1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FT. LAUDERDALE DIVISION

Case No.: 20-cv-60871-RKA 

ONYX ENTERPRISES INT’L, CORP., a New 

Jersey corporation,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SLOAN INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS CORP, 

a Florida corporation, and JONATHAN SLOAN, 

individually, 

Defendants. 

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDICIAL DEFAULT AFTER 

SUSBSTITUTE SERVICE BY CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL 

Pursuant to Rules 4(e)(2) and 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 

48.161 of the Florida Statues, Plaintiff Onyx Enterprises Int’l, Corp. (“Plaintiff” or “Onyx”), by 

and through undersigned counsel, hereby moves for an entry of default judgment against 

Defendants Sloan International Holdings Corp and Jonathan Sloan. In support thereof, Plaintiff 

states the following: 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. On April 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against both Defendant Sloan 

International and Defendant Sloan, for trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, unfair 

competition, false designation of origin, dilution, and cybersquatting pursuant to the Lanham Act 

(15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq.), and trademark infringement, unfair competition, and deceptive trade 

Case 0:20-cv-60871-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 1 of 8
2 

practices pursuant to the common law of the State of Florida and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair 

Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.204, et seq. [DE 1] 

2. Between May 2, 2020 and May 12, 2020 three attempts of personal service were 

made at 21397 NW 39TH Avenue, Miami Gardens, FL 33055. [DE 14, p. 1.] 

3. After these first three service attempts at 21397 NW 39TH Avenue, Miami 

Gardens, FL 33055, Plaintiff attempted service at a different address. The address used in the next 

attempts was the same address where both Defendants were served in the prior-related action in 

the District Court of Colorado, Case No. 1:19-cv-2992-DDD-KLM. Id. at 2. Between June 6, 2020 

and June 22, 2020 six attempts at personal service were made at 21403 NW 39TH Avenue, Miami 

Gardens, FL 33055. Id. at 3. 

4. After executing new Summons pursuant to Section 48.161 of the Florida Statutes, 

Plaintiff sent a copy of the Complaint and Summons via certified mail to each Defendant in 

separate certified mail envelopes on July 9, 2020. Id. The Summons and Complaint sent to 

Defendant Sloan International via certified mail were received by an individual who signed on its 

behalf on July 18, 2020. Id. at 4. 

5. The USPS attempted delivery of the Summons and Complaint sent to Defendant 

Sloan on July 14, 2020, and upon unsuccessful delivery, returned the envelope to the postal facility 

for pickup. Pursuant to the notice from the USPS, Defendant Jonathon Sloan only had though July 

29, 2020 to pick up the certified letter. Id. Defendant Jonathon Sloan did not pick up the certified 

letter by this date. 

6. The Complaint was sent to both Defendants via certified mail on July 8, 2020, 

which resulted in an unsuccessful delivery attempt on July 14, 2020. Id.

Case 0:20-cv-60871-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 2 of 8
3 

7. The Plaintiff reported these efforts to the Court and sought an order demming the 

Defendants served [DE 14]. On July 29, 2020 the Court entered an Order recognizing the eeforts 

to serve, but ruled that under Florida Law the Plaintiff must amend the complaint to plead the 

efforts of the Defendants to evade personal service of process before substitute service can be 

effective. (Order [DE 16]) 

8. In accordance with the Court’s ruling, the Plaintiff amended the complaint and set 

forth the Defendants efforts to conceal their whereabouts and evade service of process (Am. 

Compl. ¶¶ 12-18 [DE 17]). That same day the Plaintiff sent the certified U.S. Mail the Amended 

complaint to Defendants, which was delivered on August 14, 2020 [DE 14]. 

9. On August 14, 2020, Plaintiff successfully served the Complaint on Defendant 

Sloan, individually and as the registered agent for Defendant Sloan International, via certified mail. 

[DE 18] 

Case 0:20-cv-60871-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 3 of 8
4 

(DE 18-1) 

10. No attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of Defendant Sloan or Defendant 

Sloan International. Neither Defendant has filed any answer or response to Plaintiff’s Complaint, 

pro se or otherwise, despite service of the Complaint being perfected on both Defendants on 

August 14, 2020. 

SUBSTITUTE SERVICE VIA CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL IS WARRANTED AND PROPER

Should a Florida resident conceal his whereabouts to evade service, substituted service may 

be granted as an exception to the general rule that the defendant must be personally served. See

Smith v. Leaman, 826 So. 2d 1077, 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). “The statute contains three 

requirements: (1) the plaintiff must send notice of service and a copy of the process by registered 

or certified mail to the defendant; (2) the plaintiff must file the defendant's return receipt; and (3) 

the plaintiff must file an affidavit of compliance.” Id. If a defendant fails to pick up certified mail 

prior to the postal service deadline, the Court may dispense of the requirement that a plaintiff file 

the return receipt. See Wise v. Warner, 932 So. 2d 591, 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). 

Here, the nine attempts to complete service on Defendants, the completed delivery of the 

letter sent via certified mail on Defendant Sloan International, and Defendant Sloan’s 

unwillingness to pick up the certified letter from the postal service, are all indicative of the 

Defendants in this matter concealing their whereabouts to evade service. See Smith, 826 So. 2d at 

1078. Plaintiff filed the return receipt for service via certified mail on Defendant Sloan 

International on July 23, 2020. [DE 14, p. 4] Despite notice to pick up the certified letter from the 

postal service by July 29, 2020, Defendant Sloan did not pick up the certified letter, and 

accordingly this Court may dispense of the requirement that Plaintiff file the return receipt as to 

Defendant Sloan. See Wise, 932 So. 2d at 593. 

Case 0:20-cv-60871-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 4 of 8
5 

After that the Plaintiff, order Court Order [DE 16], amended the complaint to detail the 

Defendant, both Florida residents, concealing their whereabouts. See e.g. Dixon v.Blanc, 796 F. 

App’x 684, 687 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Fla. Stat. § 48.161(1)). And then successfully delivered 

the Amended Complaint after timely filing it. Therefore, in compliance with Smith v. Leaman, 826 

So. 2d 1077, 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) and Dixon v. Blanc, 796 F. App’x 684, 687 (11th Cir. 2020) 

the Plaintiff adopts and incorporated herein by reference its July 23, 2020 Status Report on Service 

[DE 15] to this Motion as evidence of compliance with the means to effect substitute service of 

process under Fla. Stat. § 48.161(1). Thus, the Plaintiff respectfully request this Court find 

substitute service proper and effective on the Defendants as of August 14, 2020. 

DEFAULT SHOULD BE ENTERED AGAINST BOTH DEFENDANTS

Rule 55(a) provides that “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is 

sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, 

the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 

Neither Defendant in this matter has filed a single pleading in their defense. This is despite 

receipt of the certified letter containing the Summons and Complaint by Defendant Sloan 

International on August 14, 2020. Defendant Sloan and Defendant Sloan International have failed 

to plead or “otherwise defend” against this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). As a result of 

Defendant Sloan’s and Defendant Sloan International’s ongoing failure to failure to participate in 

these proceedings default is proper against both Defendants. See e.g. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois v. 

Mobley, 6:12-CV-651-ORL-37, 2012 WL 4932669, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2012) (“As set forth 

in the motion, Florida law provides for substituted service under the circumstances present here, 

and Safeco has complied with the statutory prerequisites. [citation omitted]. Absent any objection 

Case 0:20-cv-60871-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 5 of 8
6 

from any party and based on the uncontradicted evidence presented, the Court finds the substitute 

service to be appropriate here.”). 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Onyx Enterprises Int’l, Corp. respectfully requests that the Court 

order the Clerk to enter default against Defendant Jonathan Sloan and Defendant Sloan 

International Holdings Corp. after substitute service. 

L.R 7.1(a)(2) CERTIFICATION

Counsel for Onyx attempted to confer with Sloan International Holdings Corp (“Defendant 

Sloan International”) and Jonathan Sloan (“Defendant Sloan”) (collectively “Defendants”) 

regarding the relief requested in this Motion. On September 4, 2020, Counsel for Onyx, Nina P. 

Brewer, emailed Mr. Sloan to confer regarding whether or not Defendant Sloan or Defendant Sloan 

International objected to the relief requested herein. Mrs. Brewer also called and left two 

voicemails at both numbers that Onyx has on record for Defendant Sloan on September 4, 2020. 

Mrs. Brewer has not heard back from Defendant Sloan regarding his position on this issue. 

Considering counsel for Onyx’s previous unsuccessful attempts to confer with Defendant Sloan 

on other issues in this case, it is likely that any further attempts to confer regarding the current 

Motion would similarly be futile. 

VERIFICATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on September 23, 2020. (Signature) 

______________________________ 

Brandon J. Hechtman, Esquire (88652) 

Case 0:20-cv-60871-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 6 of 8
7 

Respectfully submitted, 

______________________________ 

Brandon J. Hechtman, Esquire (88652) 

BHechtman@wickersmith.com 

WICKER SMITH O’HARA 

 McCOY & FORD, P.A. 

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard 

Suite 800 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Telephone: (305) 448-3939 

Facsimile: (305) 441-1745 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Pro Hac Vice 

/s/ Aaron Bradford .

Bradford, Esq. 

Prevot, Esq. 

BRADFORD, LTD 

2701 Lawrence St. 

Denver, CO 80205 

Phone: (303) 325-5467 

Fax: (844) 406-5294 

Aaron@apb-law.com 

Nina@apb-law.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff Onyx Enterprises Int’l, Corp 

Case 0:20-cv-60871-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 7 of 8
8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk 

of Court using the CM/ECF system on September 23, 2020, and the foregoing document is being 

served this day on all counsel or parties of record on the Service List below, either via transmission 

of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those 

counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive Notices of Electronic Filing. 

I hereby certify that on September 23, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

served via email and Mail to: 

SERVICE LIST 

Sloan International Holdings Corp 

21403 NW 39TH Avenue 

Miami Gardens, FL 33055 

Jonathan Sloan 

21403 NW 39TH Avenue 

Miami Gardens, FL 33055 

______________________________ 

Brandon J. Hechtman, Esquire (88652) 

BHechtman@wickersmith.com 

Case 0:20-cv-60871-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/23/2020 Page 8 of 8