121618907.v2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 

XFINITY MOBILE, A BRAND OF COMCAST 

OTR1, LLC, COMCAST CABLE 

COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and COMCAST 

CORPORATION, 

 Petitioners, 

v. 

AS TRADING CORP and SFA TRADING 

“INC”, 

 Respondents. 

Miscellaneous Action No. _____________ 

PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH 

SUBPOENAS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

Petitioners Xfinity Mobile, a brand of Comcast OTR1, LLC, Comcast Cable 

Communications, LLC, and Comcast Corporation (“Petitioners” or “Xfinity Mobile”) move this 

Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 45, to compel non-parties AS Trading 

Corp and SFA Trading “Inc” (collectively, “Respondents”) to produce the documents identified in 

the issued subpoenas. This motion is based on the memorandum of law set forth herein and the 

Declaration of Gail Podolsky and exhibits attached thereto. 

INTRODUCTION 

 Xfinity Mobile’s Motion to Compel relates to an action pending in the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of Georgia, Xfinity Mobile, a brand of Comcast OTR1, LLC, et al. v. Devin 

Tech Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-CV-03294-JPB (the “Underlying Case”). Xfinity Mobile 

filed suit against Defendants Devin Tech Inc., Abuzer Emre Ozer, Samet Eraslan, and Mehmet 

Taskin (collectively, “Defendants”) because they are engaged in, and knowingly facilitate and 

Case 9:20-mc-80722-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 1 of 12
2

121618907.v2 

encourage others to engage in, unlawful business practices involving the unauthorized and deceptive 

purchase and resale of wireless communications handsets under the brand Xfinity Mobile 

(collectively “XM Phones” or “Phones”), the theft of Xfinity Mobile’s financial investment in the 

Phones, the unlawful access of Xfinity Mobile’s protected computer networks, the trafficking of 

Xfinity Mobile’s security codes, and the willful infringement of the Xfinity Mobile trademarks 

(collectively, the “Scheme”). Xfinity Mobile’s Complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief as a 

result of Defendants’ violations of multiple state and federal laws. A true and correct copy of the 

Complaint in the Underlying Case is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

 In the course of the litigation, Xfinity Mobile uncovered evidence demonstrating that 

Respondents transacted business with some of the Defendants and have relevant information 

regarding Defendants’ trafficking of XM Phones. Xfinity Mobile identified AS Trading Corp. and 

SF Trading “Inc” in Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures in the Underlying Case. See Declaration of Gail 

Podolsky (“Podolsky Decl.”) at ¶ 16, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. On October 31, 2019, Xfinity 

Mobile issued Subpoenas Duces Tecum to Produce Documents in a Civil Action (the “Subpoenas”) 

to Respondents requiring them to produce documents relating to their transactions with Defendants 

on November 18, 2019. To date, Respondents have not produced any documents or served any 

written objections, which are now waived, and did not file for a protective order, asking that this 

discovery not be had. Accordingly, Xfinity Mobile requests that the Court enter an order compelling 

Respondents to comply with the Subpoenas and award Xfinity Mobile its expenses, including 

attorney’s fees and costs, associated with bringing this Motion. 

Case 9:20-mc-80722-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 2 of 12
3

121618907.v2 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 A. Subpoena to AS Trading Corp 

On October 31, 2019, Xfinity Mobile issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum to Produce 

Documents in a Civil Action to AS Trading Corp (“AS Trading”) requiring it to produce documents 

by November 18, 2019 (the “AS Trading Subpoena”). Podolsky Decl. at ¶ 3. Documents produced 

in the Underlying Case demonstrate that AS Trading bought and sold iPhones and that AS Trading 

conducted substantial business with some of the Defendants. Id. The AS Trading Subpoena was 

served via FedEx on November 1, 2019 at 9:56 a.m. Id. at ¶ 4. On December 20, 2019, Xfinity 

Mobile’s counsel contacted Andro Suarez, AS Trading’s registered agent and owner, regarding the 

company’s failure to respond to the AS Trading Subpoena. Id. at ¶ 5. Mr. Suarez flatly refused to 

comply with the AS Trading Subpoena. Id. On January 3, 2020, Xfinity Mobile sent another copy 

of the AS Trading Subpoena, along with a good faith letter, to the attention of Mr. Suarez. Id. at ¶ 

6. The good faith letter demanded that documents be produced by January 14, 2020 or Xfinity 

Mobile would be forced to seek judicial intervention. Id. Subsequently, Xfinity Mobile attempted 

to reach Mr. Suarez via telephone several times to discuss the AS Trading Subpoena, but those calls 

were not returned. Id. at ¶ 7. AS Trading has ignored all efforts at communication by Xfinity 

Mobile’s counsel and has not produced any documents in response to the Subpoena. Id. at ¶ 8. 

B. Subpoena to SFA Trading 

On October 31, 2019, Xfinity Mobile issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum to Produce 

Documents in a Civil Action to SFA Trading “Inc” (“SFA Trading”) requiring it to produce 

documents on November 18, 2019 (the “SFA Trading Subpoena”). Id. at ¶ 9. Documents produced 

in the Underlying Case demonstrate that SFA Trading, a wholesale electronics company, conducted 

business with some of the Defendants. Id. The SFA Trading Subpoena was served via FedEx on 

Case 9:20-mc-80722-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 3 of 12
4

121618907.v2 

November 1, 2019 at 12:00 p.m. Id. at ¶ 10. On December 17, 2019, Xfinity Mobile’s counsel 

contacted Sameer Farouk Ibrahim, SFA Trading’s President, via telephone and email regarding the 

company’s failure to respond to the SFA Trading Subpoena. Id. at ¶ 11. Xfinity Mobile’s counsel 

again attempted to reach Mr. Ibrahim by telephone on January 7, 2020 and left a voicemail regarding 

the SFA Trading Subpoena. Id. at ¶ 12. After failing to return the call, Xfinity Mobile sent SFA 

Trading a good faith letter demanding production of all documents by January 22, 2020 or Xfinity 

Mobile would be forced to seek judicial intervention. Id. at ¶ 13. To date, SFA Trading has ignored 

all efforts at communication by Xfinity Mobile’s counsel and has produced any documents in 

response to the Subpoena. Id. at ¶ 14. 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

I. THE COURT SHOULD COMPEL RESPONDENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE 

SUBPOENAS 

 Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes parties in civil actions to request 

from non-parties, by Rule 45 subpoena, “documents and tangible things” within the scope of 

discovery permitted by Rule 26(b). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(c). If a non-party fails to produce 

documents in compliance with a subpoena, the United States District Court for the district where 

compliance is required may enter an order compelling the non-party to produce the subpoenaed 

materials. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), 45(d)(2)(B)(i); see also Noel-Wagstaffe v. Metropolitan 

Casualty Ins. Co., case no. 17-civ-61039, 2017 WL 6047679, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2017). 

 A. The Subpoenas Were Properly Served and are Valid 

In accordance with Rule 45(a), the Subpoenas were issued from the U.S. District Court for 

the Northern District of Georgia, where the Underlying Case is pending. There is no dispute that 

the Subpoenas satisfy the form and content requirements of Rule 45(a). Moreover, the Subpoenas 

were properly served via FedEx as “Rule 45 does not require personal service; rather, it requires 

Case 9:20-mc-80722-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 4 of 12
5

121618907.v2 

service reasonably calculated to ensure receipt of the subpoena by the witness.” TracFone 

Wireless, Inc. v. SCS Supply Chain LLC, 330 F.R.D. 613, 616 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (holding that service 

of third-party subpoenas may be made by FedEx)1. The SFA Trading Subpoena required 

compliance at counsel’s West Palm Beach office, which is less than 100 miles from where SFA 

Trading regularly transacts business. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c) (providing that a subpoena may 

command attendance at a deposition and production of documents at a place “within 100 miles” 

of where the subpoenaed entity regularly transacts business). Podolsky Decl. at ¶ 15. The AS 

Trading Subpoena required compliance at counsel’s Miami office, which is less than 100 miles 

from where SFA Trading regularly transacts business. Id. Accordingly, the Subpoenas are valid, 

and the Court should compel Respondents to comply. 

 B. The Subpoenas Seek Documents Within the Scope of Discovery 

 Rule 26(b) provides that a party may obtain discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter 

that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b). Federal Courts treat the 

scope of discovery under a subpoena “the same as the scope of discovery under Rule 26.” Amer. 

Federation of State, Cnty. and Mun. Employees (AFSCME) Council 39 v. Scott, 277 F.R.D. 474, 

 

1

See also TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Nektova Group, LLC, 328 F.R.D. 664, 667 (S.D. Fla. 2019); 

In re MTS Bank, No. 17-21545-MC, 2018 WL 1718685, at *4 n.3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2018); Tim 

Hortons USA, Inc. v. Singh, No. 16-23041-CIV, 2017 WL 1326285, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2017);

TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Hernandez, 126 F.Supp.3d 1357, 1363–64 (S.D. Fla. 2015); Bozo v. 

Bozo, No. 12-CV-24174, 2013 WL 12128680, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2013); S.E.C. v. Rex 

Venture Grp., LLC, No. 13-MC-004-WTH-PRL, 2013 WL 1278088, at *3 (M.D. Fla. March 28, 

2013) (finding the decisions in TracFone v. Does 1-5, Falcon Air, and Codrington v. AnheuserBusch “persuasive, especially since it is clear that [the subpoenaed non-party] received the 

subpoena both by federal express and certified mail”); TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Does 1-5, No. 

11-CV-21871-MGC, 2011 WL 4711458, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2011); In re Falcon Air Exp., 

Inc., No. 06-11877-BKC-AJC, 2008 WL 2038799, at *1, *4 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. May 8, 2008); 

Codrington v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., No. 98-2417-CIV-T-26F, 1999 WL 1043861, at *1 (M.D. 

Fla. Oct. 15, 1999); Warsteiner Importers Agency, Inc. v. Republic Nat. Distrib. Co., LLC, No. 

808CV1156T24TGW, 2008 WL 4104568, at *6 (M.D. Fla. July 31, 2008). 

Case 9:20-mc-80722-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 5 of 12
6

121618907.v2 

476 (S.D. Fla. 2011). 

 The Subpoenas seek documents on topics pertaining to the business dealings between 

Defendants and Respondents which are likely to show whether, and to what extent, Defendants 

sold XM Phones to any of the Respondents or bought XM Phones from any of the Respondents in 

furtherance of the Scheme. Podolsky Decl. at ¶¶ 3, 9. The information sought in the Subpoenas 

will also assist in identifying Defendants’ co-conspirators. Id. The documents sought are also 

likely to uncover Defendants’ methods of carrying out their illicit Scheme. Id. The Subpoenas 

thus properly seek the production of documents within the permissible scope of discovery. 

Moreover, Respondents did not timely object to the Subpoenas or assert that compliance 

with the Subpoenas would impose an undue burden or expense. Id. at ¶¶ 8, 14. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 

45(d)(2)(B) (providing that objections to a document subpoena must be served in writing “before 

the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served”). 

Accordingly, Respondents waived any objections, and Xfinity Mobile is entitled to all of the 

materials requested. Walinbay S.A. v. Fresh Results, LLC, Case Nos. 13-CIV-60844 , 13-CIV615460, 2014 WL 1267170, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2014) (“[F]ailure to timely respond to 

discovery requests results in a waiver of any objections.”); 9A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal 

Practice and Procedure § 2463 (“A failure to object within the fourteen-day period usually results 

in waiver of the contested issue.”). 

The Court should compel Respondents to comply with the Subpoenas. 

II. XFINITY MOBILE IS ENTITLED TO ITS ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

Under the Court’s inherent powers, Xfinity Mobile is entitled to recover its expenses, 

including attorney’s fees and costs, incurred as a result of filing this Motion. See Barash v. Kates, 

585 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1368 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (sanctioning a party pursuant to the Court’s inherent 

Case 9:20-mc-80722-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 6 of 12
7

121618907.v2 

authority and stating that “the Court’s inherent authority are ‘governed not by rule or statute but 

by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly 

and expeditious disposition of cases.’”) (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991); 

see also Rockwell Int’l, Inc. v. Pos-A-Traction Indus., Inc., 712 F.2d 1324, 1326 (9th Cir. 1983) 

(holding that the district court properly ordered subpoenaed witness’ attorney to pay motion to 

compel expenses); Trs. of the Teamsters Local 456 Pension v. A.G. Constr. Corp., No. 12 CIV. 

2994 (ER), 2017 WL 590322, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2017) (ordering non-party to pay plaintiff 

$5,387.56 in fees and costs for his failure to comply with a subpoena); Sell v. Country Life Ins. 

Co., No. CV-15-00353-PHX-DJH, 2017 WL 5713885, at *5 (D. Ariz. Feb. 27, 2017) (finding the 

award of attorney fees proper for noncompliance with an ordered deposition where “Rule 45(g) 

authorizes contempt sanctions not only for non-compliance with a subpoena but also for noncompliance of subpoena-related orders”); Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Ace Wholesale, Inc., No. 1:12-

CV-2902-JEC, 2014 WL 4308355, at *1–2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) (“holding defendant in 

contempt [under Rule 45(g)] for failure to comply with plaintiffs’ subpoena and awarding 

plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs”); Anderson v. City of New York, No. CV-06-5363 

KAM/VVP, 2009 WL 3731973, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2009) (“Any motions to compel 

compliance with a duly issued subpoena, if successful, would of course entitle the moving party 

to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs in appropriate circumstances.”). 

Xfinity Mobile made good faith attempts to resolve these discovery issues without bringing 

the Court into this dispute. Respondents failed to provide justification for failing to comply with the 

Subpoenas. Moreover, Xfinity Mobile has been and continues to be prejudiced by Respondents’ 

actions because it is unable to obtain documents that are highly relevant to the Underlying Case and it 

is unable to identify the additional co-conspirators involved in the Scheme. 

Case 9:20-mc-80722-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 7 of 12
8

121618907.v2 

In addition, because Respondents failed to comply with the Subpoenas and failed to offer 

any objections or other reasons for their non-compliance, the Court may hold Respondents in 

contempt. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(g) (“The court for the district where compliance is required . . . 

may hold in contempt a person, who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey 

the subpoena or an order related to it.”); see also Martinez v. Antique & Salvage Liquidators, Inc., 

No. 09-997, 2011 WL 798707, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2011) (ordering non-party to show cause 

why he should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with subpoena for deposition 

testimony); Martinez v. City of Avondale, No. 12-1837, 2013 WL 5705291, at * 5 (D. Ariz. Oct. 

18, 2013) (ordering non-party to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to 

comply with duly issued subpoena). A finding of contempt is warranted here because 

Respondents’ conduct shows willfulness. Respondents were served with the Subpoenas, were 

aware of their obligations under the Subpoenas, and chose not to comply. 

In finding contempt, the Court may award litigation expenses, in addition to any other 

sanctions the Court deems appropriate. See, e.g., Sprint Nextel Corp., 2014 WL 4308355, at * 2 

(“holding P&R Brothers in contempt for failing to comply with Plaintiffs’ subpoena” in the first 

instance and further stating that any further violations of the order to comply with the subpoena 

could result in another finding of contempt and the imposition of additional sanctions in the form 

of fines of $500 per day, subject to escalation, incarceration and additional attorneys’ fees and 

costs); Forsythe v. Brown, 281 F.R.D. 577, 592-93 (D. Nev. 2012) (magistrate judge recommended

that non-party witness be held in contempt because he failed to demonstrate that he took reasonable 

steps to comply with subpoenas and recommending sanctions if the form of attorneys’ fees to 

prevailing party), rpt. & rec. adopted by, No. 10-716, 2012 WL 1833393 (D. Nev. May 18, 2012). 

Case 9:20-mc-80722-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 8 of 12
9

121618907.v2 

The Court should find Respondents in contempt and order them to reimburse Xfinity 

Mobile’s costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in bringing this Motion.2 

CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Xfinity Mobile’s Motion to Compel and 

enter an order requiring Respondents to produce the documents requested in the Xfinity Mobile 

Subpoenas. The Court should also award Xfinity Mobile its expenses, including attorney’s fees 

and costs, associated with bringing this Motion. 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL 

 Pursuant to Local Rule 7(a)(3), undersigned counsel certifies that counsel for the movant 

has conferred with all non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a good 

faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion and has been unable to do so. 

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of April, 2020. 

CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 

By: /s/ Stacey K. Sutton 

Stacey K. Sutton 

Florida Bar No. 289530 

525 Okeechobee Boulevard 

Suite 1200 

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-6350 

(561) 659-7070 

(561) 659-7368 (fax) 

Email: ssutton@carltonfields.com 

Gail Podolsky 

Georgia Bar No. 142021 

1201 West Peachtree Street 

Suite 3000 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

(404) 815-3400 

 

2

 If the Court grants Xfinity Mobile’s request, Xfinity Mobile will submit itemized documentation 

of its litigation expenses. 

Case 9:20-mc-80722-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 9 of 12
10

121618907.v2 

(404) 815-3415 (fax) 

Email: gpodolsky@carltonfields.com 

Attorneys for Petitioners

 

Case 9:20-mc-80722-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 10 of 12
11

121618907.v2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I certify that, on April 30, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via email, 

First Class US Mail, and overnight delivery to the following: 

Andro Suarez 

President 

AS Trading Corp 

6985 W. 16 Avenue 

Hialeah, Florida 33014 

andro_suarez@yahoo.com 

Andro Suarez 

President 

AS Trading Corp 

3110 W 84th Street, Suite 2 

Hialeah, Florida 33018 

andro_suarez@yahoo.com 

Sameer Farouk Ibrahim 

President 

SFA Trading “Inc” 

1621 SE Blockton Avenue 

Port St. Lucie, Florida 34942 

vipmens@aol.com 

I certify that, on April 30, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via email 

to the following: 

Eric Fisher 

efisher@btlaw.com

Counsel for Defendants 

Devin Tech Inc., 

Abuzer Emre Ozer, 

Samet Eraslan, and 

Mehmet Taskin 

/s/ Stacey K. Sutton 

Stacey K. Sutton 

Florida Bar No. 289530 

Case 9:20-mc-80722-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 11 of 12
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) FLSD Revised 06/01/2017 CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as 

provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose 

of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) NOTICE: Attorneys MUST Indicate All Re-filed Cases Below.

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF

THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

(d)Check County Where Action Arose: MIAMI- DADE MONROE BROWARD PALM BEACH MARTIN ST. LUCIE INDIAN RIVER OKEECHOBEE HIGHLANDS

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff)

(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) 

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF

Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5

Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act

120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC

130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729 (a))

140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment

150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking

151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce

152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent – Abbreviated

New Drug Application 460 Deportation

Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 840 Trademark 470 Racketeer Influenced and

(Excl. Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations

153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit

of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV

160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/

190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 740 Railway Labor Act 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange

195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions

196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage Leave Act 891 Agricultural Acts

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 893 Environmental Matters

Med. Malpractice 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. 895 Freedom of Information

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act

210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration

220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure

230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 

Sentence

871 IRS—Third Party 26 

USC 7609 Act/Review or Appeal of

240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/

Accommodations Other: Agency Decision

245 Tort Product Liability 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 530 General IMMIGRATION 950 Constitutionality of State 

Statutes 

290 All Other Real Property Employment 535 Death Penalty 462 Naturalization Application 

446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration

Other 550 Civil Rights Actions

448 Education 555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee –

Conditions of 

Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

Transferred from

another district

(specify)

6 Multidistrict

Litigation

Transfer

8 Multidistrict 

Litigation 

– Direct 

File

9

Remanded from 

Appellate Court 

1 Original

Proceeding

2 Removed 

from State 

Court

3 Re-filed 

(See VI 

below)

4 Reinstated 

or 

Reopened

5 7 Appeal to 

District Judge 

from Magistrate

Judgment

VI. RELATED/

RE-FILED CASE(S)

(See instructions): a) Re-filed Case YES NO b) Related Cases YES NO

 JUDGE: DOCKET NUMBER:

VII. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

LENGTH OF TRIAL via days estimated (for both sides to try entire case)

VIII. REQUESTED IN

COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND: Yes No

ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT IFP JUDGE MAG JUDGE

V6WDFH\.6XWWRQ

AS Trading Corp and SFA Trading "Inc"

Philadelphia Miami-Dade

Stacey K. Sutton, Carlton Fields, P.A.

525 Okeechobee Blvd., Suite 1200, West Palm Beach, FL 33401

✔

✘

Jean-Paul Boulee (N.D. Ga.) 1:19-cv-03294-JPB

Xfinity Mobile, a brand of Comcast OTR1, LLC,

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and

Comcast Corporation

x

x

Miscellaneous action to enforce Subpoenas Duces Tecum

x

April 30, 2020

Case 9:20-mc-80722-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/30/2020 Page 12 of 12