd, LLC’s debts to its bankruptcy creditors.
`    The ProdTreyd’s bankruptcy trustee brough an action in case number A19-925/2016 to hold
`several individuals, one of whom was the Defendant Zhanna Matsenko jointly and severally liable
`to ProdTreyd’s creditors for ProdTreyd’s debts under the theory of subsidiary liability.
`    On August 3, 2021, the Russian bankruptcy court found Defendant Zhanna Matsenko subsidiary
`liable for  ProdTreyd’s debts.
`    On January 24, 2023 ProdTreyd  assigned to the Plaintiff, Avtomoll Trading House LLC
`(Avtomoll) the right to recover from the several individuals, one of whom was the Defendant
`Zhanna Matsenko, the amounts ProdTreyd supposedly owes to its creditors as a result of the
`bankruptcy in the Russian case number A19-925/2016.
`    The Plaintiff brought this Action under § 55.601, et seq. Fla. Stat. seeking to enforce a purported
`Russian bankruptcy judgment rendered in the case number A19-925/2016 for the amount of
`841,818,469 rubles, 08 kopecks.
`APPEARANCES FOR THE PARTIES
`    Present at the trial were: Edward Davis, Esq., Maria Cortesi, Esq. and Juan Mendoza, Esq. of
`Sequor Law who represented the Plaintiff, Avtomoll Trading House LLC and Bruce Prober, Esq, of
`The Law Offices of Bruce Prober P.A., who represented who represented Defendant Zhanna
`Valdimirovna Matsenko.
`TESTIFYING WITNESSES
`    On March 28, 2025, after being duly sworn, the following witnesses testified before the Court:
`Defendant Zhanna Valdimirovna Matsenko and the Defendant’s Russian Bankruptcy Law Expert,
`Professor, Doctor of Law, Svetlana Karelina.
`Case No: 2023-027148-CA-01 Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`    It should be noted that on March 28, 2025, the Plaintiff introduced into evidence the judgment it
`was attempting to domesticate against the Defendant and an assignment  of this judgment in the
`Plaintiff’s favor issued by the Russian bankruptcy court. The Plaintiff rested immediately after
`introducing these two exhibits without introducing any witness testimony.
`    On April 11, 2025 after being duly sworn, the following witnesses testified before the Court in
`the Plaintiff’s rebuttal case: the Plaintiff’s corporate representative Aleksey Artyukhov and the
`Plaintiff’s Russian Bankruptcy Law Expert, Mr. Oleg Zaitsev.
`FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`Grounds for Non-Recognition:A.
`    This Court, in evaluating the grounds of Non-Recognition Fla. Stat. § 55.605, finds that the
`following grounds for non-recognition of the judgment the Plaintiff attempted to domesticate
`against this Defendant as these grounds were plead by the Defendant, tried before the Court and the
`Defendant sustained her burden as to the following [1]:
`    1. In accordance with Florida Statute 55.605(2)(c), the cause of action or claim for relief on
`which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state.
`    The Court finds that the Russian concept of “subsidiary liability” is akin Florida’s concept of
`piercing the corporate veil. “Judgment Creditor [in Florda] must prove three elements in order to
`pierce any alleged corporate veil between Judgment Debtors and Impleaded Third Party. First,
`Judgment Creditor must show that Impleaded Third Party dominated and controlled Judgment
`Debtors to such an extent that their independent existence was in fact non-existent. Second,
`Judgment Creditor must show that the corporate form of Judgment Debtors was used fraudulently
`or for an improper purpose.  Third, Judgment Creditor must demonstrate that the fraudulent or
`improper use of the corporate form caused injury to him.” Harbaugh v. Greslin, 436 F. Supp. 2d
`1315, 1321 (S.D. Fla. 2006), aff'd, 218 Fed. Appx. 950 (11th Cir. 2007), applying Florda law and
`Case No: 2023-027148-CA-01 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`citing Seminole Boatyard, Inc. v. Christoph, 715 So.2d 987, 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (emphasis
`added).
`    The Court finds the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that Defendant Zhanna Matsenko 1)
`dominated and controlled ProdTreyd to such an extent that their independent existence was in fact
`non-existent 2) that ProdTreyd’s corporate form was used fraudulently or for an improper purpose
`and 3)  that the fraudulent or improper use of ProdTreyd’s corporate form caused injury to
`Avtomall to warrant the piecing of the corporate veil under Florida law. The Court finds that a
`judgment Avtomall is attempting to enforce what would not be a bankruptcy judgment in Florida
`and that under Florida law, it would not be legal to pierce ProdTreyd’s corporate veil. See In re
`Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 507 B.R. 359. 375 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2014) (applying Florida
`law) (Under Florida law allegations that defendants engaged in fraudulent or improper use of the
`corporate form by creating a sham entity to house third party's liabilities, did not, absent any
`allegations that transfer of the liabilities to sham entity caused plaintiffs' loss or that defendants
`dominated and controlled sham entity, state an alter-ego or veil-piercing claim against defendants,
`even though plaintiffs alleged that defendants, or some of them, controlled third party after the
`subject transactions.)
`    The Court further finds that the existence of the presumption that the “controlling persons”
`actions or inactions caused the insolvency with the controlling person having the initial burden of
`proof  that she was not at fault for the insolvency, does not comport with Florida understanding of
`due process and enforcing a bankruptcy judgment grounded in such a statute is repugnant to Florida
`public policy. See In re Paul C. Larsen, P.A., 610 B.R. 684, 686 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2019) (“the
`Court finds that Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of proving a claim for alter ego liability or for
`piercing Debtor's corporate veil”); Netjets Aviation, Inc. v. Peter Sleiman Dev. Group, LLC, No.
`3:10-CV-483-J-32MCR, 2011 WL 11560026, at *8 (M.D. Fla. June 13, 2011) citing to Barkett v.
`Hardy, 571 So.2d 13, 14 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1990) (fact that corporate formalities were not observed,
`Case No: 2023-027148-CA-01 Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that corporation was a vehicle for the personal interests of the shareholder, that it lacked equity
`capital, and that its affairs were dominated by another did not constitute improper conduct for
`purposes of piercing the corporate veil), Mason v. E. Speer & Associates, Inc., 846 So.2d 529, 534
`(Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (although court found “there [was] sufficient evidence that [defendant]
`improperly converted corporate property to his own use on more than one occasion,” it nevertheless
`held that “[plaintiff] simply did not carry his burden in establishing that these transactions were
`made with a deliberate intent to mislead creditors”). (Empasis added.)
`    2. In accordance with Florida Statute 55.605(2)(d), the judgment may conflict with another
`final and conclusive order.
`    3. The Judgment in question is not final, conclusive and enforceable.
`    The Court finds that the amount of the purported bankruptcy judgment entered in the case
`number A19-925/2016  and dated August 3, 2021 is 841,818,469 rubles, 08 kopecks. However, the
`subsequent order from the same case entered on December 20, 2024 and introduced into evidence
`as Defendant’s Exhibit B, is listing the amount owed to ProdTrade’s creditors at 557,954,209
`rubles 90 kopecks. Even if the August 3, 2021 order is final, it is in clear conflict with an order
`dated December 20, 2024. The amount listed in the December 20, 2024 order is supported by the
`testimony Plaintiff’s corporate representative Aleksey Artyukhov who stated that the amount owed
`to Avtomall is “558 million rubles.”
`    The Court, however, received credible testimony of Defendant’s Russian Bankruptcy Law
`Expert, Professor Svetlana Karelina who testified, inter alia, that the August 3, 2021 order in not a
`final order that can be enforced.
`    4. In accordance with Florida Statute Section 55.605(2)(g), the foreign jurisdiction where
`judgment was rendered would not give recognition to a similar judgment rendered in this
`state.
`    The Court received credible testimony of Defendant’s Russian Bankruptcy Law Expert,
`Professor Svetlana Karelina who testified, in relevant part, that pursuant to the current Russian
`Case No: 2023-027148-CA-01 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Presidential Decree, the United States has been designated as an “unfriendly nation” and that
`Russian courts would not give recognition to a similar bankruptcy court judgment absent  the
`international agreement or the principle of international politeness. Based Professor Karelina’s
`testimony,  the Court finds that presently there is no international agreement or the principle of
`international politeness that will make the Russian courts enforce similar American judgments. The
`Court further  finds that the Russian courts would not give recognition to a similar bankruptcy
`judgment rendered by the United States bankruptcy court.
`    5. The Judgment in question cannot be enforced outside of the Russian Federation in
`contravention of Russian law.
`    The Defendant, Zhanna Matsenko testified that the Russian bankruptcy court did not make a
`separate ruling regarding her property subject to the bankruptcy proceedings located outside of the
`Russian Federation. Professor Svetlana Karelina testified that in order for Defendant, Zhanna
`Matsenko’s property which lies outside of the Russian Federation to become a subject to the
`foreign judgment enforcement proceeding, pursuant to “ Section 1 of Statute 213.26 [of the Russian
`Federal Statutes] “ a separate court decision needs to be rendered [by the Russian Court]. In order
`to act upon this decision, you need to act according to the rules of the procedural law of the
`government where that property is located, or in compliance with the international agreement of
`Russian Federation with the government or country where that property is located.”
`    Having not received evidence to the contrary, the Court finds that the Plaintiff failed to follow
`Section 1 of Statute 213.26 [of the Russian Federal Statutes] to make Defendant, Zhanna
`Matsenko’s property located in Florida subject to the Uniform Out-of-Country Foreign Money-
`Judgment Recognition Act.
`    B. Analysis of Expert Witnesses:
`    The Expert Witness testifying for Plaintiff was Mr. Oleg Zaitsev.
`Case No: 2023-027148-CA-01 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`    The Expert Witness testifying for Defendant was Professor Svetlana Karelina.
`    Mr. Oleg Zaitsev:
`    Plaintiff’s corporate representative Aleksey Artyukhov on cross-examination testified that Mr.
`Zaitsev is Avtomoll’s bankruptcy attorney. Furthermore, on the cross-examination Mr. Zaitsev
`admitted that he is Avtomoll’s bankruptcy who bills Avtomoll at $500 per hour for his legal
`services. Mr. Zaitsev also testified that he is Avtomoll’s Russian bankruptcy law expert who bills
`Avtomoll $500 per hour for his services as an expert. Mr. Zaitsev further testified that he took two
`separate retainers from Avtomoll, one as a bankruptcy attorney and the other as a legal expert. The
`Court finds that Mr. Zaitsev’s duty to Avtomoll as the Avtomoll’s bankruptcy attorney of zealous
`representation of his client is incompatible with his duty as an expert to provide impartial and
`specialized knowledge to assist the court in understanding the substance and implication of the
`relevant Russian bankruptcy statutes. See Gordon v. Smith, 615 So. 2d 843, 844 (Fla. 4th DCA
`1993).
`    (“General scientific recognition requires the testimony of impartial experts or scientists. It is this
`independent and impartial proof of general scientific acceptability that provides the necessary Frye
`foundation.”) (Internal citations omitted. Emphasis added.)  The law is clear that a finder of fact
`may judge the persuasiveness and credibility of an expert's testimony and apply his own knowledge
`and experience when weighing opinion evidence. See Russo v. Heil Construction Inc., 549 So.2d
`676, 677 (Fla. 5th DCA1989). The Court, therefore, does not find Mr. Zaitsev’s expert testimony
`credible and/or reliable and does not accept any of Mr. Zaitsev’s expert testimony. When an expert
`has been hired and called to testify by one of the adversaries to a contested proceeding, there is
`nothing unreasonable or improper with the fact finder declining to accept the testimony of such an
`expert. See Ramirez v. State, 651 So. 2d 1164, 1167 (Fla. 1995) (“[T]he judge may then allow the
`expert to render an opinion on the subject of his or her expertise, and it is then up to the [trier of
`fact] to determine the credibility of the expert's opinion, which it may either accept or reject.”),
`Case No: 2023-027148-CA-01 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`relying on and citing  Wuornos v. State, 644 So.2d 1000, 1010 (Fla.1994) (“[T]he finder of fact is
`not necessarily required to accept [expert] testimony.”)
`    Professor Svetlana Karelina:
`    Professor Kareliana testified, inter alia, that she has a PhD in legal studies and that she teaches
`bankruptcy and business law at the Moscow State University, Faculty of Legal Studies. The
`Plaintiff did not object to Professor Karelina rendering her expert opinion which this Court found
`competent and reliable in rendering a ruling in this matter.
`HOLDING OF THE COURT
`    WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff’s Action for Domestication of the
`Foreign Judgment is respectfully Denied. The Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce this Order, as
`well as adjudicate any claim of attorney’s fees.
` 
`[1] “The party seeking enforcement has the initial burden of proof that the judgment is final,
`conclusive, and enforceable where rendered. [Once the Plaintiff  satisfies this burden], [the] burden
`[then] shifts to Defendants to establish one or more grounds for non-recognition.” Osorio v. Dole
`Food Co., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1324 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (applying Florida law).
`DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 22nd day of April,
`2025.
`2023-027148-CA-01 04-22-2025 12:15 PM
`Hon. Spencer Eig
`CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
`Electronically Signed
`Case No: 2023-027148-CA-01 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`Final Order as to All Parties SRS #: 3 (Non-Jury Trial)
`THE COURT DISMISSES THIS CASE AGAINST ANY PARTY NOT LISTED IN THIS
`FINAL ORDER OR PREVIOUS ORDER(S). THIS CASE IS CLOSED AS TO ALL PARTIES.
`Electronically Served:
`Bruce Prober, bprober@proberlaw.com
`Joel B. Blumberg, joel@creditorcollections.com
`Joel B. Blumberg, amanda@creditorcollections.com
`Juan Jose Mendoza, jmendoza@sequorlaw.com
`Juan Jose Mendoza, ngonzalez@sequorlaw.com
`Maria Jose Gonzalez, mgonzalez@sequorlaw.com
`Maria Jose Gonzalez, mariajgonzesq@gmail.com
`Maria Jose Gonzalez, jdiaz@sequorlaw.com
`Zhanna Matsenko, 18449fl@gmail.com
`Zhanna Vladirmirovna Matsenko, 18449fl@gmail.com
` 
`Physically Served:
`Case No: 2023-027148-CA-01 Page 9 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`