Shaq has dodged lawyers trying to serve him an FTX lawsuit

Throwing legal documents in front of O’Neal’s car as he drove quickly through the gates of his Georgia home is not considered due process, his attorneys say.

The seven-foot-tall former Los Angeles Lakers star and NBA commentator, known as Shaq, is among numerous celebrities who are the subject of a lawsuit alleging they smuggled investors into a Ponzi scheme by not paying for the registered securities of FTX.

O’Neal stood as a denier in the group for not acknowledging receipt of the complaint, although plaintiffs’ attorneys said there had been dozens of attempts to bring it to him, according to court filings at known residences in Georgia and Texas and elsewhere.

A month ago, the plaintiffs’ attorneys said they were willing to try an alternative method after their trial server received a threatening text message saying Shaq lived in the Bahamas.

So the attorneys sent an electronic link to the lawsuit to O’Neal on social media, arguing that given his status as an active user, that should be enough Instagram And Twitter. They argued that he was clearly aware of the lawsuit after denying allegations of wrongdoing related to FTX in a December interview with CNBC, and they noted that electronic services are permitted under Texas law. But the judge didn’t allow it.

The Law Office Moscow finally declared success on April 17 when process officials caught up with O’Neal outside his Atlanta home.

UPDATE: Plaintiffs in the billion-dollar FTX class action lawsuit have just been served @SHAQ outside his house. His home video cameras recorded our service and we made it very clear that he must not destroy or erase any of these security tapes as they must be preserved for our lawsuit.

— Moskowitz Law Firm (@moskowitzesq) April 17, 2023

Or so they thought.

O’Neal’s attorneys said in a filing filed Monday that the plaintiffs missed their deadline and that throwing the documents at his car fell far short of what the law requires. They asked the judge to dismiss the case against O’Neal in its entirety.

Investors had “months and multiple attempts,” O’Neal’s attorneys wrote. “Mr. O’Neal did not evade service by not being at the homes where plaintiffs were belatedly attempting service or by driving past strangers who approached his car. The documents ended up, according to the filing on a public road.

The case is Garrison v. Bankman-Fried, 22-cv-23753, US District Court, Southern District of Florida (Miami).