1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 9:20-cv-80705-RKA

APAVILLE LLC, WILTON NARROWS 

LLC, BRIDGETOWN LLC, PAVEL 

LABUSOV and ALINA LABUSOVA, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

FIRST CITIZENS BANK, LEGACY BANK OF 

FLORIDA, TD BANK, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, OAKES CAPITAL LLC, 

FLETCHER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 

LLC, WILLIAM DONALD REDFERN, 

JOANNE GALY, ROBERT ASADULLIN, 

ANDREY Y. STRIGIN and SIMON 

KIZHNER,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED1 MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING 

ALTERNATE SERVICE OF PROCESS ON DEFENDANTS WILLIAM 

DONALD REDFERN, ROBERT ASADULLIN AND ANDREY Y. STRIGIN 

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(f)(3) AND 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Plaintiffs, APAVILLE LLC, WILTON NARROWS LLC, BRIDGETOWN LLC, 

PAVEL LABUSOV and ALINA LABUSOVA, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby 

respectfully move this Honorable Court for an Order authorizing alternate service of process on 

Defendants WILLIAM DONALD REDFERN (hereinafter “REDFERN”), ROBERT 

ASADULLIN (hereinafter “ASADULLIN”), and ANDREY Y. STRIGIN (hereinafter 

“STRIGIN”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), and in support thereof 

respectfully state as follows:

1 Amended to change URL of Plaintiffs’ Website to apavillelawsuit.com in order to address Defendant First Citizens 

Bank’s objections to the original URL. Content should be migrated to apavillelawsuit.com by the end of the day.

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 1 of 16
2

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants REDFERN, ASADULLIN, and STRIGIN (hereinafter collectively referred to as 

“Defendants”) engaged in a fraudulent scheme to pilfer the proceeds of fraudulently obtained 

mortgages acquired without the true owners’ consent or authorization. Under the fraudulent 

scheme, Mr. and Mrs. Labusov (hereinafter, “LABUSOVS”) who are the true owners of 

APAVILLE, LLC, BRIDGETOWN, LLC, DEERK, LLC, MEADOWLAND ESTATE, LLC, 

and TOWNTRADE, LLC (hereinafter “Companies”) were persuaded to give APAVILLE, LLC 

(which in turn owns the remaining the remaining Companies) to OAKES CAPITAL LLC as 

collateral for a line of credit pursuant to a Credit Facility Agreement. OAKES CAPITAL was not 

allowed to encumber any of the properties. Unbeknownst to the LABUSOVS, and without their 

permission, OAKES CAPITAL LLC began using the properties as their own and secured a 

number of loans and mortgages from banks leveraging the properties. 

Defendants are the principals and agents of OAKES CAPITAL and FLETCHER CAPITAL 

MANAGEMENT LLC who carried out the fraudulent scheme and who absconded with both the 

mortgage proceeds and payments that paid off the credit line. Defendants are concealing their 

whereabouts outside of the United States.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), Plaintiffs request an order authorizing 

service of process on Defendants via electronic mail (“e-mail”) and via website posting with 

additional copies served on Defendants on any and all known Whatsapp accounts, local Florida 

P.O. Boxes, and local Florida counsel. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a list of known e-mail 

addresses, Whatsapp accounts, P.O. Boxes and local counsel. 

E-mail and posting on a designated website are appropriate and necessary in this case, 

because Defendants (1) operate via the Internet; and (2) rely on electronic communications to 

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 2 of 16
3

operate their businesses and carry out their fraudulent scheme. As such, Plaintiffs have the ability 

to contact Defendants directly and provide notice of Plaintiffs’ claims against them electronically 

via e-mail to Defendants’ known e-mail addresses. Additionally, Plaintiffs have created a 

website where it will be posting copies of the Complaint and all other documents filed in this 

action. To ensure Defendants’ knowledge of the instant lawsuit, in a redundant abundance of 

caution, additional copies can be served on any and all known Whatsapp accounts, local Florida 

P.O. Boxes, and local Florida counsel (hereinafter, “Supplementary Service Methods”). Plaintiffs 

respectfully submit that an Order allowing service of process and service of all filings via e-mail, 

by posting on a designated website and by the Supplementary Service Methods will benefit all 

parties and the Court by ensuring Defendants receive immediate notice of the pendency of this 

action and shall allow this action to move forward expeditiously. Absent the ability to serve 

Defendants by the afore-mentioned methods, Plaintiffs will almost certainly be left without the 

ability to pursue a remedy.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Defendants Have Valid Means of Electronic Contact.

Defendants carry on their business and fraudulent schemes through the internet, and use 

e-mail as a means of communication. Specifically, Defendants are able to receive notice of this 

action electronically via e-mail to Defendants’ e-mail addresses. As a practical matter, it is 

necessary for individuals who operate entirely online, such as Defendants, to provide accurate 

means by which they may be contacted so as to carry on their businesses and fraudulent 

schemes. Additionally, Plaintiff has created a serving notice website that will be appearing at the 

URL apavillelawsuit.com (“Plaintiffs’ Website”), such that anyone accessing Plaintiffs’ Website 

will find copies of all documents filed in this action. 

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 3 of 16
4

Each Defendant will be provided with notice of this action electronically via e-mail by 

attaching the documents to be served, as well as providing the address to Plaintiffs’ designated 

serving notice website to the e-mail addresses. In this manner, Defendants will receive a web 

address at which they can access all electronic filings to view, print, or download any document 

filed in the case similar to the court’s CM/ECF procedures. 

Furthermore, Plaintiffs will be able to provide each Defendant notice of this action via 

public announcement on Plaintiffs’ designated website. Plaintiffs have created its Website that 

will be appearing at the URL apavillelawsuit.com, whereon copies of the Complaint, and all 

other pleadings, orders, and documents on file will be posted, such that anyone accessing 

Plaintiffs’ Website will find copies of all documents filed in this action. The address for 

Plaintiffs’ Website will be provided to Defendants via their known e-mail accounts, and will be 

included as part of service of process in this matter. 

Additionally, the Supplementary Service Methods are also valid and reliable methods of 

electronic contact to ensure Defendants’ knowledge of the instant lawsuit. Unless disabled, 

Whatsapp shows a user’s last login. Therefore, it is established that Defendant REDFERN is 

active on his Whatsapp account and may be contacted in such manner. Defendants REDFERN 

and STRIGIN also use local Florida P.O. Boxes in furtherance of their business and fraudulent 

schemes. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a Sunbiz print-out evidencing Defendant 

REDFERN’s use of the P.O. Box at 7750 Okeechobee Blvd., #4571, West Palm Beach, FL 

33411 supporting that such P.O. Box is a valid means of communicating with Defendant 

REDFERN. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is an Articles of Amendment evidencing Defendant 

STRIGIN’s use of the P.O. Box at 170 NE 2ND Street, #294083, Boca Raton, FL 33429 

supporting that such P.O. Box is a valid means of communicating with Defendant STRIGIN. In 

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 4 of 16
5

addition to the foregoing, Defendant REDFERN also has local Florida counsel representing him 

in a matter against the Internal Revenue Service before the Honorable Judge Moore. Attached 

hereto as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the docket demonstrating that David Stuart Seltzer, Esq., is 

local counsel of record for Defendant REDFERN in a matter pending before a Court in this 

District. Clearly, serving a copy of the documents upon Defendant’s local counsel would ensure 

that Defendant has knowledge of the pending lawsuit.

B. Defendants Rely on Electronic Communications.

Defendants have structured their business and fraudulent scheme so that victims who believe 

that Defendants are operating a lawful financial company communicate with Defendants by 

electronic mail. Defendants also use such electronic means to communicate with the banks from 

which they obtain the fraudulent mortgages, and with their co-conspirators. Defendants not only 

use electronic means to communicate, but also to transmit documents for review, to sign,

executed documents, as well as other information in furtherance of their fraudulent scheme. 

Clearly, Defendants rely on electronic means as a reliable form of contact.

III. ARGUMENT 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), allows a district court to authorize an alternate 

method for service to be effected upon a foreign defendant, provided that it is not prohibited by 

international agreement and is reasonably calculated to give notice to the defendant. In the 

present matter, alternate service of process by e-mail and by posting on Plaintiff’s Website are 

appropriate given that Defendants have established extensive businesses which rely on electronic 

communication for their operation. Accordingly, this Court should permit service on Defendants 

by e-mail and website posting. 

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 5 of 16
6

A. The Court May Authorize Service via E-mail and Website Posting Pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) allows alternative methods for service of process, so 

long as those methods are not prohibited by international agreement and are directed by the

Court. See Prewitt Enters., Inc. v. The Org. of Petrol. Exporting Countries, 353 F.3d 916, 923 

(11th Cir. 2003). See also Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Case No. 05-CIV21962, 2007 WL 1577771, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2007); Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 

284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). In fact, “as long as court-directed and not prohibited by an 

international agreement, service of process ordered under Rule 4(f)(3) may be accomplished in 

contravention of the laws of the foreign country.” Chanel, Inc. v. Zhixian, 2010 WL 1740695, at 

*2 (quoting Rio Props., Inc., 284 F.3d at 1014 and citing Mayoral–Amy v. BHI Corp., 180 

F.R.D. 456, 459 n.4 (S.D. Fla. 1998)). 

The plain language of Rule 4(f)(3) reflects that the decision to issue an order allowing an 

alternate means of service lies within the sole discretion of the District Court. Prewitt Enters., 

Inc., 353 F.3d at 921; Rio Props., Inc., 284 F.3d at 1116. See, e.g., Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 2007 

WL 1577771, at *2 (noting that “district courts have broad discretion under Rule 4(f)(3) to 

authorize other methods of service”); In re Int’l Telemedia Assocs., 245 B.R. 713, 720 (N.D. Ga. 

2000) (noting that Rule 4(f)(3) is designed to allow courts discretion and broad flexibility to 

tailor the methods of service for a particular case). Rule 4 does not require a party attempt 

service of process by those methods enumerated under subsections (f)(1) and (f)(2), including by 

diplomatic channels and letters rogatory, before petitioning the court for alternative relief under 

subsection 4(f)(3). Rio Props., Inc., 284 F.3d at 1114-15; see also Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 2007 

WL 1577771, at *1. In Brookshire, the Honorable Judge Marcia G. Cooke allowed substitute 

service on a party’s attorney pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) holding as follows: 

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 6 of 16
7

Rule 4(f)(3) is one of three separately numbered subsections in Rule 4(f) and each 

subsection is separated from the one previous merely by the simple conjunction ‘or.’ 

Rule 4(f)(3) is not subsumed within or in any way dominated by Rule 4(f)’s other 

subsections; it stands independently, on equal footing. Moreover, no language in 

Rules 4(f)(1) or 4(f)(2) indicates the primacy, and certainly Rule 4(f)(3) indicates no 

qualifiers or limitations which indicate its availability only after attempting service 

of process by other means. 

Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 2007 WL 1577771, at *1 (quoting Rio Props., Inc., 284 F.3d at 1015). 

Accord TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Bitton, 278 F.R.D. 687, 692 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2012) (noting 

that, in regards to Rule 4(f)(3), “there is no indication from the plain language of the Rule that 

the three subsections, separated by the disjunctive “or,” are meant to be read as a hierarchy.”) 

Judge Cooke further held, “[t]he invocation of Rule 4(f)(3), therefore, is neither a last resort nor 

extraordinary relief.” Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 2007 WL 1577771, at *2. 

Additionally, the Constitution itself does not mandate that service be effectuated in any 

particular way. Rather, Constitutional due process considerations require only that the method of

service selected be “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested 

parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their 

objections.” (emphasis added) Brookshire Bros., Ltd., 2007 WL 1577771, at *1 (quoting 

Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)); see also TracFone 

Wireless, Inc., 278 F.R.D. at 692; Rio Props., Inc., 284 F.3d at 1016. Accordingly, federal courts 

have allowed a variety of alternative service methods, including service by e-mail and service by 

posting on a designated website, where a plaintiff demonstrates the likelihood that the proposed 

alternative method of service will notify a defendant of the pendency of the action. See, e.g., Rio 

Props., Inc., 284 F.3d at 1017 (holding, “without hesitation,” that e-mail service of an online 

business defendant “was constitutionally acceptable”); In re Int’l Telemedia Assocs., 245 B.R. at 

721 (“If any methods of communication can be reasonably calculated to provide a defendant 

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 7 of 16
8

with real notice, surely those communication channels utilized and preferred by the defendant 

himself must be included among them.”); National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. 

v. Does, 584 F. Supp. 2d 824, 826 (W.D.N.C. 2008) (in “acknowledging the realities of the 

twenty-first century and the information age, the Court determined that the most appropriate 

place for publication was [Plaintiff’s Website].”). 

Here, service on Defendants by e-mail and/or by posting on Plaintiffs’ Website will satisfy 

due process by apprising them of the action and giving them the opportunity to answer Plaintiff’s 

claims. Plaintiffs have verified that each Defendant has at least one form of electronic means of 

contact, demonstrating that this means of contact is not just effective, but the most reliable means 

of communicating with that Defendant, and consequently, the most reliable means of providing 

Defendants with notice of this action. Moreover, service by posting on Plaintiffs’ Website will be 

an additional source of reliability as Defendants will be able to see copies of the Complaint and 

all other documents in this matter electronically via their Internet browser. The suggested 

methods are the most reliable means of providing Defendants with notice of this action. 

E-mail service is appropriate and constitutionally acceptable in a case such as this when the 

plaintiff has proven that e-mail is the most effective means of providing the defendant notice of 

the action. See Rio Props., Inc., 284 F.3d at 1017 (concluding “not only that service of process 

by e-mail was proper—that is, reasonably calculated to apprise [the defendant] of the pendency 

of the action and afford it an opportunity to respond—but in this case, it was the method of 

service most likely to reach [the defendant].”). See also Popular Enters., LLC v. Webcom Media 

Group, Inc., 225 F.R.D. 560, 562 (E.D. Tenn. 2004) (“Under the facts and circumstances 

presented here, Rule 4(f)(3) clearly authorizes the court to direct service upon defendant by email. The rule is expressly designed to provide courts with broad flexibility in tailoring methods 

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 8 of 16
9

of service to meet the needs of particularly difficult cases. Such flexibility necessarily includes 

the utilization of modern communication technologies to effect service when warranted by the 

facts.”) (citation omitted). The Rio Properties, Inc. and Popular Enters., LLC courts each 

determined e-mail service to be appropriate in part because, as in this case, the defendants 

conduct their business online, use e- mail in their business, and encourage parties to contact them 

via e-mail. 

A number of Courts have held that alternate forms of service pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3), such 

as e-mail service, are appropriate and may be the only means of effecting service of process 

“when faced with an international e-business scofflaw.” Rio Props., Inc., 284 F.3d at 1018; see 

also Chanel, Inc. v. Zhixian, 2010 WL 1740695, at *3 (e-mail service “reasonably calculated to 

notify Defendants of the pendency of this action and provide him with an opportunity to present 

objections.”); TracFone Wireless, Inc., 278 F.R.D. at 693 (finding that service of process by email was reasonably calculated to apprise the defendants of the action and give it an opportunity 

to respond); Popular Enters., LLC, 225 F.R.D. at 563 (same); In re Int’l Telemedia Associates, 

245 B.R. at 722 (“A defendant should not be allowed to evade service by confining himself to 

modern technological methods of communication not specifically mentioned in the Federal 

Rules. Rule 4(f)(3) appears to be designed to prevent such gamesmanship by a party.” 

(concluding e-mail and facsimile service to be appropriate)); Chanel, Inc. v. Zhibing, Case No. 

09-cv-02835, 2010 WL 1009981, at *4 (W.D. Tenn. March 17, 2010) (stating that e-mail service 

has the “greatest likelihood” of reaching e-commerce merchants and noting, “The federal 

judiciary’s own CM/ECF system alerts parties . . . by e-mail messages.” Alternate service via eCase 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 9 of 16
10

mail granted).2 Plaintiff submits that allowing e-mail service in the present case is appropriate 

and comports with constitutional notions of due process, particularly given Defendants’ decision 

to conduct their fraudulent scheme using the Internet and utilizing e-mail as a primary means of 

communication. 

Additionally, service of a defendant by posting on a designated website, such as a plaintiff’s 

website, has been deemed an appropriate means of service by website posting. See National 

Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, 584 F. Supp. 2d at 826.3 A proposed method of website 

posting need only be “reasonably calculated under all the circumstances, to apprise interested 

parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” 

2 See Chanel, Inc. v. bestaaachanel.com, Case No. 18-cv-63018-BB (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2018) 

(Order granting alternative service, inter alia, via e-mail); S.A.S. Jean Cassegrain v. 

bagsoutlet.us, Case No. 18-cv-62933-BB (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2018) (same); Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. 

discountiffany.com, Case No. 18-cv-62831-BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2018) (same); adidas AG v. 

2017yeezy.com, Case No. 18-cv-62636-BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2018) (same); Richemont 

International SA v. montblancpenseshop.co, Case No. 18-cv-62421-BB (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2018) 

(same); Gucci America, Inc. v. 1a-dignass.de, Case No. 18-cv-60899-BB (S.D. Fla. May 7, 

2018) (same); see also Chanel, Inc. v. bestbuyhandbag.com, No. 14-cv-62191-RLR, 2014 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 177735 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2014) (same); Under Armour, Inc. v. 51nfljersey.com, 

No. 13–cv-62809-RSR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20439 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2014) (same). 

3 See Chanel, Inc. v. bestaaachanel.com, Case No. 18-cv-63018-BB (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2018) 

(Order granting alternative service via e-mail and by posting on plaintiff’s designated website); 

S.A.S. Jean Cassegrain v. bagsoutlet.us, Case No. 18-cv-62933-BB (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2018) 

(same); Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. discountiffany.com, Case No. 18-cv-62831-BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 

2018) (same); adidas AG v. 2017yeezy.com, Case No. 18-cv-62636-BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2018) 

(same); Richemont International SA v. montblancpenseshop.co, Case No. 18-cv-62421-BB (S.D. 

Fla. Oct. 15, 2018) (same); Audemars Piguet Holding SA v. 1forclock.ru, Case No. 18-cv60351-BB (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2018) (same); Chanel, Inc. v. icheapgrandtrade.ru, Case No. 17-

cv- 61179-BB (S.D. Fla. June 15, 2017) (same); see also Chanel, Inc. v. bestbuyhandbag.com, 

No. 14-cv-62191-RLR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177735 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2014) (same); Under 

Armour, Inc. v. 51nfljersey.com, No. 13–cv-62809-RSR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20439 (S.D. 

Fla. Feb. 19, 2014) (same). See also Chanel, Inc. v. 2creplicachanel.com, Case No. 19-cv-60153-

WPD (S.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2019) (same); Chanel, Inc. v. chanelpurse.ru, Case No. 18-cv-62500-

PCH (S.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2018) (same); Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. 98lvshop.com, Case No. 

18- cv-62351-JIC (S.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2018) (same). 

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 10 of 16
11

National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, 584 F. Supp. 2d at 826 (citing Mullane v. Cent. 

Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315-16, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950)).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have created its Website appearing at the URL apavillelawsuit.com, 

whereon copies of the Complaint, and all other pleadings, orders, and documents on file in this 

action will be posted. The address for Plaintiffs’ Website will be provided to each Defendant via 

its known e-mail accounts, and will be included as part of service of process in this matter. 

Posting the Summonses and Complaint on Plaintiffs’ Website appearing at the URL 

apavillelawsuit.com will provide notice to Defendants sufficient to meet the due process 

requirements for service of process and notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, 

apprise Defendants of the pendency of the action, and afford Defendants and any other interested 

parties an opportunity to present their answers and objections. 

B. Service of Process Via Electronic Means Are Not Prohibited by International 

Agreement.

Service via e-mail and via posting on a designated website are not prohibited by 

international agreement. Based upon belief and information, Plaintiffs have good cause to 

suspect Defendants are all residing in and/or carrying on their fraudulent schemes from the 

Russian Federation (“Russia”), Republic of Cyprus (“Cyprus”), Czech Republic, or other foreign 

countries. Russia, Cyprus, Czech Republic and the United States are signatories to the Hague 

Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and 

Commercial Matters (the “Hague Service Convention”). However, the Hague Service 

Convention does not preclude the Court from authorizing service of process via e-mail or posting 

on a designated website. 

Alternative means of service, such as e-mail and website posting, are not prohibited by 

the Hague Service Convention where a signatory nation has not expressly objected to those 

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 11 of 16
12

means. See Stat Med. Devices, Inc. v. HTL-Strefa, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-20590-FAM, 2015 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 122000 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 14, 2015) (noting that an objection to the alternative forms 

of service set forth in the Hague Convention is limited to the forms of service expressly objected 

to).4 Article 10 to the Hague Service Convention allows service of process through means other 

than a signatory’s Central Authority, such as “postal channels” and “judicial officers,” provided 

the State of destination does not object to those means. See Hague Convention, Art. 10, 20 

U.S.T. 361 (1969). Russia and Czech Republic has objected to the alternative means of service 

outlined in Article 10 of the Convention. (Declarations attached hereto as Exhibit “E”) However, 

that objection is specifically limited to the means of service enumerated in Article 10, and Russia 

and Czech Republic have not expressly objected to service via e-mail or website posting. Cyprus 

has not objected. Because the declarations to the Hague Convention filed by Russia, Czech 

Republic and Cyprus do not object to e-mail and website posting service, “a court acting under 

Rule 4(f)(3) remains free to order alternative means of service that are not specifically referenced 

in Article [10].” Gurung v. Malhotra, 279 F.R.D. 215, 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also WhosHere, 

Inc. v. Orun, Case No. 13-cv-00526-AJT, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22084, at *9 (E.D. Va. Feb. 20, 

4 See also Chanel, Inc. v. bestaaachanel.com, Case No. 18-cv-63018-BB (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 

2018) (authorizing service by e-mail and by posting on plaintiff’s designated website, noting an 

objection to the alternative means of service provided by the Hague Convention “is expressly 

limited to those means and does not represent an objection to other forms of service, such e-mail 

or website posting.”); S.A.S. Jean Cassegrain v. bagsoutlet.us, Case No. 18-cv-62933-BB (S.D. 

Fla. Dec. 5, 2018) (same); Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. discountiffany.com, Case No. 18-cv-62831-BB 

(S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2018) (same); adidas AG v. 2017yeezy.com, Case No. 18-cv-62636-BB (S.D. 

Fla. Nov. 5, 2018) (same); Richemont International SA v. montblancpenseshop.co, Case No. 18-

cv-62421-BB (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2018) (same); Chanel, Inc. v. amasek, Case No. 18-cv- 62304-

BB (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2018) (same); see also Chanel, Inc. v. chanelpurse.ru, Case No. 18-cv62500-PCH (S.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2018) (authorizing service of process on foreign defendants by email and by posting on plaintiff’s designated website despite China’s and Russia’s objection to 

Article 10); Chanel, Inc. v. chanel.mcm, Case No. 18-cv-62477-WPD (S.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2018) 

(same); The North Face Apparel Corp. v. 1501891, Case No. 18-cv-62046- JEM (S.D. Fla. Sept. 

4, 2018) (same).

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 12 of 16
13

2014) (authorizing e-mail service, noting objection to means of service listed in Article 10 “is 

specifically limited to the enumerated means of service in Article 10.”). 

Moreover, an objection to the alternative means of service provided in Article 10 does 

not represent a per se objection to other forms of service, such e-mail or website posting. See In 

re S. African Apartheid Litig., 643 F. Supp. 2d 423, 434, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (requiring express 

objection to alternative method of service by signatory nation to preclude that particular means 

of service). Consequently, Russia’s and Czech Republic’s objection to the means of alternative 

service provided in Article 10 is no bar to court-directed service and does not prevent this Court 

from authorizing alternative service of process via e-mail or website posting. See, e.g., Gurung, 

279 F.R.D. at 220 (approving service of process on foreign defendants via e-mail despite India’s 

objection to Article 10, stating that an “objection to service through postal channels does not 

amount to an express rejection of service via electronic mail.”); Stat Med. Devices, Inc., 2015 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122000, at *8-9 (permitting service of process on foreign defendants via e-mail 

and substituted service on domestic counsel despite Poland’s objection to Article 10, noting 

“This Court and many other federal courts have permitted service by electronic mail and 

determined that an objection to Article 10 of the Hague Convention . . . does not equate to an 

express objection to service via electronic mail.”); FTC v. PCCare247 Inc., Case No. 12-cv7189-PAE, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31969, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. March 7, 2013) (authorizing service 

of process via email and Facebook, explaining that “Numerous courts have held that service by 

email does not violate any international agreement where the objections of the recipient nation 

are limited to those means enumerated in Article 10.”); WhosHere, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

22084 (authorizing service of process on foreign defendants via e-mail despite Turkey’s 

objection to Article 10); Richmond Techs., Inc. v. Aumtech Bus. Solutions, Case No. 11-CVCase 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 13 of 16
14

02460-LHK, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71269 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2011) (“[N]umerous courts have 

authorized alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) even where the Hague Convention applies. This 

is true even in cases involving countries that, like India, have objected to the alternative forms of 

service permitted under Article 10 of the Hague Convention.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court grant the 

present motion and authorize service of the Summonses, Complaint, and all filings and discovery 

in this matter upon Defendants WILLIAM DONALD REDFERN, ROBERT ASADULLIN, and 

ANDREY Y. STRIGIN: 

(1) via e-mail by attaching the documents to the e-mail, and providing the address to 

Plaintiffs’ designated serving notice website to Defendants via the e-mail addresses as identified 

on Exhibit “A” hereto; 

(2) via website posting by posting a copy of the Complaint, Summonses, and all filings and 

discovery in this matter on Plaintiffs’ designated serving notice website appearing at the URL 

apavillelawsuit.com; and

(3) additional copies to be served on Defendants on any and all known Whatsapp accounts, 

local Florida P.O. Boxes, and local Florida counsel as identified on Exhibit “A” hereto.

Dated this July 9, 2020.

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 14 of 16
15

Respectfully submitted,

By: Ronnette Gleizer

Ronnette Gleizer, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 87417

CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM, P.A.

2875 NE 191 Street

Suite 500

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: (917) 559-8999

Email: rona@civiljusticefirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 15 of 16
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 9:20-cv-80705-RKA

APAVILLE LLC, WILTON NARROWS 

LLC, BRIDGETOWN LLC, PAVEL 

LABUSOV and ALINA LABUSOVA, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

FIRST CITIZENS BANK, LEGACY BANK OF 

FLORIDA, TD BANK, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION, OAKES CAPITAL LLC, 

FLETCHER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 

LLC, WILLIAM DONALD REDFERN, 

JOANNE GALY, ROBERT ASADULLIN, 

ANDREY Y. STRIGIN and SIMON 

KIZHNER,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9h day of July 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 

served this day on all counsel of record, corporations, or pro se parties, either via transmission of 

Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or via U.S. Mail for those counsel or parties 

who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

By: Ronnette Gleizer

Ronnette Gleizer, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 87417

CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM, P.A.

2875 NE 191 STREET

Suite 500

Aventura, Florida 33180

Telephone: (917) 559-8999

Email: rona@civiljusticefirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 9:20-cv-80705-RKA Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 16 of 16