UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

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

EDWIN GARRISON, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and all other similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

SAM BANKMAN-FRIED, et al., 

 

Defendants. 

 / 

DEFENDANT SHOHEI OHTANI’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 157 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 1 of 6
Plaintiffs have not alleged any conduct by Shohei Ohtani, let alone conduct that could 

conceivably subject him to this Court’s jurisdiction or form the basis of a tort. There is no personal 

jurisdiction over Mr. Ohtani because he is not a Florida resident and none of the relevant 

allegations about him bear any connection to Florida. Nor have Plaintiffs come close to alleging a 

legally viable claim against him under Florida law. The Court should dismiss him from this case. 

From his home in Tokyo, Japan, Mr. Ohtani, a Japanese citizen and resident,1 entered into 

an agreement that allowed Bahamas-based FTX to license his name, image, and likeness to 

promote FTX to Japanese customers in the Japanese market. Ohtani Decl. ¶¶ 2, 8, 11; FAC ¶ 226 

n.138. The FAC’s only allegation concerning Mr. Ohtani confirms this: FTX issued a press release 

from the Bahamas indicating that Mr. Ohtani would serve as an international “global ambassador” 

for FTX. Id. Critically, Mr. Ohtani made no statement in the press release, id., and the FAC does 

not allege Mr. Ohtani ever made any statement endorsing FTX at all. This makes sense, because 

Mr. Ohtani does not make public statements in English and never took any affirmative steps to 

promote FTX in or directed at Florida. Ohtani Decl. ¶¶ 12, 18. 

Plaintiffs, a mix of Australian, British, Canadian, and American residents—the majority of 

whom do not reside in Florida—indiscriminately allege that they were fraudulently induced to 

invest in FTX by all 18 Defendants’ “promotion, marketing, and sale of FTX’s YBAs in Florida.” 

FAC ¶ 50. But Plaintiffs do not allege that Mr. Ohtani committed a single act in or directed at 

Florida. Distinct from the other Movants, Mr. Ohtani’s extremely limited relationship with FTX 

                                                            

1

 Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Ohtani is a “citizen and resident of the State of California.” FAC ¶ 40. 

This is simply incorrect; he is a citizen and resident of Japan. See Declaration of Shohei Ohtani, 

ECF 139-3 (“Ohtani Decl.”) ¶ 2. But regardless, it is undisputed that he does not reside in Florida. 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 157 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 2 of 6
 2 

was targeted towards Japan and the Japanese market—not Florida. Ohtani Decl. ¶ 11. Plaintiffs do 

not allege that Mr. Ohtani made any statements purportedly endorsing FTX, let alone the 

requirement that Plaintiffs (i) heard or saw such statements (ii) while in Florida and (iii) relied on 

such statements to purchase YBAs from FTX in Florida. See Movants’ Mot. to Dismiss, ECF 154; 

Non-Resident Defendants’ Mot. to Dismiss, ECF 139. Put simply, there is absolutely no 

connection between Mr. Ohtani’s conduct and Florida. 

 The Court does not have general jurisdiction over Mr. Ohtani because he is not domiciled 

in Florida. Ohtani Decl. ¶ 2; FAC ¶ 40; see Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., S.F. 

Cnty., 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017). The Court lacks specific jurisdiction over him, too. Nothing in 

the FAC, or in reality, suggests Mr. Ohtani committed any act within or directed at Florida. Walden 

v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 288-89 (2014). “In analyzing whether tortious conduct has occurred within 

Florida, courts have looked to whether the nonresident defendant committed a substantial aspect 

of the alleged tort in Florida.” Taylor v. Moskow, 717 F. App’x 836, 840 (11th Cir. 2017) (citation 

omitted). The mere “existence of an injury within Florida, standing alone, is insufficient to support 

jurisdiction over an out-of-state tortfeasor.” Id. at 841 (citation omitted). 

 No “substantial aspect” of Mr. Ohtani’s alleged tort can reasonably be said to have 

occurred in Florida. Ohtani Decl. ¶ 13-18. Plaintiffs’ 280-paragraph FAC makes only one 

allegation concerning Mr. Ohtani, which merely cites one statement made by FTX, an Antiguan 

and Barbudan corporation with its principal place of business in the Bahamas, FAC ¶ 121, in a 

press release issued from the Bahamas, id. ¶ 226 n.138, that announced Mr. Ohtani would serve as 

an international “global ambassador” for FTX. id. But this statement was made by FTX, not Mr. 

Ohtani, and makes clear his name, image, and likeness were licensed to promote FTX overseas. 

 Plaintiffs further fail to establish the “connexity” requirement, which requires that 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 157 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 3 of 6
 3 

Plaintiffs’ “cause of action arise[] from that act.” SkyHop Techs., Inc. v. Narra, 58 F.4th 1211, 

1223-28 (11th Cir. 2023). Here, Plaintiffs do not allege that they purchased YBAs in Florida, let 

alone that they relied on Mr. Ohtani’s image in a Bahamian press release (issued by FTX, not Mr. 

Ohtani) while doing so. The majority of Plaintiffs do not allege they even suffered an injury in 

Florida at all (which would still not be enough); and for many, not even within the United States. 

See Zion Williamson v. Prime Sports Mktg., LLC, 314 So. 3d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (no 

jurisdiction where Plaintiffs were allegedly injured in Florida but where Plaintiffs had no 

interaction with Defendant or Defendant’s conduct in Florida). For their parts, Plaintiffs Kavuri, 

Gallant, and Nicol could not even access the Florida/U.S. version of FTX because there are 

separate FTX products for the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions, FAC ¶ 174, and to the extent they 

suffered any injury, it would have occurred in their home countries. See Bernardele v. Bonorino, 

608 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (no jurisdiction over non-resident plaintiffs’ claims 

where the misrepresentation did not occur in Florida or take place through communications in 

Florida, and any alleged injury was in Argentina and Uruguay, “where they reside, not in Florida”). 

 Moreover, exercising jurisdiction over Mr. Ohtani would violate the due process clause 

of the U.S. Constitution, a far “more demanding constitutional inquiry” than a finding of 

jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute. Williamson, 314 So. 3d. at 487 n.8. Plaintiffs fail to 

plead any connection between their claims and Mr. Ohtani’s alleged contacts with Florida. Mr. 

Ohtani never met with anyone from FTX in Florida, nor did he ever speak to anyone from FTX by 

telephone or text message who was in Florida on the other end of the line. Ohtani Decl ¶¶ 13-17. 

And Florida has no greater interest in the adjudication of this case—i.e., asserting jurisdiction over 

a Japanese domiciliary—than a forum where Mr. Ohtani is subject to jurisdiction. Wiegering v. 

Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass., Inc., 2017 WL 1294907, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2017). 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 157 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 4 of 6
 4 

DATED: April 14, 2023 

Miami, Florida 

Respectfully submitted, 

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

/s/ Edward Soto 

Edward Soto (Fla Bar. No. 0265144) 

1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200 

Miami, FL 33131-3368 

Phone: (305)-577-3100 

Email: edward.soto@weil.com 

Attorney for Defendant Shohei Ohtani 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 157 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 5 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this April 14, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 

served this day on all counsel of record via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated 

by CM/ECF. 

DATED: April 14, 2023 /s/ Edward Soto 

Edward Soto 

Case 1:22-cv-23753-KMM Document 157 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/14/2023 Page 6 of 6