________________________

Leiderman Shelomith Alexander + Somodevilla, PLLC

Miami | Fort Lauderdale

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Fort Lauderdale Division

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re:

EMMA BUMSHTEYN,

Debtor.

___________________________________/

Case No. 18-23930-BKC-PDR 

Chapter 7

KENNETH A. WELT, Chapter 7 Trustee,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EMMA BUMSHTEYN and YEVGENIYA 

BUMSHTEYN, both Individually and as Trustee 

of the Bumshteyn Family Irrevocable Inter 

Vivos Trust,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

Adv. Case No. 21-01069-PDR 

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION TO 

STRIKE DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Plaintiff, Kenneth A. Welt, Chapter 7 Trustee (the “Plaintiff”), by counsel, pursuant to this 

Court’s October 4, 2021 Order Setting Briefing Schedules and Resetting Hearings on Renewed 

Motion to Transfer and Renewed Motion to Strike [Adv. ECF No. 57], files this Reply to the 

Response to Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Strike Demand for Jury Trial and Affirmative Defenses 

[Adv. ECF No. 63] (the “Second Response”), filed by Defendant, Yevgeniya Bumshteyn (the 

“Defendant”), and states:

1. On April 26, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his original Motion to Strike Demand for Jury 

Trial and Affirmative Defenses [ECF No. 8] (the “Original Motion to Strike”).

2. On May 17, 2021, the Defendant filed her Response to the Original Motion to Strike 

[Adv. ECF No. 17] (the “First Response”).

3. On June 10, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his Reply to the First Response [Adv. ECF No. 

Case 21-01069-PDR Doc 66 Filed 10/25/21 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

________________________

Leiderman Shelomith Alexander + Somodevilla, PLLC

Miami | Fort Lauderdale

25] (the “First Reply”).

4. The hearing on the Original Motion to Strike took place on July 1, 2021 at 1:30 

p.m. [ECF No. 26] (the “July 1st Hearing”). At the July 1st Hearing, the Court considered the 

Original Motion to Strike and the First Response, and it was contemplated that the Court would 

reserve ruling on the Original Motion to Strike, to allow the Plaintiff to file an Amended 

Complaint, for the Defendants to respond to same, and for the Plaintiff to renew his Original 

Motion to Strike thereafter.

5. On July 14, 2021, the Court entered an Order Reserving Ruling on Motion to Strike 

and Motion to Transfer and Setting Further Hearings [Adv. ECF No. 31] (the “Order Reserving 

Ruling”), which instructed the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint on or before July 8, 2021 

and instructed the Defendants to file a responsive pleading to the Amended Complaint on or before 

July 22, 2021.

6. The Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on July 8, 2021 [ECF No. 30].

7. The Defendants filed their Answer on August 5, 2021 [ECF No. 39]1

.

8. The Order Reserving Ruling also stated that “[t]he Plaintiff shall have 14 days after 

the filing of the [Answer] to file a Renewed Motion to Strike, which may incorporate the original 

Motion to Strike by reference and include supplemental briefing.”

9. On August 19, 2021, the Plaintiff timely filed his Renewed Motion to Strike 

Demand for Jury Trial and Affirmative Defenses [Adv. ECF No. 40] (the “Renewed Motion to 

Strike”).

10. In the Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Strike, the Plaintiff asserted that the 

Defendants’ Answer did not raise any additional issues that would otherwise affect the arguments 

1 The Defendants requested an extension of time to file their Answer, to August 5, 2021 [ECF No. 36], which 

was granted on an agreed basis [ECF No. 37].

Case 21-01069-PDR Doc 66 Filed 10/25/21 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

________________________

Leiderman Shelomith Alexander + Somodevilla, PLLC

Miami | Fort Lauderdale

set forth in the Original Motion to Strike or the First Reply, or the arguments raised by the parties 

at the July 1st Hearing.

11. As such, the Renewed Motion to Strike merely incorporated by reference the First 

Motion to Strike and the First Reply.

12. Similarly, the Second Response does not raise any additional issues that would 

otherwise affect the arguments set forth in the Original Motion to Strike or the First Reply (which

were incorporated by reference into the Renewed Motion to Strike). In fact, the Second Response 

is mostly identical to the First Response, other than paragraph formatting and a statement that the 

Defendant will be filing a motion to dismiss this case.

13. For these reasons, the Plaintiff again incorporates by reference the Original Motion 

to Strike and the First Reply herein, as well as all of the arguments raised by the Plaintiff at the 

July 1st Hearing.

14. The Plaintiff stands on the pleadings already filed, as these issues have now been 

fully briefed (twice).

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court enter an order: (a) striking the 

Defendants’ demand for a jury trial in the Defendants’ Answer; (b) striking the footnote in the 

Answer, indicating that Defendant Yevgeniya Bumshteyn does not submit or consent to the 

jurisdiction of this Court; (c) striking Affirmative Defense No. 2 (Lack of Jurisdiction); (d) striking 

Affirmative Defense No. 4 (Plaintiff Lacks Standing); and (e) granting such other and further relief 

as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 21-01069-PDR Doc 66 Filed 10/25/21 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

________________________

Leiderman Shelomith Alexander + Somodevilla, PLLC

Miami | Fort Lauderdale

Dated: October 25, 2021 LEIDERMAN SHELOMITH

ALEXANDER + SOMODEVILLA, PLLC

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

2699 Stirling Road, Suite C401

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312

Telephone: (954) 920-5355

Facsimile: (954) 920-5371

By:_________/s/______________

ZACH B. SHELOMITH

Florida Bar No. 0122548

zbs@lsaslaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was served on

October 25, 2021 to all parties on the list to receive e-mail notice/service for this case, via the 

Notice of Electronic Filing (which is incorporated herein by reference) and via U.S. Mail to 

Karamvir Dahiya, Esq., 75 Maiden Lane # 506, New York, NY 10038.

By:_________/s/________________

Zach B. Shelomith

Case 21-01069-PDR Doc 66 Filed 10/25/21 Page 4 of 4