UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.,

Defendants.

/

PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF RESPONSE TO MOTION BY DEFENDANTS TO EXTEND

DEADLINE FOR PARTIES TO HOLD A SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

The theme in this case is: No good deed goes unpunished. As Ordered by the Court, 

Plaintiffs properly scheduled and noticed a Joint Scheduling Conference by Zoom for all 

Defendants. While some Defendants agreed, accepted the invitation, and provided input on the 

report (including Defendant Samuel Bankman-Fried) counsel for some of the FTX Celebrity Brand 

Ambassadors declined to provide any input and instead requested Plaintiffs cancel the Zoom 

conference, so that they could instead “simply seek an extension of time from the Court.”1

As professionalism and ethics dictate, they represented they would simply seek an 

extension of time, attach a copy of Plaintiff’s position email and concluded to Plaintiffs that “[w]e 

hope you will consent to a brief extension.” See ECF No. 87-2 at 3. Although Plaintiffs even agreed 

not to oppose Defendants’ request for extension (though Plaintiffs are ready and willing to proceed 

in accordance with the Court’s Order to hold a scheduling conference and file a joint conference 

1 Plaintiffs circulated a proposed draft Joint Scheduling Report with a Proposed Scheduling Order 

for purposes of expediting the conferral process with Defendants. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy 

of that report that includes input received from Defendant Bankman-Fried.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 1 of 5
Edwin Garrison, et al. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.

Case No. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

2

report, see ECF No. 82), Defendants could not help themselves but to take advantage of the 

opportunity to again create a misleading record with needless attacks on Plaintiffs and their 

counsel. This included the same counsel who previously informed Plaintiffs they would discuss 

the request for a Status Conference with all of the Defendants, only to fail to respond and instead 

file attacks upon Plaintiffs. 

Certainly, the Court alone will decide when the Joint Conference Report is due. However, 

Plaintiffs are constrained to file this brief response simply to set the record straight.

Since this action commenced on November 16, 2022, and particularly since filing the 

Consolidated Amended Complaint on December 16th, Plaintiffs have worked assiduously to effect 

service on all 18 Defendants, many of whom are some of the most high-profile celebrities in the 

country. Although these Defendants are well-known public figures, tracking them down to 

physically serve them is a monumental task, especially when they and their counsel (some of whom 

are likely counsel who advised these celebrities in committing the very conduct for which they 

have now been sued) have taken every step to make doing so as difficult as possible. Attached as 

Composite Exhibit B is just a small sampling of the documents (from impartial process servers)

evidencing the difficulties Defendants have caused Plaintiffs in delaying service of process on 

many of them, despite the admitted fact that they have all been aware this action was brought 

against them in November.

2

For instance, Shaquille O’Neal, who is now the final Defendant actively evading service 

of process on a weekly basis (see Comp. Ex. B for some of the attempts to serve him thus far), 

2 Plaintiffs’ counsel have enlisted the help of multiple process serving firms to locate and serve 

Defendants, and the materials in Comp. Ex. B are a small sampling of the documents evidencing 

some of these service attempts. They are attached for illustrative purposes, only, and are not a 

comprehensive record of Plaintiffs’ service attempts over the past months.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 2 of 5
Edwin Garrison, et al. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.

Case No. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

3

was quoted in national news days after this Action commenced, attempting to disclaim any 

responsibility for his actions, admitting in response to news of the suit that, while he did falsely 

claim in his promotions that he was “all in” on FTX, he in fact personally avoided cryptocurrency

and claiming “I was just a paid spokesperson.”3 While the process servers continue their repeated 

attempts to serve Mr. O’Neal, Plaintiffs’ counsel even reached out to counsel at the Miami office 

of Carlton Fields who recently represented Mr. O’Neal in many different litigation with Notice of 

Commencement and Request for Waiver of Service forms. They declined to forward the materials 

to Mr. O’Neal. See Comp. Ex. B.4 It took over half a dozen attempts at personal service on Mr. 

Brady, before he told his counsel to finally accept the Request for Waiver of Service form that was 

sent to them nearly a month prior. See Comp. Ex. B.

5

For other Defendants, Plaintiffs’ counsel have reached out to their agents and other 

representatives, who apparently have been told by Defendants not to cooperate, to pass along any 

messages regarding the lawsuit, or to inform Plaintiffs as to who these Defendants have retained

to represent them in this action. 

In short, although they may be famous and well-known, when celebrities do not want to be 

served with a Complaint, with practically limitless resources at their disposal, including multiple 

3 See “Shaq distances himself from crypto and FTX collapse: ‘I was just a paid spokesperson,’” 

dated December 15, 2022, published at https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/15/shaq-on-crypto-ftxpost-collapse-i-was-just-a-paid-spokesperson.html (accessed March 9, 2023), a copy of which is 

also attached in Comp. Ex. B.

4 As another example, Udonis Haslem evaded service, and the server had to pursue his former 

wife, Mrs. Haslem to effect service, because she fled the house and ran past a stop sign in her car 

while the process server was parked outside the home taking notes in their car. See Comp. Ex. B.

5 Brady’s counsel ultimately claimed the original Request for Waiver of Service form was deficient 

because it was not emailed to them along with a copy of the Notice of Commencement of Action 

form, which is a form that is in practice largely dispensed with when counsel requests the waiver 

of service form to begin with.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 3 of 5
Edwin Garrison, et al. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.

Case No. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

4

homes, constant travel, and various staff members and counsel who can keep them at arm’s length 

from the public, serving them with formal process is an undertaking.

Finally, despite still not opposing Defendants’ request, Plaintiffs are mindful of the Court’s 

directive that “A motion for extension of time is not self-executing.... Yet, by filing these motions

on or near the last day, and then sitting idle pending the Court's disposition of the motion, parties 

essentially grant their own motion. The Court will not condone this.” See ECF No. 5 (quoting 

Compere v. Nusret Miami, LLC, 2020 WL 2844888, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 7, 2020) (internal 

citations omitted)). Thus, immediately after receiving the Court’s order requiring a joint 

conference and joint scheduling report by Friday, March 10, 2023, Plaintiffs took necessary and 

appropriate actions to circulate a draft JSR, set a Zoom and invite all counsel to cooperate.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs repeat they have no objection if the Court decides to extend the deadline. If the 

Court is not amenable to granting Defendants’ request (which Plaintiffs respectfully submit an 

appropriate date would be April 14, 2023, the date the Court already ordered all Defendants to 

respond to the complaint, see ECF No. 49), the Court consider the draft Joint Scheduling Report 

for purposes of establishing a case management order attached as Exhibit A. Moreover, Plaintiffs 

respectfully request that if Mr. O’Neal continues to evade service under these circumstances, the 

Court consider entering a Show Cause order, requiring him to finally appear in this case.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 4 of 5
Edwin Garrison, et al. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.

Case No. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

5

Dated: March 9, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Adam Moskowitz

Adam M. Moskowitz

Florida Bar No. 984280

adam@moskowitz-law.com 

Joseph M. Kaye

Florida Bar No. 117520

joseph@moskowitz-law.com

THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC

2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Telephone: (305) 740-1423

By: /s/ David Boies

David Boies

(Pro Hac Vice)

Alex Boies

(Pro Hac Vice)

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

333 Main Street

Armonk, NY 10504

Phone: (914) 749–8200

dboies@bsfllp.com

By: /s/ Stephen Neal Zack

Stephen Neal Zack

Florida Bar No. 145215

BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP

100 SE 2nd St., Suite 2800

Miami, FL 33131

Office: 305-539-8400

szack@bsfllp.com

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing was filed on March 9, 2023, 

via the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of 

record. 

By: /s/ Adam M. Moskowitz______

 ADAM M. MOSKOWITZ

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/09/2023 Page 5 of 5