Slip Opinion
S.D. Fla.Aug 13, 2025Background
- Onemata Corporation is attempting to enforce an unsatisfied judgment exceeding $7 million against Ashfaq Rahman and Sabira Arefin (the "Judgment Debtors").
- Onemata alleges the Judgment Debtors transferred various properties and membership interests to trusts and entities (Nevada LLCs, Nevada Trusts, CSB Holdings, HomeLien Investment), to hinder Onemata's efforts to collect on the judgment.
- The court previously allowed Onemata to commence proceedings supplementary and add the implicated third parties as alleged alter egos of the debtors.
- Onemata's Amended Supplemental Complaint brings 18 counts relating to 9 properties, alleging fraudulent and constructive fraudulent transfers under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (FUFTA).
- Multiple motions to dismiss were filed by the third-party entities and trusts, arguing lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, expiration of limitations, improper service, and the applicability of foreign law.
- The magistrate judge recommends denying all motions to dismiss, finding the complaint states plausible claims and premature to conduct choice-of-law or factual analyses at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over third parties | Entities are alter egos of debtors, subject to jurisdiction | Court lacks jurisdiction over foreign entities/LLCs/trusts | Personal jurisdiction adequately alleged |
| Choice-of-law / limitations period | Florida law applies, transfers not time-barred | Nevada, Nevis, or Cook Islands law applies; claim time-barred | Choice-of-law is premature |
| Insufficient pleading under FUFTA | Sufficient detail for fraudulent transfer allegations | Fails to allege insolvency, asset transfer, intent, or standing as needed | Complaint sufficiently pleads claims |
| Improper service of process on CSB/HomeLien | Service was court-approved and completed per order | Service on foreign entities was improper | Service complied with Rule 4(f)(3) |
| Real party in interest (Chae and Nevada Trusts) | Trustees properly named, allegations sufficient | Chae/trusts have no standing; factual disputes over authority | Dismissal not warranted at pleading stage |
| Homestead/Tenancy by entirety re: Haydn Property | Issues of fact for later; not undisputed | Claims barred; property exempt as homestead/tenancy by entirety | Issues premature for dismissal |
| Effect of FUFTA on out-of-state real property | Remedies available for fraudulent transfer, even foreign | Court can't affect title to property outside Florida | Insufficient argument; not basis to dismiss |
| Liability of financial institutions under FUFTA | CSB/HomeLien liable if they received fraudulent transfers | FUFTA doesn't apply to non-transferee financial institutions | Claims not barred at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets pleading standard for plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Speaker v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2010) (court must accept all well-pleaded allegations as true)
- Roberts v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 146 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 1998) (motions to dismiss standard)
- United States v. Henco Holding Corp., 985 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2021) (dismissal on statute of limitations on face of complaint only)
- Freeman v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 865 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 2004) (limits aiding/abetting liability under FUFTA to actual transferees)