1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-CV-22471-DPG

NORTH AMERICAN SUGAR Miami, Florida

INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Plaintiff, October 14, 2020

vs. 11:00 a.m. to 11:40 a.m.

XINJIAN GOLDWIND SCIENCE Pages 1 to 33

& TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________

TELEPHONIC MOTION HEARING

BEFORE THE HONORABLE DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MIGUEL A. ESTRADA, ESQ.

AUDI K. SYARIEF, ESQ.

GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20036-5036

-andCASEY KYUNG-SE LEE, ESQ.

GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor

New York, New York 10166

-andDAVID S. MANDEL, ESQ.

MANDEL & MANDEL LLP

169 E. Flagler Street, Suite 1224

Miami, Florida 33131

FOR GOLDWIND INTERNATIONAL:

ALLEN P. PEGG, ESQ.

REGINALD CUYLER, JR., ESQ.

HOGAN LOVELLS LLP

600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2700

Miami, Florida 33131

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 1 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

FOR DSV AIR & SEA: ROBERT M. BROCHIN, ESQ.

MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

200 S. Biscayne Boulevard

Suite 5300

Miami, Florida 33131-2339

FOR BBC CHARTERING USA

FOR BBC CHARTERING SINGAPORE:

NAIM SURGEON, ESQ.

PEDRO FREYRE, ESQ.

AKERMAN LLP

350 East Las Olas Boulevard

Suite 1600

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

-andMARTIN DOMB, ESQ.

AKERMAN LLP

520 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor

New York, New York 10022

STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED BY:

PATRICIA DIAZ, FCRR, RPR, FPR

Official Court Reporter

United States District Court

400 North Miami Avenue

11th Floor

Miami, Florida 33128

(305) 523-5178

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 2 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3

(Call to the Order of the Court.)

COURTROOM DEPUTY: Calling North American Sugar

Industries versus Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology

Company Limited, and all. Case number 20-CV-22471.

Counsel, please make your appearance.

MR. ESTRADA: Good morning, Your Honor, this is Miguel

Estrada, E-S-T-R-A-D-A, from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in

Washington, DC.

With me on the line are counsel from my firm, Audi

Syarief and Casey Lee, and also our Miami colleague, David

Mandel.

THE COURT: All right. Good morning.

MR. ESTRADA: All right. Good morning.

MR. PEGG: Good morning, Judge Gayles, this is Allen

Pegg. I am here with my colleague, Reginald Cuyler from Hogan

Lovells in Miami, on behalf of Goldwind International.

MR. BROCHIN: Good morning, this is Bobby Brochin of

Morgan Lewis, and I'm on behalf of defendant DSV Air & Sea.

MR. SURGEON: Good morning, Your Honor, this is Naim

Surgeon from Akerman on behalf of defendants, BBC Chartering,

USA, LLC, and BBC Chartering Singapore, PTE, LTD.

With me on the line are also my colleagues Pedro Freyre

from Miami and Martin Dom from New York.

THE COURT: Okay. Is that everyone for the defendants?

MR. PEGG: It is, Your Honor.

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 3 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

THE COURT: Okay. Good morning, everyone.

I set this down for a hearing, and I am mindful that

all of the motions are not yet ripe but because the parties'

motions, competing motions pretty much address all the issues,

I guess the central issue is how we should proceed, if at all,

and whether there -- I mean, at bottom, it's the issue on

whether or not the Court has subject matter jurisdiction and

separately whether or not the Court has personal jurisdiction

over some of the defendants and both sides have asked me to

stay briefing and/or discovery regarding these issues.

So I just wanted to get some sense from the parties

about how I should proceed.

Now, I just want to give some overarching, an

overarching observation, and then I will turn to, first,

Mr. Estrada for the plaintiffs.

That overarching observation is, before I decide

anything, don't I have to decide if I have subject matter

jurisdiction, including whether or not there is personal

jurisdiction over the individual defendants?

I know that there is a request to allow jurisdictional

discovery, but my concern is I am not sure whether I or a

magistrate judge can even rule on discovery matters until it's

first determined whether I have subject matter jurisdiction.

I guess the first question for you, Mr. Estrada, is why

shouldn't I first make that determination before anything else?

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 4 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

MR. ESTRADA: Thank you, Your Honor.

This is, again, Miguel Estrada for North American Sugar

for benefit of the court reporter.

Let me just sort of take that question first, and I

think, you know, the formulation of the question as you framed

it is exactly right. The question is decision.

You know, the question is really controlled by three

Supreme Court cases. There is Steel Company, Ruhgras and

Sinochem.

Steel Company from 1998 by the late Justice Scalia that

basically held, you know, the proposition that you could not

assume jurisdiction in order to render a decision on the

merits. That was followed by Ruhgras some years later in

which, you know, the Court answered the question of whether you

had necessarily to decide subject matter jurisdiction ahead of

personal jurisdiction, and then Sinochem where the question was

whether you could decide forum non conveniens without deciding

either personal jurisdiction or subject matter jurisdiction,

and the last word on Sinochem was, so long as the Court doesn't

make any definite ruling on the merits of the case, non merits

resolutions for the management of the case are okay.

So, it is okay for the Court, for example, as the Court

held in Sinochem to send the case to a different forum or to do

things that it needs to do for the management of the case,

which I think addresses, you know, the second part of the

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 5 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

question. And so the formulation of the core principle that

was inherent in the first part of your question is correct, you

cannot render a decision on the merits, that is, decide the

controversy without deciding subject matter jurisdiction.

The second premise of the question which sort of

assumes that it is impossible to manage the case provides

interim orders for discovery so that the parties can get these

other issues such as 12(b)(2), for example, ready for your

consideration is not so well taken because, the three cases I

mentioned basically stand for the proposition that the decision

on the ultimate merits may not be had without a decision of

jurisdiction first.

But as between the merits rulings, you know, the Court

may choose between those in handling, you know, the case. So

that's why the Court could say in the Ruhgras, you know, the

second case in the series that you could do 12(b)(2) or

12(B)(1) since both were non merits position in the case.

To get back to the contentions raised in this case and

the rival motions that you identified at the beginning of the

hearing, where we are is, you know, the defendants have filed a

joint motion to dismiss. One of the contentions in that joint

motion to dismiss is that there is no subject matter

jurisdiction on the Article III of the Constitution.

As you will see in the brief and opposition that we

will file, that is a contention that has been presented to

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 6 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

courts in this district and has been unanimously rejected by

the courts in this district. So to the extent that the time

comes later down the road where the ruling, where a ruling on

the merits might be needed is not one that will sort of carry

the Court but, you know, it is something that we argue -- that

we argue on its own.

We do recognize they have made the argument. It is not

one that happens to have a lot of merits based on the

assessment of other judges in this district who have looked at

the identical case.

With respect to the motion that we have made with

jurisdictional discovery, that is addressed to the issues that

the defendants raise separately in three different motions to

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Our basic contention there is that we have a number of

allegations of fact in our complaint that the defendants have

chosen to dispute with affidavits and declarations and

documents in which they have a range of assertions that dispute

the elements of personal jurisdiction. In filings made as late

as almost midnight last night, they have attached additional

documents while at the same time contending that no discovery

is needed.

I am prepared to address the back and forth on personal

jurisdiction and why discovery is needed. I don't want to get

ahead of myself in purposes of the question that you asked and

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 7 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

give you a long argument, but for purposes of the question that

you asked, I believe the law is clear that while you may now

render a ruling on the merits of the controversy without

assuring yourself that you have subject matter jurisdiction,

you can certainly manage the case and issue no merits

disposition such as that having to do with, as Sinochem says,

for example, to forum non or, you know, discovery and things of

that nature without running afoul of the rule of Steel Company.

THE COURT: And just so I am clear, and I know the

motion is not fully ripe but the jurisdictional discovery,

that's your motion to request jurisdictional discovery.

MR. ESTRADA: That is right.

THE COURT: What discovery do you need within this

period?

MR. ESTRADA: Well, let me just take a step back and

start with a definition of what the issue is because I don't

think we actually have an agreement on what the scope of the

controversy is and given how the pleadings that were filed last

night are framed, that may be an important part of the

controversy. We have a claim under a statutory cause of

actions that a federal cause of action. It's the Helms-Burton

Act.

For our purpose and for purposes of the Florida

Long-Arm Statute, we would consider that a tort, a federal

tort.

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 8 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

Now, the defendants would like to describe the tort as

if it were nothing more than dropping anchor in front of a port

in Cuba, and on that basis basically say nothing happened in

Florida that is relevant to personal jurisdiction.

I would like to draw the Court's attention because I

think it is the starting point of the analysis to what the

statutory definition of the tort actually is, and it is not

merely showing up at the confiscated port in Cuba and not

merely using the port in Cuba but it is -- and I am now quoting

from Section 6023 of the statute, Title 22, Subsection 13 --

"Engaging in a commercial activity using or otherwise

benefitting from the confiscated property."

So it's engaging in a commercial activity that used or

otherwise benefited from the confiscated property or and

causing or participating or profiting from that activity.

So the breadth of the statutory tort is, you know, not

only using the port but engaging in a commercial activity that

benefitted from that port. So for purposes of our discovery

dispute here and the personal jurisdiction dispute, we are

arguing about whether a conceded stop in Florida, which one of

the defendants before you has filed declarations and a brief

asserting it was essential to comply with other federal laws,

whether that was part of the commercial activity that

ultimately used the confiscated port and, more relevantly,

whether under the Florida Long-Arm Statute, the tort prong of

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 9 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

the statute, whether it was a substantial aspect of the alleged

tort, the alleged tort being defined, again, as the engaging in

the commercial activity that used the port.

They have filed -- with that as the background, they

have filed declarations that go from stating that our

allegations in the complaint are factually mistaken that are

just not true because, say, for example, codes that were

transmitted and that are publicly available from federal

government sources were submitted in error, and our point to

that is like wait a moment, we need to take, you know,

discovery on that. You show, surely, you don't expect us to

accept your declaration that it was all a big error. So that's

DSV, just to give you an example.

Then we had Goldwind that has public statements which

we have cited all over the complaint in our motion saying that

they were the party that engaged, that entered into the

contract for the delivery of these turbans filed a declaration

saying that they had nothing to do with this.

Now, keep in mind that the tort is engaging in the

commercial activity that used the port so they filed an

affidavit that it's a blanket denial of having engaged in the

relevant commercial activity that used the port with a

necessary stop in Florida, so on and so forth. You know, BBC

USA sort of says in his website that they are there to support,

you know, their ships once they enter, you know, the Caribbean

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 10 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

but they say in this case they have nothing to do with it.

Now, they have chosen to oppose our complaint with

motions that not only ignore what the statutory tort is but

also put in a slew of actual material that we are expected to

take at face value. Now, it seems to me that we are entitled

to probe each of these factual allegations and to serve

discovery, which I am happy to, you know, list, and I think as

a general proposition it will be better for the Court to let us

serve discovery in the confines of Rule 26 rather than try to

narrow the discovery at the outset because I think that is to

lead to more squabbles and fights, but, you know, if that were

the issue for the day, I would also, you know, be happy to

outline what the parameters or what would obviously the

relevance would be.

THE COURT: Okay. Who is going to speak first for the

defendant?

MR. PEGG: Judge, this is Allen Pegg with Hogan

Lovells. I think I will speak, if I could, circling back to

Your Honor's initial point which was, shouldn't Your Honor for

either, you know, Court ability to move forward with the

challenge to subject matter jurisdiction challenges out there,

should Your Honor, can Your Honor go forward with the rest of

the case. I think I will speak primarily on behalf of the

defendants to that initial point.

THE COURT: Okay.

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 11 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

MR. PEGG: So, Judge, as Your Honor noted and as we

articulated in our joint motion to stay earlier this week, we

think that all of the factors under the regular cases,

Chudasama and others, point to the sensibility of a stay of all

proceedings, jurisdictional discovery and otherwise, until the

omnibus motion to dismiss is resolved.

Counsel noted that there is one contention in the

omnibus motion that challenges the Court's subject matter

jurisdiction and, Your Honor, there is actually multiple

grounds attacking the subject matter jurisdiction, not only

against Article III standing issues, which is what counsel, I

believe, referenced and then also deficiencies in the Court's

subject matter jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's own

conduct and lack of disclosures on the bankruptcy proceedings.

Your Honor, that opposition is due to be filed today

and we think that it makes sense for that core issue to be

resolved which may moot out, Judge, all the other discussion

about jurisdictional discovery, either sufficiency of grounds

for it and what forums it will take that counsel then went

into.

So I think regardless whether under the trilogy of

Supreme Court cases that I heard defense plaintiff's counsel go

through, regardless of whether or not the Court can, as a

matter of authority, move forward in personal jurisdiction

issues, we think that there is no reason that the Court and the

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 12 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

parties should move forward as we outlined in the joint motion.

Not only does the omnibus motion, which, again, will be

fully briefed, unlike the jurisdictional issues, which will be

fully briefed fairly soon with the opposition being filed

today, not only does that omnibus motion have attacks on the

Court's subject matter jurisdiction but there are other

substantive grounds to challenge and we think that will support

dismissal of the plaintiff's claims.

So for judicial efficiency, for party efficiency we

think the joint motion to stay should be taken up first. We

think that motion under the relevant consideration should be

granted. We then think the omnibus motion should be resolved,

and if at the end of that streamline process there is anything

left of this case, we can then take up the issue of whether or

not any jurisdictional discovery is warranted and if so, of

what type.

THE COURT: And just so I am clear again, I know it's a

short motion. I am trying to remind myself. What you are

asking me to stay is everything until I -- including briefing

on -- would that include briefing on the motion, on the

separate motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction

as well?

MR. PEGG: It would, Your Honor. So, essentially, the

result of the motion for stay being granted would be that we

received plaintiff's opposition to the omnibus motion today.

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 13 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

Defendants then file their reply brief. We need to see their

opposition, of course, before we can determine with when that

reply brief will be filed but it will be in relatively short

order. That reply brief will be filed and then that motion is

fully briefed and ready for resolution with everything else,

including the jurisdictional briefing stayed and the motions to

dismiss on personal jurisdiction, to be clear, stayed.

THE COURT: You heard Mr. Estrada argue that -- he drew

the distinction that normally where a subject matter

jurisdiction is being questioned that courts should not address

substantive issues or merits issues until that has been

resolved, and he argued that personal jurisdiction issues and

discovery issues are not merits determining who could and

couldn't proceed.

How do you respond to that?

MR. PEGG: Sure, Judge, so as I said, and I don't have

the benefit of having recently read that trilogy of Supreme

Court cases but I accept counsel at the representation. So

regardless whether or not the Court has the authority to move

forward in allowing for jurisdictional discovery, for example,

while there is a pending challenge to the subject matter

jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not Your Honor has that

authority, for purposes of efficiency and getting things in the

right sequence and procedural order, the Court should exercise

your discretion to stay those issues and allow the briefing on

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 14 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

the subject matter jurisdiction and other grounds for dismissal

to close in relatively short order and get a decision on that.

There is no reason as to why even if there is an

ability to allow for jurisdictional discovery, as to why that

should go forward and for the various factors articulated in

the cases that we cite in the joint motion to stay.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PEGG: I will finally note, Your Honor, that the

types of jurisdictional discovery that counsel outlined all

sounded, and I understand that this motion isn't yet fully

briefed with our oppositions having been filed, oppositions to

the jurisdictional discovery motions yesterday and the day

before but all of that discussion sounded more like merits

discovery much more than jurisdictional discovery.

I wrote down that counsel said that they want to

explore how the defendants were engaging in commercial activity

that used the port. Well, that's the core merits issue under

Article III claim. I heard very little about how any

jurisdictional discovery would touch on establishing specific

jurisdiction over any of the defendants.

So, again, I don't think that there is a reason to. I

think Your Honor has ample discretion to not allow

jurisdictional discovery, and there are weighty reasons why the

subject matter jurisdiction and other dismissal arguments on

the face of the papers should be taken up first.

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 15 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

THE COURT: Okay. Anything anyone wants to add for any

of the other defendants?

All right. Hearing silence, returning back to the

plaintiff then, anything else in reply?

MR. ESTRADA: Yes, Your Honor, let me just say two

things which I had not addressed earlier to respond to what

Mr. Pegg said. I had not addressed the second contention that

he identified that is raised in the motion to dismiss because I

find it hard -- I find it very hard to believe that he really

does contend that it is a subject matter jurisdiction claim.

This, as you will see when you turn to that motion, is

a contention based on the fact that my client and some of his

affiliates had gone through a bankruptcy. Now, the joint

motion to dismiss has a couple of arguments based on the

bankruptcy proceedings that are supported by, I kid you not,

almost 2,000 pages of extrinsic, you know, materials.

As we will point out in the motion to dismiss that we

are filing today, what this ultimately is is a defense of

estoppel, which not only is a non meritorious one but as every

civil procedure first year student will tell is an affirmative

defense they should put in their answer.

It's not a subject matter jurisdiction contention, and

it is not something that is even appropriate to raise in a

motion to dismiss, even if they contend that the Court might

take judicial notice of proceedings in a different court, which

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 16 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

if they attempt to present them here is actually not the case.

So I will give them, you know, the benefit of something

that they are raising as subject matter jurisdiction contention

with respect to Article III while pointing out that no court on

the planet has accepted this argument and that every court that

has considered it has turned them down. And on that note, I

will then turn to their, you know, their reliance on the

Chudasama case from the Eleventh Circuit where, you know, the

issue was whether the Court should have, whether the district

court should have forced the defendant to engage in merits

discovery while engaging in what the Court of Appeals

characterized as an exceedingly lengthy delay in the resolution

of the motion to dismiss when, as the Court of Appeals assessed

it, the theory of the complaint was, quote, "an especially

dubious fraud claim."

Now, one can say many things but you can look at the

motion to dismiss and, you know, the grounds are not that we

have an especially dubious theory of the bracket under which we

are suing. You know, they have other claims based on

bankruptcies and based on Article III that no one has bought

and, you know, this motion is what it is, but this is not the

Chudasama case by any --

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, this is not the what

case?

MR. ESTRADA: This is not the Chudasama case --

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 17 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

C-H-U-D-A-S-A-M-A case. It's a court of appeals case -- by any

stretch.

The second point that I would say about that case is

that also even that case recognized that jurisdictional

discovery may be appropriate.

With respect to the motion that they filed just a

couple of days ago to stay all proceedings, you know, what this

case comes to is they would like to have the resolution of the

motion to dismiss and stay everything else. We would like to

have jurisdictional discovery while you consider the motion to

dismiss.

As we said earlier, I think that that's appropriate

under the existing cases from the Supreme Court, but I think

it's also appropriate for efficiency because even their cases

recognize that if you can tell from the papers on the motion to

dismiss that no one has bought the argument they are making on

Article III that it is appropriate to go forward with these

other housekeeping matters and not waste, you know, the time.

There is a second consideration that I haven't raised

and I think it's relevant to the equities here on whether we

should be kept waiting. We filed a timely suit against these

defendants but there is a two-year statute of limitations that

is keyed off from the day of the trips that are outlined in the

complaint which will start coming to roost sort at the

beginning of next year.

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 18 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

So if you grant what you are looking for and by some

chance you later conclude that as to some of them there is no

personal jurisdictional, I fully expect them to come argue to

you that the action should be not only dismissed but also

barred as untimely, and one of the things that I think may be

going on here is a little bit of a tactical ploy where they

proffer a large amount of factual materials that they expect

the Court to take on faith in fighting personal jurisdiction

and then hope to get a stay until they can later argue that the

action which was timely filed is time barred if the Court

should happen to agree with their personal jurisdiction

arguments.

On the final point that Mr. Pegg made about how I am

arguing, you know, the merits of the discovery, I am, frankly,

mystified by his point. If you look at his own filings, there

is a footnote three in his motion to move for dismissal for

lack of personal jurisdiction in which he affirmatively argues

that in order to assess the tort prong of the Florida Long-Arm

Statute one has to get a sense as to what the tort actually is.

(The court reporter was disconnected from the phone

call at this point and had to call in again.)

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. This is the court

reporter. I got cut off. I tried texting Jermaine, but I

don't think he got it on time.

I got cut off when Mr. Estrada was speaking. The last

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 19 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

thing I got was the tort prong of the Long-Arm Statute

argument.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Estrada, can you repeat?

MR. ESTRADA: I don't recall exactly where she left

off. I think all I was going to say is I wasn't trying to

argue merits discovery. I was simply trying to do exactly what

DSV argued in footnote three of his brief, which is that part

of the assessment under the tort prong of the Long-Arm Statute

is to assess what the tort actually is, and it so happens that

the definition of the federal tort here commences with the

proposition that one has engaged in commercial activity that

used or benefited from the confiscated property or participated

with others in the same.

And that I was just quoting what his own brief actually

urges as the correct analysis.

THE COURT: Okay. So, as I was just saying, here both

sides are asking me to stay the briefing on the motion to

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, albeit for different

reasons.

There is still the pending motion to dismiss for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction, which is not yet ripe.

I do having -- especially having had the benefit of

argument from everyone, I do think that the best course of

action is to stay the proceedings and allow full briefing on

the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 20 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

and once that motion is fully briefed, I will have a better

sense of whether or not I should let the case proceed, at least

as far as any jurisdictional discovery and whether or not I

should allow the briefing to continue as to the motion to

dismiss on the 12(b) motion, the 12(b)(2) motion.

So I am going to grant the respective motions to stay

the briefing as to the -- the briefing on the 12(b)(2) motions

to dismiss.

I am going to let the case continue with the briefing

on the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

I am going to set this for a status conference so the

parties can appear by telephone again on November 18th at

10:00 a.m. and, of course, before I hang up, you can check your

respective calendars to make sure everyone is available on

November 18th.

Again, by that time the motion to dismiss for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction will be fully briefed. I will have

a better sense of where we are.

MR. ESTRADA: Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt, one

clarification and one housekeeping issue, when you say the

motion to dismiss for lack of matter jurisdiction, I assume you

are referring to our ongoing motions for jurisdictional

discovery, which is the motion that is currently being briefed.

THE COURT: There is more. There is several. There

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 21 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

are a few motions here.

There is the joint motion to dismiss.

MR. ESTRADA: There is a motion to dismiss for (b)(1)

and (b)(6) which we are filing a response to today and no one

is asking to stay that.

THE COURT: But I am not staying that.

MR. ESTRADA: No, I understand.

Then there is a motion to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction to which we have countered that we cannot respond

to that until we get jurisdictional discovery, and that's why

we sought a stay.

They want the whole thing stayed, including

jurisdictional discovery, so I am a little bit -- I'm sorry and

I do apologize. I am a little bit confused as to what is it

that is proceeding.

Our position is that we cannot brief the motion to

dismiss for personal jurisdiction without jurisdictional

discovery. There is briefing on the jurisdictional discovery

motion so I am trying to clarify what is it that we are to

continue. I thought it was the jurisdictional discovery

briefing.

THE COURT: Mr. Estrada, I thought I was clear so I am

going to try this again.

You are going to continue your briefing on the motion

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. That is at

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 22 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

Docket Entry 54, so you will file your response today unless

you need some more time, which I will consider giving you more

time if you need it. And then we will have a reply within

seven days of that, and I am going to stay further briefing on

the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which

is a 12(b)(2) motion.

MR. ESTRADA: Thank you.

THE COURT: And the motion for leave to conduct

jurisdictional discovery will be stayed also.

MR. ESTRADA: Oh, I see, okay.

THE COURT: I will consider all of those motions when

we reconvene on November 18th because by then the motion to

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will be fully

briefed and I will have a better idea of how to proceed at that

point.

MR. ESTRADA: Understood, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ESTRADA: So that I understand -- okay. So we

don't have to further brief the motion to conduct

jurisdictional discovery until we appear before you on

November 18th. That is what I was not understanding.

THE COURT: Exactly. There is nothing -- you don't

have to file anything on the personal jurisdiction motions

until I direct you to do so on November 18th.

MR. ESTRADA: And for purposes of my report to my

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 23 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

client today, you have essentially granted the defendant's

motion for a stay until November 18th, with the exception of

the pending motions to dismiss?

THE COURT: Yes, I am granting both your motion to stay

and the defendant's motion to stay that briefing but for

different reasons, obviously.

All of this will be memorialized on the docket either

today or tomorrow so that everyone is clear.

So with regard to your response to the lack -- to the

motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

which is due today, was today fine or do you need more time?

MR. ESTRADA: Just if I could have an extra three days

until the end of the weekend -- I am prepared to file it today.

I would like to make a report to my client as to the

proceedings that occurred today, and I would like to file it as

soon as I can, Your Honor. But I would definitely speak to my

client just to see if they need to make any changes in light of

the proceedings today. I would not mind having until Friday if

that's okay with the Court.

THE COURT: That's fine with me. That will be due on

the close of business Friday, October 16th.

MR. ESTRADA: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. In light

of the stay that you granted today until November 18th, which I

consider effectively an oral granting of the written motion

that the defendants filed two days ago for a stay of

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 24 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

proceedings, I assume as well that we don't have to answer that

motion in writing and that that's also stayed.

THE COURT: Until I tell you to file anything else, you

don't have to do anything.

MR. ESTRADA: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: This will -- I mean, I am giving you an

oral ruling now, but it's going to be memorialized in writing

which you will get either later today or tomorrow.

MR. ESTRADA: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything else from the defendants?

MR. SURGEON: Yes, Your Honor. This is Naim Surgeon

from Akerman.

One other thing that I think we would want to point out

is the opposition to the motion to dismiss was subject to an

agreed-upon extension of page limits. I believe it's going to

be around 35 pages. We would probably -- we anticipate that we

are going to be seeking a short extension on the time to reply

and probably an extension of the page limits for the reply so I

just want to make the Court aware of that.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, first speak to Mr. Estrada to

see if you can get some agreement and then submit whatever you

need to to the Court.

MR. ESTRADA: Yes, Your Honor, and as counsel knows, we

usually accommodate counsel as a courtesy.

THE COURT: Okay.

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 25 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

All right. Anything else from either side that we need

to take up today?

All right. Hearing nothing, we will be in recess.

Thank you.

MR. ESTRADA: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. SURGEON: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. PEGG: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Proceedings were concluded at 11:40 a.m.)

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 26 of 33
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

C E R T I F I C A T E

I hereby certify that the foregoing is an

accurate transcription of the proceedings in the

above-entitled matter.

Please note: This hearing occurred during the

COVID-19 pandemic and is therefore subject to the

technological limitations of reporting remotely.

October 28, 2020 /s/Patricia Diaz _____

DATE PATRICIA DIAZ, FCRR, RPR, FPR

Official Court Reporter

United States District Court

400 North Miami Avenue, 11th Floor

Miami, Florida 33128

(305) 523-5178

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 27 of 33
/

/s/Patricia [1] - 27:14

1

1 [1] - 1:7

10022 [1] - 2:11

10166 [1] - 1:18

1050 [1] - 1:15

10:00 [1] - 21:14

11:00 [1] - 1:6

11:40 [2] - 1:6, 26:8

11th [2] - 2:16, 27:16

12(b [1] - 21:5

12(B)(1 [1] - 6:17

12(b)(2 [5] - 6:8,

6:16, 21:5, 21:7, 23:6

1224 [1] - 1:20

13 [1] - 9:10

14 [1] - 1:5

1600 [1] - 2:8

169 [1] - 1:20

16th [1] - 24:21

18th [7] - 21:13,

21:16, 23:12, 23:21,

23:24, 24:2, 24:23

1998 [1] - 5:10

2

2,000 [1] - 16:16

20-CV-22471 [1] -

3:4

20-CV-22471-DPG

[1] - 1:2

200 [2] - 1:17, 2:2

20036-5036 [1] - 1:15

2020 [2] - 1:5, 27:14

20th [1] - 2:10

22 [1] - 9:10

26 [1] - 11:9

2700 [1] - 1:24

28 [1] - 27:14

3

305 [2] - 2:17, 27:17

33128 [2] - 2:17,

27:17

33131 [2] - 1:20, 1:25

33131-2339 [1] - 2:3

33301 [1] - 2:8

35 [1] - 25:16

350 [1] - 2:7

4

400 [2] - 2:16, 27:16

47th [1] - 1:17

5

520 [1] - 2:10

523-5178 [2] - 2:17,

27:17

5300 [1] - 2:2

54 [1] - 23:1

6

600 [1] - 1:24

6023 [1] - 9:10

A

a.m [4] - 1:6, 21:14,

26:8

ability [2] - 11:20,

15:4

above-entitled [1] -

27:5

accept [2] - 10:12,

14:18

accepted [1] - 17:5

accommodate [1] -

25:24

accurate [1] - 27:4

Act [1] - 8:22

action [4] - 8:21,

19:4, 19:10, 20:24

actions [1] - 8:21

activity [10] - 9:11,

9:13, 9:15, 9:17, 9:23,

10:3, 10:20, 10:22,

15:16, 20:11

actual [1] - 11:4

add [1] - 16:1

additional [1] - 7:20

address [3] - 4:4,

7:23, 14:10

addressed [3] - 7:12,

16:6, 16:7

addresses [1] - 5:25

affidavit [1] - 10:21

affidavits [1] - 7:17

affiliates [1] - 16:13

affirmatively[1] -

19:17

afoul [1] - 8:8

ago [2] - 18:7, 24:25

agree [1] - 19:11

agreed [1] - 25:15

agreed-upon [1] -

25:15

agreement [2] - 8:17,

25:21

ahead [2] - 5:15,

7:25

AIR [1] - 2:1

Air[1] - 3:18

AKERMAN[2] - 2:7,

2:10

Akerman[2] - 3:20,

25:12

al [1] - 1:8

albeit [1] - 20:18

allegations [3] -

7:16, 10:6, 11:6

alleged [2] - 10:1,

10:2

Allen [2] - 3:14,

11:17

ALLEN [1] - 1:23

allow [6] - 4:20,

14:25, 15:4, 15:22,

20:24, 21:4

allowing [1] - 14:20

almost [2] - 7:20,

16:16

AMERICAN[1] - 1:4

American[2] - 3:2,

5:2

amount [1] - 19:7

ample [1] - 15:22

analysis [2] - 9:6,

20:15

anchor[1] - 9:2

answer[2] - 16:21,

25:1

answered [1] - 5:14

anticipate [1] - 25:16

apologize [1] - 22:14

Appeals [2] - 17:11,

17:13

appeals [1] - 18:1

appear[2] - 21:13,

23:20

appearance [1] - 3:5

APPEARANCES[1] -

1:12

appropriate [5] -

16:23, 18:5, 18:12,

18:14, 18:17

argue [6] - 7:5, 7:6,

14:8, 19:3, 19:9, 20:6

argued [2] - 14:12,

20:7

argues [1] - 19:17

arguing [2] - 9:20,

19:14

argument [6] - 7:7,

8:1, 17:5, 18:16, 20:2,

20:23

arguments [3] -

15:24, 16:14, 19:12

Arm [5] - 8:24, 9:25,

19:18, 20:1, 20:8

Article [6] - 6:23,

12:11, 15:18, 17:4,

17:20, 18:17

articulated [2] - 12:2,

15:5

aspect [1] - 10:1

asserting [1] - 9:22

assertions [1] - 7:18

assess [2] - 19:18,

20:9

assessed [1] - 17:13

assessment[2] -

7:9, 20:8

assume [3] - 5:12,

21:22, 25:1

assumes [1] - 6:6

assuring [1] - 8:4

attached [1] - 7:20

attacking [1] - 12:10

attacks [1] - 13:5

attempt [1] - 17:1

attention [1] - 9:5

AUDI [1] - 1:14

Audi [1] - 3:9

authority [3] - 12:24,

14:19, 14:23

available [2] - 10:8,

21:15

Avenue [6] - 1:15,

1:17, 1:24, 2:10, 2:16,

27:16

aware [1] - 25:19

B

b)(1 [1] - 22:3

b)(6 [1] - 22:4

background [1] -

10:4

bankruptcies [1] -

17:20

bankruptcy [3] -

12:14, 16:13, 16:15

barred [2] - 19:5,

19:10

based [6] - 7:8,

12:13, 16:12, 16:14,

17:19, 17:20

basic [1] - 7:15

basis [1] - 9:3

BBC [5] - 2:4, 2:5,

3:20, 3:21, 10:23

BEFORE [1] - 1:11

beginning [2] - 6:19,

18:25

behalf [4] - 3:16,

3:18, 3:20, 11:23

benefit [4] - 5:3,

14:17, 17:2, 20:22

benefited [2] - 9:14,

20:12

benefitted [1] - 9:18

benefitting [1] - 9:12

1

best [1] - 20:23

better[4] - 11:8,

21:1, 21:19, 23:14

between [2] - 6:13,

6:14

big [1] - 10:12

Biscayne [1] - 2:2

bit [3] - 19:6, 22:13,

22:14

blanket [1] - 10:21

Bobby [1] - 3:17

BOCKIUS [1] - 2:1

bottom [1] - 4:6

bought [2] - 17:20,

18:16

Boulevard [2] - 2:2,

2:7

bracket [1] - 17:18

breadth [1] - 9:16

Brickell [1] - 1:24

brief [9] - 6:24, 9:21,

14:1, 14:3, 14:4, 20:7,

20:14, 22:16, 23:19

briefed [8] - 13:3,

13:4, 14:5, 15:11,

21:1, 21:18, 21:24,

23:14

briefing [16] - 4:10,

13:19, 13:20, 14:6,

14:25, 20:17, 20:24,

21:4, 21:7, 21:9,

22:18, 22:21, 22:24,

23:4, 24:5

BROCHIN [2] - 2:1,

3:17

Brochin [1] - 3:17

Burton [1] - 8:21

business [1] - 24:21

BY [1] - 2:13

C

calendars [1] - 21:15

cannot [3] - 6:3,

22:9, 22:16

Caribbean [1] -

10:25

carry [1] - 7:4

case [27] - 3:4, 5:20,

5:21, 5:23, 5:24, 6:6,

6:14, 6:16, 6:17, 6:18,

7:10, 8:5, 11:1, 11:23,

13:14, 17:1, 17:8,

17:22, 17:24, 17:25,

18:1, 18:3, 18:4, 18:8,

21:2, 21:9

CASE[1] - 1:2

cases [8] - 5:8, 6:9,

12:3, 12:22, 14:18,

15:6, 18:13, 18:14

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 28 of 33
Casey [1] - 3:10

CASEY[1] - 1:16

causing [1] - 9:15

central [1] - 4:5

certainly [1] - 8:5

certify [1] - 27:3

challenge [3] -

11:21, 13:7, 14:21

challenges [2] -

11:21, 12:8

chance [1] - 19:2

changes [1] - 24:17

characterized [1] -

17:12

CHARTERING[2] -

2:4, 2:5

Chartering [2] - 3:20,

3:21

check [1] - 21:14

choose [1] - 6:14

chosen [2] - 7:17,

11:2

Chudasama [4] -

12:4, 17:8, 17:22,

17:25

CHUDASAMA[1] -

18:1

circling [1] - 11:18

Circuit [1] - 17:8

cite [1] - 15:6

cited [1] - 10:15

civil [1] - 16:20

claim [4] - 8:20,

15:18, 16:10, 17:15

claims [2] - 13:8,

17:19

clarification [1] -

21:21

clarify [1] - 22:19

clear[6] - 8:2, 8:9,

13:17, 14:7, 22:22,

24:8

client [4] - 16:12,

24:1, 24:14, 24:17

close [2] - 15:2,

24:21

CO [1] - 1:8

codes [1] - 10:7

colleague [2] - 3:10,

3:15

colleagues [1] - 3:22

coming [1] - 18:24

commences [1] -

20:10

commercial [9] -

9:11, 9:13, 9:17, 9:23,

10:3, 10:20, 10:22,

15:16, 20:11

Company [4] - 3:4,

5:8, 5:10, 8:8

competing [1] - 4:4

complaint [6] - 7:16,

10:6, 10:15, 11:2,

17:14, 18:24

comply [1] - 9:22

conceded [1] - 9:20

concern [1] - 4:21

conclude [1] - 19:2

concluded [1] - 26:8

conduct [3] - 12:14,

23:8, 23:19

conference [1] -

21:12

confines [1] - 11:9

confiscated [5] - 9:8,

9:12, 9:14, 9:24,

20:12

confused [1] - 22:14

Connecticut [1] -

1:15

consider[5] - 8:24,

18:10, 23:2, 23:11,

24:24

consideration [3] -

6:9, 13:11, 18:19

considered [1] - 17:6

Constitution [1] -

6:23

contend [2] - 16:10,

16:24

contending [1] -

7:21

contention [7] -

6:25, 7:15, 12:7, 16:7,

16:12, 16:22, 17:3

contentions [2] -

6:18, 6:21

continue [4] - 21:4,

21:9, 22:20, 22:24

contract [1] - 10:17

controlled [1] - 5:7

controversy[4] -

6:4, 8:3, 8:18, 8:20

conveniens [1] -

5:17

core [3] - 6:1, 12:16,

15:17

correct [2] - 6:2,

20:15

counsel [11] - 3:5,

3:9, 12:7, 12:11,

12:19, 12:22, 14:18,

15:9, 15:15, 25:23,

25:24

countered [1] - 22:9

couple [2] - 16:14,

18:7

course [3] - 14:2,

20:23, 21:14

Court [33] - 2:15,

2:15, 3:1, 4:7, 4:8,

5:8, 5:14, 5:19, 5:22,

6:13, 6:15, 7:5, 11:8,

11:20, 12:22, 12:23,

12:25, 14:18, 14:19,

14:24, 16:24, 17:9,

17:11, 17:13, 18:13,

19:8, 19:10, 24:19,

25:19, 25:22, 27:15,

27:16

court [8] - 5:3, 16:25,

17:4, 17:5, 17:10,

18:1, 19:20, 19:22

COURT [30] - 1:1,

3:12, 3:24, 4:1, 8:9,

8:13, 11:15, 11:25,

13:17, 14:8, 15:7,

16:1, 17:23, 19:22,

20:3, 20:16, 21:25,

22:6, 22:22, 23:8,

23:11, 23:17, 23:22,

24:4, 24:20, 25:3,

25:6, 25:10, 25:20,

25:25

Court's [4] - 9:5,

12:8, 12:12, 13:6

courtesy [1] - 25:24

COURTROOM [1] -

3:2

courts [3] - 7:1, 7:2,

14:10

COVID-19 [1] - 27:9

Crutcher[1] - 3:7

CRUTCHER [2] -

1:14, 1:17

Cuba [3] - 9:3, 9:8,

9:9

cut [2] - 19:23, 19:25

Cuyler[1] - 3:15

CUYLER [1] - 1:23

D

DARRIN [1] - 1:11

DATE[1] - 27:15

DAVID [1] - 1:19

David [1] - 3:10

days [4] - 18:7, 23:4,

24:12, 24:25

DC [2] - 1:15, 3:8

decide [5] - 4:16,

4:17, 5:15, 5:17, 6:3

deciding [2] - 5:17,

6:4

decision [6] - 5:6,

5:12, 6:3, 6:10, 6:11,

15:2

declaration [2] -

10:12, 10:17

declarations [3] -

7:17, 9:21, 10:5

defendant [3] - 3:18,

11:16, 17:10

defendant's [2] -

24:1, 24:5

defendants [18] -

1:9, 3:20, 3:24, 4:9,

4:19, 6:20, 7:13, 7:16,

9:1, 9:21, 11:24, 14:1,

15:16, 15:20, 16:2,

18:22, 24:25, 25:10

defense [3] - 12:22,

16:18, 16:21

deficiencies [1] -

12:12

defined [1] - 10:2

definite [1] - 5:20

definitely [1] - 24:16

definition [3] - 8:16,

9:7, 20:10

delay [1] - 17:12

delivery [1] - 10:17

denial [1] - 10:21

DEPUTY[1] - 3:2

describe [1] - 9:1

determination [1] -

4:25

determine [1] - 14:2

determined [1] -

4:23

determining [1] -

14:13

Diaz [1] - 27:14

DIAZ [2] - 2:14,

27:15

different [5] - 5:23,

7:13, 16:25, 20:18,

24:6

direct [1] - 23:24

disclosures [1] -

12:14

disconnected [1] -

19:20

discovery [42] - 4:10,

4:21, 4:22, 6:7, 7:12,

7:21, 7:24, 8:7, 8:10,

8:11, 8:13, 9:18,

10:11, 11:7, 11:9,

11:10, 12:5, 12:18,

13:15, 14:13, 14:20,

15:4, 15:9, 15:12,

15:14, 15:19, 15:23,

17:11, 18:5, 18:10,

19:14, 20:6, 21:3,

21:24, 22:10, 22:13,

22:18, 22:20, 23:9,

23:20

discretion [2] -

14:25, 15:22

discussion [2] -

2

12:17, 15:13

dismiss [33] - 6:21,

6:22, 7:14, 12:6,

13:21, 14:7, 16:8,

16:14, 16:17, 16:24,

17:13, 17:17, 18:9,

18:11, 18:16, 20:18,

20:20, 20:25, 21:5,

21:8, 21:10, 21:17,

21:22, 22:2, 22:3,

22:8, 22:17, 22:25,

23:5, 23:13, 24:3,

24:10, 25:14

dismissal [4] - 13:8,

15:1, 15:24, 19:16

dismissed [1] - 19:4

disposition [1] - 8:6

dispute [4] - 7:17,

7:18, 9:19

distinction [1] - 14:9

DISTRICT [3] - 1:1,

1:1, 1:11

district [4] - 7:1, 7:2,

7:9, 17:9

District [2] - 2:15,

27:16

DIVISION [1] - 1:2

Docket [1] - 23:1

docket [1] - 24:7

documents [2] -

7:18, 7:21

Dom [1] - 3:23

DOMB [1] - 2:9

down [4] - 4:2, 7:3,

15:15, 17:6

draw [1] - 9:5

drew [1] - 14:8

dropping [1] - 9:2

DSV [4] - 2:1, 3:18,

10:13, 20:7

dubious [2] - 17:15,

17:18

due [3] - 12:15,

24:11, 24:20

DUNN [2] - 1:14,

1:17

Dunn [1] - 3:7

during [1] - 27:8

E

East [1] - 2:7

effectively [1] -

24:24

efficiency [4] - 13:9,

14:23, 18:14

either[6] - 5:18,

11:20, 12:18, 24:7,

25:8, 26:1

elements [1] - 7:19

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 29 of 33
Eleventh [1] - 17:8

end [2] - 13:13,

24:13

engage [1] - 17:10

engaged [3] - 10:16,

10:21, 20:11

Engaging [1] - 9:11

engaging [6] - 9:13,

9:17, 10:2, 10:19,

15:16, 17:11

enter[1] - 10:25

entered [1] - 10:16

entitled [2] - 11:5,

27:5

Entry [1] - 23:1

equities [1] - 18:20

error[2] - 10:9,

10:12

especially [3] -

17:14, 17:18, 20:22

ESQ [10] - 1:13, 1:14,

1:16, 1:19, 1:23, 1:23,

2:1, 2:6, 2:6, 2:9

essential [1] - 9:22

essentially [2] -

13:23, 24:1

establishing [1] -

15:19

estoppel [1] - 16:19

Estrada [9] - 3:7,

4:15, 4:24, 5:2, 14:8,

19:25, 20:3, 22:22,

25:20

ESTRADA[24] -

1:13, 3:6, 3:7, 3:13,

5:1, 8:12, 8:15, 16:5,

17:25, 20:4, 21:20,

22:3, 22:7, 23:7,

23:10, 23:16, 23:18,

23:25, 24:12, 24:22,

25:5, 25:9, 25:23,

26:5

et [1] - 1:8

exactly [4] - 5:6,

20:4, 20:6, 23:22

example [6] - 5:22,

6:8, 8:7, 10:7, 10:13,

14:20

exceedingly [1] -

17:12

exception [1] - 24:2

excuse [1] - 19:22

exercise [1] - 14:24

existing [1] - 18:13

expect [3] - 10:11,

19:3, 19:7

expected [1] - 11:4

explore [1] - 15:16

extension [3] -

25:15, 25:17, 25:18

extent [1] - 7:2

extra [1] - 24:12

extrinsic [1] - 16:16

F

face [2] - 11:5, 15:25

fact [2] - 7:16, 16:12

factors [2] - 12:3,

15:5

factual [2] - 11:6,

19:7

factually [1] - 10:6

fairly [1] - 13:4

faith [1] - 19:8

far[1] - 21:3

FCRR [2] - 2:14,

27:15

federal [5] - 8:21,

8:24, 9:22, 10:8,

20:10

few [1] - 22:1

fighting [1] - 19:8

fights [1] - 11:11

file [7] - 6:25, 14:1,

23:1, 23:23, 24:13,

24:15, 25:3

filed [16] - 6:20, 8:18,

9:21, 10:4, 10:5,

10:17, 10:20, 12:15,

13:4, 14:3, 14:4,

15:11, 18:6, 18:21,

19:10, 24:25

filing [2] - 16:18,

22:4

filings [2] - 7:19,

19:15

final [1] - 19:13

finally [1] - 15:8

fine [2] - 24:11,

24:20

firm [1] - 3:9

first [12] - 4:14, 4:23,

4:24, 4:25, 5:4, 6:2,

6:12, 11:15, 13:10,

15:25, 16:20, 25:20

Flagler [1] - 1:20

Floor [4] - 1:17, 2:10,

2:16, 27:16

FLORIDA [1] - 1:1

Florida [13] - 1:4,

1:20, 1:25, 2:3, 2:8,

2:17, 8:23, 9:4, 9:20,

9:25, 10:23, 19:18,

27:17

followed [1] - 5:13

footnote [2] - 19:16,

20:7

FOR [5] - 1:13, 1:22,

2:1, 2:4, 2:5

forced [1] - 17:10

foregoing [1] - 27:3

formulation [2] - 5:5,

6:1

Fort [1] - 2:8

forth [2] - 7:23, 10:23

forum [3] - 5:17,

5:23, 8:7

forums [1] - 12:19

forward [7] - 11:20,

11:22, 12:24, 13:1,

14:20, 15:5, 18:17

FPR [2] - 2:14, 27:15

framed [2] - 5:5, 8:19

frankly [1] - 19:14

fraud [1] - 17:15

FREYRE [1] - 2:6

Freyre [1] - 3:22

Friday [2] - 24:18,

24:21

front [1] - 9:2

full [1] - 20:24

fully [9] - 8:10, 13:3,

13:4, 14:5, 15:10,

19:3, 21:1, 21:18,

23:13

G

GAYLES[1] - 1:11

Gayles [1] - 3:14

general [1] - 11:8

GIBSON [2] - 1:14,

1:17

Gibson [1] - 3:7

given [1] - 8:18

Goldwind [3] - 3:3,

3:16, 10:14

GOLDWIND [2] - 1:7,

1:22

government[1] -

10:9

grant [2] - 19:1, 21:6

granted [4] - 13:12,

13:24, 24:1, 24:23

granting [2] - 24:4,

24:24

grounds [5] - 12:10,

12:18, 13:7, 15:1,

17:17

guess [2] - 4:5, 4:24

H

handling [1] - 6:14

hang [1] - 21:14

happy [2] - 11:7,

11:12

hard [2] - 16:9

heard [3] - 12:22,

14:8, 15:18

hearing [5] - 4:2,

6:20, 16:3, 26:3, 27:8

HEARING [1] - 1:10

held [2] - 5:11, 5:23

Helms [1] - 8:21

Helms-Burton [1] -

8:21

hereby [1] - 27:3

HOGAN [1] - 1:24

Hogan [2] - 3:15,

11:17

Honor [26] - 3:6,

3:19, 3:25, 5:1, 11:19,

11:22, 12:1, 12:9,

12:15, 13:23, 14:22,

15:8, 15:22, 16:5,

21:20, 23:16, 24:16,

24:22, 25:5, 25:9,

25:11, 25:23, 26:5,

26:6, 26:7

Honor's [1] - 11:19

HONORABLE [1] -

1:11

hope [1] - 19:9

housekeeping [2] -

18:18, 21:21

I

idea [1] - 23:14

identical [1] - 7:10

identified [2] - 6:19,

16:8

ignore [1] - 11:3

III [6] - 6:23, 12:11,

15:18, 17:4, 17:20,

18:17

important [1] - 8:19

impossible [1] - 6:6

INC [1] - 1:4

include [1] - 13:20

including [4] - 4:18,

13:19, 14:6, 22:12

individual [1] - 4:19

Industries [1] - 3:3

INDUSTRIES [1] -

1:4

inherent [1] - 6:2

initial [2] - 11:19,

11:24

interim [1] - 6:7

International [1] -

3:16

INTERNATIONAL[1]

- 1:22

interrupt [1] - 21:20

issue [10] - 4:5, 4:6,

8:5, 8:16, 11:12,

12:16, 13:14, 15:17,

3

17:9, 21:21

issues [12] - 4:4,

4:10, 6:8, 7:12, 12:11,

12:25, 13:3, 14:11,

14:12, 14:13, 14:25

J

Jermaine [1] - 19:23

joint [8] - 6:21, 12:2,

13:1, 13:10, 15:6,

16:13, 22:2

JR [1] - 1:23

JUDGE [1] - 1:11

Judge [5] - 3:14,

11:17, 12:1, 12:17,

14:16

judge [1] - 4:22

judges [1] - 7:9

judicial [2] - 13:9,

16:25

jurisdiction [52] -

4:7, 4:8, 4:18, 4:19,

4:23, 5:12, 5:15, 5:16,

5:18, 6:4, 6:12, 6:23,

7:14, 7:19, 7:24, 8:4,

9:4, 9:19, 11:21, 12:9,

12:10, 12:13, 12:24,

13:6, 13:21, 14:7,

14:10, 14:12, 14:22,

15:1, 15:20, 15:24,

16:10, 16:22, 17:3,

19:8, 19:11, 19:17,

20:18, 20:21, 20:25,

21:11, 21:18, 21:22,

22:9, 22:17, 22:25,

23:5, 23:13, 23:23,

24:10

jurisdictional [28] -

4:20, 7:12, 8:10, 8:11,

12:5, 12:18, 13:3,

13:15, 14:6, 14:20,

15:4, 15:9, 15:12,

15:14, 15:19, 15:23,

18:4, 18:10, 19:3,

21:3, 21:23, 22:10,

22:13, 22:17, 22:18,

22:20, 23:9, 23:20

Justice [1] - 5:10

K

keep [1] - 10:19

kept [1] - 18:21

keyed [1] - 18:23

kid [1] - 16:15

knows [1] - 25:23

KYUNG [1] - 1:16

KYUNG-SE [1] - 1:16

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 30 of 33
L

lack [16] - 7:14,

12:14, 13:21, 19:17,

20:18, 20:20, 20:25,

21:10, 21:17, 21:22,

22:8, 22:25, 23:5,

23:13, 24:9, 24:10

large [1] - 19:7

Las [1] - 2:7

last [4] - 5:19, 7:20,

8:18, 19:25

late [2] - 5:10, 7:19

Lauderdale [1] - 2:8

law [1] - 8:2

laws [1] - 9:22

lead [1] - 11:11

least [1] - 21:2

leave [1] - 23:8

LEE [1] - 1:16

Lee [1] - 3:10

left [2] - 13:14, 20:4

lengthy [1] - 17:12

Lewis [1] - 3:18

LEWIS [1] - 2:1

light [2] - 24:17,

24:22

limitations [2] -

18:22, 27:10

Limited [1] - 3:4

limits [2] - 25:15,

25:18

line [2] - 3:9, 3:22

list [1] - 11:7

LLC [1] - 3:21

LLP [7] - 1:14, 1:17,

1:19, 1:24, 2:1, 2:7,

2:10

Long-Arm [5] - 8:24,

9:25, 19:18, 20:1,

20:8

look [2] - 17:16,

19:15

looked [1] - 7:9

looking [1] - 19:1

LOVELLS [1] - 1:24

Lovells [2] - 3:16,

11:18

LTD [2] - 1:8, 3:21

M

Madison [1] - 2:10

magistrate [1] - 4:22

manage [2] - 6:6, 8:5

management [2] -

5:21, 5:24

Mandel [1] - 3:11

MANDEL [3] - 1:19,

1:19

Martin [1] - 3:23

MARTIN[1] - 2:9

material [1] - 11:4

materials [2] - 16:16,

19:7

matter[30] - 4:7,

4:17, 4:23, 5:15, 5:18,

6:4, 6:22, 8:4, 11:21,

12:8, 12:10, 12:13,

12:24, 13:6, 14:9,

14:21, 15:1, 15:24,

16:10, 16:22, 17:3,

20:21, 20:25, 21:10,

21:18, 21:22, 22:25,

23:13, 24:10, 27:5

matters [2] - 4:22,

18:18

mean [2] - 4:6, 25:6

memorialized [2] -

24:7, 25:7

mentioned [1] - 6:10

merely [2] - 9:8, 9:9

meritorious [1] -

16:19

merits [18] - 5:13,

5:20, 6:3, 6:11, 6:13,

6:17, 7:4, 7:8, 8:3,

8:5, 14:11, 14:13,

15:13, 15:17, 17:10,

19:14, 20:6

MIAMI [1] - 1:2

Miami [11] - 1:4,

1:20, 1:25, 2:3, 2:16,

2:17, 3:10, 3:16, 3:23,

27:16, 27:17

midnight [1] - 7:20

might [2] - 7:4, 16:24

Miguel [2] - 3:6, 5:2

MIGUEL [1] - 1:13

mind [2] - 10:19,

24:18

mindful [1] - 4:2

mistaken [1] - 10:6

moment [1] - 10:10

moot [1] - 12:17

Morgan [1] - 3:18

MORGAN [1] - 2:1

morning [7] - 3:6,

3:12, 3:13, 3:14, 3:17,

3:19, 4:1

MOTION [1] - 1:10

motion [64] - 6:21,

6:22, 7:11, 8:10, 8:11,

10:15, 12:2, 12:6,

12:8, 13:1, 13:2, 13:5,

13:10, 13:11, 13:12,

13:18, 13:20, 13:24,

13:25, 14:4, 15:6,

15:10, 16:8, 16:11,

16:14, 16:17, 16:24,

17:13, 17:17, 17:21,

18:6, 18:9, 18:10,

18:15, 19:16, 20:17,

20:20, 20:25, 21:1,

21:4, 21:5, 21:10,

21:17, 21:22, 21:24,

22:2, 22:3, 22:8,

22:16, 22:19, 22:24,

23:5, 23:6, 23:8,

23:12, 23:19, 24:2,

24:4, 24:5, 24:10,

24:24, 25:2, 25:14

motions [16] - 4:3,

4:4, 6:19, 7:13, 11:3,

13:21, 14:6, 15:12,

21:6, 21:7, 21:23,

22:1, 23:11, 23:23,

24:3

move [5] - 11:20,

12:24, 13:1, 14:19,

19:16

MR [34] - 3:6, 3:13,

3:14, 3:17, 3:19, 3:25,

5:1, 8:12, 8:15, 11:17,

12:1, 13:23, 14:16,

15:8, 16:5, 17:25,

20:4, 21:20, 22:3,

22:7, 23:7, 23:10,

23:16, 23:18, 23:25,

24:12, 24:22, 25:5,

25:9, 25:11, 25:23,

26:5, 26:6, 26:7

multiple [1] - 12:9

mystified [1] - 19:15

N

NAIM [1] - 2:6

Naim [2] - 3:19,

25:11

narrow [1] - 11:10

nature [1] - 8:8

necessarily [1] -

5:15

necessary [1] -

10:23

need [9] - 8:13,

10:10, 14:1, 23:2,

23:3, 24:11, 24:17,

25:22, 26:1

needed [3] - 7:4,

7:22, 7:24

needs [1] - 5:24

New [5] - 1:18, 2:11,

3:23

next [1] - 18:25

night [2] - 7:20, 8:19

NO [1] - 1:2

non [5] - 5:17, 5:20,

6:17, 8:7, 16:19

normally [1] - 14:9

North [4] - 2:16, 3:2,

5:2, 27:16

NORTH [1] - 1:4

note [3] - 15:8, 17:6,

27:8

noted [2] - 12:1, 12:7

nothing [6] - 9:2,

9:3, 10:18, 11:1,

23:22, 26:3

notice [1] - 16:25

November[7] -

21:13, 21:16, 23:12,

23:21, 23:24, 24:2,

24:23

number[2] - 3:4,

7:15

NW [1] - 1:15

O

observation [2] -

4:14, 4:16

obviously [2] -

11:13, 24:6

occurred [2] - 24:15,

27:8

October[3] - 1:5,

24:21, 27:14

OF [1] - 1:1

official [1] - 2:15

Official [1] - 27:15

Olas [1] - 2:7

omnibus [6] - 12:6,

12:8, 13:2, 13:5,

13:12, 13:25

once [2] - 10:25,

21:1

one [16] - 6:21, 7:4,

7:8, 9:20, 12:7, 16:19,

17:16, 17:20, 18:16,

19:5, 19:19, 20:11,

21:20, 21:21, 22:4,

25:13

ongoing [1] - 21:23

oppose [1] - 11:2

opposition [6] -

6:24, 12:15, 13:4,

13:25, 14:2, 25:14

oppositions [2] -

15:11

oral [2] - 24:24, 25:7

order[5] - 5:12, 14:4,

14:24, 15:2, 19:18

Order[1] - 3:1

orders [1] - 6:7

otherwise [3] - 9:11,

9:14, 12:5

outline [1] - 11:13

outlined [3] - 13:1,

4

15:9, 18:23

outset [1] - 11:10

overarching [3] -

4:13, 4:14, 4:16

own [4] - 7:6, 12:13,

19:15, 20:14

P

page [2] - 25:15,

25:18

pages [2] - 16:16,

25:16

Pages [1] - 1:7

pandemic [1] - 27:9

papers [2] - 15:25,

18:15

parameters [1] -

11:13

Park [1] - 1:17

part [5] - 5:25, 6:2,

8:19, 9:23, 20:7

participated [1] -

20:12

participating [1] -

9:15

parties [4] - 4:11,

6:7, 13:1, 21:13

parties' [1] - 4:3

party [2] - 10:16,

13:9

PATRICIA[2] - 2:14,

27:15

PEDRO [1] - 2:6

Pedro [1] - 3:22

Pegg [4] - 3:15,

11:17, 16:7, 19:13

PEGG [9] - 1:23,

3:14, 3:25, 11:17,

12:1, 13:23, 14:16,

15:8, 26:7

pending [3] - 14:21,

20:20, 24:3

period [1] - 8:14

personal [22] - 4:8,

4:18, 5:16, 5:18, 7:14,

7:19, 7:23, 9:4, 9:19,

12:24, 13:21, 14:7,

14:12, 19:3, 19:8,

19:11, 19:17, 20:18,

22:8, 22:17, 23:5,

23:23

phone [1] - 19:20

plaintiff [1] - 16:4

Plaintiff [1] - 1:5

PLAINTIFF [1] - 1:13

plaintiff's [4] - 12:13,

12:22, 13:8, 13:25

plaintiffs [1] - 4:15

planet [1] - 17:5

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 31 of 33
pleadings [1] - 8:18

ploy [1] - 19:6

point [12] - 9:6, 10:9,

11:19, 11:24, 12:4,

16:17, 18:3, 19:13,

19:15, 19:21, 23:15,

25:13

pointing [1] - 17:4

port [10] - 9:2, 9:8,

9:9, 9:17, 9:18, 9:24,

10:3, 10:20, 10:22,

15:17

position [2] - 6:17,

22:16

premise [1] - 6:5

prepared [2] - 7:23,

24:13

present [1] - 17:1

presented [1] - 6:25

pretty [1] - 4:4

primarily [1] - 11:23

principle [1] - 6:1

probe [1] - 11:6

procedural [1] -

14:24

procedure [1] -

16:20

proceed [5] - 4:5,

4:12, 14:14, 21:2,

23:14

proceeding [1] -

22:15

Proceedings [1] -

26:8

proceedings [10] -

12:5, 12:14, 16:15,

16:25, 18:7, 20:24,

24:15, 24:18, 25:1,

27:4

process [1] - 13:13

proffer[1] - 19:7

profiting [1] - 9:15

prong [4] - 9:25,

19:18, 20:1, 20:8

property [3] - 9:12,

9:14, 20:12

proposition [4] -

5:11, 6:10, 11:8,

20:11

provides [1] - 6:6

PTE [1] - 3:21

public [1] - 10:14

publicly [1] - 10:8

purpose [1] - 8:23

purposes [6] - 7:25,

8:1, 8:23, 9:18, 14:23,

23:25

put [2] - 11:4, 16:21

Q

questioned [1] -

14:10

quote [1] - 17:14

quoting [2] - 9:9,

20:14

R

raise [2] - 7:13,

16:23

raised [3] - 6:18,

16:8, 18:19

raising [1] - 17:3

range [1] - 7:18

rather[1] - 11:9

read [1] - 14:17

ready [2] - 6:8, 14:5

really [2] - 5:7, 16:9

reason [3] - 12:25,

15:3, 15:21

reasons [3] - 15:23,

20:19, 24:6

received [1] - 13:25

recently [1] - 14:17

recess [1] - 26:3

recognize [2] - 7:7,

18:15

recognized [1] - 18:4

reconvene [1] -

23:12

referenced [1] -

12:12

referring [1] - 21:23

regard [1] - 24:9

regarding [1] - 4:10

regardless [4] -

12:21, 12:23, 14:19,

14:22

REGINALD [1] - 1:23

Reginald [1] - 3:15

regular[1] - 12:3

rejected [1] - 7:1

relatively [2] - 14:3,

15:2

relevance [1] - 11:14

relevant[4] - 9:4,

10:22, 13:11, 18:20

relevantly [1] - 9:24

reliance [1] - 17:7

remind [1] - 13:18

remotely [1] - 27:10

render[3] - 5:12, 6:3,

8:3

repeat [1] - 20:3

reply [7] - 14:1, 14:3,

14:4, 16:4, 23:3,

25:17, 25:18

report [2] - 23:25,

24:14

REPORTED [1] -

2:13

REPORTER [2] -

17:23, 19:22

Reporter[2] - 2:15,

27:15

reporter[3] - 5:3,

19:20, 19:23

reporting [1] - 27:10

representation [1] -

14:18

request [2] - 4:20,

8:11

resolution [3] - 14:5,

17:12, 18:8

resolutions [1] -

5:21

resolved [4] - 12:6,

12:17, 13:12, 14:12

respect [3] - 7:11,

17:4, 18:6

respective [2] - 21:6,

21:15

respond [3] - 14:15,

16:6, 22:9

response [3] - 22:4,

23:1, 24:9

rest [1] - 11:22

result [1] - 13:24

returning [1] - 16:3

ripe [3] - 4:3, 8:10,

20:21

rival [1] - 6:19

road [1] - 7:3

ROBERT [1] - 2:1

roost [1] - 18:24

RPR [2] - 2:14, 27:15

Ruhgras [3] - 5:8,

5:13, 6:15

Rule [1] - 11:9

rule [2] - 4:22, 8:8

ruling [5] - 5:20, 7:3,

8:3, 25:7

rulings [1] - 6:13

running [1] - 8:8

S

Scalia [1] - 5:10

SCIENCE [1] - 1:7

Science [1] - 3:3

scope [1] - 8:17

SE [1] - 1:16

Sea [1] - 3:18

SEA [1] - 2:1

second [6] - 5:25,

6:5, 6:16, 16:7, 18:3,

18:19

Section [1] - 9:10

see [6] - 6:24, 14:1,

16:11, 23:10, 24:17,

25:21

seeking [1] - 25:17

send [1] - 5:23

sense [5] - 4:11,

12:16, 19:19, 21:2,

21:19

sensibility [1] - 12:4

separate [1] - 13:21

separately [2] - 4:8,

7:13

sequence [1] - 14:24

series [1] - 6:16

serve [2] - 11:6, 11:9

set [2] - 4:2, 21:12

seven [1] - 23:4

several [1] - 21:25

ships [1] - 10:25

short [4] - 13:18,

14:3, 15:2, 25:17

show [1] - 10:11

showing [1] - 9:8

side [1] - 26:1

sides [2] - 4:9, 20:17

silence [1] - 16:3

simply [1] - 20:6

SINGAPORE [1] -

2:5

Singapore [1] - 3:21

Sinochem [5] - 5:9,

5:16, 5:19, 5:23, 8:6

slew [1] - 11:4

soon [2] - 13:4,

24:16

sorry [3] - 17:23,

21:20, 22:13

sort [5] - 5:4, 6:5,

7:4, 10:24, 18:24

sought [1] - 22:11

sounded [2] - 15:10,

15:13

sources [1] - 10:9

SOUTHERN [1] - 1:1

speaking [1] - 19:25

specific [1] - 15:19

squabbles [1] -

11:11

stand [1] - 6:10

standing [1] - 12:11

start [2] - 8:16, 18:24

starting [1] - 9:6

statements [1] -

10:14

States [2] - 2:15,

27:16

STATES[2] - 1:1,

1:11

stating [1] - 10:5

5

status [1] - 21:12

Statute [5] - 8:24,

9:25, 19:19, 20:1,

20:8

statute [3] - 9:10,

10:1, 18:22

statutory [4] - 8:20,

9:7, 9:16, 11:3

stay [22] - 4:10, 12:2,

12:4, 13:10, 13:19,

13:24, 14:25, 15:6,

18:7, 18:9, 19:9,

20:17, 20:24, 21:6,

22:5, 22:11, 23:4,

24:2, 24:4, 24:5,

24:23, 24:25

stayed [5] - 14:6,

14:7, 22:12, 23:9,

25:2

staying [1] - 22:6

Steel [3] - 5:8, 5:10,

8:8

STENOGRAPHICA

LLY [1] - 2:13

step [1] - 8:15

still [1] - 20:20

stop [2] - 9:20, 10:23

streamline [1] -

13:13

Street [1] - 1:20

stretch [1] - 18:2

student [1] - 16:20

subject [29] - 4:7,

4:17, 4:23, 5:15, 5:18,

6:4, 6:22, 8:4, 11:21,

12:8, 12:10, 12:13,

13:6, 14:9, 14:21,

15:1, 15:24, 16:10,

16:22, 17:3, 20:21,

20:25, 21:10, 21:18,

22:25, 23:13, 24:10,

25:14, 27:9

submit [1] - 25:21

submitted [1] - 10:9

Subsection [1] -

9:10

substantial [1] - 10:1

substantive [2] -

13:7, 14:11

sufficiency [1] -

12:18

SUGAR [1] - 1:4

Sugar[2] - 3:2, 5:2

suing [1] - 17:19

suit [1] - 18:21

Suite [4] - 1:20, 1:24,

2:2, 2:8

support [2] - 10:24,

13:7

supported [1] -

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 32 of 33
16:15

Supreme [4] - 5:8,

12:22, 14:17, 18:13

surely [1] - 10:11

SURGEON [4] - 2:6,

3:19, 25:11, 26:6

Surgeon [2] - 3:20,

25:11

Syarief[1] - 3:10

SYARIEF [1] - 1:14

T

tactical [1] - 19:6

technological [1] -

27:10

TECHNOLOGY [1] -

1:8

Technology [1] - 3:3

telephone [1] - 21:13

TELEPHONIC [1] -

1:10

texting [1] - 19:23

THE [31] - 1:11, 1:13,

3:12, 3:24, 4:1, 8:9,

8:13, 11:15, 11:25,

13:17, 14:8, 15:7,

16:1, 17:23, 19:22,

20:3, 20:16, 21:25,

22:6, 22:22, 23:8,

23:11, 23:17, 23:22,

24:4, 24:20, 25:3,

25:6, 25:10, 25:20,

25:25

theory [2] - 17:14,

17:18

therefore [1] - 27:9

three [6] - 5:7, 6:9,

7:13, 19:16, 20:7,

24:12

timely [2] - 18:21,

19:10

Title [1] - 9:10

today [16] - 12:15,

13:5, 13:25, 16:18,

22:4, 23:1, 24:1, 24:8,

24:11, 24:13, 24:15,

24:18, 24:23, 25:8,

26:2

tomorrow [2] - 24:8,

25:8

tort [16] - 8:24, 8:25,

9:1, 9:7, 9:16, 9:25,

10:2, 10:19, 11:3,

19:18, 19:19, 20:1,

20:8, 20:9, 20:10

touch [1] - 15:19

transcription [1] -

27:4

transmitted [1] -

10:8

tried [1] - 19:23

trilogy [2] - 12:21,

14:17

trips [1] - 18:23

true [1] - 10:7

try [2] - 11:9, 22:23

trying [4] - 13:18,

20:5, 20:6, 22:19

turbans [1] - 10:17

turn [3] - 4:14, 16:11,

17:7

turned [1] - 17:6

two [3] - 16:5, 18:22,

24:25

two-year[1] - 18:22

type [1] - 13:16

types [1] - 15:9

U

ultimate [1] - 6:11

ultimately [2] - 9:24,

16:18

unanimously [1] -

7:1

under [9] - 8:20,

9:25, 12:3, 12:21,

13:11, 15:17, 17:18,

18:13, 20:8

understood [1] -

23:16

UNITED [2] - 1:1,

1:11

united [1] - 2:15

United [1] - 27:16

unless [1] - 23:1

unlike [1] - 13:3

untimely [1] - 19:5

up [6] - 9:8, 13:10,

13:14, 15:25, 21:14,

26:2

urges [1] - 20:15

USA [3] - 2:4, 3:21,

10:24

V

value [1] - 11:5

various [1] - 15:5

versus [1] - 3:3

vs [1] - 1:6

W

wait [1] - 10:10

waiting [1] - 18:21

wants [1] - 16:1

warranted [1] - 13:15

Washington [2] -

6

1:15, 3:8

waste [1] - 18:18

website [1] - 10:24

week [1] - 12:2

weekend [1] - 24:13

weighty [1] - 15:23

whole [1] - 22:12

word [1] - 5:19

writing [2] - 25:2,

25:7

written [1] - 24:24

wrote [1] - 15:15

X

XINJIAN [1] - 1:7

Xinjiang [1] - 3:3

Y

year[3] - 16:20,

18:22, 18:25

years [1] - 5:13

yesterday[1] - 15:12

York [5] - 1:18, 2:11,

3:23

yourself[1] - 8:4

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2020 Page 33 of 33