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’ EXPEDITED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT JURISDICTIONAL

DISCOVERY, AND TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT WITH ANY FACTS ARISING

FROM SUCH DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(2), respectfully move the Court to enter an order 

granting Plaintiffs leave to: (1) take brief jurisdictional discovery from Defendants, Stephen Curry, 

Larry David, Golden State Warriors, LLC, Shohei Ohtani, and Naomi Osaka (collectively, “FTX 

Non-Florida Defendants”) prior to a ruling on Defendants’ jurisdictional arguments; and (2) to file 

their first substantive amendment to the Complaint within twenty (20) days after completing that 

brief jurisdictional discovery, so Plaintiffs’ may incorporate any additional facts that support 

personal jurisdiction over these FTX Non-Florida Defendants and address arguments raised in all 

Defendants’ motions to dismiss. 

This is the same, exact reasonable discovery that was opposed by defendants in 

Undersigned Counsel’s related Voyager Digital cases, and required to be produced by Chief Judge 

Altonaga, Judge Altman, and Magistrate Judge Reid, in various Orders based specifically on 

Eleventh Circuit precedent, in the pending related Voyager Digital class actions. See Composite 

Exhibit A. All FTX Defendants continue to argue and reiterate that none of these prior Orders by 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 1 of 13
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

2

this Court are in “in any manner” relevant to this inquiry, and cannot even be “considered by this 

Court,” but they are in fact based upon extremely analogous facts. For example, Voyager and Mr. 

Cuban specifically argued the cases against them should be dismissed for a lack of personal 

jurisdiction, alleging they had “no connection to Florida.” However, the plethora of evidence that 

was obtained in discovery demonstrated that not only was Florida one of the “main” targets for 

their promotion of Voyager’s unregistered securities, but it was also one of the most targeted states, 

and thus tens of thousands of Florida residents, in fact, suffered millions in damages from 

defendants’ offer and sale of these unregistered securities. Here, there is no dispute that FTX 

(unlike Voyager) conducted its activities from its headquarters here in Miami, Florida, and there 

can be no dispute that these Defendants’ activities were certainly not confined to some limited 

geographic area. 

All 18 FTX Defendants have, as of today, now definitively informed Plaintiffs that: (1) 

they have unilaterally decided not to respond to any discovery that Plaintiffs would serve following 

the initial Scheduling Conference, pending the Court’s ruling on their Motions to Dismiss 

(jurisdictional and/or merits) (while Judge Altman denied a very similar Motion to Stay All 

Discovery in the related Voyager litigation, See Comp. Ex. A); and (2) they request the Court rely 

upon their newly filed, Sworn FTX Defendant Declarations, where they make new arguments to 

support an alleged lack of personal jurisdiction (such as they were not just “physically present” in 

Florida), but will not allow Plaintiffs to test any such arguments, as was specifically ordered in the 

Voyager cases also pending before this Court.

Plaintiffs diligently worked to confer with Defendants on these issues immediately after 

they filed their motions, but Defendants as a group were only available for a meet and confer on 

April 24, 2023, and a follow-up today, April 26, 2023, before they made clear this issue required 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 2 of 13
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

3

Court intervention. Plaintiffs’ responses to the pending Motions to Dismiss are currently due 

Monday, May 15, 2023; therefore, absent an expedited ruling before that date, this matter will 

likely not be fully briefed and decided under the rules until after that current deadline. 

I. BACKGROUND

This Court has acknowledged that all of these related FTX cases involve a main question 

of whether FTX’s offerings are securities that need to be registered by the SEC. See Norris, et al. 

v. Brady, et al., No. 1:23-cv-20439-KMM (“Norris”), ECF Nos. 43, 45. If the Court decides that 

question in the affirmative, the only remaining question will be whether these FTX Defendants 

“aided and abetted” in the offer and sale of such unregistered securities under Florida law. 

The FTX Non-Florida Defendants moved on Friday, April 14, 2023, to dismiss the 

complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 139. Relying on newly filed declarations of 

Defendants Stephen Curry, Larry David, and Shohei Ohtani, these FTX Defendants argue that the 

entire case against them should be dismissed, because this Court lacks specific jurisdiction over 

them.1 But the declarations contain only general assertions regarding where the declarants live and 

where they negotiated and signed their individual contracts. As demonstrated by the FTX Contracts 

produced in Norris by Brady, Ortiz, and O’Leary in support of their opposition to the motion to 

remand, these contracts are all varied in their requirements, with some requiring FTX Brand 

Ambassadors to create and publish numerous “social media posts,” autograph a certain number of

1 Defendants advance these arguments even in the face of allegations that, for instance, Defendant 

Osaka specifically attended matches in Miami wearing her FTX kit as part of the promotional 

activities for which she was paid by FTX, [ECF No. 16 ¶ 227], or that Defendant Golden State 

Warriors promoted the FTX Platform and its unregistered offerings through branding FTX as the 

“Official Crypto Platform and NFT Marketplace of the Golden State Warriors,” as a result of 

FTX being their “first international rights partner,” meaning they jointly advertised together on an 

international basis, and the Golden State Warriors dropped NFTs on the FTX Platform and 

promoted FTX throughout their G League and eSports teams, also internationally. ECF No. 16 ¶¶ 

222–223 (emphasis in original).

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 3 of 13
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

4

items per year, launch NFTs across the country through FTX, conduct virtual meetings and 

lunches, host FTX charity events, etc. 

While Defendants assert that certain information must be filed under seal (and thus 

Plaintiffs will not be attaching them hereto or providing specifics), the few materials which were 

provided in the related Norris action were also produced in redacted form, some with complete 

paragraphs redacted (without any table or index to provide context) as well as all of the details 

regarding their compensation. All of this information was compelled by this Court in the related 

Voyager cases. See Comp. Ex. A. Plaintiffs have requested, but have been denied, any fully 

unredacted copies of these relevant materials. Further, Defendants attempt to handicap Plaintiffs 

in their efforts to address these specific questions. For example, Mr. David alludes in his 

declaration to an “FTX Restricted Stock Purchase Agreement,” which he references generally, but 

refuses to produce in this litigation. See ECF No. 139-2, at n.1.

Some of these FTX Contracts specifically require the Defendants to collaborate with the 

FTX advertising company on these scripts (i.e., such as the fraudulent FTX “I am All In” 

Campaign), via phone and emails, and preclude these celebrities from promoting any FTX 

competitors, in any manner. At a minimum, Defendants’ declarations (just like those provided in 

Voyager) inject issues that cannot be resolved by the Court, or adequately addressed by Plaintiffs, 

absent some limited jurisdictional discovery and supplemental briefing and/or amended pleadings 

before the Court rules on Defendants’ jurisdictional arguments.

Plaintiffs have been attempting for weeks to confer with Defendants on discovery. In 

response, Defendants have largely either ignored the requests or have indicated that they all need 

“proposed dates and times a week in advance (at minimum)” before they can schedule any time to 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 4 of 13
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

5

confer with Plaintiffs.2 After reviewing Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, Plaintiffs requested a 

meet and confer to discuss discovery in connection with the motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs also sent 

proposed jurisdictional discovery (requests for production and deposition notices) to Defendants 

to demonstrate how narrow the discovery sought was and to expedite the meet and confer process. 

See Composite Exhibit B (proposed jurisdictional discovery requests). After two meet and confer 

sessions, Defendants have now made it clear they will oppose Plaintiffs’ request for any

jurisdictional discovery (no matter how narrow) and instead have sought to stay all discovery.

Defendants take this position despite the fact that in two related cases against Voyager Digital and 

the celebrities alleged to have promoted the offer and sale of unregistered securities, 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. See Comp. Ex. A.

Notably, Plaintiffs’ current Complaint has not gone through any substantive amendment, 

and certainly not one after the filing of a Motion to Dismiss or after any discovery has been 

produced, in that the amended complaint was filed December 16, 2023, to effect the consolidation 

of the Garrison and Podalsky actions in accordance with this Court’s Order. Defendant O’Neal, 

the last of the 18 Defendants was finally personally served April 16, 2023—10 days ago, within 

the deadline to do so set by this Court. No scheduling conference has yet been held, nor is there a 

case scheduling order. Indeed, the Court set a deadline of May 8, 2023, for the Parties to file a joint 

2 Plaintiffs can provide the correspondence should the Court deem it necessary. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 5 of 13
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

6

scheduling report after holding a scheduling conference once Defendant O’Neal was finally 

located and personally served.3

In the Voyager Digital cases, this Court denied defendants’ motion to stay all discovery, in 

part, because there was no showing, by declaration nor any evidence, that such requested discovery 

was unduly burdensome. See Comp. Ex. A. In fact, all of that discovery was already taken in those 

cases and is now completed. Certainly, none of these 18 FTX Defendants have made any showing 

of “undue burden,” in fact, they argue just the opposite, that very little responsive discovery (if 

any) should exist, conceding there is no burden. 

Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court at this stage for leave to conduct limited jurisdictional 

discovery, and to afford a very brief period (20 days) following that discovery to allow them to file 

their first amended complaint with substantive amendments, especially because “Courts routinely 

allow such amendments to cure pleading deficiencies in service of the general principle that 

“decisions on the merits are not to be avoided on the basis of ‘mere technicalities.’” Castros v. 

Signal Fin. Co. LLC, 1:17-CV-21870-KMM, 2018 WL 1137099, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 4, 2018) 

(Moore, C.J.) (collecting cases).4

3 The Parties have agreed to hold the Joint Conference this Friday, April 28, 2023.

4 Granting Plaintiffs’ request would comport with the “policy of the federal rules []to permit liberal 

amendment to facilitate determination of claims on the merits and to prevent litigation from 

becoming a technical exercise in the fine points of pleading,” particularly where the proposed 

amendment would not violate any scheduling order in place and there is no “substantial reason” to 

deny the amendment, which “could include ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated 

failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing 

party, and futility of the amendment[,]’” none of which would apply since Plaintiffs would be 

providing their first substantive amendment to the complaint after, at a minimum, taking narrow 

discovery to address the jurisdictional arguments raised by some of the Defendants. Castros, 2018 

WL 1137099, at *1 (citations omitted).

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 6 of 13
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

7

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT

Florida’s long-arm statute provides for both general and specific personal jurisdiction. The 

Court has general personal jurisdiction over a defendant who has been “engaged in substantial and 

not isolated activity within this state ... whether or not the claim arises from that activity.” Fla. Stat. 

§ 48.193(2). Specific jurisdiction exists for claims arising out of certain discrete acts of a defendant 

that occur in Florida, including “[c]omitting a tortious act within this state.” Fla. Stat. § 

48.193(1)(a)(2) (2022).

In their complaint, Plaintiffs have invoked both general and specific jurisdiction as the 

basis for personal jurisdiction over each of the FTX Defendants under the long arm statute by 

alleging:

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.

[ECF No. 16, at ¶ 50]. The Complaint also alleges that “FTX organized and emanated its fraudulent 

plan from its worldwide headquarters located here in Miami, Florida[,]” [ECF No. 16, at ¶ 8], that 

FTX promoted the sale of unregistered securities in Florida by using celebrity endorsers, including 

the Defendants, [ECF No. 16, at ¶ 16], and that FTX paid celebrity endorsers millions of dollars 

to use the positive reputation associated with specific celebrities to convince consumers that FTX 

was a safe place to buy and sell cryptocurrency. [ECF No. 16, at ¶¶ 193, 194].

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 7 of 13
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

8

None of the Defendants deny any of the Complaint’s material allegations that FTX 

marketed its products to investors in, and from Florida through the use of paid celebrity 

endorsements (many millions of dollars), or that FTX paid Defendants many millions of dollars to 

promote FTX’s YBA’s to millions of investors worldwide, including in Florida. Instead, the 

Defendants’ jurisdictional declarations—exactly like the ones provided by Messrs. Cuban and 

Ehrlich in the Voyager cases—contain only general assertions regarding where the Defendants live

and where they physically negotiated and signed their individual contracts with FTX.

More importantly, none of the FTX Non-Florida Defendants challenging jurisdiction have 

even attached copies of their FTX Agreements to which they repeatedly allude in their respective 

newly sworn declarations.

5

Further, for purposes of specific jurisdiction under Florida’s long arm statute, the issue is 

whether Defendants’ tortious acts caused injury in Florida. See Louis Vuitton Malleties, S.A. v. 

Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1354 (11th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e conclude that under Florida law where 

Mosseri created the websites and posted the alleged infringing material does not matter. For 

purposes of § 48.193(1)(a)(2), the issue is whether Mosseri’s tortious acts caused injury in 

Florida.”). Defendants’ general denials of contacts with Florida do not address whether these 

Defendants nevertheless committed a tortious act within Florida by knowingly and purposely 

promoting FTX’s products and services to Florida residents who purchased those products and 

services based on Defendants’ promotional activities, even if conducted outside of Florida. See 

Licciardo v. Lovelady, 544 F.3d 1280, 1283 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that, under Florida law, a 

5 Defendant David moved for leave to file under seal one of the two referenced agreements in his 

Declaration, [ECF No. 146], which motion is pending, but has to date failed to provide a copy of 

either to Plaintiffs, redacted or otherwise, despite Plaintiffs’ agreement to preliminarily treat the 

agreement as confidential.

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 8 of 13
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

9

nonresident defendant commits “a tortious act within [Florida]” when he commits an act outside 

the state that causes injury within Florida).

The law of this Circuit has long recognized a qualified right to jurisdictional discovery. See 

Am. Civil Liberties, Union of Fla. v. City of Sarasota, 859 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2017). The 

qualified right is afforded when (1) the movant timely moves for jurisdictional discovery and (2) 

the information the movant seeks, if it exists, would give rise to jurisdiction. See Posner v. Essex 

Ins. Co., Ltd., 178 F.3d 1209, 1214 n.7 (11th Cir. 1999) (distinguishing cases referring to qualified 

right of jurisdictional discovery because in Posner, plaintiff failed to make discovery requests in 

the eight months between the time the complaint was filed and the time it was dismissed) (citing 

Eaton v. Dorchester Dev., Inc., 692 F.2d 727, 729-31 (11th Cir. 1982); Gleneagle Ship Mgmt. Co.

v. Leondakos, 602 So.2d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 1992)); see also RMS Titanic, Inc. v. Kingsmen Creatives, 

Ltd., 579 F. App'x 779, 790 (11th Cir. 2014) (“Our case law suggests that federal courts should 

order limited jurisdictional discovery where the information plaintiff seeks, if it exists, would give 

rise to jurisdiction.).

Thus, courts in this circuit routinely permit limited jurisdictional discovery before ruling 

on a jurisdictional motion to dismiss. See Happy Tax Franchising, LLC v. Hill, Case No. 19-24539-

CIV, 2020 WL 13221241, *1 (S.D. Fla. Jun 24, 2020) (granting leave to conduct jurisdictional 

discovery prior to deciding motion to dismiss); Kilma v. Carnival Corp., 2008 WL 4559231, at *1 

(S.D. Fla. Oct. 10, 2008) (permitting jurisdictional discovery prior to ruling on a motion to dismiss)

(Moore, J.); Sierra Equity Group, Inc. v. White Oak Equity Partners, LLC, 2008 WL. 1771857, *2 

(S.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2008) (“[J]urisdictional discovery will be useful to determine the actual extent 

of Defendants’ contacts with Florida to determine whether this case can be resolved on its merits. 

Without factual discovery, the Court would be left to conjecture whether it could exercise 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 9 of 13
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

10

jurisdiction over Defendants.”); Eaton, 692 F.2d at 729 (holding it was premature to dismiss a 

claim for lack of jurisdiction where plaintiffs were not given an opportunity to elicit material 

through discovery to support a determination on jurisdiction); Blanco Lines, 632 F.2d at 657 

(reversing a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds because “Plaintiff is not required to rely 

exclusively upon a defendant’s affidavit for resolution of the jurisdictional issue” where the 

dismissal was entered before Plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to take jurisdictional 

discovery).

Here, limited jurisdictional discovery – consisting of the requests for production of 

documents and a single deposition of each of the five Defendants who is challenging jurisdiction, 

see Comp. Ex. B – may reveal relevant facts, including, among other things:

1. Whether Defendants otherwise are engaged in substantial and not isolated activity 

targeting Florida which may subject them to general jurisdiction in Florida;

2. Whether other agreements exist between Defendants and FTX under which 

Defendants agreed to target actions or submit to jurisdiction in Florida;

3. Whether there are any other relevant contacts between Defendants and FTX that 

may be sufficient to establish general or specific jurisdiction under the long-arm statute.

4. Whether Defendants contracted to target their advertising or marketing efforts for 

FTX’s services and products to the state of Florida in a manner that may subject them to specific 

jurisdiction in Florida.

Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to at least conduct jurisdictional discovery before 

the Court rules on Defendants’ jurisdictional arguments. Plaintiffs’ request is timely and 

appropriate considering Defendants’ jurisdictional arguments. See, e.g., Happy Tax Franchising, 

2020 WL 13221241 at *1 (“The qualified right [to jurisdictional discovery] is afforded when 1) 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 10 of 13
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

11

the movant timely moves for jurisdictional discovery and 2) the information the movant seeks if it 

exists, would give rise to jurisdiction.”).

III. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs very respectfully request that the Court grant this 

Expedited Motion and enter an order granting leave for Plaintiffs to: (1) conduct limited 

jurisdictional discovery in the manner described above within forty-five (45) days of the Court’s 

order on this Motion; and (2) file an amended complaint with any additional facts revealed by such 

additional discovery that establish personal jurisdiction over the Defendants within 20 days after 

the close of such jurisdictional discovery. Any of the FTX Defendants can still raise any and all 

specific objections (undue burden, etc.) to the discovery that is served, which the Court can decide.

S.D. FLA. L.R. 7.1 CERTIFICATION

Plaintiffs’ Counsel certify that they have conferred with Defendants’ Counsel on the earliest 

dates Defendants’ Counsel made available, via Zoom videoconference on April 24, 2023, and 

again on April 26, 2023, in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this Motion, and report 

that Defendants oppose the requested relief. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 11 of 13
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

12

Dated: April 26, 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

3250 Mary Street, Suite 202

Coconut Grove, FL 33133

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

By: /s/Jose M. Ferrer

Jose Ferrer

Florida Bar No. 173746

Michelle Genet Bernstein

Florida Bar No. 1030736

MARK MIGDAL HAYDEN LLP

8 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999

Miami, FL 33130

Office: 305-374-0440

jose@markmigdal.com

michelle@markmigdal.com

eservice@markmigdal.com

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 12 of 13
CASE NO. 1:22-cv-23753-KMM

13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing was filed on April 26, 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 163 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2023 Page 13 of 13