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 similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al.,

Defendants.

/

DEFENDANT UDONIS HASLEM’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR INSUFFICIENT 

SERVICE OF PROCESS AND INCOPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 1 of 5
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5), FED. R. CIV. P., and the PAPERLESS ORDER [ECF 132]

Defendant Udonis Haslem (“Mr. Haslem”) moves to dismiss for insufficient service of process

and failure to serve him timely. Plaintiffs’ filings establish that the purported “service” was 

“effected” through the process server’s tossing the summons packet onto the windshield of 

Mr. Haslem’s wife’s vehicle miles from their home, see ECF 88-2, pg. 6, which is insufficient 

under Florida law. Therefore, service should be quashed and the claims against him dismissed for 

this independent reason, in addition to the reasons set out in the [Joint] Motion to Dismiss (etc.)

[ECF 154].

INTRODUCTION AND FACTS

As to Mr. Haslem (and, in fact, many of the other defendants), Plaintiffs wholly disregarded 

their service duties. Plaintiffs’ ninety-day deadline to serve Mr. Haslem expired February 13, 2023. 

See Rule 4(m), FED. R. CIV. P. A summons was issued for Mr. Haslem on December 5, 2022. See

ECF 12. The “Details for Job 2023000250” (“Details”) – i.e., serving Mr. Haslem – filed by 

Plaintiffs establish that Plaintiffs’ process server was not even engaged to serve Mr. Haslem until 

February 21, 2023, well after the February 13, 2023, service deadline. See ECF 88-2, pgs. 6-7

(Exhibit A) at 1. Further, Plaintiffs’ representation to the Court that Mr. Haslem “evaded service,” 

ECF 88 at 3 n.4, is objectively false. The first attempt at service was not until February 25, 2023, 

see Ex. A at 2, when the Miami Heat were on a road trip.

1 Plaintiffs did not purportedly serve 

Mr. Haslem – through his wife – until February 28, according to the Return of Service, which 

1 As stated in the Amended Complaint [ECF 16], Mr. Haslem is a “basketball player for 

the Miami Heat[.]” Id. at ¶ 34. Since the Heat were on a road trip when service was first attempted, 

see https://www.nba.com/heat/schedule, it is no surprise that he was not in Miami. Being at work

in Charlotte, North Carolina, see id., cannot constitute “evading service” in Miami.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 2 of 5
- 2 -

states Mrs. Haslem was served “pursuant to F.S.48.031(2).(A).” See ECF 77 (Exhibit B) at 1.

Plaintiffs’ own filings show that statement is also false. The Details state that the process server 

“placed [the summons] on her windshield as [supposedly] sufficient service.” See id. at 1. This 

“service” occurred at the intersection of Weston Road and Griffin Road in Southwest Ranches, see 

id., which is nearly four miles away from the Haslem’s residence, see Screenshot from Google 

Maps (Exhibit C).

2 The Details document also shows that Mrs. Haslem in no way agreed to be 

served away from the Haslem residence. See id. at 1 (the process server chased Mrs. Haslem in his 

vehicle and she “refused to communicate”).

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

As this action was filed in Florida and service was attempted in Florida, Florida law

governs the validity of service. See, e.g., Order [ECF 133] at 2. Plaintiffs claim to have effected 

substitute service under § 48.031(2)(a), see Return of Service at 1; however, Plaintiffs’ filings 

establish that they did not. Therefore, the “service” should be quashed and the action dismissed as

to Mr. Haslem for the additional reason of Plaintiffs’ failure to serve him timely. 

“Statutes which govern substituted service of process are to be strictly construed and also, 

they must be strictly complied with.” Aero Costa Rica, Inc. v. Dispatch Svcs., Inc., 710 So. 2d 218, 

219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); see also PAPERLESS ORDER [ECF 101] at 1 (same). Among other 

requirements, substitute service of process upon a spouse away from the residence is valid if, and

2 Mr. Haslem requests that the Court take judicial notice of the locations and the distance 

between the Haslem home and the intersection, as these are facts “within the [C]ourt’s territorial 

jurisdiction” that “cannot reasonably be questioned.” Rule 201(b)(1) & (2), FED. R. EVID.,

Therefore, judicial notice is proper. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Destefano, 2010 WL 11561136, at *5 

(S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2010) (citing Gov’t of Canal Zone v. Burjan, 596 F.2d 690, 694 (5th Cir. 1979)).

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 3 of 5
- 3 -

only if, inter alia, “if the spouse requests such service.” § 48.031(2)(a), Fla. Stat. Here, the Details 

establish Plaintiffs’ process server’s failures to comply with § 48.031(2)(a). Not only was the 

service well away from the Haslem residence, the Details establish Mrs. Haslem did not agree to 

accept service. After two claimed attempts with no success at even communicating, see id. at 2, 

the process server chased Mrs. Haslem in her vehicle, she “refused to communicate” with him, 

and he “placed [the summons] on her windshield as [supposedly] sufficient service,” see id. at 1.3

As a matter of Florida law, that does not constitute sufficient service, the claimed service 

should be quashed, and this action dismissed as to Mr. Haslem for failure to serve him timely. See 

Selvas v. Atlas One Fin. Grp., LLC, 2011 WL 13223728, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2011) (Ungaro, 

J.) (quashing substitute service upon defendant’s wife in a grocery store parking lot across from 

defendant’s residence because the plaintiff’s process server’s affidavits “ma[d]e clear that [the 

wife] refused process” and dismissing action for failure to timely effect service).

Plaintiffs’ deadline for service was February 13, 2023, which deadline has long since 

passed. Accordingly, Mr. Haslem respectfully requests that this Court enter an order quashing 

service and dismissing the action against him. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

3 There are significant concerns regarding process server’s credibility. The third attempt at 

service allegedly occurred at 8:38 a.m. on February 28, 2023, eight minutes after the process server

claims to have made “numerous attempts” to reach the occupant of the property (at 8:30 a.m.) and 

then “dr[ove] across the street to notate [the] attempt.” See id. Then, the process server claims to 

have been able to follow Mrs. Haslem over three and a half miles away from her home to the 

intersection of Weston Road and Griffin Road, stop and identify himself, explain the reason for 

his attempt to serve, try to communicate with Mrs. Haslem, read the summons, and place the 

summons on her windshield – all somehow by 8:38 a.m., a mere eight minutes later. See id.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 4 of 5
- 4 -

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Defendant Udonis Haslem respectfully requests that the Court quash the 

purported service, dismiss this matter against him for the additional reason of Plaintiffs’ failure to 

effect proper service timely, and grant him such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: April 14, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

AKERMAN LLP

201 East Las Olas Boulevard – Suite 1800

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

Tel.: 954-463-2700

Fax: 954-468-2454

By: /s/ Christopher S. Carver

Christopher S. Carver

Florida Bar No. 993580

christopher.carver@akerman.com

Jason S. Oletsky, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 9301

jason.oletsky@akerman.com

Katherine A Johnson

Florida Bar No. 1040357

katie.johnson@akerman.com

Attorneys for Defendant Udonis Haslem

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 5 of 5