Motion-Secondary: CODY KERNS ET AL VS FXWINNING, LTD. ET AL

On July 24, 2023 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Kerns Capital Management, Inc., Kerns, Cody, Wftmb Holdings Llc, and Bbrc Real Estate, Llc, Brito Cutie, Rafael, Da Rocha Gomes Bastos, Renan, Fxwinning, Ltd., Kuschner, Julian, Lopez, Jonathan, Merino, David, for Business Torts in the District Court of Miami-Dade County.

Preview
Filing # 184184175 E-Filed 10/17/2023 05:43:19 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CODY KERNS, et al.,
CASE NO.: 2023-020202-CA-01
Plaintiffs

FXWINNING LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF FXWINNING LTD., RAFAEL BRITO CUTIE AND DAVID
MERINO’S MOTION TO BIFURCATE SERVICE OF PROCESS
AND SET A BRIEFING SCHEDULE

NOW COMES FXWINNING LTD. (“FX”), DAVID MERINO (“Mr. Merino”) and

RAFAEL BRITO CUTIE (“Mr. Cutie”) (collectively, the “FX Defendants”), by and through the

undersigned counsel who have appeared in this case on a limited basis, 1 and pursuant to Fla. R.

Civ. P. 1.090(b)(1), file their Reply in Support of the Motion to Bifurcate Service of Process, and

to Set a Briefing Schedule and state:

Introduction

1. On October 2, 2023, the FX Defendants filed their Opposed Motion to Bifurcate

Service of Process and Set a Briefing Schedule, or Alternatively, Unopposed Motion for Extension

of Time (the “Motion to Bifurcate”).

2. On October 12, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their response in opposition to the Motion.

3. October 30, 2023 is the current deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their amended

complaint.

1
As set forth in the previously filed Notices of Limited Appearance.

2701 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 202, Coral Gables, FL 33134 • Tel: 305-444-3114 • service@b2b.legal
Kerns, et al. vs. FxWinning Ltd., et al.
Miami-Dade Cir. Ct. Case No 2023-020202-CA-01
Page 2 of 5

Reply in Support of Motion to Bifurcate

4. The FX Defendants take issue with Plaintiff’s claim that the Motion to Bifurcate is

a delay tactic. This Court entered the same type of order, on September 7, 2023, in the parallel

CFT Solutions Case 2 bifurcating service of process from any other Rule 1.140 Defenses (attached

as Exhibit “A”).

5. Plaintiffs complain about two separate appeals, but that would not necessarily

occur, and Plaintiffs can always perfect service of process while it is on appeal.

6. The fact remains that the Florida legislature drastically amended Florida’s service

of process statutes on January 2, 2023, and the FX Defendants cannot find any published opinions

that interpret Fla. Stat. § 48.197(c) – permitting service of process by email or other technology

on the FX Defendants. This is a unique situation.

7. Further, whether Plaintiffs can even rely on Fla. Stat. § 48.197(c) for serving the

FX Defendants is another wrinkle in the service of process analysis that Plaintiffs did not address

in their response. “‘Florida law provides that the applicable version of a statute is that which was

in effect when a cause of action accrues.’” Angarita v. Hypertoyz, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

143568, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 16, 2023) (citations omitted). “Amendments or additions to the long-

arm statute will not be applied retroactively unless the legislature specifically so provides.” Oldt

v. Sides, 573 So. 2d 440, 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The legislature has not specifically provided

for the amendments or new sections in the service of process statutes to apply retroactively.

8. In Angarita, the plaintiffs served defendants pursuant to the new version of Fla.

Stat. § 48.161, but the court found that since plaintiffs’ claims accrued before January 2, 2023, the

2
CFT Solutions, et al. v. FXWinning, el al., Miami-Dade Cir Ct., Case No. 2023-016392-CA-01.

old version of the statute may govern and the court ordered the plaintiffs to file a memorandum to

explain which version of the service statutes they would proceed under. See Angarita, 2023 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 143568, at *5.

9. In the present unique situation, it makes more sense to first adjudicate whether the

FX Defendants have been properly served because it is not clear which version of the Florida

service statutes should govern.

10. Bifurcation of service of process from the remaining Rule 1.140 defenses would

also prevent inconsistent rulings between the CFT Solutions Case and this case.

11. Although Plaintiffs cite to Rule 1.010 for the proposition that the “[R]ules shall be

construed to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive determination in every action” it will be more

efficient to first adjudicate service of process because this case could get stayed pending the

outcome of an appeal in the CFT Solutions Case. A similar situation recently occurred in the

complex business division where there were also several lawsuits filed against a mix of foreign

and domestic defendants and Judge Hanzman stayed the case before him pending a decision from

the Third District Court of Appeal on a parallel case involving substantially the same defendants.

The reason for entering the stay was that “..certain issues that the Third DCA may address in the

Appeal are substantially related to jurisdictional and venue issues presently before the Court…”

Attached as Exhibit “B” is Judge Hanzman’s order from March 24, 2021.

12. It is also important to note that a defense under forum non conveniens is not the

same as a motion to dismiss for improper venue and do not need to be presented simultaneously.

As the Florida Supreme Court explained:

The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens, which
translates to mean ‘inconvenient forum,’ is an equitable, judicially

crafted rule designed to allow a court to dismiss, in certain limited
circumstances, a lawsuit with little connection to Florida that would
be better suited and fairly litigated elsewhere. This doctrine comes
into play only if the plaintiff has first obtained personal jurisdiction
over each of the defendants in Florida by effecting service of
process…” Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085, 1090
(Fla. 2013) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

13. From a practical perspective, Plaintiffs also ignore the time needed to conduct

jurisdictional discovery, which will likely involve depositions in Dubai and Cyprus among other

discovery, but that is not relevant to adjudicating service of process and will take far more time.

14. The FX Defendants reiterate that this is not a delay tactic because properly

effectuating service of process is the cornerstone for hailing a foreign defendant before the Court.

15. It is conceded that there will be two rounds of briefing, but the facts will be the same in

each instance and the second round of briefing will be more narrowed. The FX Defendants are always

amenable to discussing a proposed briefing schedule with the Plaintiffs, but have not yet been invited to

a substantive conversation to do so.

WHEREFORE, the FX Defendants, FXWINNING LTD., DAVID MERINO and

RAFAEL BRITO CUTIE, respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant the Motion to

Bifurcate and enter an order for the FX Defendants to challenge the sufficiency of service of

process prior to raising the other defenses listed in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140.

Respectfully submitted,

BARAKAT + BOSSA
2701 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 202
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Tel (305)444-3114

BY: /S/ BRIAN BARAKAT_________
BRIAN BARAKAT
FLORIDA BAR NUMBER 457220

barakat@b2b.legal
service@b2b.legal

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this 17th day of October 2023, a true and correct copy of the

foregoing was electronically filed via the Florida Courts e-Filing Portal, which will serve this

motion on all counsel of record via this Court’s e-service system.

/s/Brian Barakat
Brian Barakat

2701 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 202, Coral Gables, FL 33134 • Tel: 305-444-3114 • service@b2b.legal
EXHIBIT A
Filing # 181353377 E-Filed 09/07/2023 05:17:21 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 2023-016392-CA-01
SECTION: CA44
JUDGE: Lisa Walsh

CFT Solutions, LLC et al
Plaintiff(s)
vs.

FxWinning Ltd. et al
Defendant(s)
____________________________/
ORDER GRANTING THE AGREED JOINT MOTION FOR BRIEFING AND
SCHEDULING ORDER [DE 54]

THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the Plaintiffs, CFT Solutions, LLC, Renan de Rocha Gomes Bastos,

Adelangela Fumagalli, Jay Katari, Steven de la Fe, and Kerim Eduardo Salume Babun, and Defendants, FxWinning Ltd.

(“FxWinning”) and Rafael Brito Cutie’s (“Cutie”) (collectively, the “Parties”), Joint Motion for Briefing Schedule and Order [DE

54] (hereinafter, the “Motion”), the Court having reviewed the Motion, being advised of an agreement between the Parties, and

being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereby,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Motion is hereby GRANTED.

2. The Court will first consider FxWinning and Cutie’s Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(b)(5) arguments concerning sufficiency of service
of process, prior to ruling on any other Rule 1.140 defenses.

3. Following the Court’s ruling on FxWinning and Cutie’s Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(b)(5) arguments, and only if necessary, the

Court will then consider FxWinning and Cutie’s remaining Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140 defenses, including FxWinning and Cutie’s

personal jurisdiction arguments.

4. The Court orders the following deadlines on the briefing of FxWinning and Cutie’s motions to dismiss pursuant to

Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(b)(5) defenses:
a. FxWinning shall amend its Motion to Quash [DE 40] on or before September 8, 2023.

b. Plaintiffs shall respond to the Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(b)(5) service of process arguments raised in FxWinning’s

Case No: 2023-016392-CA-01 Page 1 of 3
Amended Motion to Quash on or before September 22, 2023.

c. FxWinning shall reply in support of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(b)(5) service of process arguments raised in the Amended
Motion to Quash on or before October 6, 2023.

d. Cutie shall file his motion to dismiss pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(b)(5) on or before September 27, 2023.

e. Plaintiffs shall respond to Cutie’s Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(b)(5) service of process motion to dismiss on or before
October 10, 2023.

f. Cutie shall reply in support of his Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(b)(5) service of process motion to dismiss on or before
October 20, 2023.

5. Following the Court’s ruling on FxWinning and Cutie’s Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(b)(5) service of process argument(s), and only if
necessary, the Court will order additional briefing schedules on FxWinning and Cutie’s remaining Rule 1.140 arguments,

including setting a deadline by which Cutie shall file all other Rule 1.140 motions to dismiss, and which order may include

leave for FxWinning to amend its pending Motion [D.E. 40] prior to Plaintiffs responding.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 7th day of
September, 2023.

2023-016392-CA-01 09-07-2023 5:06 PM
Hon. Lisa Walsh
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
Electronically Signed

Case No: 2023-016392-CA-01 Page 2 of 3
No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION

CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT

Electronically Served:
Alfonso J. Orozco, alfonso.orozco@nelsonmullins.com
Brian Barakat, barakat@b2b.legal
Brian Barakat, service@b2b.legal
Jo-Jean M Panton Figueira, jpantonfigueira@gmail.com
Jocelyne Anne Macelloni, jmacelloni@b2b.legal
Jocelyne Anne Macelloni, service@b2b.legal
Justin B. Kaplan, justin.kaplan@nelsonmullins.com
Justin B. Kaplan, marisa.armas@nelsonmullins.com
RYAN K TODD, ryan.todd@nelsonmullins.com
RYAN K TODD, herold.labissiere@nelsonmullins.com

Physically Served:

Case No: 2023-016392-CA-01 Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT B
Filing # 123652886 E-Filed 03/24/2021 09:43:35 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 2020-004163-CA-01
SECTION: CA43
JUDGE: Michael Hanzman

ERNESTO ESTEBAN LOPEZ LINCUEZ et al
Plaintiff(s)

vs.

ROBERTO G. CORTES et al
Defendant(s)
____________________________/

ORDER STAYING LITIGATION PENDING APPEAL IN RELATED MATTER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court for hearing (the “Hearing”) on March 22, 2021 at

10:00 a.m. (EST) on the “Defendants’ Motion[s] to Dismiss – Jurisdiction and Venue” (see

Notice of Special Set Hearing, Filing No. 119651407). Having considered the arguments raised

by the parties in their briefings and by counsel at the Hearing, having considered the record in

this case, and being otherwise fully advised, it is

ORDERED that:

1. All pending litigation in this action (Case No. 2020-004163-CA-01) is STAYED

pending the resolution by the Florida Third District Court of Appeal (“Third DCA”) of

the following appeal: Rose Financial Limited Partnership et al. v. Amicorp Trustees

(New Zealand) Limited et al., Case No. 3D21-122, Lower Tribunal Case No. 2018-

035014-CA-01 (the “Appeal”) for the reasons announced by the Court at the

Hearing.

2. The Court finds that: (A) a stay pending the Third DCA’s decision in the Appeal is

appropriate because certain issues that the Third DCA may address in the Appeal

Case No: 2020-004163-CA-01 Page 1 of 5
are substantially related to jurisdictional and venue issues presently before the

Court; and (B) the Third DCA’s resolution in the Appeal could be instructive to the

Court’s resolution of the motions before the Court in this action.
3. The Court will conduct a status conference approximately every ninety (90) days
from the date of this Order through the date the Third DCA renders its decision in
the Appeal. The parties shall coordinate with each other to schedule those status
conferences on the Court’s CBL Motion Calendar.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 24th day of March,
2021.

2020-004163-CA-01 03-24-2021 9:33 AM
Hon. Michael Hanzman

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
Electronically Signed

No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION

CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT

Electronically Served:
Alexandra A. Hoffman, ahoffman@whitecase.com
Alexandra A. Hoffman, mmateo@whitecase.com
Alexandra A. Hoffman, miamilitigationfileroom@whitecase.com
Alexandra Hoffman, Alexandra.Hoffman@whitecase.com
Alexandra Hoffman, miamilitigationfileroom@whitecase.com
Ana Elena Tovar Pigna, atovar@fowler-white.com
Ana Elena Tovar Pigna, golivares@fowler-white.com
Andrew R. Ingalls, aingalls@daypitney.com
Andrew R. Ingalls, brodriguez@daypitney.com
Angelo M. Castaldi, acastaldi@gjb-law.com
Angelo M. Castaldi, hgray@gjb-law.com
Angelo M. Castaldi, acastaldi@gjb-law.com
Bonnie E. Trunley, BTrunley@cahill.com

Case No: 2020-004163-CA-01 Page 2 of 5
Carlos Enrique Alvarez, calvarez@gjb-law.com
Cbl Section 43 Case Mgr, cbl43@jud11.flcourts.org
Christopher Szablewski, CSzablewski@mayerbrown.com
David A Coulson, coulsond@gtlaw.com
David A Coulson, cruzm@gtlaw.com
David A Coulson, FLService@gtlaw.com
David G. Januszewski, djanuszewski@cahill.com
Derek Leon, dleon@leoncosgrove.com
Derek Leon, eperez@leoncosgrove.com
Derek Leon, dzulueta@leoncosgrove.com
Enrique Manuel Lopez, elopez@gunster.com
Enrique Manuel Lopez, spernas@gunster.com
Enrique Manuel Lopez, eservice@gunster.com
Eric S Koenig, ekoenig@trenam.com
Eric S Koenig, ranctil@trenam.com
Ernesto H. Weisson, eweisson@weisson.com
Evelyn Davila, edavila@daypitney.com
Forrest Hansen, FRHansen@duanemorris.com
Georgia A. Thompson, gthompson@daypitney.com
Georgia A. Thompson, lmiller@daypitney.com
Glen H. Waldman, litservice@waldmanbarnett.com
Glen H. Waldman, gwaldman@waldmanbarnett.com
Harvey W. Gurland Jr., hwgurland@duanemorris.com
Harvey W. Gurland Jr., yarnavat-parga@duanemorris.com
Harvey W. Gurland Jr., pnmendoza@duanemorris.com
James N Robinson, jrobinson@whitecase.com
James N Robinson, sgoodrich@whitecase.com
James N Robinson, MiamiLitigationFileRoom@whitecase.com
Jessey Sardina, jsardina@gjb-law.com
Jesus M. Suarez, jsuarez@gjb-law.com
Jesus M. Suarez, ecastellanos@gjb-law.com
Jesus M. Suarez, jzamora@gjb-law.com
John Arrastia, jarrastia@gjb-law.com
John Arrastia, hgray@gjb-law.com
Jordi C. Martinez-Cid, jmartinez-cid@leoncosgrove.com
Jordi C. Martinez-Cid, lburns@leoncosgrove.com
Juan Cortes, jc.polite78@gmail.com
Juan Cortes, cortes.jc@gmail.com

Case No: 2020-004163-CA-01 Page 3 of 5
Julie A. Levine, jlevine@waldmanbarnett.com
Julie A. Levine, litservice@waldmanbarnett.com
Julie Levine, litservice@waldmanbarnett.com
Julie Levine, jlevine@waldmanbarnett.com
Lorenz Michel Pruss, lpruss@dkrpa.com
Lorenz Michel Pruss, v@dkrpa.com
Lorenz Michel Pruss, msolano@dkrpa.com
Luis Sergio Konski, lkonski@fowler-white.com
Luis Sergio Konski, golivares@fowler-white.com
Manuel A. Garcia-Linares, mgarcialinares@daypitney.com
Manuel A. Garcia-Linares, brodriguez@daypitney.com
Mark A. Salky, Salkym@gtlaw.com
Mark A. Salky, Burkek@gtlaw.com
Mark G. Hanchet, MHanchet@mayerbrown.com
Mark G. Hanchet, RHamburg@mayerbrown.com
Mark G. Hanchet, VWhitney@mayerbrown.com
Michael A. Friedman, mfriedman@gjb-law.com
Michael A. Friedman, cmonzon@gjb-law.com
Michael A. Friedman, vlambdin@gjb-law.com
Nancy Ginart, ginartn@gtlaw.com
Noelle P. Pankey, noelle.pankey@akerman.com
Noelle P. Pankey, beatrice.terrell@akerman.com
Noelle Pankey FL 44727, noelle.pankey@akerman.com
Noelle Pankey FL 44727, beatrice.terrell@akerman.com
Patrick Kalbac, pkalbac@gjb-law.com
Robert I Chaskes, Robert.Chaskes@Akerman.com
Robert I Chaskes, bria.rios@Akerman.com
Roberto Cortes, robertokb66@gmail.com
Roberto Cortes, robertokb66@gmail.com
Roberto Cortes, robertokb66@gmail.com
Ronald D. Shindler, RShindler@fowler-white.com
Ronald D. Shindler, CCannon@fowler-white.com
Scott M Dimond, scott@dkrpa.com
Scott M Dimond, vceballos@dkrpa.com
Scott M Dimond, msolano@dkrpa.com
Sesi V. Garimella, SGarimella@cahill.com
Stephanie Peral, perals@gtlaw.com
Stephanie Peral, collazoe@gtlaw.com

Case No: 2020-004163-CA-01 Page 4 of 5
Stephanie Peral, flservice@gtlaw.com
Traci H Rollins, trollins@gunster.com
Traci H Rollins, crossodivita@gunster.com
Traci H Rollins, eservice@gunster.com
Zachary Brian Dickens, zachary.dickens@whitecase.com
Zachary Brian Dickens, marlene.mateo@whitecase.com

Physically Served:

Case No: 2020-004163-CA-01 Page 5 of 5

Case Info

Judge

CA44 - Downtown Miami - Judge Walsh, Lisa S Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 17, 2023

Case Filing Date

July 24, 2023

County

Parties

Barakat, Brian Attorney for the Defendant
BBRC Real Estate, LLC Defendant
Bianchi, Jaime Augusto Attorney for the Defendant
Brito Cutie, Rafael Defendant
da Rocha Gomes Bastos, Renan Defendant
FXWinning, Ltd. Defendant
Kaplan, Justin B Attorney for the Defendant
Kerns Capital Management, Inc. Plaintiff
Kerns, Cody Plaintiff
Kuschner, Julian Defendant
Levine David M Attorney for the Plaintiff
Lopez, Jonathan Defendant
Merino, David Defendant
WFTMB Holdings LLC Plaintiff
Fausto Sanchez Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Lauren Allen Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Ryan Todd Attorney
Elaine Kussurelis Attorney
Grant Smith Attorneys for Defendants
Jocelyne Macelloni Attorneys for Defendants
Jo-Jean Figueira Attorney
Spencer Thompson Attorney
Matthew Akiba Attorney
Michael Sontag Attorney
Zachary Dickens Attorneys for Defendants

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: CODY KERNS ET AL VS FXWINNING, LTD. ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties