IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. 22-cv-23753-MOORE/BECERRA

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all other similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al., 

 

Defendants.

 / 

OPPOSITION OF DEFENDANTS STEPHEN CURRY, LAWRENCE GENE DAVID, 

GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS, LLC, SHOHEI OHTANI, AND NAOMI OSAKA TO 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT “JURISDICTIONAL” 

DISCOVERY, AND TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT WITH ANY FACTS ARISING 

FROM SUCH DISCOVERY

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 1 of 27
- i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................1

Background......................................................................................................................................2

Legal Standard .................................................................................................................................7

Argument .........................................................................................................................................8

I. The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion for jurisdictional discovery...................................8

A. Plaintiffs fail to allege a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction and 

therefore are not entitled to jurisdictional discovery.......................................................9

B. Plaintiffs are not entitled to jurisdictional discovery because they have not 

demonstrated a genuine dispute as to any material fact................................................12

1. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a genuine dispute as to any material 

jurisdictional fact. .................................................................................................12

2. There cannot possibly be jurisdictional discovery from GSW or Osaka.............16

C. Plaintiffs have not shown how the requested discovery could possibly 

bolster their non-existent jurisdictional allegations. .....................................................18

II. Plaintiffs should not be permitted leave to amend their Amended Complaint......................19

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................20

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 2 of 27
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

ACLU v. City of Sarasota,

859 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2017) ...............................................................................................17

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544 (2007)...................................................................................................................8

Bernadele v. Bonorino,

608 F. Supp. 2d 1313 (S.D. Fla. 2009) ....................................................................................13

Brown v. Carnival Corp.,

202 F. Supp. 3d 1332 (S.D. Fla. 2016) ................................................................................8, 12

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,

471 U.S. 462 (1985).................................................................................................................11

Butler v. Sukhoi Co.,

579 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................................8, 11

Castillo v. Allegro Resort Mktg.,

603 F. App’x 913 (11th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................7

Daimler AG v. Bauman,

571 U.S. 117 (2014)...................................................................................................................9

Diulus v. Am. Exp. Travel Related Servs. Co.,

823 F. App’x 843 (11th Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................11

Don King Prods., Inc. v. Mosley,

2016 WL 3950930 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2016)...........................................................................19

Dynasty Mgmt., LLC v. Alsina,

2016 WL 11480851 (S.D. Fla. July 26, 2016).........................................................................20

In re Engle Cases,

767 F.3d 1082 (11th Cir. 2014) ...............................................................................................20

Espinoza v. Target Corp.,

843 F. App’x 168 (11th Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................................14

Ferenchak v. Zormati,

572 F. Supp. 3d 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2021) ....................................................................................11

Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct.,

141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021).............................................................................................................10

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 3 of 27
- iii -

Cases—continued

Glasscox v. City of Argo,

903 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2018) ...............................................................................................14

Kemin Foods, L.C. v. Omniactive Health Techs., Inc.,

654 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2009)...................................................................................17

Lewis v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,

2020 WL 4923640 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2020)............................................................................1

Lowery v. Ala. Power Co.,

483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................1, 8

Order, Robertson v. Cuban,

No. 22-cv-22538 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2022), ECF No. 45 .......................................................15

Paws Aboard, LLC v. DiDonato,

2012 WL 1252763 (M.D. Fla. April 13, 2012)........................................................................19

Peruyero v. Airbus S.A.S.,

83 F. Supp. 3d 1283 (S.D. Fla. 2014) ................................................................................13, 17

Pls.' Resp. to Order to Show Cause, Norris v. Brady,

No. 23-cv-20439 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2023), ECF No. 47........................................................16

Snow v. DirecTV, Inc.,

450 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2006) .......................................................................................3, 7, 11

Sterling Currency Grp. LLC v. Maurer,

2013 WL 4011063 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 5, 2013) ...........................................................................20

In re Takata Airbag Prod. Liab. Litig.,

396 F. Supp. 3d 1101 (S.D. Fla. 2019) ............................................................................ passim

Thompson v. Carnival Corp.,

174 F. Supp. 3d 1327 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (Moore, C.J.)..........................................................1, 14

United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer,

556 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................7

Wolf v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc.,

683 F. App’x 786 (11th Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................................18

Yepez v. Regent Seven Seas Cruises,

2011 WL 3439943 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2011).................................................................... passim

Zamora Radio, LLC v. Last.fm LTD.,

2011 WL 2580401 (S.D. Fla. June 29, 2011)..........................................................................19

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 4 of 27
- iv -

Cases—continued

In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Prod. Liab. Litig.,

2020 WL 6907056 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2020)..........................................................8, 11, 13, 14

Other Authorities

Carly Wanna & Felipe Marques, FTX US Eyed High-End Office Space in Miami 

Before Bankruptcy, Bloomberg (Dec. 14, 2022), 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-14/ftx-us-planned-miamiheadquarters-move-before-bankruptcy#xj4y7vzkg .................................................................10

Discovery Procedures for Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra Rule III.G .................................7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)......................................................................................................1, 3, 5, 14

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)....................................................................................................................3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)..................................................................................................................20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) ........................................................................................................................7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(2)(B) ..............................................................................................................7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).................................................................................................................5, 6, 7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1)....................................................................................................................7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(5)(A) ..............................................................................................................7

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.............................................................................................................................7

S.D. Fla. CM/ECF Administrative Procedures § 3I(1)..................................................................19

S.D. Fla. L.R. 15.1 .........................................................................................................................19

S.D. Fla. L.R. 26.1(h).......................................................................................................................7

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 5 of 27
1

INTRODUCTION

Defendants Stephen Curry, Lawrence Gene David, Golden State Warriors, LLC (“GSW”), 

Shohei Ohtani, and Naomi Osaka (the “Non-Resident Defendants”)—individuals who live outside 

Florida who allegedly endorsed FTX and an out-of-state professional basketball team that 

allegedly permitted FTX to advertise at its arena—moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims not only 

because they are meritless (ECF No. 154) but also because Plaintiffs did not (and cannot) allege a 

single fact suggesting that this Court has personal jurisdiction over any Non-Resident Defendant

(ECF No. 139). Plaintiffs concede there is no general jurisdiction over any Non-Resident

Defendant, all of whom Plaintiffs affirmatively (and correctly) allege are not Florida residents. 

Plaintiffs also fail to allege specific personal jurisdiction over any Non-Resident Defendant 

because the Amended Complaint (“AC”) contains only conclusory jurisdictional assertions 

without any factual allegations drawing any connection between Florida and any Non-Resident

Defendant’s alleged wrongdoing, let alone that Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of that connection.

Aware of the AC’s jurisdictional defects, Plaintiffs now move the Court (ECF No. 163) to 

authorize precisely what the Eleventh Circuit and this Court have repeatedly made clear is 

impermissible: Plaintiffs cannot “pursu[e] jurisdictional discovery in an attempt to marshal facts 

that [they] ‘should have had—but did not—before coming through the courthouse doors.’” 

Thompson v. Carnival Corp., 174 F. Supp. 3d 1327, 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (Moore, C.J.) (quoting 

Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1216 (11th Cir. 2007)). Courts in this District are clear 

that “when faced with legitimate jurisdictional challenges like those present in [a Rule 12(b)(2)] 

Motion to Dismiss, discovery should not commence until such challenges are resolved.” Lewis v. 

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2020 WL 4923640, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2020). 

Plaintiffs’ request to conduct far-reaching “jurisdictional” discovery without having 

alleged the most basic of facts that would establish personal jurisdiction over the Non-Resident

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 6 of 27
- 2 -

Defendants should be denied for three reasons. First, Plaintiffs do not allege facts in the AC that 

set forth a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction as to any of the Non-Resident Defendants, as 

they must to take jurisdictional discovery. Second, Plaintiffs do not identify any genuinely disputed 

fact that is material to whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Non-Resident

Defendants. Third, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how the requested jurisdictional discovery 

is tailored to, and would resolve, any allegedly disputed material fact. 

Unable to satisfy any of the prerequisites for jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiffs ask this

Court to authorize what is effectively wide-ranging merits discovery from the Non-Resident

Defendants based on mere speculation that there “may” be the requisite connection between the 

Non-Resident Defendants’ out-of-state conduct and Florida. Groundless speculation, however,

does not suffice, and Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery should be rejected, as should 

Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the complaint (again) to allege unidentified facts they should 

have developed before filing suit and haling the Non-Resident Defendants before this Court.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging fraud in connection with the 

cryptocurrency asset exchange FTX, not only against FTX’s former executives—who allegedly 

committed the fraud—but also against the Non-Resident Defendants, who are (1) athletes and 

entertainers who allegedly endorsed FTX, and (2) GSW, which is being sued because FTX’s logo 

allegedly appeared on its home court in San Francisco, California. Plaintiffs allege that the NonResident Defendants’ conduct was somehow deceptive because, for reasons having nothing to do 

with the Non-Resident Defendants, FTX later collapsed.

On December 16, 2022, Plaintiffs amended their complaint (the AC) to add fifty-six pages

of allegations and a 19-page “Preliminary Expert Report.” ECF No. 16, 16-1. Despite these 

voluminous additions, Plaintiffs did not alter their sparse jurisdictional allegations with respect to 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 7 of 27
- 3 -

any of the Non-Resident Defendants. Although Plaintiffs now assert that this amendment was not 

substantive but instead a consolidation of the Garrison and Podalsky cases, the original Garrison 

complaint and the Amended Class Action Complaint in Podalsky (Podalsky AC) were virtually 

identical, aside from a few pages of allegations concerning the FTX collapse and the FTX-Insider 

Defendants, and neither included an expert report. Compare 1:22-cv-23983-BB, ECF No. 4 

(Podalsky AC), with ECF No. 1 (Complaint). 

Plaintiffs affirmatively allege (and thereby admit) in the AC that none of the Non-Resident

Defendants is a citizen of Florida. AC ¶¶ 36-37, 40-42. Plaintiffs fail to allege any other facts to 

demonstrate that any Non-Resident Defendant engaged in relevant conduct within or specifically 

directed toward Florida. ECF No. 139 at 2-5 (collecting allegations). Because the AC fails to 

“establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction” (Snow v. DirecTV, Inc., 450 F.3d 1314, 1318 

(11th Cir. 2006)), the Non-Resident Defendants advised Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court that the 

Non-Resident Defendants intended to move to dismiss for, inter alia, lack of personal jurisdiction.

ECF No. 125. In the same motion, the Non-Resident Defendants proposed a briefing schedule for 

their motions, which provided that all such briefing would be completed by June 14, 2023. ECF 

No. 125 at 4-5. Plaintiffs did not contest the proposed briefing schedule at that time and certainly 

did not request the sixty-five-day freeze they now seek from this Court. ECF No. 128. On April 

11, 2023, the Court granted the Non-Resident Defendants’ motion as to their proposed briefing 

schedule. See ECF No. 132.

Three days later, the Non-Resident Defendants timely filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 

12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction (the PJ Motion).

1 ECF No. 139. The PJ Motion did not 

1 The Non-Resident Defendants, together with the other Non-FTX Defendants, also filed a motion 

to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See ECF No. 154.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 8 of 27
- 4 -

contest any of Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded factual allegations, which concern the domicile of the NonResident Defendants outside of Florida. E.g., AC ¶¶ 36-38, 40-42. Instead, the Non-Resident

Defendants challenged the conclusory allegations—comprising a single paragraph—that the NonResident Defendants have connections with Florida through their relationships with FTX: 

This Court has personal jurisdiction against Defendants because they conduct 

substantial and not isolated business in Florida, and/or have otherwise intentionally 

availed themselves of the Florida consumer market through the promotion, 

marketing, and sale of FTX’s YBAs in Florida, which constitutes committing a 

tortious act within the state of Florida. Defendants have also marketed and 

participated and/or assisted in the sale of FTX’s unregistered securities to 

consumers in Florida. Further, Defendants have engaged in a conspiracy in which 

some of the co-conspirators—including some who are Defendants in this action—

committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy in the State of Florida. This 

purposeful availment renders the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over 

Defendants permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Id. ¶ 50.

Plaintiffs make these claims even though they have not alleged a single statement by any 

Non-Resident Defendant about YBAs, and for some, not a single statement about FTX at all. As 

the PJ Motion further details, these skeletal allegations are wholly insufficient to provide a basis 

for general or specific personal jurisdiction over any Non-Resident Defendant. See ECF No. 139. 

In support of the PJ Motion, Non-Resident Defendants Mr. Curry, Mr. David, and Mr. 

Ohtani submitted declarations confirming that they are not Florida residents. The declarations also

established that the AC’s conclusory allegations regarding their purported connections with 

Florida vis-à-vis FTX are entirely baseless. See ECF Nos. 139 at 1-15; 139-1 (Curry Decl.); 139-

2 (David Decl.); 139-3 (Ohtani Decl.).2 Each declaration further confirmed that Mr. Curry, Mr. 

David, and Mr. Ohtani did not take any action in connection with FTX that could be construed as 

purposefully availing themselves of the benefits of doing business in Florida, but none introduced 

2 GSW and Ms. Osaka, who also joined the PJ Motion, did not file declarations.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 9 of 27
- 5 -

a dispute over any material fact alleged in the AC. Id.

On April 21, 2023—before any Rule 26(f) conference had taken place—Plaintiffs’ counsel 

emailed counsel for all Non-FTX Defendants a slew of broad “proposed” discovery requests and 

deposition topics covering virtually every aspect of the case, alleging that this “jurisdictional” 

discovery was warranted as a matter of right simply because the Non-Resident Defendants moved 

to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2). The Non-FTX Defendants’ counsel objected to the proposed

discovery—which was only aimed at the Non-Resident Defendants—on multiple grounds, 

including that the discovery was improperly served and premature. The Non-Resident Defendants 

also objected to Plaintiffs’ contention that they were entitled to jurisdictional discovery as a matter 

of course because the PJ Motion did not contest any of the AC’s pleaded facts (indeed, the point 

of the Non-Resident Defendants’ PJ Motion is that there were no well-pleaded facts to contest), 

and in any event, the discovery requests were untethered to the purported issue of this Court’s 

jurisdiction over the Non-Resident Defendants. Still, Plaintiffs continued to push for this improper

and overbroad discovery, and even threatened to move for relief before Magistrate Judge Becerra, 

despite the fact that no discovery requests had been served, and no discovery dispute was pending. 

To prevent further attempts by Plaintiffs to skirt the discovery rules and to permit the Court 

to decide the Non-FTX Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss without unnecessary and wasteful 

discovery, on April 26, 2023, the Non-FTX Defendants moved to stay all discovery, including 

initial disclosures (the “Motion to Stay”). ECF No. 162. Just hours later, Plaintiffs filed the instant 

motion, seeking to delay the briefing schedule ordered by this Court two weeks earlier so that 

Plaintiffs could take discovery from the Non-Resident Defendants and use that discovery to 

substantively amend their complaint for a second time. See ECF No. 163.

Though Plaintiffs purport to seek “limited” and “brief” jurisdictional discovery, the 

requests themselves demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery includes highly burdensome 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 10 of 27
- 6 -

and expansive requests that cover nearly every aspect of their claims and have no actual bearing 

on jurisdiction. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek:

• All documents and communications concerning each Non-Resident Defendants’ 

relationship with any FTX entity (Request No. 1); 

• All documents and communications regarding whether Yield Bearing Accounts or the 

FTX Token (or “FTT”) cryptocurrency constitute a “security” (Request No. 3); 

• All documents and communications relating to each Non-Resident Defendant’s 

“Florida fans” and “Florida’s FTX consumers” (Request No. 2); and

• A deposition of each Non-Resident Defendant (and GSW’s 30(b)(6) witness), 

unilaterally set between May 8 and May 12, 2023. See ECF No. 163-2.

On April 28, 2023, the parties who had appeared in the case to date (other than Sam 

Trabucco, who was shortly thereafter dismissed) met and conferred pursuant to Rule 26(f). Three 

days later, on May 1, and without further communication, Plaintiffs’ counsel again threatened to 

seek relief from Magistrate Judge Becerra, claiming that the Non-Resident Defendants were 

somehow in violation of their discovery obligations. The Non-Resident Defendants’ counsel again 

noted that seeking such relief was improper as there was no discovery dispute to address before 

Judge Becerra. And counsel explained that Plaintiffs had provided “proposed” discovery a week 

before the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference, before which Plaintiffs could not properly serve 

discovery, and in any event, the Non-Resident Defendants would have thirty days after proper 

service to respond to any such requests. Further, counsel highlighted that the Non-Resident

Defendants had moved to stay discovery and that Plaintiffs had moved for leave to serve 

jurisdictional discovery, which leave had not yet been granted. In response, Plaintiffs’ counsel 

asserted that the aforementioned discovery requests and deposition notices were served as of the

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 11 of 27
- 7 -

parties’ April 28, 2023 Rule 26(f) conference, citing Rule 26(d)(2)(B).3 The Non-Resident

Defendants’ counsel explained that they disagreed the deposition notices were deemed served as 

of the Rule 26(f) conference, and even if they were, none of the notices were served early enough 

before the noticed date to satisfy Local Rule 26.1(h)’s fourteen-day written notice requirement. 

Although the Non-Resident Defendants believe no purported jurisdictional discovery may 

proceed until this motion and the Non-FTX Defendants’ Motion to Stay is resolved, out of an 

abundance of caution, each Non-Resident Defendant served objections to Plaintiffs’ deposition 

notices on May 3, 2023, objecting on the additional grounds that Plaintiffs provided insufficient 

notice of the depositions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), 30(b)(1) and 32(a)(5)(A), Local Rule 26.1(h), 

and under Rule III.G of Magistrate Judge Becerra’s Discovery Procedures. The individual NonResident Defendants further objected because, inter alia, Plaintiffs’ unilaterally chosen dates fall 

right in the midst of the NBA playoffs for GSW and Mr. Curry; during an away-game series in 

Cleveland for Mr. Ohtani; while Ms. Osaka is in an advanced stage of pregnancy; and when Mr. 

David is otherwise unavailable. See Exs. 1-5 (Resps. & Objs. to Pls.’ Deposition Notices).

LEGAL STANDARD

“A plaintiff seeking the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant bears 

the initial burden of alleging in the complaint sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case of 

jurisdiction.” United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260, 1274 (11th Cir. 2009). Vague and 

conclusory assertions of personal jurisdiction do not suffice. Snow, 450 F.3d at 1318; Castillo v. 

3 Plaintiffs’ assertion is undeniably wrong for the deposition notices—which Rule 26(d)(2)(B) 

does not address at all. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(2)(B) (Rule 34 document requests are “considered 

to have been served at the first Rule 26(f) conference.”). Plaintiffs have identified no rule pursuant 

to which the deposition notices would be deemed served as of the Rule 26(f) conference.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 12 of 27
- 8 -

Allegro Resort Mktg., 603 F. App’x 913, 916 (11th Cir. 2015); In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Prod. 

Liab. Litig., 2020 WL 6907056, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 24, 2020) (“[T]he complaint must plead 

sufficient non-conclusory facts to establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction.”). These

pleading rules “prevent[] a plaintiff with ‘a largely groundless claim’ from ‘tak[ing] up the time 

of a number of other people, with the right to do so representing an in terrorem increment of the 

settlement value.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 546 (2007) (citation omitted).

Because a “plaintiff is expected to be able to allege these [jurisdictional] facts in good faith 

without the benefit of discovery,” Yepez v. Regent Seven Seas Cruises, 2011 WL 3439943, at *2

(S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2011), to obtain jurisdictional discovery, a plaintiff must therefore demonstrate 

that there is a “genuine dispute on a material jurisdictional fact,” Brown v. Carnival Corp., 202 F. 

Supp. 3d 1332, 1346 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (citation omitted). But “the failure of a plaintiff to investigate 

jurisdictional issues prior to filing suit does not give rise to” the right to jurisdictional discovery. 

Yepez, 2011 WL 3439943, at *1. In other words, courts should not “reserve ruling on [a pending] 

motion to dismiss in order to allow the plaintiff to look for what the plaintiff should have had—

but did not—before coming through the courthouse doors, even though the court would have the 

inherent power to do so.” In re Takata Airbag Prod. Liab. Litig., 396 F. Supp. 3d 1101, 1156 (S.D. 

Fla. 2019) (citing Lowery, 483 F.3d at 1216). Thus, where a “complaint [is] insufficient as a matter 

of law to establish a prima facie case that the district court had jurisdiction, [a] district court 

abuse[s] its discretion in allowing the case to proceed and granting discovery on the jurisdictional 

issue.” Butler v. Sukhoi Co., 579 F.3d 1307, 1314 (11th Cir. 2009).

ARGUMENT

I. The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion for jurisdictional discovery.

Plaintiffs’ request to conduct jurisdictional discovery should be rejected for three reasons. 

First, Plaintiffs were required to “investigate, collect, and allege sufficient facts” to establish a 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 13 of 27
- 9 -

prima facie case of personal jurisdiction in the complaint as to each defendant, but they did not. In 

re Takata, 396 F. Supp. 3d at 1157. Second, Plaintiffs do not identify any genuinely disputed fact 

material to resolution of whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Non-Resident

Defendants—indeed, Plaintiffs admit that the Non-Resident Defendants reside outside of Florida 

and point to no other genuinely disputed facts put at issue by the PJ Motion (nor could they because 

the PJ Motion did not controvert any of Plaintiffs’ (non-existent) allegations). Third, Plaintiffs fail 

to explain how the jurisdictional discovery they seek will salvage their defective jurisdictional 

allegations. The Court should reject Plaintiffs’ request to burden the Non-Resident Defendants—

who should never have been sued in this forum—with this unwarranted, costly discovery.

A. Plaintiffs fail to allege a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction and 

therefore are not entitled to jurisdictional discovery.

The Court should dispense with this motion at the threshold because Plaintiffs utterly failed 

in their obligation to “investigate, collect, and allege sufficient facts” to establish a prima facie 

case of personal jurisdiction over any of the Non-Resident Defendants, and they cannot get 

jurisdictional discovery to search for what they “should have had—but did not—before coming 

through the courthouse doors[.]” In re Takata, 396 F. Supp. 3d at 1156. As fully set forth in the PJ 

Motion (ECF No. 139), Plaintiffs failed to allege facts to establish a prima facie case of either 

general or specific personal jurisdiction over any of the Non-Resident Defendants. They should 

not now be permitted to compel costly discovery to confirm what they should have already 

determined: there are simply no bases for personal jurisdiction over the Non-Resident Defendants.

First, general jurisdiction exists only where the defendant is “essentially at home”—for an 

individual, where he is domiciled, and for a company, where it is incorporated or has its principal 

place of business. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 119, 122, 127, 139 (2014). Plaintiffs

concede that there is no general jurisdiction over any of the Non-Resident Defendants,

affirmatively alleging that the individual Non-Resident Defendants are all domiciled outside of 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 14 of 27
- 10 -

Florida (AC ¶¶ 36, 40-42) and that GSW is a California limited liability company headquartered 

in California (AC ¶ 37). General jurisdiction plainly is lacking.

Second, specific jurisdiction exists only where Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of acts 

committed by the defendants in or directed at the forum. E.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth 

Judicial Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1028 (2021). Plaintiffs do not allege facts to show that any 

Non-Resident Defendant marketed or sold YBAs at all, let alone within or targeted toward Florida. 

AC ¶¶ 222-23, 219, 228-32. Nor do Plaintiffs allege facts to show that any Non-Resident

Defendant entered into any relevant agreement in or targeted toward Florida. See ECF No. 139 at 

7-11. And Plaintiffs fail to allege facts suggesting their claims arose out of any such (unidentified) 

acts. Without any specific connection between the Non-Resident Defendants’ alleged conduct and 

Florida, Plaintiffs have also failed to allege specific jurisdiction over any Non-Resident Defendant. 

Tellingly, Plaintiffs’ motion does not point to any factual allegations that would give rise 

to a prima facie case of jurisdiction. ECF No. 163 at 7. Instead, Plaintiffs reproduce a boilerplate 

allegation of personal jurisdiction about all Defendants (including Florida-resident defendants and 

FTX insiders) (AC ¶ 50) and point to factual allegations that, in September 2022, long after FTX 

allegedly entered into any relevant business agreements with the Non-Resident Defendants (AC 

¶¶ 221 & n.132, 222, 226 & n.138, 227 & n.140, 231), FTX announced its intention to move the 

location of its US entity to Miami (AC ¶ 121 & n.36)—a move that never happened.

4

None of these allegations establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction over any of the NonResident Defendants, as the PJ Motion explained. ECF No. 139 at 6-15. Boilerplate allegations do 

4 See Carly Wanna & Felipe Marques, FTX US Eyed High-End Office Space in Miami Before

Bankruptcy, Bloomberg (Dec. 14, 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-

14/ftx-us-planned-miami-headquarters-move-before-bankruptcy#xj4y7vzkg.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 15 of 27
- 11 -

not suffice to create a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction as to each Non-Resident Defendant. 

Snow, 450 F.3d at 1318. Moreover, the announced intention to relocate an FTX US location to 

Florida after the Non-Resident Defendants’ alleged conduct (to the extent any conduct was alleged 

at all) self-evidently fails to establish that any Non-Resident Defendant specifically directed any

conduct toward Florida. See ECF No. 139 at 10; see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 

U.S. 462, 475 (1985) (A defendant cannot be “haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of 

‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts.”); Ferenchak v. Zormati, 572 F. Supp. 3d 1284, 

1293-1294 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (plaintiff moving to Florida only after negotiating and signing 

agreement with defendant abroad insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction). And it certainly does 

not speak to whether Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of that subsequent conduct.

Plaintiffs nevertheless urge that they should be permitted so-called jurisdictional discovery 

to determine if there might be any bases for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the 

Non-Resident Defendants. ECF No. 163 at 8, 10. But such basic jurisdictional facts are precisely 

“the types of facts plaintiffs are expected to investigate prior to filing suit.” Yepez, 2011 WL 

3439943, at *2 (emphasis added) (denying motion to stay ruling on 12(b)(2) motion pending

jurisdictional discovery over plaintiff’s argument that it needed jurisdictional discovery). That 

Plaintiffs could not “allege these facts in good faith without the benefit of discovery” means only 

that the case must be dismissed, not that they are entitled to discovery now. Id. 

Because Plaintiffs’ allegations are “insufficient as a matter of law to establish a prima facie

case that the district court had jurisdiction” over each of the Non-Resident Defendants, the Court 

cannot “allow[] the case to proceed and grant[] discovery on the jurisdictional issue.” Butler, 579 

F.3d at 1314; see also Diulus v. Am. Exp. Travel Related Servs. Co., 823 F. App’x 843, 849-850 

(11th Cir. 2020) (affirming denial of jurisdictional discovery “[b]ecause the [plaintiffs] did not 

meet their initial burden to allege a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction”); In re Zantac, 2020 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 16 of 27
- 12 -

WL 6907056 (conclusory allegations of constitutionally sufficient contacts are insufficient to 

justify jurisdictional discovery). Plaintiffs’ failure to point to any specific facts from the AC that

set forth a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction against any Non-Resident Defendant requires 

denying jurisdictional discovery. Yepez, 2011 WL 3439943, at *2.

B. Plaintiffs are not entitled to jurisdictional discovery because they have not 

demonstrated a genuine dispute as to any material fact.

Plaintiffs’ pleading failures alone compel denying the motion for jurisdictional discovery. 

The motion should also be denied because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that there is a genuine 

dispute as to any material jurisdictional fact. But this is a threshold requirement to obtain 

jurisdictional discovery, Brown, 202 F. Supp. 3d at 1346, and “the failure of a plaintiff to 

investigate jurisdictional issues prior to filing suit does not give rise to a genuine jurisdictional 

dispute,” Yepez, 2011 WL 3439943, at *1. Plaintiffs come nowhere close to demonstrating any 

genuine dispute of fact as to any Non-Resident Defendant.

1. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a genuine dispute as to any material 

jurisdictional fact. 

Plaintiffs do not even claim to demonstrate that there is a genuine dispute of any material 

jurisdictional fact that requires jurisdictional discovery. For starters, Plaintiffs have not identified 

any disputed fact, and the AC alleges barely anything about the Non-Resident Defendants. As a 

result, the PJ Motion did not controvert any well-pleaded facts touching on this Court’s jurisdiction 

(or lack thereof) over them—because none exist in the AC. The PJ Motion and attached 

declarations merely confirm Plaintiffs’ allegations that none of the Non-Resident Defendants 

reside in Florida and further undermine Plaintiffs’ (improper) conclusory group allegations 

regarding the Non-Resident Defendants’ purported business connections to Florida. ECF No. 139, 

139-1-3. Plaintiffs have not explained how this creates any disputed jurisdictional fact, let alone 

one material to the Court’s resolution of personal jurisdiction over the Non-Resident Defendants. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 17 of 27
- 13 -

Because Plaintiffs fail to identify any fact in dispute, it follows that they cannot demonstrate a 

genuine dispute over any material jurisdictional fact. Bernadele v. Bonorino, 608 F. Supp. 2d 

1313, 1321 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Peruyero v. Airbus S.A.S., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2014)

(“Jurisdictional discovery is not warranted ... because [the plaintiff] did not submit any evidence 

to rebut [the defendant’s] evidence.”). 

Indeed, Plaintiffs effectively concede there is no genuinely disputed material fact. They 

ask for jurisdictional discovery on the speculative notion that voluminous document productions 

and depositions “may reveal relevant facts” that would give Plaintiffs a basis for asserting personal 

jurisdiction. ECF No. 163 at 10 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs broadly assert that the requested 

discovery “may reveal” “[w]hether” the Non-Resident Defendants are “engaged in substantial and 

not isolated activity targeting Florida”; whether the Non-Resident Defendants entered into “other 

agreements” with FTX in which they “agreed to target actions or submit to jurisdiction in Florida”; 

whether the Non-Resident Defendants have “any other relevant contacts” with Florida; and 

whether the Non-Resident Defendants “contracted to target their advertising or marketing efforts 

for FTX’s services” toward Florida. Id. at 10. But “a party is not entitled to jurisdictional discovery 

solely to remedy a lack of jurisdictional facts or an insufficient pre-filing investigation.” In re 

Zantac, 2020 WL 6907056, at *3; In re Takata, 396 F. Supp. 3d at 1157 (rejecting jurisdictional 

discovery requests generically “aim[ing] to identify Defendants’ contracts with the United States 

and various jurisdictions, as well as the connection between these contacts and Plaintiffs’ claims”).

More tellingly, Plaintiffs offer absolutely no basis (and no good-faith basis exists) for 

believing that discovery into “whether” any of these things exist would be fruitful. Speculation

that the Non-Resident Defendants might have such deep ties to Florida that they are “essentially 

at home” there, that they entered into “other” unalleged Florida-specific agreements, or that they 

have other unalleged contacts with Florida (ECF No. 163 at 3-4, 10) has no basis in Plaintiffs’ own 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 18 of 27
- 14 -

allegations or the PJ Motion. None of these newly imagined bases for personal jurisdiction are 

supported by the sparse allegations about the Non-Resident Defendants in the AC. And the

undisputed facts presented in the PJ Motion undermine the few conclusory assertions Plaintiffs do 

levy. See ECF No. 139, 139-1 (Curry Decl.), 139-2 (David Decl.), 139-3 (Ohtani Decl.), 141

(judicially noticeable documents); see also Espinoza v. Target Corp., 843 F. App’x 168, 171 (11th 

Cir. 2021) (“[C]onclusory allegations and speculation are insufficient to create a genuine issue of 

material fact.”) (quoting Glasscox v. City of Argo, 903 F.3d 1207, 1213 (11th Cir. 2018)). 

Plaintiffs’ assertions are nothing more than speculation, and they are certainly not entitled to 

jurisdictional discovery to fish for potential facts (which do not exist). See Yepez, 2011 WL 

3439943, at *1-2 (plaintiffs required to “investigate jurisdictional issues before filing suit” and 

“expected to be able to allege these facts in good faith without the benefit of discovery.”); 

Thompson, 174 F. Supp. 3d at 1338 (plaintiffs not entitled to jurisdictional discovery “to test ‘the 

veracity of the statements made in the [defendants’] affidavit[s].”); In re Zantac, 2020 WL 

6907056, at *3 (only where a defendant’s “counter-facts create a genuine dispute with the wellpled facts in the complaint” does “plaintiff ha[ve] a right to limited jurisdictional discovery on 

those genuinely-disputed facts.”).5 Here, for purposes of the PJ Motion, the Non-Resident

5 Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion (ECF No. 163 at 8), it is not at all “important[]” that a NonResident Defendant declined to attach a copy of his, her, or its respective agreement to the PJ 

Motion. In a Rule 12(b)(2) motion, which precedes discovery, the Non-Resident Defendants had 

no reason nor obligation to provide Plaintiffs access to these documents. Plaintiffs also mislead 

(id. at 8 n.5) by stating that Mr. David “failed to provide a copy of” his agreement. Mr. David’s 

counsel sent the agreement as it was filed under seal with this Court (ECF No. 139-2, Ex. A) to 

Plaintiffs’ counsel on April 17, 2023. Mr. David’s counsel has confirmed to Plaintiffs, and 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 19 of 27
- 15 -

Defendants accepted Plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true—that GSW displayed the FTX logo in 

California, that Mr. Curry, Mr. David, and Ms. Osaka appeared in ads for FTX, and that Mr. Ohtani 

took no affirmative conduct but was merely named in a press release issued by FTX from the 

Bahamas announcing him as a “global ambassador.” None of this shows personal jurisdiction.

These well-settled principles are unaffected by the entirely separate Voyager cases, in 

which some jurisdictional discovery was permitted. There, Chief Judge Altonaga authorized 

jurisdictional discovery against Voyager Ltd. based on allegations in the complaint that did set 

forth a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction and the existence of a material dispute of 

jurisdictional fact. See ECF No. 163-1 at 2-4. Defendants argued they did not maintain any 

employees or do any business in Florida, but documentary evidence attached to the complaint 

contradicted defendants’ position and supported plaintiffs’ jurisdictional allegations. Id. The same 

is not true here. Plaintiffs are not seeking jurisdictional discovery from FTX entities (the analogue 

to Voyager Ltd. in this case), nor have Plaintiffs come forward with factual allegations or evidence 

that any Non-Resident Defendant specifically targeted Florida or even promoted YBAs at all.

6

Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged, that the redactions relate only to Mr. David’s compensation, 

which has nothing to do with whether he is subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida. While 

Plaintiffs’ counsel reserved the right to argue that the amount of compensation is somehow 

relevant to jurisdiction, if the Court agrees with Mr. David on this point, the question of whether 

Mr. David provided the contract to Plaintiffs is resolved. 

6 Judge Altman in Robertson v. Cuban ordered ordinary discovery to proceed (not jurisdictional 

discovery alone) because the defendants did not make a “specific showing of prejudice or 

burdensomeness” to warrant staying discovery pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. 

Order, Robertson v. Cuban, No. 22-cv-22538 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2022), ECF No. 45. Here, by 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 20 of 27
- 16 - 

If Plaintiffs had any factual basis for asserting personal jurisdiction against the NonResident Defendants in connection with their claims, they had an obligation to plead those facts in 

the AC or put them into evidence in support of their request for jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiffs 

did not do so, and, as a result, they have not shown any genuinely disputed, material jurisdictional 

fact. Thus, jurisdictional discovery should be denied. 

2. There cannot possibly be jurisdictional discovery from GSW or Osaka. 

While Plaintiffs fail to show any genuinely disputed jurisdictional fact as to any of the NonResident Defendants, Plaintiffs’ failure is especially glaring as to GSW and Ms. Osaka because 

they did not submit declarations in support of the PJ Motion. Plaintiffs have represented to this 

Court that they are seeking jurisdictional discovery from the Non-Resident Defendants 

“specifically regarding the new evidence that was filed in support of their Motion to Dismiss on 

grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction.” Pls.’ Resp. to Order to Show Cause at 1, Norris v. Brady, 

No. 23-cv-20439 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2023), ECF No. 47. Plaintiffs’ motion implies that all the 

Non-Resident Defendants asked the Court to “rely upon their newly filed, Sworn FTX Defendant 

Declarations, where they make new arguments to support an alleged lack of personal jurisdiction.” 

ECF No. 163 at 2. Plaintiffs’ assertions are false. GSW and Ms. Osaka did not file declarations to 

support dismissal as to them, basing their arguments solely on Plaintiffs’ fatally defective pleading. 

ECF No. 139 at 3-4.7 It is thus impossible for there to be any factual dispute as to Plaintiffs’ 

contrast, the Non-FTX Defendants have made that showing in their Motion to Stay (ECF No. 162), 

and the Court has already recognized that this is a “complex and costly litigation for all parties 

involved” (ECF No. 133 at 3). This is especially true for the Non-Resident Defendants. 

7

 Of course, none of the Non-Resident Defendants’ declarations raise “new” arguments; they 

confirm that Plaintiffs could not allege facts to support personal jurisdiction even if they had tried.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 21 of 27
- 17 -

jurisdictional allegations about GSW and Ms. Osaka. As such, Plaintiffs have no basis to seek 

jurisdictional discovery from them. 

Again, jurisdictional discovery is available only when a “factual challenge” is made, and 

jurisdictional facts are “genuinely in dispute.” ACLU v. City of Sarasota, 859 F.3d 1337, 1340-

1341 (11th Cir. 2017). This rule precludes a plaintiff from manufacturing a basis to burden a 

defendant with jurisdictional discovery where the defendant merely makes a facial challenge to 

the complaint. See Kemin Foods, L.C. v. Omniactive Health Techs., Inc., 654 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 

1333 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (“[A] motion to dismiss, without more, challenges only the facial 

sufficiency of the jurisdictional pleading.” (quotations omitted)). 

Accordingly, jurisdictional discovery should be automatically denied where a party 

seeking dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction does not even submit evidentiary declarations 

with their motion. See In re Takata, 396 F. Supp. 3d at 1157 (denying jurisdictional discovery 

where there was “no genuine factual dispute concerning personal jurisdiction because none of the 

parties submitted affidavit or declaration evidence in support of, or in opposition to, the exercise 

of personal jurisdiction” (citations omitted)); see also Peruyero, 83 F. Supp. 3d at 1290 (denying 

the plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery because there was “no genuine dispute on a 

material jurisdictional fact to warrant jurisdictional discovery”). 

GSW’s and Ms. Osaka’s facial challenge to personal jurisdiction presents a dispositive

distinction from the Voyager matters on which Plaintiffs rely. According to Plaintiffs, “Judge

Altonaga, Judge Altman, and Magistrate Judge Reid all granted leave and allowed discovery on 

personal jurisdiction to proceed based on very similar declarations filed by defendants in support 

of their motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, raising many of the same arguments 

as Defendants here.” ECF No. 163 at 5 (emphasis added). But GSW and Ms. Osaka have not filed 

any declaration, as Plaintiffs acknowledge. See ECF No. 163 at 3 (not mentioning GSW or Ms. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 22 of 27
- 18 -

Osaka in listing declarations). Given that GSW and Ms. Osaka did not present evidence by 

declaration, Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery as to them is especially improper. 

C. Plaintiffs have not shown how the requested discovery could possibly bolster 

their non-existent jurisdictional allegations.

Finally, the Court should also deny Plaintiffs’ motion because Plaintiffs have failed to

‘“demonstrate[] that [they] can supplement [their] jurisdictional allegations through discovery.’” 

Wolf v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 683 F. App’x 786, 792 (11th Cir. 2017). Where plaintiffs have 

failed to specify what information discovery would produce and, more importantly, “how that 

information would bolster [their] allegations,” jurisdictional discovery is properly denied. In re 

Takata, 396 F. Supp. 3d at 1157. Plaintiffs’ proposed far-reaching “jurisdictional” discovery is not 

tailored to disputed jurisdictional facts at all and would not “bolster” Plaintiffs’ non-existent 

allegations of personal jurisdiction. Indeed, it is apparent on the face of the requests that Plaintiffs

are not seeking “jurisdictional” but, rather, premature discovery on the merits of their claims. 

Granting such far-reaching requests at this juncture would unfairly prejudice the Non-Resident

Defendants by imposing unduly burdensome discovery on parties not properly part of this case.

First, Plaintiffs want all documents and communications relating to the Non-Resident

Defendants’ relationship with FTX (Req. No. 1). ECF No. 163-2. That is wholly unrelated to any 

potential connection with Florida and is a “fishing expedition.” Wolf, 683 F. App’x at 792 

(jurisdictional “discovery requests should not serve as fishing expeditions”).

Second, Plaintiffs demand all documents and communications regarding whether YBAs or 

FTT constitute a security (Req. No. 3). ECF No. 163-2. This request, too, plainly has nothing to 

do with Florida connections and is an unabashed fishing expedition.

Third, Plaintiffs want all documents and communications relating to “targeting” the NonResident Defendants’ “Florida fans” and “Florida’s FTX consumers” with game broadcasts or 

advertisements (Req. No. 2). ECF No. 163-2. But this extremely broad request likewise will not 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 23 of 27
- 19 -

bolster Plaintiffs’ jurisdictional allegations because Plaintiffs’ claims concern promoting YBAs, 

which no Non-Resident Defendant is alleged to have promoted at all. (And Plaintiffs do not allege

that Mr. Ohtani ever even promoted FTX.) Documents reflecting that Florida residents might have 

watched games or ads that promoted FTX—but not YBAs—could never cure the defective 

allegations by providing the connection between Plaintiffs’ claims and any Non-Resident

Defendants’ alleged conduct required for jurisdiction. E.g., Don King Prods., Inc. v. Mosley, 2016 

WL 3950930, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2016); Paws Aboard, LLC v. DiDonato, 2012 WL 1252763, 

*3-4 (M.D. Fla. April 13, 2012); Zamora Radio, LLC v. Last.fm LTD., 2011 WL 2580401, at *7 

(S.D. Fla. June 29, 2011) (“[S]ubject[ing] [defendant] to jurisdiction in a particular forum just for 

offering national and un-targeted advertising” would “set a troubling precedent.”).

In short, Plaintiffs have failed to show how any of the requested jurisdictional discovery

“would bolster” their jurisdictional allegations or resolve any genuinely disputed jurisdictional 

fact. In re Takata, 396 F. Supp. 3d at 1157. That, too, compels denial of the motion. 

II. Plaintiffs should not be permitted leave to amend their Amended Complaint.

Because the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery, it should 

likewise deny Plaintiffs’ corresponding request for leave to file a second amended complaint 

incorporating information gathered from the proposed “jurisdictional” discovery.

As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs have not properly sought leave to amend; Local Rule 15.1 

requires “[a] party who moves to amend a pleading [to] attach the original of the amendment to 

the motion in the manner prescribed by Section 3I(1) of the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures.” 

L.R. 15.1; see also S.D. Fla. CM/ECF Administrative Procedures § 3I(1) (“If a document to be 

filed requires a motion requesting leave of the Court (e.g., an amended complaint, ...), the

proposed document shall be submitted as a PDF attachment to the motion.”).

Regardless, Plaintiffs should not be allowed to amend their complaint at all with respect to 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 24 of 27
- 20 -

personal jurisdiction (or otherwise). Plaintiffs were required to “investigate jurisdictional issues 

prior to filing suit” and “expected to be able to allege [jurisdictional] facts in good faith without 

the benefit of discovery.” Yepez, 2011 WL 3439943, at *1-2. Plaintiffs have already amended their 

complaint to add fifty-six new pages of allegations and a 19-page expert report. Compare ECF No.

1, with ECF No. 16, 16-1. Thus, Plaintiffs used their right to amend the complaint, see Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 15(a)(1) (authorizing only one amendment “as a matter of course”), and Plaintiffs’ sparse 

jurisdictional allegations as to the Non-Resident Defendants remained unchanged, despite 

warnings that those allegations were deficient. Plaintiffs should not get another bite at the apple to 

add new (unidentified) allegations that should have been included from the outset. See In re Engle 

Cases, 767 F.3d 1082, 1123 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming denial of leave to amend to add new 

allegations Plaintiffs should have “alleged at the time the complaints were filed”). 

Plaintiffs’ multitude of pleading failures, including their failures to allege any basic 

jurisdictional facts, to identify in their motion any specific facts they have a good-faith basis to 

allege, and to refute the additional facts in Mr. Curry’s, Mr. David’s, or Mr. Ohtani’s declarations,

confirms that any amendment would be futile and should not be allowed. See Dynasty Mgmt., LLC 

v. Alsina, 2016 WL 11480851, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 26, 2016) (denying leave to amend personal 

jurisdictional allegations where plaintiff pleaded “no legitimate basis for the Court’s personal 

jurisdiction,” “sworn affidavits ... directly refute[d]” plaintiff’s allegation, and “plaintiff offer[ed] 

no compelling response”); Sterling Currency Grp. LLC v. Maurer, 2013 WL 4011063, at *12 

(N.D. Ga. Aug. 5, 2013) (denying leave to amend where “plaintiff has failed to show sufficient 

facts to establish personal jurisdiction”). 

CONCLUSION

The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ request to conduct jurisdictional discovery and deny 

leave to amend to allege unidentified facts. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 25 of 27
- 21 - 

Dated: May 10, 2023

COLSON, HICKS, EIDSON, P.A.

By: /s/ Roberto Martínez 

Roberto Martínez (FBN 305596) 

 bob@colson.com 

Stephanie A. Casey (FBN 97483) 

 scasey@colson.com 

Zachary Lipshultz (FBN 123594) 

 zach@colson.com

255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

Tel.: (305) 476-7400 

Attorneys for Defendants Golden State Warriors, 

LLC, Naomi Osaka, and Lawrence Gene David

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

Matthew S. Kahn (pro hac vice) 

 MKahn@gibsondunn.com 

Michael J. Kahn (pro hac vice) 

 MJKahn@gibsondunn.com 

555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 

San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 

Tel.: (415) 393-8379 

Michael Dore (pro hac vice) 

 MDore@gibsondunn.com 

Jamila MacEbong (pro hac vice) 

 JMacEbong@gibsondunn.com

333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4600 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 

Tel.: (213) 229-7155 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Golden State Warriors, LLC and Naomi Osaka

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

Andrew Clubok (pro hac vice) 

 andrew.clubok@lw.com 

Susan E. Engel (pro hac vice) 

 susan.engel@lw.com

Brittany M.J. Record (pro hac vice) 

 brittany.record@lw.com

555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000 

Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 

Tel: (202) 637-2200 

Fax: (202) 637-2201

Respectfully submitted,

McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

By: /s/ Nathan Bull 

Nathan Bull (FBN 1029523) 

 nbull@mwe.com 

333 SE 2nd Ave Suite 4500 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel.: (212) 547-5768 

Jason D. Strabo (pro hac vice) 

 jstrabo@mwe.com 

Ellie Hourizadeh (pro hac vice) 

 ehourizadeh@mwe.com 

2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Tel.: (310) 788-4125 

Sarah P. Hogarth (pro hac vice) 

 shogarth@mwe.com 

500 North Capitol Street NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

Tel.: (202) 756-8354 

Attorneys for Defendant Stephen Curry 

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

By: /s/ Edward Soto 

Edward Soto (FBN 0265144) 

 edward.soto@weil.com

1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200 

Miami, FL 33131-3368 

Tel.: (305)-577-3100 

Attorney for Defendant Shohei Ohtani

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 26 of 27
- 22 -

Marvin S. Putnam (pro hac vice)

 marvin.putnam@lw.com

Jessica Stebbins Bina (pro hac vice)

 jessica.stebbinsbina@lw.com

Elizabeth A. Greenman (pro hac vice)

 elizabeth.greenman@lw.com

10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1100

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Tel: (424) 653-5500

Fax: (424) 653-5501

Michele D. Johnson (pro hac vice)

 michele.johnson@lw.com

650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor

Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925

Tel: (714) 540-1235

Fax: (714) 755-8290

Attorneys for Defendant Lawrence Gene David

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 195 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 27 of 27