Zoghaib v. Societe Generale De Banque Au Liban, No. 25-CV-20097-MOORE (Southern District of Fla. (S.D. FLA) 2026)

Case details
Full caption
JOSEPH C. ZOGHAIB v. SOCIETE GENERALE DE BANQUE AU LIBAN
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Southern District of Florida (S.D. FLA)
Decided
2026
Disposition
Motion Denied
Majority
Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein (J.) (unanimous Court)
JOSEPH C. ZOGHAIB, Plaintiff, v. SOCIETE GENERALE DE..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 943756Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, S.D. Florida.JOSEPH C. ZOGHAIB, Plaintiff,v. SOCIETE GENERALE DE BANQUEAU LIBAN, et al., Defendants.CASE NO. 25-CV-20097-MOORE/Elfenbein|04/08/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsJoseph C. Zoghaib, Miami, FL, Pro Se.Kenneth George Turkel, David Andrew Hayes, Turkel CuvaBarrios, Tampa, FL, Brian J. Leske, Pro Hac Vice, MichaelJ. Sullivan, Pro Hac Vice, Ashcroft Law Firm, LLC, Boston,MA, for Defendant Societe Generale De Banque Au Liban.Gabriela M. Ruiz, Miami, FL, Gary M. Mennitt, Pro HacVice, Julia L. Shea, Pro Hac Vice, Tamer Mallat, Pro HacVice, Dechert LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant Banque DuLiban.MARTY FULGUEIRA ELFENBEIN, UNITED STATESMAGISTRATE JUDGEAMENDED OMNIBUS REPORT ANDRECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS’MOTIONS TO STAY DISCOVERY1*1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Banquedu Liban's (“BdL”) Motion to Stay Discovery and PostponeMediation (“BdL's Motion”), ECF No. [75], and SociétéGénérale De Banque Au Liban's (“SGBL” and collectively,the “Defendants”) Motion to Stay Discovery and PostponeMediation Pending Resolution of its Dispositive Motion toDismiss (“SGBL's Motion”), ECF No. [78]. The HonorableK. Michael Moore referred the above-captioned case to mepursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Rules ofthe Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida to take“all necessary and proper action as required by law regardingall pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and for a Report andRecommendation on any dispositive matters.” See ECF No.[6]. Having reviewed the briefing on the issues, the relevantcase law, and exhibits, for the reasons explained below, IRECOMMEND that BdL's Motion, ECF No. [75], andSGBL's Motion, ECF No. [78], both be GRANTED.I. BACKGROUNDPro se Plaintiff Joseph Zoghaib (“Plaintiff” or “Zoghaib”)initiated this action on January 1, 2025, see ECF No. [1], andthereafter filed filed an Amended Complaint, ECF No. [33],which is the operative pleading. In the Amended Complaint,Zoghaib alleges that SGBL, a private bank in Lebanon,issued a cashier's check to him from the account he heldthere, and that the cashier's check that SGBL issued was,in turn, drawn from its account with BdL. See ECF No.[33] at ¶¶14-15. He further alleges that, following “thecollapse of Lebanon's financial system on October 17, 2019,Defendants began issuing checks drawn on accounts atB[d]L, knowing these checks could not be honored,” andthat Plaintiff was the recipient of such a check from SGBL,which was not honored when he attempted to deposit itin Miami, Florida. See ECF No. [33] at ¶30. Specifically,on November 26, 2021, Zoghaib alleges that he receiveda cashier's check from SGBL in the amount of $336,000and when he attempted to cash the check for payment onApril 1, 2024, SGBL “dishonored the cashier's check,” citing“FOREIGN REGULATORS PROHIBIT CLEARING OFTHE CHECK— PLEASE CONTACT THE PERSON WHOWROTE IT.” See ECF No. [33] at ¶¶47-49. Against thisfactual backdrop, Zoghaib has alleged claims against bothDefendants for breach of contract (Count I), violation ofthe Uniform Commercial Code, holder in due course (CountII), conversion (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count IV),promissory estoppel (Count V), common law fraud (CountVI), breach of fiduciary duty (Count VII), breach of covenantof good faith and fair dealing (Count VIII), deceptive tradepractices/consumer protection (Count IX), equitable estoppel(Count X), intentional infliction of emotional distress (CountXI), constructive trust (Count XII), punitive damages (CountXIII), negligence (Count XIV), violation of internationalbanking laws (Count XV), and violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1961-1968 (Count XVI).2See ECF No. [33] at 13-25.*2 Both BdL and SGBL have moved to dismiss theAmended Complaint. See ECF No. [72] and ECF No. [81].BdL's Motion to Dismiss is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 etseq., 1608(b), and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), and 12(b)(6). See id. at 1. BdL assertsthat the Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint fora multitude of procedural and substantive reasons including,failure to comply with the strict service requirements of
JOSEPH C. ZOGHAIB, Plaintiff, v. SOCIETE GENERALE DE..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”); lack ofsubject-matter jurisdiction because BdL is entitled to foreignsovereign immunity; lack of personal jurisdiction; the Act ofState Doctrine; forum non conveniens; improper venue; andfailure to state a claim under Lebanese or Florida law. See e.g.,ECF No. [72] at 10, 13, 20, 22, 25, 26, and 29. SGBL's Motionto Dismiss likewise presents a plethora of procedural andsubstantive arguments for dismissal, including that Zoghaibfailed to allege a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction; themandatory forum-selection clause requires dismissal underforum non conveniens; the Act of State Doctrine requiresdismissal; and that Zoghaib fails to assert claims under eitherLebanese or Florida law. See e.g., ECF No. [81] at 8, 15, 18,and 19.Contemporaneous with the filing of the Motions to Dismiss,both BdL and SGBL also moved to stay discovery pendingtheir resolution. See ECF No. [75] and ECF No. [78]. InBdL's Motion, ECF No. [75], it argues that it is immune fromany liability under the FSIA and this “threshold jurisdictionalissue” must be resolved before it is subject to the burdens ofdiscovery and mediation, explaining that courts routinely staydiscovery when immunity is involved. See ECF No. [75] at 5.According to BdL, denying immunity under FSIA establishesinterlocutory appeal jurisdiction and BdL intends to raise theissue on appeal, should this Court deny its pending Motionto Dismiss. See ECF No. [75] at 6-7. Further, BdL points outthat this argument mirrors the arguments that “courts haverepeatedly accepted in nearly identical lawsuits brought byLebanese-American depositors arising out of the Lebanesefinancial crisis against BdL.” See ECF No. [75] at 6.Next, BdL seeks to stay discovery, arguing that its facialchallenges to the Amended Complaint must be resolvedbefore discovery or mediation begins as a “preliminarypeek” confirms that BdL's Motion to Dismiss is likely casedispositive. See ECF No. [75] at 1-2, 5-7. Specifically,BdL explains that several courts have already analyzednearly identical lawsuits and found them to be likewisejurisdictionally defective. See ECF No. [75] at 8-9. Addingto that point, BdL states that discovery at this stage wouldbe futile because discovery cannot supply jurisdiction wherethe pleadings affirmatively negate it. See ECF No. [75]at 8-9. This is because, according to BdL, “[n]o amountof discovery could transform sovereign Lebanese financialmeasures into commercial acts, create U.S.-based conductwhere none exists, or produce a jurisdictional hook absentfrom the Amended Complaint.” See ECF No. [75] at 9.Finally, BdL states that it cannot be subject to discovery ormediation absent proper service of process, which BdL hasalso challenged, and that a temporary stay will not undulyprejudice Zoghaib. See ECF No. [75] at 1-2, 5-7.For its part, SGBL's Motion argues that a “preliminary peek”at its Motion to Dismiss reveals that it is meritorious anddispositive of all claims as well. Specifically, its Motion toDismiss raises several independent jurisdictional challengesand other merits-based grounds that, if granted, requiredismissal of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in its entirety,including personal jurisdiction and a forum-selection clause.Id. at 7. It further argues that “the high burden of engagingin discovery and mediation during the pendency of thatmotion—much of which will involve locating evidence andwitnesses in Lebanon by a party neither properly alleged norsubject to this Court's jurisdiction—outweighs any potentialharm to Plaintiff for any discovery delay.” See ECF No.[78] at 6. SGBL contends that good cause exists for the staybecause its Motion to Dismiss is “clearly meritorious and casedispositive.” See ECF No. [78] at 1.*3 In further support of the stay, SGBL contends that atemporary stay of discovery will avoid potential for wastingparty and judicial resources because Zoghaib's discoveryrequests are very broad and responding to them will requirethe Parties “to expend substantial resources negotiating and/or litigating the scope of the requests (including, interalia, appropriate time periods and limitation of applicableentities), with the Court likewise having to expend judicialtime and resources to address discovery disputes.” Seeid. at 9-10. Finally, SGBL asserts that a temporary staywill not prejudice Zoghaib because there are no “specialcircumstances warranting discovery before final resolution ofthe purely legal issues raised” in its Motion to Dismiss. Id. Itcontends that discovery requests do not seek information thatwould help Zoghaib in defending against SGBL's Motion toDismiss, and that there would be no significant impact on thetimely resolution of the case if the stay were granted becauseZoghaib waited over nine months to serve discovery requestsand the close of the discovery period is May 15, 2026. Seeid. at 10.Zoghaib responded to both Motions to Stay. See ECF No.[96] and ECF [97]. Starting with his Response to BdL'sMotion, Zoghaib opposes the stay, arguing that discoveryis essential because BdL disputes core jurisdictional facts,including its commercial conduct, use of U.S. correspondentaccounts, and its direct effects in Florida. See ECF No. [97]at 1. Zoghaib further asserts that “BDL provides no affidavit,
JOSEPH C. ZOGHAIB, Plaintiff, v. SOCIETE GENERALE DE..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3declaration, or evidence of burden under Rule 26(c), andidentifies no authority exempting foreign sovereigns frommediation.” See id. He argues that a FSIA interlocutoryappeal does not “self-execute” a stay and “provides nobasis to preemptively halt jurisdictional discovery or court-order mediation.” Id. at 7. Zoghaib further contends thatthe Eleventh Circuit requires jurisdictional discovery beforeimmunity is adjudicated where jurisdictional facts aredisputed and that a “preliminary peek” is inappropriate herebecause BdL disputes nearly every jurisdictional fact andthese issues cannot be resolved on the pleadings. Id. Hedisagrees with BdL that discovery cannot cure jurisdictionaldefects. Zoghaib also includes a litany of arguments as towhy the Amended Complaint should not be dismissed in hisResponse. See generally ECF No. [97]. He then argues thata stay would prejudice him because BdL's “delay tactics”threaten preservation of evidence, obstruct mediation, andprolong his financial harms. Id. at 17. He further opposesBdL's argument that mediation burdens immunity because itnecessarily addresses the merits, contending instead that noFSIA authority supports BdL's point and that “[m]ediation is anon-adjudicative, court-ordered settlement process requiringno discovery or evidence, and courts routinely require iteven when immunity is asserted.” See id. at 19. Citingto Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, which requires ajust, speedy, and inexpensive resolution, Zoghaib finallyargues that jurisdictional discovery promotes efficiency, andthat staying discovery would delay resolution of thresholdissues including “commercial activity, correspondent-accountuse, direct effect, long-arm jurisdiction, and sovereignversus commercial conduct-that cannot be resolved withoutdiscovery.” Id. at 19. He also argues that efficiency“overwhelmingly” favors proceeding with discovery.Turning to his Response to SGBL's Motion, much likehis Response to BdL's Motion, Zoghaib makes variousarguments as to why the Amended Complaint should notbe dismissed. See generally ECF No. [96]. Zoghaib opposesthe stay because “discovery is essential to resolve disputedjurisdictional issues, that SGBL has not shown good causeunder Rule 26(c), and that a stay would only prejudice[him].” See id. at 2. Regarding jurisdictional discovery, heargues it is warranted to determine the nexus between SGBL'scorrespondent account activity and Zoghaib's harm. See id.Zoghaib states that granting SGBL's Motion would cause himconcrete prejudice and that courts consistently recognize thatdelays in discovery can impair a plaintiff's ability to prosecuteclaims, risk the loss of evidence, and exacerbate ongoingharm. Id. at 16. He contends that balancing the movant'sburden against the prejudice to the non-movant is requiredunder the Rule 26(c) balancing test, and it weighs “heavilyagainst SGBL” here. See ECF No. [96] at 16.*4 Similar to his Response to BdL's Motion to Stay, heargues that delaying discovery in this case increases therisk that evidence will be lost or rendered inaccessibleand that he has already suffered financial harm due toSGBL and continues to suffer. Id. at 17. Zoghaib contendsthat jurisdictional discovery is not optional where factsare disputed and granting a stay would deprive him ofthe opportunity to develop the record. See id. at 17. Hefurther argues that judicial efficiency favors proceeding withdiscovery and mediation because it will help narrow the issuesor promote settlement when jurisdictional facts are disputed.See id. at 18, 20.In its Reply (“BdL's Reply”), ECF No. [102], BdL arguesthat Zoghaib raises a multitude of erroneous argumentsthat are factually and legally incorrect. In particular, BdLreemphasizes its argument that it is subject to immunity underthe FSIA as an instrumentality of the Lebanese governmentand that, under such circumstances, a stay of all discoveryand mediation are appropriate. See ECF No. [102] at 2. Whilethe remainder of the Reply seems to be directed to Zoghaib'sarguments surrounding the Motion to Dismiss, BdL doespoint out that its Motion to Dismiss challenges the legalsufficiency of the Amended Complaint as pled. See ECF No.[102]. 2-5. The inference then is that, because the challenge isbased on the factual sufficiency of the Amended Complaint,there are no disputed jurisdictional allegations that wouldrequire jurisdictional discovery, making the stay appropriate.For its part, in its Reply, ECF No. [101], SGBL largelyresponds to Zoghaib's arguments in opposition of dismissal.SGBL also explains that complying with Zoghaib's discoveryrequests would be a massive undertaking, requiring a time-sensitive and costly review of communications, accounttransactional records, and other documents for an extendedperiod of time, especially because SGBL is a foreigndefendant. Further, compliance would require, according toSGBL, identifying and locating “the vast array of documents”maintained across dozens of branches in Lebanon and thenhand-scanning the records, which span a six-year period. SeeECF No. [101] at 4; ECF No. [82] at ¶¶16-18. Finally, SGBLargues that Plaintiff's claim for jurisdictional discovery ismeritless on both procedural and substantive grounds becausePlaintiff never formally moved for jurisdictional discovery,does not explain what facts it would be intended to uncover,
JOSEPH C. ZOGHAIB, Plaintiff, v. SOCIETE GENERALE DE..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4and that the Eleventh Circuit has not found abuse of discretionfor denying discovery where a complaint is insufficient as amatter of law to establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction.See ECF No. [101] at 4-5.II. LEGAL STANDARD“[D]istrict courts are entitled to broad discretion in managingpretrial discovery matters.” Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2002). Within that discretion, it is“the responsibility of trial courts to manage pretrial discoveryproperly in order to avoid a massive waste of judicial andprivate resources and a loss of society's confidence in thecourts’ ability to administer justice.” Id. (quotation marksomitted). “If the district court dismisses a nonmeritoriousclaim before discovery has begun, unnecessary costs to thelitigants and to the court system can be avoided.” Chudasamav. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1368 (11th Cir. 1997).“Conversely, delaying ruling on a motion to dismiss such aclaim until after the parties complete discovery encouragesabusive discovery and, if the court ultimately dismisses theclaim, imposes unnecessary costs.” Id. “For these reasons,any legally unsupported claim that would unduly enlarge thescope of discovery should be eliminated before the discoverystage, if possible.” Id. (footnotes omitted). “Allowing a caseto proceed through the pretrial processes with an invalid claimthat increases the costs of the case does nothing but waste theresources of the litigants in the action before the court, delayresolution of disputes between other litigants, squander scarcejudicial resources, and damage the integrity and the public'sperception of the federal judicial system.” Id.*5 One kind of challenge courts should resolve “beforediscovery begins” is a “[f]acial challenge[ ] to the legalsufficiency of a claim or defense, such as a motion to dismissbased on failure to state a claim for relief.” Id. at 1367. Seealso Cabrera v. Progressive Behav. Sci., Inc., 331 F.R.D. 185,186 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (“As a general rule, motions to dismissshould be resolved as soon as practicable to obviate avoidablediscovery costs, especially where a dubious claim appearsdestined for dismissal.”). Courts should resolve that kindof challenge before discovery because it “always presentsa purely legal question; there are no issues of fact becausethe allegations contained in the pleading are presumed to betrue,” so “neither the parties nor the court have any needfor discovery before the court rules on the motion.” SeeChudasama, 123 F.3d at 1367.“In deciding whether to stay discovery pending resolution of amotion to dismiss, the court must balance the harm producedby a delay in discovery against the possibility that the motionwill be granted and entirely eliminate the need for suchdiscovery.” Skuraskis v. NationsBenefits Holdings, LLC, 717F. Supp. 3d 1221, 1228 (S.D. Fla. 2023) (citation omitted).“Both concerns are important — while a defendant shouldnot be forced to expend substantial resources answeringdiscovery when the plaintiff's claims clearly lack merit, thedelay and prolongation of discovery can also create casemanagement and scheduling problems and unfairly hold upthe prosecution of the case.” Cabrera, 331 F.R.D. at 186.“While it is not necessary for the Court to, in effect, decidethe motion to dismiss to determine whether the motion tostay discovery should be granted, it is necessary for theCourt to take a preliminary peek at the merits of the motionto dismiss to see if it appears to be clearly meritoriousand truly case dispositive.” Cuhaci v. Kouri Grp., LP, 540F. Supp. 3d 1184, 1187 (S.D. Fla. 2021) (quotation marksomitted). “[W]here a pending motion may dispose of theentire action, granting a stay of discovery not necessaryfor resolution of the motion may be justified.” Skuraskis,2023 WL 8698324 at *2. If a motion to dismiss raises“potentially fatal pleading” and jurisdictional “deficiencies,”staying discovery is warranted. See id. at *5. But if “thereappears to be a genuine dispute as to whether” a claim ordefense is meritorious, staying discovery is not appropriate.See Flecha v. Neighbors Moving Servs., Inc., 944 F. Supp.2d 1201, 1203 (S.D. Fla. 2013). The “proponent of a stayof discovery bears the burden of demonstrating its necessity,appropriateness, and reasonableness.” Cuhaci, 540 F. Supp.3d at 1187 (quotation marks omitted).III. DISCUSSIONAfter a preliminary peek at Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss,see ECF No. [72]; ECF No. [81], the Court concludes astay of discovery is appropriate. Cumulatively, the Motionsto Dismiss raise several potentially fatal pleading andjurisdictional deficiencies, see Skuraskis, 2023 WL 8698324at *5, including problems with subject-matter jurisdictionand venue. The Motions to Dismiss also raise several otherarguments suggesting that Plaintiff has failed to state a claimupon which relief can be granted. See ECF No. [72]; ECF No.[81].More precisely, while the Court does not comment upon themerits of all arguments raised in the Motions to Dismiss,it observes that the following arguments BdL raises appear
JOSEPH C. ZOGHAIB, Plaintiff, v. SOCIETE GENERALE DE..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive: (1) alack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on the FSIA, which“provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over aforeign state in this country,” see Bock Holdings, LLC v.Republic of Honduras, 654 F. Supp. 3d 1261 (S.D. Fla.2023) (citations and quotations omitted) and (2) impropervenue based on forum non conveniens. See ECF No. [72].And although Plaintiff argues that he should be entitled tojurisdictional discovery to rebut these arguments, particularlythe FSIA issue, BdL's arguments are based on the four cornersof the Amended Complaint. Indeed, BdL's analysis reliesexclusively on Plaintiff's own allegations. While “[r]esolutionof a pretrial motion that turns on findings of fact — forexample, a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdictionpursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) — may require somelimited discovery before a meaningful ruling can be made,”“[f]acial challenges to the legal sufficiency of a claim ordefense,” “should, however, be resolved before discoverybegins.” Chudasama, 123 F.3d at 1367. This is because thearguments “present[ ] a purely legal question” without any“issues of fact” as “the allegations contained in the pleadingare presumed to be true.” Id. (citing Mitchell v. Duval CountySch. Bd., 107 F.3d 837, 838 n. 1 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam)).Here, BdL's arguments on subject-matter jurisdiction, forumnon conveniens, as well as failure to state a claim, all of whichhave the potential to be case-dispositive, present purely legalquestions that do not require discovery for their resolution.*6 Further, when a defendant raises an argument basedon immunity, such as the FSIA, that provides even strongergrounds for a stay of discovery. See Howe v. City of Enter.,861 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2017) (explaining that“district court orders that required the defendants, who hadasserted qualified or sovereign immunity, to further litigate theunderlying merits of the lawsuit without having first receiveda ruling as their immunity” “effectively denied immunity,which provides ‘an entitlement not to stand trial or facethe other burdens of litigation.”) (emphasis added, internalcitations omitted); Blinco v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 366F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2004) (“The defense of sovereignor qualified immunity protects government officials not onlyfrom having to stand trial, but from having to bear theburdens attendant to litigation, including pretrial discovery.”)(emphasis added); Oueiss v. Saud, No. 20-CV-25022-KMM,2021 WL 11606313, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 5, 2021) (Moore,J.) (staying discovery in matter raising defenses of foreignsovereign immunity, foreign official immunity, and personaljurisdiction, explaining that “United States Supreme Courtand Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals precedent instructs thatdefenses of immunity should be resolved at the earliest stagesof litigation so that defendants subject to such immunityare not unnecessarily burdened with litigation requirements,including discovery.”) (emphasis added); Point Conversions,LLC v. Lopane, No. 20-CV-61549, 2020 WL 6700236, at*2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2020) (“Defendant asserts sovereignand judicial immunity defenses, which raise serious questionsregarding the viability of Plaintiff's Complaint that mustbe resolved before Defendant is burdened with discoveryand other pretrial obligations.”) (emphasis added). Given theCourt's preliminary peek of BdL's arguments in the Motionto Dismiss, including its sovereign immunity argument, theCourt concludes that a stay of discovery and mediation isappropriate as to Plaintiff's claims against BdL.Turning next to SGBL, after a preliminary peek of theissues raised in its Motion to Dismiss, the Court likewiseconcludes that it raises at least two meritorious, case-dispositive arguments arising from a facial challenge topersonal jurisdiction as well as a forum-selection clauseincluded in the banking agreement between Plaintiff andSGBL. See ECF No. [81]. Because any one of thosearguments has the potential to be truly case dispositive,a stay of discovery is warranted. See Cuhaci, 540 F.Supp. 3d at 1187. Again, Plaintiff argues that jurisdictionaldiscovery should be allowed; however, SGBL challengesPlaintiff's failure to establish a prima facie case of personaljurisdiction based on the allegations within the AmendedComplaint. As explained above, arguments that present afacial challenge to the allegations in a complaint raise a purelylegal question, which means the trial court need not makeany factual determinations, allowing such questions to “beresolved before discovery begins.” Chudasama, 123 F.3d at1367. Stated differently, for the Court to rule on SGBL'spersonal jurisdiction argument, no determinations of disputedfactual issues are necessary as the argument relies on theallegations, or in some instances, lack of allegations withinthe Amended Complaint. As a result, jurisdictional discoveryis unnecessary. See World Media All. Label, Inc. v. BelieveSAS, No. 24-12079, 2025 WL 2102017, at *5 (11th Cir. July28, 2025) (“[A] district court does not abuse its discretionby denying jurisdictional discovery if ‘the complaint wasinsufficient as a matter of law to establish a prima facie casethat the district court had jurisdiction.’ ” (citing Butler v.Sukhoi Co., 579 F.3d 1307, 1314 (11th Cir. 2009))). The sameholds true to resolve SGBL's argument based on the forum-selection clause. Accordingly, the Court concludes that a stayof discovery and pretrial deadlines is also appropriate as toPlaintiff's claims against SGBL.
JOSEPH C. ZOGHAIB, Plaintiff, v. SOCIETE GENERALE DE..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.6The Court ends its analysis by noting that, in his Responses,Zoghaib cites to various cases for certain propositions thatdo not support his arguments, leading the Court to suspectthat Zoghaib used artificial intelligence (“AI”) to write them.For example, Zoghaib repeatedly cites to Meier ex rel. Meierv. Sun Int'l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264, 1274 (11th Cir.2002) to support his argument that “FSIA immunity does notbar jurisdictional discovery where the commercial-activityexception is invoked or jurisdictional facts are disputed.” SeeECF No. [97] at 1. However, the Meier decision involvesa dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, making noreference to the FSIA, immunity, the commercial-activityexception, or a stay of discovery.3 See generally Meier, Ltd.,288 F.3d 1264. The same holds true for Zoghaib's repeatedreliance on In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007).4See ECF No. [97] at 1. The decision in In re Clerici involvesa request for discovery for use in another foreign tribunalunder 28 U.S.C. § 1782 but makes no mention of a stay ofdiscovery, the need for jurisdictional discovery, the FSIA,or more broadly immunity. See generally In re Clerici, 481F.3d 1324. Similarly, Plaintiff cites to McCarthy v. BarnettBank of Polk Cnty., 876 F.2d 89 (11th Cir. 1989) for theproposition that “a[ ] stay of discovery is an extraordinaryremedy and the movant bears the burden of showing ‘goodcause’ through specific, particularized, evidentiary facts –not attorney argument,” arguing that BdL failed to makethis showing so the request for a stay should be denied. SeeECF No. [97] at 4. However, McCarthy does not addressmotions to stay discovery and instead discusses a mediaoutlet's right to intervene in a case where a protective ordershielded information designated as confidential during thelitigation. See McCarthy, 876 F.2d at 90-91. Zoghaib's failureto accurately characterize the cases on which he relies hascaused the Court (and likely the Defendants) to expendunnecessary time and effort searching for language in theopinions that would support his arguments, only to find thereis none. To the extent that Zoghaib has used AI to draft hisResponses, the Court cautions Zoghaib that he is responsiblefor checking each citation and quotation in his filings to verifythat they indeed stand for such propositions prior to filingthem with the Court. To the extent that Zoghaib personallyresearched and read this case law and drafted the Responseshimself without the use of AI, he is admonished againstmisrepresenting the content of cases in his filings. Either way,if Zoghaib misstates the contents of case law in his futurefilings, he is warned that he may be subject to sanctions underFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) and (c)(3).IV. CONCLUSION*7 For the reasons explained above, I respectfullyRECOMMEND that BdL's Motion to Stay, ECF No. [75]be GRANTED; SGBL's Motion to Stay, ECF No. [78], beGRANTED; and that discovery and mediation in this matterbe stayed until resolution of BdL's Motion to Dismiss, ECFNo. [72], and SGBL's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [81].The Parties will have fourteen (14) days from the date ofbeing served with a copy of this Report and Recommendationwithin which to file written objections, if any, withthe Honorable K. Michael Moore. Failure to timely fileobjections shall bar the Parties from a de novo determinationby the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report andshall bar the Parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-tofactual and legal conclusions contained in this Report exceptupon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest ofjustice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11thCir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1.RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in Chambers in Miami,Florida on April 8, 2026.Editor's Note: Tabular or graphical material not displayableat this time.MARTY FULGUEIRA ELFENBEINUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGEcc: All counsel of recordJoseph C. Zoghaib12729 SW 211th StreetMiami, FL 33177305-360-4117Email: domestica.jose@yahoo.comPRO SEAll CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 943756
JOSEPH C. ZOGHAIB, Plaintiff, v. SOCIETE GENERALE DE..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.7Footnotes1The original Report and Recommendation has been amended solely to add language on page 15 informingthe Parties of their right to object and the timeframe to do so. Such language was inadvertently omitted fromthe original Report and Recommendation.2Although the Amended Complaint purports to allege 17 counts, it only contains 16 counts as there is noCount VII identified. See generally ECF No. [33]. The Court has conformed the Count numbers to accountfor this error in the Amended Complaint.3For the same reasons, Zoghaib also incorrectly relies on this decision to argue: “A stay is improper wherethe motion to dismiss raises fact-dependent issues, jurisdictional disputes, or FSIA questions requiringfactual development.” See ECF No. [97] at 3. And he does so again when he argues that “[t]he EleventhCircuit repeatedly holds that jurisdictional discovery is required where facts relevant to immunity or personaljurisdiction are disputed.” See ECF No. [97] at 4. His Response contains several other inaccurate referencesto Meier.4Similarly, Zoghaib incorrect relies on this decision when he states: “The Eleventh Circuit requires jurisdictionaldiscovery where a defendant disputes facts relevant to personal jurisdiction or FSIA immunity.” See ECFNo. [97] at 3.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access