Onemata Corporation v. Rahman et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 20-CV-62002-DIMITROULEAS/VALLE
ONEMATA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASHFAQ RAHMAN and
SABIRA AREFIN,
Defendants,
v.
WILLIAM SMITH and ENSCICON
ACQUISITIONS II, LLC,
Third-Party Defendants.
___________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the District Judge’s referral of all post-
judgment 	motions 	in 	aid 	of 	execution 	to 	the 	undersigned 	for 	appropriate 	disposition.
See (ECF No. 472). 	The undersigned must also determine “whether the Court has diversity
jurisdiction over Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor, Onemata Corporation’s (“Onemata”) Amended
Supplemental Complaint [ECF No. 720] . . . pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is
complete diversity of citizenship between Onemata and the Defendants.” (ECF No. 887). 	Also
pending before the Court are: (i) Onemata’s Renewed Motion for Sanctions Against HomeLien
Investments LLC (“HomeLien”) and CSB Holdings 329 LLC (“CSB”) (ECF No. 946) (the
“Motion for Sanctions”); and (ii) CSB and HomeLien’s Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory
(ECF No. 941) (together, the “Motions”).
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 951 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 1 of 14

2
Having reviewed the record, the Motions, the Responses (ECF Nos. 947, 949), the Replies
(ECF Nos. 948, 950), the record of the hearing held on October 17, 2025 (ECF No. 925);
(ECF No. 937) (“Hr’g. Tr.”), and being otherwise duly advised in the matter, the undersigned
respectfully recommends that: (i) the District Court find that although the record establishes
complete diversity between Onemata, as Plaintiff, and the Nevada Entities,1 as Defendants, the
citizenship of CSB and HomeLien remains unknown; (ii) Onemata’s Motion for Sanctions
(ECF No. 946) should be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and (iii) CSB and HomeLien’s
Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory should be GRANTED IN PART as forth below.
I. 	BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Onemata commenced post-judgment proceedings to collect on an unsatisfied judgment for
more than $7 million in favor of Onemata and against Defendants/Judgment Debtors Ashfaq
Rahman and Sabira Arefin (together, “Judgment Debtors”).2 	The Eleventh Circuit upheld the
Final Judgment. 	Onemata Corp. v. Arefin, No. 23-10070 (11th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024) (Docket
No. 104-1).
On December 1, 2023, the Court granted Onemata’s Verified Motion to Commence
Proceedings Supplementary and to Set Aside Fraudulent Transfers. See generally (ECF No. 585)
1 The Nevada Entities include: MaskGene, LLC, Peacenheaven, LLC, Lakemont Property, LLC,
and BashaBari, LLC (collectively, the “Nevada LLCs”), the Sunshine Irrevocable Trust, Paradise
Valley Irrevocable Trust, and Bright Stars Irrevocable Trust (collectively, the “Nevada Trusts”),
and Ran Chae, as Distribution Trustee of the Nevada Trusts (“Chae”), together with Ashfaq
Rahman and Sabira Arefin, as Trustees of the Nevada Trusts (the “Trustees”).
2 The facts and procedural history of this case have been summarized in the Court’s prior Orders,
which are incorporated by reference. See, e.g., (ECF No. 585) (Order on Verified Motion to
Commence Proceedings Supplementary and Related Relief); (ECF Nos. 586, 588-96) (Notices to
Appear); (ECF No. 617) (transcript of 11/21/2023 evidentiary hearing on motion to quash writ of
execution on the Hyadn Property); (ECF No. 708) (the undersigned’s 6/27/2024 Omnibus Order
on Procedural Post-Judgment Motions); (ECF No. 873) (recommendation that Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss be denied).
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 951 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 2 of 14

3
(the “Order Commencing Proceedings Supplementary”). 	The Order Commencing Proceedings
Supplementary impleaded the Nevada Entities, the Living Trust, and the Foreign LLCs as alleged
alter egos of the Judgment Debtors. 	Id. 	On January 18, 2024, Onemata filed its initial
Supplemental Complaint seeking to avoid allegedly fraudulent transfers and requesting declaratory
relief. 	See (ECF No. 626). 	In response, Defendants moved to dismiss the Supplemental
Complaint, which motion the Court granted with leave to amend to cure certain pleading
deficiencies. See (ECF Nos. 673, 714, 718).
On September 11, 2024, Onemata filed the operative Amended Supplemental Complaint.
See 	(ECF No. 720). 	The 	Amended 	Supplemental 	Complaint 	alleges 	18 	counts 	against
13 Defendants (two Judgment Debtors and 11 impleaded third-parties) related to various transfers
involving several Properties,3 certain Membership Interests in the Nevada LLCs, and mortgage
liens against the Properties to secure various home equity loans. 	See generally (ECF No. 720).
Defendants again moved to dismiss the Amended Supplemental Complaint. (ECF Nos. 746, 748,
749, 750, 865).
Although 	the 	District 	Court 	adopted 	the 	undersigned’s 	recommendation 	to 	deny
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Supplemental Complaint, the Court referred to the
undersigned the determination of diversity jurisdiction because Defendants raised the issue for the
first time as an objection to the undersigned’s recommendation that Defendants’ motions to
dismiss be denied. (ECF Nos. 873, 887, 907). 	Consequently, on September 9, 2025, the
undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause Regarding Diversity Jurisdiction requiring Onemata
to “show cause why this court has subject matter jurisdiction by filing an Addendum to its
3 Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the Amended Supplemental Complaint
(ECF No. 720).
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 951 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 3 of 14

4
Amended Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 720) listing every member of the [Foreign]
Defendants and the citizenship of each member.”4 (ECF No. 888 at 3). 	Since then, there have
been numerous filings, including: (i) Onemata’s Addendum and Supplemental Addendum
(together, the “Addendum”) to the Amended Supplemental Complaint (ECF Nos. 891, 913);
(ii) Defendants’ Responses to Onemata’s Addendums (ECF Nos. 917) (response by Nevada
Parties); (ECF No. 918) (response by Foreign Defendants); (ECF No. 919) (response by Judgment
Debtors); (ECF No. 920) (response by the Living Trust); and (iii) several briefs regarding Cook
Island law and legal classifications of LLCs (ECF Nos. 926, 928, 932).
On October 17, 2025, the undersigned held a hearing to address the issue of diversity
jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 925, 937). At the hearing and based on the record before the Court, the
undersigned confirmed that Onemata had sufficiently pled complete diversity between it and all
Defendants except CSB and HomeLien (the Foreign LLCs). See, e. g., (ECF No. 917) (“Nevada
Parties agree that Onemata has finally pled diversity between Onemata and the Nevada Parties, as
Onemata has finally alleged domicile and citizenship for each of the Nevada Parties in the
Addendum.”); Hr’g Tr. at 12:1-4 (confirming that all third-party Defendants, including the
Judgment Debtors, conceded that the Court has diversity jurisdiction, except as to CSB and
HomeLien). 	At the October 2025 hearing, the Court also confirmed that the only jurisdictional
issue remaining is the citizenship of Ora Trustees Limited, a Cook Islands entity, which is: (i) the
sole member of CSB; and (ii) trustee of Cascade Investment Trust, which in turn is the sole member
of HomeLien. See (ECF No. 913 at 9); Hr’g Tr. at 46:20-21.
4 Relatedly, in the interest of efficient case management and in its discretion, upon Defendants’
motions, the undersigned extended Defendants’ time to answer or otherwise respond to the
Amended Supplemental Complaint to 14 days after the Court’s determination on diversity
jurisdiction. See (ECF Nos. 914, 916). Because diversity jurisdiction remains undetermined as to
2 of the 13 Defendants, Defendants have yet to respond to the operative complaint.
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 951 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 4 of 14

5
Following the October 2025 hearing, the undersigned permitted Onemata to serve CSB and
HomeLien (through counsel of record) with limited jurisdictional discovery on the issue of
diversity of citizenship. (ECF No. 936); see also (ECF No. 929) (Onemata’s proposed discovery
requests); (ECF No. 935) (Onemata’s Notice that counsel to CSB and HomeLien had not
responded to whether the clients would voluntarily produce information regarding the Ora Trustees
entity). Those efforts, however, were wholly unsuccessful as CSB and HomeLien claim that the
requested information is not within their possession/control and that their governing entity (i.e.,
Ora Trustees Limited) asserts, under Cook Islands law, it cannot provide the information absent a
request from a Cook Islands court. (ECF No. 941 at 1); see also (ECF Nos. 942, 943, 944) (CSB
and HomeLien’s discovery responses that they have complied with Onemata’s discovery request
by seeking information from Ora Trustees Limited, but lack ownership, custody, or control over
the information).
Consequently, notwithstanding Onemata’s diligent efforts to clarify the citizenship of
CSB and HomeLien (as Foreign LLCs) for purposes of establishing complete diversity, the
jurisdictional issue as to CSB and HomeLien remains unclear. The lack of clarity is due to: (i) the
LLC designation, which requires confirming the citizenship of the underlying members of the
LLCs; and (ii) the uncertainty regarding the corporate structure and/or legal status of Ora Trustees
Limited under the laws of the Cook Islands. The instant Motions followed.
II. 	DIVERSITY JURISDICTION
A. Governing Law
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by
the Constitution and statute. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994); Burns v. Windsor Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 1092, 1095 (11th Cir. 1994). District courts have an
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 951 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 5 of 14

6
obligation to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction whenever the possibility arises that
jurisdiction does not exist, Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1523 (11th Cir. 1995), and must dismiss
an action where it appears that the court lacks jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). “[B]ecause a
federal court is powerless to act beyond its statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a court
must zealously insure that jurisdiction exists over a case, and should itself raise the question of
subject matter jurisdiction at any point in the litigation where a doubt about jurisdiction arises.”
Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).
In an originally filed action, plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the Court has
subject matter jurisdiction. 	Presley L. & Assocs., P.A. v. Wellington Rsrv., LLC, No. 19-CV-
80279, 2019 WL 11637068, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2019) (citing Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ
Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005) (“The burden for establishing federal subject
matter jurisdiction rests with the party bringing the claim”)). Moreover, when a case is founded
upon diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and one or more of parties is a limited liability
company, the citizenship of every member of the limited liability company must be alleged. See
Mallory & Evans Contractors & Eng’rs, LLC v. Tuskegee Univ., 663 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2011);
Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (11th Cir. 2004)
(“[T]o sufficiently allege the citizenships of these unincorporated business entities, a party must
list the citizenships of all the members of the limited liability company.”).
Here, according to the operative Amended Supplemental Complaint, “[t]his Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) because there exists
complete diversity of citizenship between Onemata and the Defendants and because the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00.” (ECF No. 720 ¶ 15).
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 951 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 6 of 14

7
B. There is Complete Diversity as to the Nevada Entities
In its Addendum responding to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Onemata has identified
the membership of MaskGene LLC, Peacenheaven LLC, BashaBari LLC, and Lakemonth
Property, LLC, and alleges that these LLCs are citizens of Nevada and Florida. See (ECF No. 913
at 4-7). Further, the Nevada Trusts are citizens of Nevada. Id. at 8. Similarly, the Living Trust is
a citizen of Florida. Id. at 11. Thus, the Nevada Parties ultimately concede that Onemata has pled
diversity as to those Defendants. Id. at 2. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Onemata has
sufficiently pled complete diversity as to the Nevada Parties.
C. The Citizenship of CSB and HomeLien (as Foreign LLCs) Remains Unclear
Unlike the Nevada Parties, however, diversity as to CSB and HomeLien remains at issue.
As to these Foreign LLCs, the Court should permit the parties to take additional steps to determine
whether complete diversity exists to ensure that the Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F.3d 1218, 1228 (11th Cir. 2017) (requiring
the Court to be “vigilant” in meeting the demands of diversity jurisdiction).
To be clear, the citizenship of CSB and HomeLien, as LLCs, turns on the citizenship of
Ora Trustees Limited. The record before the Court establishes that Ora Trustees Limited, a Cook
Islands entity, is: (i) the sole member of CSB; and (ii) trustee of Cascade Investment Trust, which
in turn is the sole member of HomeLien. See (ECF No. 913 at 9); Hr’g Tr. at 45:3-48:24. Although
Onemata has served limited jurisdictional discovery on CSB and HomeLien, the Foreign LLCs
argue that the information is not within their possession/control. See (ECF No. 941 at 2). Further,
according to CSB and HomeLien, Ora Trustees Limited asserts that, under Cook Islands law, it
cannot provide the information absent a request from a Cook Islands court. Id. at 1.
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 951 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 7 of 14

8
Relatedly, the parties disagree on the interpretation of Cook Islands law and whether Ora
Trustees Limited even exists as a corporate entity in the Cook Islands.5 	Compare (Onemata’s
Motion for Sanctions) (ECF No. 946 at 2) (“Numerous searches on the Cook Islands Ministry of
Justice Registry have revealed that there is no entity registered with the name of Ora Trustees
Limited or Ora Trustees Ltd.”); Id. at 3 (“There is no evidence in the record that Ora Trustees
Limited is an actual registered company [as] it is required to be.”), with (CSB and HomeLien’s
Response to Motion for Sanctions) (ECF No. 949 at 5-6) (asserting that their position is supported
by the opinion of a “qualified Cook Islands fiduciary and foreign-law expert” and the
Commissioner of the Financial Supervisory Commission of the Cook Islands). Ultimately, despite
voluminous filings and the record of the October 2025 hearing, the citizenship of Ora Trustees
Limited (and, in turn, the Foreign LLCs) remains unknown.
5 Indeed, leading up to the October 2025 hearing, the parties disputed the authenticity of the
submissions filed with the Court purporting to reflect records from the Cook Islands’ Ministry of
Justice. See, e.g., (ECF Nos. 918, 921, 924). CSB and HomeLien, on the one hand, filed an exhibit
listing 	Ora 	Fiduciary 	(Cook 	Islands) 	Limited 	as 	a 	“Limited 	Liability 	Company.” 	See
(ECF No. 918-1). 	Onemata, on the other hand, filed an exhibit of the same website listing Ora
Fiduciary (Cook Islands) Limited as a “Cook Islands Company.” (ECF No. 921-1). 	Concerned
about the authenticity of the conflicting exhibits, the undersigned independently accessed the
website to find that it listed Ora Fiduciary (Cook Islands) Limited as a “Cook Islands Company,”
consistent with Onemata’s findings and potentially determining citizenship for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction. 	See https://registry.justice.gov.ck/Corp/EntityProfile.aspx?id=87d4d1b5-
28eb-438d-9e9f-d3854348e9f3 (last visited Oct. 17, 2025). 	During the October 2025 hearing,
however, CSB and HomeLien argued that the Cook Island Ministry of Justice has two separate
records: one viewable by the public and one viewable by private individuals with “authenticated”
access. 	Hr’g Tr. 40:20-53:15; see also (ECF No. 924) (discussing, among other things, the
purported use of “authenticated” and “unauthenticated” corporate records in the Cook Islands). As
unlikely as this 2-tier access scenario may be, it makes the determination of citizenship far less
clear than a preponderance of the evidence requires.
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 951 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 8 of 14

9
Accordingly, as discussed below, the District Court should authorize the issuance of Letters
Rogatory to obtain further information to determine the ultimate citizenship of CSB and
HomeLien.6
III. 	REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AND LETTERS ROGATORY
A. 	An Adverse Inference Regarding Diversity is Inappropriate
In its Motion for Sanctions, Onemata seeks an adverse inference that diversity jurisdiction
exists as there is no connection between CSB and HomeLien to Colorado, where Onemata is
domiciled. See generally (ECF No. 946); (ECF No. 950 at 5, 8, 11). According to Onemata, an
adverse inference is proper because CSB and HomeLien have failed to cooperate with discovery
and have misled the Court and delayed these proceedings. (ECF No. 946 at 8). In response, CSB
6 Relatedly, the undesigned is unpersuaded that the alternative doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction
provides subject matter jurisdiction obviating the need to determine whether complete diversity
exists between Onemata and the Foreign LLCs. 	See, e.g., (ECF Nos. 891 at 1, 913 at 12)
(Onemata’s argument that the Court has “ancillary jurisdiction” over these supplemental
proceedings and the impled Defendants as set forth in the Addendum to the Amended
Supplemental Complaint). 	First, the Supplemental Amended Complaint alleges complete
diversity among the parties as the basis for jurisdiction without mention of ancillary jurisdiction.
See (ECF No. 720 ¶ 15). Further, Onemata relies on National Maritime Services, Inc. v. Straub,
776 F.3d 783 (11th Cir. 2015), but Straub is factually distinguishable because the sole basis for
subject matter jurisdiction over the supplementary proceeding in Straub was ancillary jurisdiction.
Straub, 776 F.3d at 786. Moreover, “[a]ncillary jurisdiction exists in two circumstances: ‘(1) to
permit disposition by a single court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually
interdependent; and (2) to enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its
proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees.’” Id. 	Here, CSB and HomeLien
argue that Onemata has not established ancillary jurisdiction in that the claims in the proceedings
supplementary involve independent fraudulent transfer claims against non-judgment entities. See
(ECF No. 918 at 15). Against the record and the competing arguments regarding the claims and
potential defenses in this multi-party litigation, the undersigned declines to find ancillary
jurisdiction when that was not the alleged basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction in the
operative complaint. Nevertheless, Onemata is free to seek leave to amend the operative complaint
to include that as a basis for federal jurisdiction.
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 951 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 9 of 14

10
and HomeLien insist that diversity jurisdiction fails unless Onemata can affirmatively show the
citizenship of Ora Trustees Limited.7 (ECF No. 949 at 4-5).
Importantly, once jurisdiction is challenged, allegations of jurisdiction must be established
by a preponderance of the evidence. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178,
189 (1936). Moreover, when the parties do not do their part, the burden falls on the courts to make
sure parties satisfy the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. Purchasing Power, 851 F.3d at 1228.
Thus, the Court “must be vigilant in forcing parties to meet the unfortunate demands of diversity
jurisdiction in the 21st century.” Id. (commenting that “citizenship of LLCs often ends up looking
like a factor tree that exponentially expands every time a member turns out to be another LLC,
thereby restarting the process of identifying the members of that LLC. The simplest misstep has
the potential to derail years of litigation[.]).
Based on the principles governing diversity jurisdiction as to LLCs and the record before
the Court, the undersigned declines Onemata’s invitation to determine the citizenship of CSB and
HomeLien by adverse inference. Although the undersigned initially inquired about the possibility
of an adverse inference, see Hr’g Tr. at 55:24-56:11, and the record suggests that the Judgment
Debtors may have intentionally created the intricate web of entities that now enables them to deny
having the ability to get relevant information, the evidence fails to meet the necessary
preponderance of the evidence threshold to determine the citizenship of CSB and HomeLien for
purposes of complete diversity. That information is buried within the corporate structure of the
7 CSB and HomeLien raise several other arguments that the undersigned need not reach because
sanctions should be denied. See, e.g., (ECF No. 949 at 7-8) (disputing statutory interpretation of
Cook Islands law); (ECF No. 949 at 9) (discussing who controls CSB); (ECF No. 949 at 10)
(arguing that even if Ora Trustees Limited is treated as a corporation, citizenship requires
establishing principal place of business, which is unknown without foreign judicial assistance).
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 951 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 10 of 14

11
Foreign LLCs and their underlying members/trustee who are Cook Islands entities and not parties
before this Court.8
Accordingly, 	Onemata’s 	Motion 	for 	Sanctions 	should 	be 	DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Onemata may, however, renew its request upon the conclusion of the Court issuing
Letters Rogatory as discussed below.
B. 	The Issuance of Letters Rogatory is Warranted
In the absence of voluntary compliance with jurisdictional discovery, CSB and HomeLien
ask this Court to issue Letters Rogatory directed to Cook Islands judicial authorities to compel Ora
Trustees Limited and Ora Fiduciary (Cook Islands) Limited (together, the “Ora Entities”) to
produce documents and respond to interrogatories “essential” to determine whether diversity
jurisdiction exists between the LLCs and Onemata.9 See generally (ECF No. 941). In opposing
this request, Onemata disputes whether jurisdictional discovery is “essential” and emphasizes that
CSB and HomeLien can voluntarily provide corporate documents regarding the citizenship of the
Ora Entities, without the delay of Letters Rogatory. See (ECF No. 947 at 2-3, 5). Onemata also
argues that jurisdictional discovery is unnecessary based on the record before the Court, where:
(i) CSB and HomeLien have indicated that they are residents of and domiciled in Nevis and the
Cook Islands; and (ii) the Court has ancillary jurisdiction over the proceedings supplementary. Id.
at 6. Onemata also requests attorney’s fees and costs for “bad faith conduct of CSB and HomeLien
8 At this juncture of the litigation, the undersigned also rejects the argument by CSB and HomeLien
that the proceedings supplementary must be dismissed because the Foreign LLCs are indispensable
parties to the alleged fraudulent transfer claims. See (ECF No. 918 at 18-19). The issue before
the Court is to determine the citizenship of the Foreign LLCs for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
Arguments regarding dismissing for failure to join an indispensable party are premature.
9 Although the Court confirmed during the October 2025 hearing that the only relevant entity for
purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction was Ora Trustees Limited, Hr’g Tr. 46:20-21, in
their request for Letters Rogatory, CSB and HomeLien assert that Letters Rogatory should seek
information regarding the Ora Entities. See (ECF No. 941 at 1).
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 951 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 11 of 14

12
[in] misrepresenting Cook Island law and making groundless and frivolous arguments intending
to delay these proceedings.” Id. at 7.
As to the issuance of Letters Rogatory, Rule 28(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and 28 U.S.C. § 1781 authorize federal courts to use a treaty or convention to issue letters rogatory
to enable a U.S. litigant to obtain non-party discovery from a foreign country. 	Fed. R. Civ. P.
28(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1781(b)(2); see also Hall v. Ins. Corp. of Brit. Columbia, No. 20-CV-1992-
CEM-LHP, 2022 WL 17581588, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2022) (citations omitted). 	Where a
party seeks assistance in obtaining discovery from a country that is a signatory to the Hague
Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “Hague
Convention”), 23 U.S.T. 2555, a court may utilize that convention to request assistance with
obtaining discovery from the foreign country. Hall, 2022 WL 17581588, at *1. Where a country
is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, a court should consider whether it is appropriate to
issue letters rogatory. See id.
District courts “have both statutory and inherent authority to issue letters rogatory and the
decision to issue letters rogatory lies within a court's sound discretion.” Id. (quotations omitted).
Letters rogatory should be issued only where “necessary and convenient.” Id. Courts routinely
issue letters rogatory “where the movant makes a reasonable showing that the evidence sought
may be material or may lead to the discovery of material evidence.” Id.; see also Benzion v. Vivint,
Inc., No. 12-CV-61826, 2013 WL 12304563, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2013) (“[L]etters rogatory
are generally freely granted by district courts in the United States.”).
Here, although Onemata has the burden of proof to establish diversity, the Court has an
independent duty to determine whether complete diversity exists between CSB and HomeLien, on
the one hand, and Onemata, on the other hand. Purchasing Power, 851 F.3d at 1228. According
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 951 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 12 of 14

13
to CSB and HomeLien, the determination of citizenship centers around the Ora Entities, which in
turn, refuse to provide documents or answer interrogatories absent a request from a Cook Islands
court. (ECF No. 941 at 1).
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the District Court GRANT IN PART the
request to issue Letters Rogatory to the Cook Islands judicial authorities.10 	More specifically,
prior to issuing the Letters Rogatory, the Court should require the parties to meet and confer in
good faith to: (i) file a joint application for Letters Rogatory directed to the Cook Islands judicial
authorities regarding the Ora Entities, including relevant and proportional requests for production
of documents and interrogatories; (ii) estimate the cost of the process; and (iii) attempt to agree on
the equal allocation of costs among the parties.
IV. 	RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated above, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that:
1. 	The District Court find that the record establishes complete diversity between
Onemata, as Plaintiff, and the Nevada Entities. 	Uncertainty remains, however, regarding the
citizenship of CSB and HomeLien, which requires the parties to undertake additional procedures
to determine whether complete diversity exists as to the Foreign LLCs;
2. 	Onemata’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 946) should be DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; and
3. 	CSB and HomeLien’s Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory (ECF No. 941)
should be GRANTED IN PART. More specifically, the parties should meet and confer to file,
10 Although the request to issue Letters Rogatory should be granted, the Court should require the
parties to meet and confer before the issuance.
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 951 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 13 of 14

14
for the District Court’s consideration, a Joint Application for Letters Rogatory directed to the Cook
Islands courts.
Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any
party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations.
See Mag. J. R. 4(b) (any party may object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation regarding
dispositive motions within 14-days or within such other time as may be allowed by the Court).
Further, within seven days, any party may respond to a parties’ objections. Id. Failure to timely
object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-to
factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation. 	11th Cir. R. 3-1
(2025); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Lastly, if the parties do not intend to file objections, they shall file a Notice of Non-
Objection within seven days of this R&R.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida on January 23, 2026.
_____________________________________
ALICIA O. VALLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas
All Counsel of Record
Case 0:20-cv-62002-WPD Document 951 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 14 of 14