UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 24 - 81245 - CIV - COHN/ MCCABE JEFFREY BOWMAN and TYLER BLYTHE , Plaintiff s , v SHANE GRAHAM APOROSA, SIONE FUNAKI, and ADDITIONAL JOHN DOE OWNERS OF GROG SWIPER ACCOUNT , Defendant s __________________ ________________ ___ _/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 60 MOTION THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Jeffrey Bowman and Tyler Blythe’s Verified Motion for Relief from Order Dismissing Shane Graham Aporosa Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (“Motion”) [DE 55 ]. The Court has considered the Motio n, Defendant Shane Graham Aporosa’s Response [DE 91 ], 1 and the record in this case, and is otherwise advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the Motion The background of this internet defamation case was set forth in detail in the Court’s February 6, 2025 Order Granting Defendant Aporosa’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, DE 33 (the “ Dismissal Order”), and need not be repeated here. In the Dismissal Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. See DE 33. It did so , as required, without prejudice and closed the case. Id. at 12 - 13. 1 Plaintiffs failed to file a Reply and their deadline to do so has passed. Case 9:24-cv-81245-JIC Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2026 Page 1 of 5 2 The Court also denied Plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery. Id. at 12 (citing Butler v. Sukhoi Co. , 579 F.3d 1307, 1314 (11th Cir. 2009) (“a district court does not abuse its discretion by denying jurisdictional discovery if ‘the complaint was insufficient as a matter of law to establish a prima facie case that the district court had jurisdiction.’”)). Approximately two months after entry of the Dismissal Order, Plaintiffs filed a perfunctory six - paragraph motion seeking to reopen the case and file an amended complaint. DE 34. Plaintiffs relied heavily on the fact that the Court dismissed their Complaint without prejudice, but as the Court explained in it s May 8, 2025 Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen the Case, the Court was required to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice because the dismissal was based on jurisdictional grounds. DE 4 1 at 2 (citing Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings (Lux.) S.A. , 119 F.3d 935, 940 (11th Cir. 1997 ) (“ a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, as opposed to a merits dismissal, cannot form the basis for a dismissal with prejudice. ”) ) The Court’s May 8th Order also held that its dismissal on jurisdictional grounds “acts as res judicata for the jurisdictional issue.” Id. at 2 - 3 (citing Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., Ltd. , 178 F.3d 1209, 1221 (11th Cir. 1999)). Shortly after the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Case , Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration again attempt ing to revive their claims against Aporosa. See DE 42 at 9 ( explaining that, after the Court dismissed their Complaint, Plaintiffs “investigate[d] and research[ed] the additional jurisdictional facts that it has [sic] now included in its proposed Amended Complaint to secure personal jurisdiction over Aporosa and address the shortcomings the Court identified in its original dismissal order.”). The Case 9:24-cv-81245-JIC Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2026 Page 2 of 5 3 Court denied the motion for reconsideration as to Aporosa because, as the Court previously held in its May 8th Order, the Dismissal Order was entitled to res judicata effect. DE 45. The Court did, however, permit Plaintiffs to proceed against the other Defendants named in the Amended Complaint – Sione Funaki and unnamed John Doe Defendants – because those Defendants had yet to appear in the case. Id. Now, almost nine months later, Plaintiffs attempt for a third time to have the Court reverse its dismissal on personal jurisdiction grounds of their claims against Aporosa — this time pursuant to Rule 60(b) . DE 55. As grounds, they rely on so - called “newly discovered evidence.” That evidence primarily consists of the deposition testimony of Defendant Sione Funaki taken on December 3, 2025. Funaki’s testimony, Plaintiffs say, “unequivocally demonstrates that the Defendants’ defamatory statements were in fact aimed at Florida as contemplated under Calder [ v. Jones , 466 U.S. 783 (1984)].” Id. at 2. As set forth below, Plaintiffs ’ Motion fails to show entitlement to relief under Rule 60(b). “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits ‘a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, under a limited set of circumstances.’” Kemp v. United States , 596 U.S. 528, 533 (2022) (citation omitted). Rule 60(b)(2) permits relief from judgment based upon “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). A movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(2) must establish that: (1) the new evidence was discovered after the judgment or order at issue was entered; (2) the movant exercised due diligence to discover the new evidence; (3) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) Case 9:24-cv-81245-JIC Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2026 Page 3 of 5 4 the evidence is likely to produce a different result. In re Glob. Energies, LLC , 763 F.3d 1341, 1347 (11th Cir. 2014); Waddell v. Hendry Cnty. Sheriff's Off. , 329 F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 2003); Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. , 235 F.3d 1307, 1316 (11th Cir. 2000). A Rule 60(b)(2) motion “ is an extraordinary motion and the requirements of the rule must be strictly met.” Waddell , 329 F.3d at 1309 (quoting Toole , 235 F.3d at 1316). Clearly, Plaintiffs disagree with the Court’s February 6, 2025, findings that they: (1) failed to establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over Aporosa in Florida, and (2) were not entitled to jurisdictional discovery from Aporosa. But Plaintiffs never appealed the se ruling s . Rather , they have filed several meritless motions over the past year seeking to relitigate the personal jurisdiction issue in this Court. And they have effectively circumvented the Court’s denial of jurisdictional disco very as to Aporosa by seeking this discovery during the course of their case against Funaki. That is the source of the newly discovered evidence that serves as the basis for the instant Motion — Funaki’s deposition testimony allegedly show ing that Aporosa’s defamatory statements targeted Florida. But Plaintiffs ignore that Funaki expressly “denied knowing anything . . . of what Aporosa knows.” DE 55 - 1 at 67. See also id. at 68 (“I don’t know what he knows, doesn’t know about who’s in Florida or not.”). Plaintiffs also submit that their recent discovery that a Facebook group called “Pasifika Kava Forum” has members located in Florida constitutes newly discovered evidence showing that Aporosa knew that his allegedly defamatory posts would be read in Florid a. DE 55 at 12. But as Aporosa notes, Plaintiffs fail to offer any evidence that Aporosa posted defamatory comments to this group. The screenshots from this group that Plaintiffs submit have no apparent connection to Aporosa. See DE 55 - 2. Case 9:24-cv-81245-JIC Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2026 Page 4 of 5 5 Based on the foregoing, even assuming that Plaintiffs’ Motion is procedurally sound and not barred by res judicata, Plaintiffs have failed to show any new evidence which entitles them to relief under Rule 60(b). Accordingly , it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Jeffrey Bowman and Tyler Blythe’s Verified Motion for Relief from Order Dismissing Shane Graham Aporosa Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 [DE 55] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 1 1 th day of March, 2026 Copies provided to c ounsel of record via CM/ECF Case 9:24-cv-81245-JIC Document 67 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2026 Page 5 of 5