Plaintiffs suing FTX, Tom Brady, and others still haven’t managed to serve Shaquille O’Neal

2023 Shaq's Fun House Big Game Weekend
Getty Images

Tom Brady’s vast array of business interests include the flaming wreckage of FTX, a cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme that collapsed in a flurry of criminal and civil charges. Brady and other celebrity endorsers have been sued. Brady eventually authorized his lawyers to execute a waiver of service. One of the defendants has managed to avoid being served the summons and complaint.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that plaintiffs still have not effected service of process on NBA legend Shaquille O’Neal.

They have tried to serve him at home. They have tried to serve him at the studio. They have reportedly “tossed the legal papers” at his SUV.

They claim O’Neal is dodging process. He denies it.

The plaintiffs requested an opportunity to serve O’Neal by direct message on Twitter and Instagram. The president judge called the request “frivolous,” and he denied it.

Shaq is hard to miss. And it has to be stressful for him to constantly be on the lookout for someone who will be handing him an envelope containing the paperwork that requires him to answer the civil allegations.

It’s hard to imagine in this day and age that the old-school practice of physically delivering the materials is required. Still, the law insists on a clear paper trial that the person actually received the materials, starting the clock for responding — or risking a finding of default.

The longer Shaq can avoid service of process, the longer he can avoid answering for the underlying allegations.

Later this year, a new book from Michael Lewis will likely shed light on everything related to the rise and fall of FTX. Lewis was there for the good times and bad, and he undoubtedly knows plenty about the things celebrity endorsers like Brady and Shaq knew, and when they knew them.

12 responses to “Plaintiffs suing FTX, Tom Brady, and others still haven’t managed to serve Shaquille O’Neal

  1. How do you run this story without the classic meme pic of Shaq hiding behind the tree? Missed opportunity.

  2. Celebrities quite often aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed and/or are pretty ignorant so I don’t really feel like they should be on the hook for very much just for taking a paycheck for an endorsement deal.

  3. If you’re avoiding service of process, you’re guilty as hell.

  4. You mean a rich superstar making millions of dollars off of people who are mostly penniless broke the law and still hasn’t had any sort of punishment? CRAAAAAAAAAZY.

  5. Well, if you invest in something other than a savings account, the risk of losing it is on you the investor. If you listen to celebrities, then you’re an idiot because most are just script readers.

  6. If you base your financial investments based upon the ‘advice’ given by pro athletes you deserved to lose your money.
    Though I got to admit it, if Charles Barkley serves him the papers during a broadcast I’d probably die from laughter.

  7. Will the new book from Michael Lewis begin with a preface stating his political affiliation so it can be read with the proper context?

    If this guy is a Republican it will likely be themed around the business side of it and ties to politics.

    If the guy is a Democrat it will likely be themed around trying to get Brady arrested on bookkeeping charges.

  8. That’s great news that we can sue celebrity endorsers because now I can sue Pete Davidson for endorsing Taco Bell and my trouser dry cleaning bill.

  9. Rules don’t apply to Tommy. I thought we all knew that by now.

    Just like you with logic.

  10. Good for Shaq. This whole thing is about lawyers making money, not legitimate victims being compensated. The lawyers need the celebrities attached to the case because of their wallets, period. Does anyone think Bankman-Fried was consulting with Shaq, Brady, etc. on how much money to pilfer from clients, or even straight forward with them with the FTX sales pitch to garner their endorsements?

    Also, FTX was one of the largest (if not the largest) donor to the Democratic party last election… why not serve those politicians with subpoenas too? Better yet, why not charge them with election fraud or violations for accepting what were apparently stolen funds to support their campaigns? If you make the argument that they didn’t know about FTX’s shenanigans and shouldn’t be held accountable… well, how is that different from Brady or Shaq?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.