1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 ) 

 ) Case No.: 20-Civ-21887-GAYLES 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING ) 

COMMISSION, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 vs. ) 

 ) 

DANIEL FINGERHUT, ) 

DIGITAL PLATINUM, INC., ) 

DIGITAL PLATINUM, LLC, HUF ) 

MEDIYA, LTD ) 

(a.k.a HOOF MEDIA LTD.), TAL VALAROLA ) 

and ) 

ITAY BARAK ) 

 ) 

 Defendants, ) 

 ) 

 ) 

AICEL CARBONERO ) 

 ) 

 Relief Defendant. ) 

__________________________________________) 

PLAINTIFF’S EXPEDITED MOTION AND INCORPORATED 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE FOR HUF 

MEDIYA (A.K.A. HOOF MEDIA LTD) OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR 

EXPEDITED LIMITED DISCOVERY 

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and (h)(2) and 26(d), 

Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission or CFTC”) 

respectfully requests that this Court authorize alternative service via email for 

Defendant Huf Mediya (a.k.a. Hoof Media Ltd., “Huf”) or in the alternative, to order 

expedited limited discovery related to Huf. In support of this motion, the 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 1 of 20
2 

Commission states the following: 

1. On May 4, 2020, the Commission filed a Complaint for Injunctive 

and Other Equitable Relief alleging core violations of the Act and the 

Commission’s Regulations involving fraud against Defendants Daniel Fingerhut 

(“Fingerhut”), Tal Valariola (“Valariola”), Itay Barak (“Barak”), Digital Platinum 

Ltd. (“’DPL”), Digital Platinum, Inc. (“DPI”), Huf, and Relief Defendant Aicel 

Carbonero. (ECF No. 1.) As set forth in the Complaint, Defendants’ conduct 

violated multiple sections of core anti-fraud provisions of the Act and Commission 

Regulations, specifically, Sections 4c(b), 4o, 6(c)(1) and 6(c)(2), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6c(b), 

6o, 9(1), 9(2) (2018) and Regulations 32.4 180.1(a)(1)-(3) and 180.1(a)(2), 17 

C.F.R. §§ 32.4, 180.1 (a)(1)-(3) and 180.1(a)(2) (2019). (Id.) 

2. The day after filing its Complaint, the Commission filed an 

Expedited Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Motion for PI”) an Expedited 

Motion for Appointment of a Temporary Receiver (“Motion”), and an Expedited 

Motion for Expedited Discovery. (ECF Nos. ECF Nos. 11-14.) The evidence 

submitted in support of the motions makes clear that Huf, Valariola, Barak, and 

DPL (“Israeli Defendants”) (and/or their employees and/or agents) conducted a 

massive fraudulent solicitation scheme out of the United States for years. (See 

generally ECF Nos. 71, 71-1.) 

3. The Complaint alleges that Barak and Valariola owned and/or 

controlled Huf, a business entity located in Sophia Bulgaria. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 21, 23-

24.) According to Fingerhut and another DPI manager, Jay Passerino, DPL, DPI, 

and Huf are interchangeable and all entities are owned or controlled by Valariola 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 2 of 20
3 

and/or Barak. (See ECF No. 71-1 at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 82, 86; see Excerpt of Deposition of 

Daniel Fingerhut, attached as Ex. 1 at 223, 234.) Passerino described Huf as 

another entity under DPL’s umbrella, just like DPI. (Declaration of Jay Passerino, 

attached hereto as Ex. 2 ¶ 13.) Other evidence further supports this conclusion, 

including that Valariola directed Fingerhut to execute a contract with Huf for his 

fraudulent marketing, Huf thereafter paid Fingerhut for his services, and Huf paid 

DPI over $3 million for its role in the fraud. (ECF Nos. 71, 71-1 at Ex. 1.) 

4. The Commission sent the Complaint, summons, the Commission’s 

expedited motions, and requests for wavier to known counsel for Valariola and 

Barak via email on May 6, 2020 since they are owners and/or control persons of 

DPI, DPL, and Huf. (ECF No. 51-1 ¶ 3 (Declaration of Allison V. Passman).) The 

Commission also requested that counsel waive service, particularly in light of the 

current pandemic, and notified counsel that the Court set a hearing for May 7, 

2020. (Id.) 

5. On May 7, 2020, the Court held a telephonic hearing as to the 

Commission’s expedited motions where counsel for Valariola and Barak appeared 

and argued. (See generally ECF No. 45-2.) The Court held another hearing on 

May 20, 2020 where counsel for Valariola, Barak, and DPL appeared and argued. 

(See ECF No. 63.) While Valariola, Barak, and DPL are represented, none of the 

attorneys who have appeared on their behalf have entered appearances on behalf of 

Huf (or DPI), nor have they disavowed or controverted the Commission’s evidence 

as to Valariola’s and Barak’s control of Huf. 

A. Huf Mediya: A Bulgarian Entity Operating out of Israel 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 3 of 20
4 

6. Valariola and Barak own, or at a minimum control Hoof, but the 

entity is registered in Bulgaria and the owner of that company is identified as 

“Nitsan Peri” or “Nice Peri” in the Bulgarian Register of Companies (“Register”). 

7. According to the Register, Huf appears to have been organized as a 

“sole proprietorship with limited liability” on December 14, 2016 with a “seat” for 

Huff Media EOOD, located at 79 Dondukov Blvd., Sophia, 1504, Bulgaria. 

(Declaration of Joseph Patrick, attached as Ex. 3 ¶ 5, Att. A.) Huf’s business is 

described in the Register as: “Affiliate marketing online, conducting advertising 

campaigns, building Internet sites, and other activities not prohibited by law or 

other regulations.” (Id. ¶6.) 

8. The Register identifies Huf’s sole owner and manager as “Nice Peri 

Nitsan Peri”, an Israeli resident. (Id. ¶ 7.) The same Israeli is identified as the 

owner of another business called “Profit Ninja Ltd.”, which was established on the 

same date as Huf, operates out of the same address as Huf, and similarly engages in 

“Affiliate marketing online, conducting advertising campaigns, building internet 

sites and other activities not prohibited by law or other regulations.” (Id. ¶ 8, Att. 

B.) 

9. Despite diligent efforts, the Commission has not been able to 

identify any contact information for Nice Peri or Nitsan Peri in Bulgaria or Israel, 

nor has the Commission been able to verify that any officer, owner, or employee is 

located in Bulgaria at the address identified above or otherwise. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.) 

10. Instead, the Commission has identified Nathy Pery, an Israeli 

resident, who used an email address of nathypery@gmail.com and an Israeli 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 4 of 20
5 

telephone number to conduct business on behalf of Huf as of at least December 

2017. (See Ex. 2 ¶¶ 20-23, Att. A; Ex. 3 ¶¶ 10, 11, Att. C.) 

11. Specifically, Fingerhut executed a contract with “Hoof Media Ltd.” 

effective as of January 1, 2017 and “Nitsan Pery” executed on behalf of Huf as the 

“Director”. (Id.) The contact information for the Director lists the Bulgarian 

address for Huf, but Nathy Pery’s email address and Israeli number. (Id.) 

12. The contract identified Fingerhut’s services as “Email Marketing & 

Lead Generation.” (Id. ) The governing law provision includes no reference to 

Bulgaria, but rather requires application of the “domestic laws of the State of China 

without giving effect to any choice or conflict of law provision or rule that would 

cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of Israel. 

The competent court in Hong Kong will have the sole jurisdiction over any dispute 

arising under this Agreement.” (Ex. 2 at Att. A ¶ 6.3.) 

13. Valariola also asked Passerino to execute a similar contract with 

Huf for his work on behalf of the Israeli Defendants, which he did. (Id. ¶ 19.) 

14. Similarly, in August 2017, Jay Passerino sent invoices to Valariola 

for his and other DPI’s employees’ services for July 2017, including for 

Fingerhut’s work. (Ex. 2 ¶ 24-25, Att. E.) Valariola asked Passerino to “send the 

invoices to another company Hoof Media Ltd. Reg. no. 204377614 Registered 

address: 79, Dondukov Blvd., 1504 Sofia, Bulgaria Director: Nitzan Pery Sole 

shareholder: Nitzan Pery Capital: 10 BGN in 10 shares of 1.” (Id.) 

15. Thereafter, Passerino included the Hoof Media Ltd. address on DPI 

invoices but he continued to send the invoices via email to Valariola at his digital 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 5 of 20
6 

platinum email address and not “Nitzan Pery”, nathypery@gmail.com, or the 

physical address provided for Hoof Media Ltd. (Id. ¶ 25.) 

16. Passerino met Nathy Pery and communicated with her as part of his 

work for Israeli Defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 21-23.) Specifically, Passerino met Pery when 

he traveled to Israel in approximately August 2017. According to Passerino, Pery 

worked for Valariola and Barak for years and was involved in the marketing side of 

the business, media buying, media generation, and lead generation related to DP 

Defendants’ online marketing campaigns. (Id.) Passerino communicated with 

Nathy via email at nathypery@gmail.com while working for Israeli Defendants. 

17. According to LinkedIn, Nathy Pery has been the managing director 

of Roi Boutique, which is also owned and controlled by Valariola and Barak, since 

January 2017 and appears to reside in the United Kingdom. (Ex. 2 ¶ 14; Ex. 3 ¶ 

12, Att. D; ECF No. 71-1, Exhibit 2 ¶¶ 25-27 (Fingerhut Declaration).) 

18. Passerino obtained certain documents and communications from 

Valariola as late as August 2019 by communicating with him using his digital 

platinum email address (talv@digitalplatinum.com). (Ex. 2 ¶ 45.) 

B. The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and 

Extrajudicial Documents Applies in Israel and Bulgaria, but the Court 

Should Order Alternative Service on Huf Instead. 

19. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4 sets forth the procedures 

for service of process; Rule 4(h)(2) governs service on foreign corporations like 

Huf and provides that service may be effectuated in “any manner prescribed by 

Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under (f)(2)(C). Fed. 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 6 of 20
7 

R. Civ. P. 4(h). Pursuant to Rule 4(f), service on Huf can occur in one of three 

ways: 

(1) “by any internationally agreed means of service that is 

reasonably calculated to provide notice, such as those authorized 

by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and 

Extrajudicial Documents; 

(2) If there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international 

agreements allows for but does not specify other means, by a 

method that is reasonably calculated to give notice ... 

(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the 

court orders. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f). 

20. While “compliance with the Convention is mandatory in all cases to 

which it applies, the Court is permitted to order alternate means of service as long 

as the signatory nation has not expressly objected to those means.” Sucesores de 

Done Carlos Nunez Y Dona Pura Galves, Inc. d/b/a Banco Nunez v. Societe 

Generale, S.A., d/b/a/ SG Americas, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-22842, 2019 WL 

5963830 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 11, 2019) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

a. Serving Huf through the Hague Convention would result in undue 

delays under the circumstances here. 

21. Israel, Bulgaria, and the United Kingdom are all signatories to the 

Hague Convention and none of those countries explicitly prohibit service via email 

to defendants, their agents, or attorney(s) as part of their respective international 

agreements. See Kipu Sys. LLC v. ZenCharts LLC, No. 17-24733-civWILLIAMS/TORRES, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 29, 2018) (allowing service of 

Complaint, summons, and all filings via email for defendant in Bulgaria); Addidas 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 7 of 20
8 

AG v. The Individuals, Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified 

on Schedule “A”, No. 19-cv-612624, 2019 WL 7841807, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 23, 

2019) (authorizing email and internet posting for service of complaint, summons, 

and all filings, including to defendants in Israel); Jenkins v. Pooke, No. C 07-03112 

JSW, 2009 WL 412987, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2009) (authorizing alternative 

service via email, among other methods, in the United Kingdom). 

22. However, service through the Hague Convention takes months and 

the Commission anticipates additional delays due to the current pandemic. See, 

e.g., Hague Conference on Private International Law, Bulgaria Authority & 

practical information, available at 

https://www.hcch.net/en/states/authorities/details3/?aid=260 (last visited May 14, 

2020) (reflecting that it takes two to three months from receipt of the request to 

when Bulgaria sends back the certificate of service); id. at Israel- Authority & 

practical information, available at 

https://www.hcch.net/en/states/authorities/details3/?aid=260 (last visited May 14, 

2020) (showing that it takes one to four months to execute a request); see also 

https://www.hcch.net/en/states/authorities/details3/?aid=278 (last visited May 27, 

2020) (not specifying any time period); CFTC v. Yukom Communications Ltd., No. 

19-cv-05416, at ECF No. 20 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 15, 2020) (seeking alternative service in 

Israel after five months passed since sending pleadings via registered mail with no 

effective service). 

23. Requiring the Commission to carry out service through the Hague 

Convention for Huf (or Valariola, Barak, and DPL) would unduly delay this 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 8 of 20
9 

litigation, compromising the preservation of evidence and witness recollection of 

relevant facts as well as adversely affecting victims who may be entitled to 

restitution for at least a month and more likely many months. See Fru Veg Mktg., 

Inc. v. Vegfruitworld Corp., 896 F. Supp. 2d 1175, 1182 (S.D. Fla. 2012) 

(collecting cases and observing that “courts around the country have found that, in 

order to prevent delays in litigation, service upon foreign defendants through 

counsel is appropriate.”; cf. Int’l Designs Corp., LLC v. Qingdao SeaForest Hair 

Prod. Co., No. 17-60431-CIV, 2018 WL 2364297, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2018) 

(not authorizing alternative service, in part because “failure to permit alternate 

service will [not] result in unduly long delays in litigation.”). See also H-D 

Michigan, LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827, 842 (7th Cir. 

2012) (“Moreover, because formal service of process under the Hague Convention 

or other provisions of law can take months, acceptance of DFS's argument would 

have the unfortunate effect of immunizing most foreign defendants from needed 

emergency injunctive relief.”) 

24. In addition to expected delays for service through the Hague 

Convention, there is a reasonable likelihood that serving Huf at its Bulgarian 

address would not be fruitful since it is unclear who, if anyone, occupies Huf’s 

address in Bulgaria, Huf’s purported owner and director resided in Israel but may 

now be in the United Kingdom, and Valariola and Barak reside in Israel and 

control Huf and/or its purported owner Nathy Pery, who apparently still works for 

them at another one of their businesses. (See ¶¶ 9, 10, 17 supra.) 

b. Huf is amenable to service via email 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 9 of 20
10 

25. Valariola, Barak, and DPL oppose the Commission’s motion for 

alternative service on them in part by arguing that alternative service via email is 

prohibited in Israel and thus cannot be ordered against them based on a 

misunderstanding of Prewitt Enterprises, Inc. v. OPEC, 353 F.3d 916, 924–25 

(11th Cir. 2003).1 (ECF No. 64.) Authorizing service via email for Huf is 

consistent with Prewitt. 

26. In Prewitt, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal 

based on ineffective service of process and the court’s rejection of a request for 

alternative service on OPEC. Id. No international agreement applied so Plaintiffs 

tried to justify use of registered or regular mail to serve OPEC pursuant to Rules 

4(f)(2)(A) and 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) because registered mail was an acceptable form of 

service under Austria’s Civil Procedure Code and regulations. Id. at 922-25. 

However, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the argument because those rules “relate to 

the service by Austrian courts on persons resident in Austria and abroad. None of 

these Austrian law provisions directly pertain to service mailed from abroad upon 

international organizations resident in Austria.” Id. at 925. The Eleventh Circuit 

also upheld the district court’s refusal to order alternative service because doing so 

would not “minimize the offense to foreign law” given that “Austrian law clearly 

provides protection to OPEC as an international organization from all methods 

of service of process without its consent and also requires that any service of 

 

1

 Valariola, Barak and DPL claim that Israel prohibits service via email by referencing (without attaching) Israel’s 

Civil Procedure Regulations for Israeli Courts, 5784-1984, Ch. 32, 475A & 497C, which they claim “does not permit 

service of process of case-initiating documents to occur by email.” (ECF No. 64 at 11.) While Israeli counsel has 

submitted two affidavits in support of Valariola’s, Barak’s and DPL’s efforts to avoid service, she failed to identify, 

discuss, analyze, or include any Israeli laws that explicitly prohibit foreigners serving Israelis via email in connection 

with a case outside of Israel. See ECF No. 45-4, 64- ; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1. 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 10 of 20
11 

process from abroad be effected through Austrian authorities.” Id. at 928. 

27. Unlike OPEC, Israel is a signatory to the Hague Convention, but 

even assuming Rule 4(f)(2) applied to Israel, Prewitt’s analysis of the applicability 

of a country’s Code of Civil Procedure and related regulations would equally apply 

to Israel’s rules governing service of pleadings for actions filed in its courts. 

28. The Prewitt court rejected plaintiff’s argument that it should allow 

plaintiff to serve OPEC pursuant to Rule 4(f)(2) since OPEC had actual notice of 

the action because OPEC was not amenable to service: “[t]here must be a basis for 

the defendant’s amenability to service of summons. Absent consent, this means 

there must be authorization for service of summons on the defendant.” Id. at 924–

25 (quoting Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104, 108 

S. Ct. 404, 410, 98 L. Ed. 2d 415 (1987)) (emphasis added) (finding that 

defendants were not amenable to service because the Act did not provide for 

nationwide service of process for actions brought by private parties and 

defendants’ contacts with Louisiana did not satisfy the state’s long-arm statute). 

Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit rejected plaintiff’s alternative argument that the 

district court abused its discretion by refusing to authorize alternative service under 

Rule 4(f)(3) because “any circumvention of 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) ... [by] directing service 

again by registered mail would constitute such an abuse. On these facts, we cannot 

read 4(f)(3) as permitting that which has already been specifically prohibited under 

4(f)(2).” Prewitt, 353 F.3d at 927. 

29. Thus Prewitt did not create an additional requirement to authorize 

service under Rule 4(f)(3) in cases where an international agreement applies; at 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 11 of 20
12 

best, Prewitt stands for the proposition that if a defendant is not amenable to 

service of process plaintiff cannot bring suit against that party. 

30. Unlike the defendants in Omni and Prewitt, Huf (just like Valariola, 

Barak, and DPL) is amenable to service because the Act provides for nationwide 

service of process in actions brought by the Commission, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1)-(3) 

authorizes service on international defendants like Huf, and Bulgaria and Israel are 

both signatories to the Hague Convention. 

31. Significantly, while Omni precluded the plaintiff from bringing its 

action in Louisiana, the Supreme Court nonetheless took comfort “[s]ince the [Act] 

authorizes broader service of process in other enforcement actions [brought by the 

Commission], aliens cannot consider themselves immune from the Act's 

provisions.” Id. at 413. Adopting Valariola’s, Barak’s and DPL’s arguments and 

refusing to authorize alternative service on Huf (or Valariola, Barak, and DPL) 

would circumvent the Supreme Court’s objective in Omni and hinder the 

Commission’s ability to carry out its duties to enforce the Act, effectively 

rendering foreign fraudsters immune from preliminary injunctive relief if they 

refuse to waive service. 

c. Alternative service on Huf via email is warranted 

32. Under Rule 4(f)(3), a court may enter an order authorizing 

alternative service if the method of service is not prohibited by international 

agreement.2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). However, the alternative method must satisfy 

 

2 Analysis of a foreign country’s laws is not a prerequisite to authorizing alternative 

service under Rule 4(f)(3); “In fact, as long as court-directed and not prohibited by an 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 12 of 20
13 

“constitutional notions [of] due process. To meet this requirement, the alternative 

method of service must be reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to 

apprise the interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an 

opportunity to present their objections.” CFTC v. Aliaga, 272 F.R.D. 617, 620 

(S.D. Fla. 2011) (internal quotation omitted); see also Volkswagenwerk v. Schlunk, 

486 U.S. 694, 707 (1988) (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 

339 U.S. 309, 314 (1950) (where service impracticable through usual means, 

service that is “reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise 

interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford an opportunity to present 

their objections” is sufficient to comport with due process.); Silvous v. Pharaon, 54 

F.3d 697, 701 (11th Cir. 1995) (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314) (“Personal 

service has not in all circumstances been regarded as indispensable to the process 

due to residents, and it has more often been held as unnecessary to nonresidents.”); Addidas, 2019 WL 7841807, at *2; Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Bitton, 

278 F.R.D. 687, 692-93 (S.D. Fla. 2012). 

33. Alternative service “is not merely a ‘last resort’ to be used only after 

other methods of service have failed; rather, Rule 4(f)(3) stands on equal footing 

with the other service methods enumerated in Rule 4(f).” Int’l Designs Corp., LLC 

v. Qingdao SeaForest Hair Prod. Co., No. 17-60431-CIV, 2018 WL 2364297, at 

*2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2018); Addidas, 2019 WL 7841807, at *2; Codigo Music, LLC 

 

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 (SD Fla 2010); Atlas One Fin. Grp., LLC v. 

Alarcon, No. 12-CV-23400, 2014 WL 12571403, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2014) 

(“However, Plaintiff’s request was made under Rule 4(f)(3) which does not require a 

showing that the method of service is not prohibited by the foreign country’s laws.) 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 13 of 20
14 

v. Televisa S.A. de C.V., No. 15-CIV-21737-Williams/Simonton, 2017 WL 

4346968, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2017) (“[T]here is no express requirement that 

the Plaintiffs demonstrate that service under the Hague Convention is not possible 

before the court may authorize the Plaintiffs to serve the Defendant under 

alternative means pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3).”). 

34. In the Eleventh Circuit, courts have authorized alternative service on 

foreigners by email to the defendants, their agents, or others who are in contact 

with defendants, among other methods. Aliaga, 272 F.R.D. at 620; Addidas, 2019 

WL 7841807, at *2 (authorizing email and internet posting for service of 

complaint, summons, and all filings, including to defendants in Israel); Tracfone 

Wireless, 278 F.R.D. at 692-93 (authorizing alternative service via email and Fed 

Ex to foreign defendants); cf Banco Nunez, No. 19-cv-22842, 2019 WL 5963830 

(S.D. Fla. Nov. 11, 2019) (no alternative service on wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary 

without showing of Parent’s control of subsidiary). 

35. Alternative service via email is warranted based on: (i) the 

information available to the Commission after diligent efforts to locate Huf and its 

owners or officers; (ii) the Commission’s overwhelming evidence of a substantial 

fraud; and (iii) the nature and procedural posture of this serious fraud action. 

36. First, while Huf is registered and organized in Bulgaria, it operates 

out of Israel through Valariola and Barak. (See ¶¶ 36-18 supra.) The Commission 

has diligently sought to obtain information to serve Huf, but its efforts have been 

stymied by Valariola’s, Barak’s, DPI’s and DPL’s (collectively, “DP Defendants”) 

conduct during the Commission’s investigation, including failure to produce 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 14 of 20
15 

documents responsive to various lawful Commission subpoenas. (See ECF Nos. 

58-2 ¶¶ 8-14, 76 at p.5.) 

37. Second, the Commission has proffered an abundance of 

uncontroverted evidence of a massive fraud violating various provisions of the 

Commodity Exchange Act and Commission Regulations. (ECF Nos. 71, 71-1.) 

The evidence also shows that Valariola and Barak (and the defendant companies 

they control, including Huf) have refused to cooperate or comply with a 

Commission investigation, lawful subpoenas, provide information during 

testimony, or fully respond to the Israeli Securities Authority’s requests. (See id. at 

45, 58-2 ¶¶ 8-14, 71-1, 76 at p.5.) In brief, alternative service is necessary here for 

the same reasons this Court appointed a temporary receiver. 3 (See ECF No. 76.) 

38. Finally, alternative service is warranted because in cases where 

there is sufficient grounds to enter a temporary restraining order, appoint a 

temporary receiver, the Commission should be able to quickly serve defendants 

subject to any such orders to afford them an opportunity to raise objections. 

Moreover, waiting for service through the Hague Convention would be 

inconsistent with constitutional notions of due process if it would prevent the 

 

3

 While a constitutional analysis under the Fifth Amendment for personal jurisdiction is not necessary for 

purposes of this motion, the Commission can easily satisfy its burden to establish personal jurisdiction over 

Huf, which purposefully directed its business activities serving as the basis for the violations charge here to 

the United States, which further shows why alternative service here is appropriate. See ¶¶ 3, 11-16, 18 

supra; Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings, 119 F.3d 935, 942 (11th Cir. 1997) (when “a federal statute 

provides for nationwide service of process, it becomes the statutory basis for personal jurisdiction[]” so the 

court must analyze whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant comports with the due 

process clause of the Fifth Amendment, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.) For 

example, Huf relied on Fingerhut and DPI (both in the United States) to carry out the fraudulent digital 

asset solicitation scheme on their behalf for at least a year and a half and sent ill-gotten gains from the 

scheme to bank accounts in the United States to compensate its agents for their services. See id. ¶¶ 3,14,15 

supra. The Commission will fully address any challenges to personal jurisdiction if they arise at the 

appropriate time. 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 15 of 20
16 

defendant from timely obtaining notice of this action and the upcoming preliminary 

injunction hearing. 

39. The Commission thus seeks authority to send the pleadings, 

summons, and all other filings related to this matter via email to Huf’s purported 

owner’s email address (nathypery@gmail.com), which she used to operate his 

online marketing business. The Commission also seeks authority to send the 

pleadings, summons, and all other filings related to this matter to the emails that 

Valariola and Barak use to operate their online marketing business, including 

related to Huf. 4

40. Authorizing service via email is reasonably calculated to afford Huf 

notice and an opportunity to be heard because Huf describes itself as conducting 

online marketing and the evidence shows that Fingerhut, Valariola, and Barak 

participated in Huf’s online business and communicated via email to do so. See 

Addidas, 2019 WL 7841807, at *3 (“The Court concludes that e-mail service and 

Internet posting are indeed the most likely means of communication to reach 

Defendants, who operate via the Internet and rely on electronic communications for 

the operation of their businesses.”) Moreover, Huf and DPL appear to continue to 

operate their fraudulent online marketing business, which further supports the need 

 

4

 Huf also likely has notice based on published articles and press releases related to this 

matter. For example, on May 7, 2020, the Commission issued a press release through its 

website announcing the filing and providing a link to the Complaint. CFTC Release No. 

8162-20, available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8162-20 (last visited 

May 14, 2020). This matter has also received significant press coverage, including by the 

Times of Israel, which published an article on May 12, 2020 titled “U.S. charges two Israelis, 

one a Cop’s Son, in $20 million binary options marketing fraud.” Available at 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-charges-2-israelis-one-a-cops-son-in-20m-binary-optionsmarketing-fraud/ (last visited May 14, 2020). 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 16 of 20
17 

for immediate relief and the likelihood that their business emails remain active. 

(Id. at 45-4 ¶ 3; see Ex. 3 ¶¶ 5-8, Atts. A-B.) 

41. There is good cause to believe that emails to Valariola and Barak 

will result in notice to Huf since the evidence shows they are control persons and 

employ the purported owner. (See ¶¶ 3, 6-17 supra.) 

d. In the alternative, this Court should order expedited limited discovery 

related to Huf. 

42. In the alternative, to the extent this Court requires additional 

information before authorizing alternative service via email, the Commission 

respectfully requests that it allow the Commission to conduct expedited limited 

discovery related to Huf. 

43. For example, there is good cause to believe that Valariola, Barak, 

and DPL have documents or communications that would confirm Huf’s owner’s 

identity and contact information, and show their control of Huf or at a minimum, the 

frequency of their contact with Huf. 

44. There is also good cause to believe that Valariola and Huf, in their 

capacity as control persons of DPI, DPL and/or Huf, have material information as to 

Huf that could resolve any doubt about the effectiveness of service via email to Pery, 

Valariola, and Barak for Huf. 

CONCLUSION 

 WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the 

Court enter the Proposed Order of Alternative Service authorizing the Commission to 

serve Huf with the summons, Complaint, and all filings in connection with this matter 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 17 of 20
18 

via email to nathypery@gmail.com, talv@digitalplatinum.com, 

talvalariola@gmail.com, valariolatal@gmail.com, itayb@digitalplatinum.com and 

itayb@digitalplatinum.com. In the alternative, the Commission respectfully requests 

that the Court enter the Proposed Order of Expedited Limited Discovery authorizing 

the Commission to conduct expedited limited discovery as to Huf. 

Local Rule 7.1 Certification 

 Counsel for the Commission has spoken with counsel for Valariola, Barak, and 

Digital Platinum Ltd. on multiple occasions, including this morning around 10 a.m. CT, and they 

have advised that they do not represent Huf. Undersigned cannot confer directly with Valariola, 

Barak or Digital Platinum, Ltd. because they are represented. Therefore, undersigned has made 

reasonable efforts to confer with Huf to resolve the issues raised in this motion but has been 

unable to do so. 

Dated: May 27, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1100 

Chicago, Illinois 60661 

(312) 596-0714 facsimile 

(312) 596-0700 

/s/ Allison V. Passman 

Allison V. Passman 

Senior Trial Attorney 

Special Bar ID #A5502489 

apassman@cftc.gov 

Candice Haan 

Trial Attorney 

Special Bar ID #A5502564 

chaan@cftc.gov 

Susan J. Gradman 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 18 of 20
19 

Chief Trial Attorney 

Special Bar ID #A5501721 

sgradman@cftc.gov 

 

 

 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 19 of 20
20 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned, an attorney with Plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, hereby certifies that a true and accurate copy of Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Alternate Service or In the Alternative for Expedited Limited Discovery was served 

on all counsel of record via the CM/ECF system, and to the registered agent of 

Digital Platinum, Inc. as noted below. 

Digital Platinum, Inc. 

c/o Jay Passerino (registered agent) (jay.passerino@gmail.com) 

Email delivered May 27, 2020 

Dated: May 27, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 

/s/ Allison V. Passman 

 Senior Trial Attorney 

ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS 

FOR PLATINIFF 

COMMODITY FUTURES 

TRADING COMMISSION 

Case 1:20-cv-21887-DPG Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2020 Page 20 of 20