UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Ft Lauderdale Division

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re:

KISMA WILLIAMS REEFE Case No. 21-13961-PDR

Chapter 7

Debtor

_____________________________/

NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC. 

Plaintiff, 

KISMA WILLIAMS REEFE Adv Pro. No. 21-01246-PDR-A

Defendant. 

_______________________________________/

MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT

Kisma Vonetta Reefe, Debtor/Defendant, moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6), applicable herein through application of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012, to dismiss the

amended complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action, and says:

1. First of all, the Amended Complaint is another classic “shotgun pleading”, which

should be dismissed by the Court under binding precedent. Clifford v. Federman,

855 Fed.Appx. 525, 5281 (11th Cir 2021), Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d

1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2018). Count 2 incorporates by reference the entirety of the

preceding 82 paragraphs (up from only 32 paragraphs in the original Complaint).

1

 See Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing citation of

judicial decisions issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007. See also U.S. Ct. of App. 11th

Cir. Rule 36-2.

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 21 Filed 12/05/21 Page 1 of 3
2. The rest of the Amended Complaint is lipstick on the same old pig, which does not

change the nature of the Plaintiff’s claim against Ms. Reefe.

3. The “Receiver [was] authorized ... to initiate legal proceedings seeking the

avoidance of fraudulent transfers, disgorgement of profits, and any other legal and

equitable relief ... necessary to recover ... assets for the benefit of the Receivership

estate.” 

4. Nowhere is it alleged that the Receiver pursued Ms. Reef for:

a. the violation of any of the Federal securities laws (as that term is defined in

section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934), any of the State

securities laws, or any regulation or order issued under such Federal or State

securities laws; or

b. common law fraud, deceit, or manipulation in connection with the purchase

or sale of any security.

5. The Plaintiff does not allege has it has standing to now allege that its assigned

avoidance claim is tainted by fraud or violations of securities laws, or both.

6. Ms. Reefe not having been alleged by the Receive, or found by the District court,

to have violated any Federal securities laws, or to have engaged in common law

fraud, deceit, or manipulation in connection with the purchase or sale of any

security, the judgment against her is simply for being a “Net Winner”,

2

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 21 Filed 12/05/21 Page 2 of 3
undifferentiated from the others in the same judgment.

7. Ms. Reefe incorporates by reference all of her arguments in support of dismissal of

the Complaint. [ECF 11, 16].

WHEREFORE, Ms. Reefe requests entry of an order dismissing the Amended

Complaint, with prejudice.2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

notice of electronic filing on December 5, 2021, to all parties receiving electronic notice

including: Martin L Sandler, Esq on behalf of Plaintiff Nationwide Judgment Recovery,

Inc., martin@sandler-sandler.com.

Respectfully submitted,

FLORIDA BANKRUPTCY GROUP, LLC.

4121 N 31st Avenue

Hollywood, Fl 33021-2011

954-893-7670/954-252-2540 Fax

By: s/ Kevin C Gleason 

Bankruptcylawyer@aol.com

Fla Bar No. 369500

2

 “[T]he bankruptcy court correctly determined that SEPH was not entitled

to leave to amend its adversary complaint because such amendment would have

been futile.” Gaddy, at 1060.

3

Case 21-01246-PDR Doc 21 Filed 12/05/21 Page 3 of 3