Plaintiff's answer to defendant Dror's motion to quash

                                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 13-20190-CIV-GRAHAM/GOODMAN

AMIR A. KAMMONA,

Plaintiff,
v.
ONTECO CORPORATION, DROR
SVORAI, HAIM MAYAN, JORGE
SCHCOLNIK AND ACTION STOCK
TRANSFER CORPORATION,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S DROR SVORAI MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS.
The Plaintiff is filing this motion in order to oppose the Defendant's motion to quash.
The Plaintiff put a serious effort to serve the Defendant.In addition we can notice the following:

1- The process was served by the sheriff.
2- It took the Sheriff about 5 attempts or more (as shown in the proof of service submitted to the court) to achieve this service on that same address to reach make contact.There is no reason for such effort on a bad service.
3-The same Sheriff returned a non service on the address of Defendant Haim Mayan stating that the address was in correct [Exhibit 1].There is no reason for the sheriff to treat this differently if the address was incorrect.
4-To the best knowledge of the Plaintiff the address used is the address on the defendant's driver license at the time.
5-Service on the most recent address the defendant mentioned in his sec filings has failed.
According to Defendant Onteco Corporation filing with the SEC that address was changed more than two months before the Plaintiff filed his complaint on 1/17/2013.
6-On 4/2/2012 the Plaintiff filed Schedule 13d/A with the SEC and in it,at the top of the page, the Plaintiff declared that he intends to file a lawsuit against the Company.The filing is accessible through the SEC web site www.sec.gov.
7-Despite the fact that the Defendant was the CEO during the period starting from the date mentioned in point 5 above until his resignation on 11/9/2012 the company filings kept mentioning in its filing this or something of this sort:
"Management is not aware of any legal proceedings contemplated by any governmental authority or any other party involving us or our properties. As of the date of this Annual Report, no director, officer or affiliate (i) a party adverse to us in any legal proceeding, or (ii)has an adverse interest to us in any legal proceedings. Management is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or that have been threatened against us or our properties".
 8-We can see an intentional attempt to avoid service even in this motion filed by the Defendant where he alleged a different address but did not give more than the city and county of that address.
9-Also,In an effort to inform the Defendants about the filed lawsuit the Plaintiff used a website to show the complaint filed with the court with the case number and all Defendants listed.In addition the Plaintiff also scanned actual size copies of all the summons issued by the court and also displayed them at that website.The complaint and the court summons are all accessible at the first page on that website.The address of that website is complaintandsummons.blogspot.com.
10- On 5/9/2013 the Plaintiff filed Schedule 13d in which the Plaintiff declared at the top that a lawsuit was filed and mentioned the case number in addition to the names of all defendants.The Plaintiff also mentioned the address of website(complaintandsummons.blogspot.com) mentioned in point 9 above.