UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

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

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of 

Himself and all similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al., 

Defendants. 

 / 

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Motion to Serve Defendant Shaquille 

O’Neal Through Approved Alternative Means, (“Mot.” or “Motion”) (ECF No. 122), filed by 

Plaintiff Edwin Garrison, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”).

Defendant O’Neal has not yet appeared in this action, nor has he filed a response. The Motion is 

now ripe for review. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs move to serve Defendant Shaquille O’Neal (“Defendant O’Neal”) under Texas 

law, where they allege Defendant O’Neal is located. See generally Mot. Plaintiffs specifically 

request that this Court permit service on Defendant O’Neal “(1) via direct message from The 

Moskowitz Law Firm’s Twitter account to one of O’Neal’s verified Twitter account (@DJDiesel); 

(2) via direct message from The Moskowitz Law Firm’s Instagram account to O’Neal’s verified 

Instagram accounts (@Shaq and @DJDiesel); and (3) via email to Shaq’s prior and current counsel 

in other matters,” which they allege is permissible under Texas law. Id. at 8. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2023 Page 1 of 4
2

II. DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) provides that an individual may be served in a 

judicial district of the United States by “following state law for serving a summons . . . in the state 

where the district court is located or where service is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Accordingly, 

the Federal Rules permit service on an individual under the law in the state (1) where the district 

court is located, or (2) where service is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). Here, the district court is in 

Florida. Plaintiffs could, but did not, move to serve Defendant O’Neal under Florida law. 

Instead, Plaintiffs move to serve Defendant O’Neal under Texas law. See generally Mot. 

For Texas law to apply, Texas must be where service is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1). While 

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant O’Neal is domiciled in Texas, they do not allege that Texas is 

“where service [will be] made.” See generally Mot. In fact, the Court notes that Plaintiffs provide 

no explanation as to why Texas law should govern the service of Defendant O’Neal—Plaintiffs 

request to serve Defendant O’Neal electronically, and do not request any form of physical service 

in Texas. Id. 

In support of this tenuous argument, Plaintiffs cite two cases, neither of which are binding 

in this district, where a court permitted service under the laws of another state. Mot. at 9–10. Yet

as explained below, neither cited case is applicable where Plaintiffs seek to serve Defendant 

O’Neal via the Internet.

In the first case, Izen v. Catalina, the Fifth Circuit found that service of process was valid 

under Oklahoma law where, although the case was filed in a district court in Texas, service was 

made at the defendant’s former place of work, which was in Oklahoma. 256 F.3d 324, 327 (5th 

Cir. 2001). There, the court found that Oklahoma law was properly applied under Rule 4(e)(1) 

because service was clearly made in Oklahoma. Id. Izen is distinguishable from the instant case, 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2023 Page 2 of 4
3

however, because Plaintiffs here do not argue that physical service will be made in Texas. See 

generally Mot. Nor do Plaintiffs even attempt to argue that serving Defendant O’Neal via the 

Internet constitutes service in Texas. Id. Thus, Izen is inapposite to the instant case.

Next, Plaintiffs cite to Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), in which the district court 

permitted service on a defendant under Rule 4(e)(2). 993 F. Supp. 3, 7 (D.D.C. 1998). There, the 

court dismissed the defendant’s argument that although he was personally served with the 

summons and complaint, service was improper because he was an “excludable alien.” Id. Not 

only is Doe factually distinct, but in that case the court permitted service under Rule 4(e)(2), not 

Rule 4(e)(1) (i.e., the subsection of the statute applicable in this action). In this sense, Doe is both 

legally and factually inapplicable to the decision at bar. In sum, Plaintiffs provide no legal 

authority—binding or persuasive—supporting the proposition that Texas law should govern 

service of process where service is made electronically. See generally Mot. 

As an aside, the Court notes that, throughout this case’s short tenure in litigation, Plaintiffs 

have repeatedly failed to comply with the Local Rules and this Court’s Orders (despite several 

admonishments by this Court itself).

1 Now, at the instant juncture, Plaintiffs have filed a motion 

that is factually unsupported and legally insufficient. Particularly in such a complex and costly 

litigation for all parties involved, the Court will not continue to tolerate such violations or frivolous 

arguments. 

1

 See ECF No. 47 (striking a letter filed by Plaintiffs in violation of the local rules); ECF No. 82 

(denying Plaintiffs’ Request for a Brief Status Conference for failing to include a conferral 

statement, as required by the local rules, and instructing Plaintiffs to comply with the Court’s 

November 16, 2022 Paperless Order, which they had failed to do); ECF No. 90 (ordering Plaintiffs 

to show cause why Defendants Naomi Osaka and Shaquille O’Neal should not be dismissed 

because Plaintiffs failed to serve them).

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2023 Page 3 of 4
4 

III. CONCLUSION

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being 

otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Serve Defendant Shaquille O’Neal Through Approved Alternative Means (ECF No. 11)

is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ____ day of April, 2023. 

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record 

11th

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 133 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/11/2023 Page 4 of 4