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’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PARTIES TO

HOLD A SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

Plaintiffs, in accordance with the Court’s Order entered yesterday, ECF No. 94,

respectfully move unopposed for an extension of the deadline for the Parties to hold a scheduling 

conference to 30 days after all defendants are served, with a joint scheduling report due 10 days 

later, with an alternate request to hold the conference by April 14th (the current deadline for served 

defendants’ responses to the complaint), with a joint conference report due 10 days later.

In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs incorporate by reference their Response, [ECF No. 88] 

to Defendants’ Motion to Continue, [ECF No. 87], both of which were filed yesterday. While 

Plaintiffs were ready to hold the joint scheduling conference, not all Defendants were available, 

and there still remains at least one Defendant who has not yet been served. Plaintiffs are addressing 

the Court’s concerns regarding service of process on Defendants Osaka and O’Neal by way of 

separate filing in response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, [ECF No. 91], filed concurrently 

herewith, [ECF No. 99], and respectfully request that if the Court finds good cause or reason to 

exercise its discretion in granting an extension to serve Defendants with process (particularly given 

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 1 of 7
Edwin Garrison, et al. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.

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

2

the issues with varying deadlines for service for different Defendants, as explained below), that 

the Court grant the primary relief sought in this motion, which is to extend the deadline for the 

Parties to hold a scheduling conference to 30 days after all defendants are served, with a joint 

scheduling report due 10 days later.

This action is a consolidation of the Garrison action, filed by Plaintiff Edwin Garrison on 

November 15, 2022, against the FTX Celebrity Defendants and Defendant Sam Bankman-Fried, 

and the Podalsky action, No. 1:22-cv-23983, filed by a different group of Plaintiffs on December

7, 2022, against those Defendants by a different group of Plaintiffs along with new Defendants 

Ellison, Singh, Wang, Trabucco, and Friedberg. The Court effected the consolidation through a 

sua sponte order on December 9, 2023. See Podalsky, No. 1:22-cv-23983-KMM, ECF No. 7.

On December 16, 2022, in accordance with the Court’s order, [ECF No. 7], Plaintiffs filed 

the operative Consolidated Amended Complaint in Garrison, and on February 10, 2023, the Court 

granted the Defendants’ Motion for Coordinated Briefing Schedule for Responses to the Amended 

Complaint, instructing that “Any served Defendant shall respond to the Amended Complaint on 

or before April 14, 2023.” ECF No. 49.

In light of the consolidation of the Podalsky action with Garrison and the Amended 

Complaint, as well as the Court’s February 10, 2023 Order regarding the coordinated briefing 

schedule, during a Zoom conference held on February 10, 2023 between Plaintiffs’ counsel and 

Defendants counsel who were present (which was not all counsel currently in the case), both sides 

who joined that conference believed at that time that the Joint Scheduling Conference deadline 

from ECF No. 5 had been altered.1

1 In hindsight, this interpretation was incorrect, as the Court made clear by the Docket Order 

entered on March 6, 2023, [ECF No. 82], in which the Court wrote that the “Parties are instructed 

to comply with the Court's November 16, 2022 Pretrial Order on or before March 10, 2023” and 

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 2 of 7
Edwin Garrison, et al. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.

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

3

As Plaintiffs explain in their Response filed yesterday, [ECF No. 88], Plaintiffs endeavored 

to comply with the Court’s directive set forth in its March 6, 2023, Order, [ECF No. 82], circulating 

a proposed Joint Scheduling Report and an invitation for Defendants to attend a Joint Scheduling 

Conference to discuss any and all revisions to the report or issues with the schedule. Because not 

all Defendants had yet entered their appearances in this Action and some indicated they were 

unavailable, Plaintiffs did not oppose Defendants’ request for extension of time. Plaintiffs now 

renew that request in accordance with the Court’s March 9th Order. ECF No. 94. 

While Plaintiffs more fully explain in their Response to the Order to Show Cause the 

reasons why the Court should grant Plaintiffs an extension of time to complete service of process 

on Defendants Osaka and O’Neal, [ECF No. 99], some of the same procedural issues bear on the 

necessity for the extension sought here to also extend the deadline for the joint scheduling 

conference.

Although the case was consolidated for all purposes, the two cases still retain their own 

status and the consolidation does not affect issues such as the deadline for service of process. As

one district court recently explained:

Cases consolidated under Rule 42(a) ... retain their separate identity. Patton v. 

Aerojet Ordnance Co., 765 F.2d 604, 606 (6th Cir. 1985). And although 

“consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in 

administration, [it] does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights 

of the parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another.” 

Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479... (1933). Therefore, it is the district 

court's responsibility to ensure that parties are not prejudiced by consolidation. See

9 Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2385 

(2d ed. 1994).

the Court later reiterated that “the Parties are instructed to hold the scheduling conference on or 

before March 10, 2023, or PLAINTIFF (emphasis added) shall move for an extension of time to 

hold the scheduling conference.” ECF No. 94 (italics added).

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 3 of 7
Edwin Garrison, et al. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.

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

4

Johnson v. Barney, 1:21-CV-141, 2021 WL 7184242, at *2–3 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 16, 2021) (quoting 

Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 412-13 (6th Cir. 1998)) (emphasis in original).

Further, the deadline for service of process begins to run for any new Defendants added to 

an Amended Complaint at the time the amended complaint is filed. See Charles v. Bradshaw, 2018 

WL 11309206, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2018) aff’d, 782 F. App’x 991 (11th Cir. 2019) (“Filing 

an amended complaint does not toll the Rule 4(m) service period and thereby provide an additional 

90 days for service unless the amended complaint adds a new defendant.”) (citing 4B Charles Alan 

Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, Time Limit for Service § 1137 (4th ed.)) 

(emphasis added)

As the Podalsky action commenced on December 7, 2022, the deadline to serve Defendants 

was March 6, 2023, as to the Podalsky Plaintiffs (and March 7, 2023, as to Plaintiff Kavuri for all 

Defendants, and Garrison as to the FTX Insider Defendants—Ellison, Singh, Wang, Friedman, 

and Trabucco—as they joined the Podalsky action by amendment December 8th).

Given the complexity of the issues involved in serving the FTX Celebrity Defendants—for 

example, (1) Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motion for extension filed yesterday, which 

details and attaches materials regarding the difficulties in serving many Defendants, even through 

counsel who appeared in this action, ECF No. 88 at 2–3, and (2) Plaintiffs’ Response to Order to 

Show Cause, filed concurrently herewith, [ECF No. 99]—Plaintiffs have worked diligently to 

effect service on all 18 Defendants, many of whom are some of the most high-profile celebrities 

in the country. Although these Defendants are well-known public figures, tracking them down to 

physically serve them is a monumental task, especially when some Defendants are constantly 

traveling throughout the country and the world. As of the date of this filing, all but one Defendant

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 4 of 7
Edwin Garrison, et al. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.

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

5

(O’Neal) has been served with process in this action,2 as he is apparently evading service despite 

actual notice of this lawsuit, and 6 of his current and/or former lawyers who represent him or work 

with him (or have done so recently) are in possession of the operative Consolidated Amended 

Complaint, along with Notices of Commencement of Action and Requests for Waiver of Service 

forms.

While it is true that a “district court has ample power to control its docket” and it is “entitled 

to establish proper pre-trial procedures and set an appropriate pre-trial schedule” ECF No. 87 at 6 

n.6 (citations omitted), and consolidation for all purposes “is permitted as a matter of convenience 

and economy in administration, [consolidation] does not merge the suits into a single cause,” 

Johnson, 289 U.S. 479. An orderly and consolidated pretrial process, however, would advance the 

goals sought to be achieved through consolidation. See, e.g., Freund v. Med. & Fin. Mgmt., Inc., 

No. 16-CV-14405-KAM, 2017 WL 7726714, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2017) (“The Court has broad 

discretion to order consolidation, so long as consolidation will foster clarity, efficiency, and the 

avoidance of confusion and prejudice.”) (citing Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 

1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985)).

Thus, just as the Court carefully weighed all considerations of efficiency and fairness in 

deciding whether to consolidate these actions in the first instance, Plaintiffs respectfully submit 

that the Court grant this motion (in addition to entering the appropriate relief in connection with 

Plaintiffs’ Response to Order to Show Cause) so that these consolidated actions may proceed as to 

2 As explained in Plaintiffs’ Response to Order to Show Cause, filed concurrently herewith, [ECF 

No. 99], Counsel for Defendant Osaka, David Fink of Venable LLP, who contacted and advised 

the process servers Plaintiffs hired to stop attempts to personally serve her because she was 

inaccessible and he was designated to accept service on her behalf, has been served with the

Summons and Consolidated Amended Complaint. He is also in possession of a Notice of 

Commencement of Action and Request for Waiver of Service.

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 5 of 7
Edwin Garrison, et al. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.

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

6

all Plaintiffs and Defendants from each action on the same schedule, which furthers both the 

interests of the Court’s power to control its docket and the interests and efficiencies sought to be 

served and obtained in consolidating these related class actions. At this early stage in the 

proceedings, granting this relief causes no conceivable prejudice to the Parties and would further 

allow the Court to conserve judicial resources. 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court grant this unopposed motion for an extension of 

the deadline for the Parties to hold a scheduling conference to 30 days after all defendants are 

served, with a joint scheduling report due 10 days later, or alternatively to hold the conference by 

April 14th (the current deadline for served defendants’ responses to the complaint), with a joint 

conference report due 10 days later, together with such other and further relief as the Court deems 

just, equitable, and proper.

LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3) CERTIFICATION

Plaintiffs’ Counsel certify they have conferred with Counsel for Defendants Brady, 

Bundchen, David,3 Ortiz, Haslem,4 O’Leary, Bankman-Fried, and Lawrence, and Defendant 

Friedberg, by email on March 10, 2023, to discuss the motion in accordance with Local Rule 

7.1(a)(3) in a good faith effort to resolve the motion, and were informed Defendants do not oppose 

the motion.

3 Counsel for Brady and Bundchen are also counsel for David.

4 Counsel for Ortiz indicated that Akerman will also represent Haslem.

Case 1:22-cv-23983-KMM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 6 of 7
Edwin Garrison, et al. v. Samuel Bankman-Fried, et al.

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

7

Dated: March 10, 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

2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

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

Co-Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing was filed on March 10, 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-23983-KMM Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2023 Page 7 of 7