This document is a response from Neil J. Gillespie to the Florida Bar in response to an unlicensed practice of law investigation against him. It includes 13 appendices related to a previous class action lawsuit called Amscot Corp. v. Gillespie. The appendices provide documentation from the district court and appeals court proceedings of that case, including orders granting Neil Gillespie's intervention and motion to dismiss, notices of appeals, and docket records.
75th Conference on Glass Problems: A Collection of Papers Presented at the 75th Conference on Glass Problems, Greater Columbus Convention Center, Columbus, Ohio, November 3-6, 2014
Richard L. Bast, and Inter-World Development Corporation International Investigations, Incorporated v. Victor Michael Glasberg Jeanne Goldberg Cohen, Dunn & Sinclair, P.C. J. Frederick Sinclair Thomas J. Curcio Carter & Kramer, P.C. Charles Warren Kramer Jacobovitz, English & Smith, P.C. David Benjamin Smith Barbara Ozella Reves Claude David Convisser William G. Billingham Nancy Gertner Jody L. Newman Roger A. Cox, and Antonia Leigh Pettit Patricia Griest John F. Davis Mary Audrey Larkin Lois Ames Delmar D. Hartley Anthony Joseph Pettit Maddona Lea Schamp Pettit, Removed to Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Anne Connell William C. Hillman, Richard L. Bast, and Inter-World Development Corporation International Investigations, Incorporated v. John F. Davis Anthony Joseph Pettit Maddona Lea Schamp Pettit, Removed to Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Victor Michael Glasberg Jeanne Goldberg Cohen, Dunn & Sinclair, P.C. J. Frederick Sinclair Thoma
(G.R. No. 222416, June 17, 2020) Fiamette A. Ramil, Petitioner, vs. Stoneleaf Inc. / Joey de Guzman / Mac Dones / Criselda Dones, Respondents. Decision REYES, J. JR., J.
This document is a response from Neil J. Gillespie to the Florida Bar in response to an unlicensed practice of law investigation against him. It includes 13 appendices related to a previous class action lawsuit called Amscot Corp. v. Gillespie. The appendices provide documentation from the district court and appeals court proceedings of that case, including orders granting Neil Gillespie's intervention and motion to dismiss, notices of appeals, and docket records.
Original Description:
Response Appendix UPL-D, UPL Investigation No. 20133090(5) The Florida Bar
This document is a response from Neil J. Gillespie to the Florida Bar in response to an unlicensed practice of law investigation against him. It includes 13 appendices related to a previous class action lawsuit called Amscot Corp. v. Gillespie. The appendices provide documentation from the district court and appeals court proceedings of that case, including orders granting Neil Gillespie's intervention and motion to dismiss, notices of appeals, and docket records.
This document is a response from Neil J. Gillespie to the Florida Bar in response to an unlicensed practice of law investigation against him. It includes 13 appendices related to a previous class action lawsuit called Amscot Corp. v. Gillespie. The appendices provide documentation from the district court and appeals court proceedings of that case, including orders granting Neil Gillespie's intervention and motion to dismiss, notices of appeals, and docket records.
UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW INVESTIGATION NO. 20133090(5) THE FLORIDA BAR, Unlicensed Practice of Law Investigation of Ghunise L. Coaxum, UPL Bar Counsel Neil J . Gillespie, Case No. 20133090(5) Unlicensed Practice of Law Department, Orlando Branch Office Posted online on Scribd: _____________________________________/ http://www.scribd.com/doc/186736628/ Response Appendix UPL-D, UPL Investigation No. 20133090(5) Submitted in Support of Emergency Motion to Disqualify Defendants Counsel Ryan Christopher Rodems & Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA, Hillsborough Co. Florida http://www.scribd.com/doc/55960451/Emergency-Motion-to-Disqualify-Ryan-Christopher- Rodems-Barker-Rodems-Cook-05-CA-7205-J uly-09-2010 Appendix 1 Declaration of Ryan Christopher Rodems, Amscot case 8:99-cv-2795-T-26EAJ Appendix 2 Affidavit of Neil Gillespie, Amscot case 8:99-cv-2795-T-26EAJ Appendix 3 Declaration of William J . Cook, Amscot case 8:99-cv-2795-T-26EAJ Appendix 4 Declaration of Chris A. Barker, Amscot case 8:99-cv-2795-T-26EAJ Appendix 5 Notice of Serving Answers and Objections to Amscots First Set of Interrogatories to Neil Gillespie, Amscot case 8:99-cv-2795-T-26EAJ Appendix 6 Doc. 85, Order Granting Motion for Intervention as Plaintiffs and Proposed Class Representatives by Gay Ann Blomefield and Neil Gillespie; class certification denied without prejudice, Amscot case 8:99-cv-2795-T-26EAJ Appendix 7 Doc. 116, Order, denied class certification, case dismissed with prejudice, Amscot case 8:99-cv-2795-T-26EAJ Appendix 8 Doc 118, Notice of Appeal, Amscot case 8:99-cv-2795-T-26EAJ , District Court Appendix 9 J oint Stipulation For Dismissal with Prejudice, November 6, 2001, U.S. Eleventh Circuit, Amscot Appeal No. 01-14761A Appendix 10 Doc 121, Order granting dismissal with prejudice, each party bearing its own costs and attorneys fees, U.S. Eleventh Circuit, Amscot Appeal No. 01-14761A Appendix 11 PACER docket, U.S. District Court, Amscot case 8:99-cv-2795-T-26EAJ Appendix 12 PACER docket, U.S. Eleventh Circuit, Amscot Appeal No. 01-14761A Appendix 13 Gillespies Initial Brief by Robert W. Bauer, Appeal 2D08-2224, 2dDCA Florida Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 157 of 316 PageID 1048 Appendix 1 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 158 of 316 PageID 1049 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 159 of 316 PageID 1050 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 49 of 316 PageID 940 Appendix 2 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 50 of 316 PageID 941 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 51 of 316 PageID 942 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 153 of 316 PageID 1044 Appendix 3 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 154 of 316 PageID 1045 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 155 of 316 PageID 1046 Appendix 4 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 156 of 316 PageID 1047 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 112 of 316 PageID 1003 Appendix 5 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 113 of 316 PageID 1004 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 114 of 316 PageID 1005 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 115 of 316 PageID 1006 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 116 of 316 PageID 1007 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 117 of 316 PageID 1008 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 118 of 316 PageID 1009 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 119 of 316 PageID 1010 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 120 of 316 PageID 1011 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 121 of 316 PageID 1012 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 122 of 316 PageID 1013 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 123 of 316 PageID 1014 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 124 of 316 PageID 1015 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 125 of 316 PageID 1016 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 126 of 316 PageID 1017 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 127 of 316 PageID 1018 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 128 of 316 PageID 1019 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 129 of 316 PageID 1020 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 130 of 316 PageID 1021 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 131 of 316 PageID 1022 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 132 of 316 PageID 1023 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 133 of 316 PageID 1024 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 134 of 316 PageID 1025 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 135 of 316 PageID 1026 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 136 of 316 PageID 1027 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 137 of 316 PageID 1028 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 138 of 316 PageID 1029 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 139 of 316 PageID 1030 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 140 of 316 PageID 1031 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 141 of 316 PageID 1032 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 142 of 316 PageID 1033 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 143 of 316 PageID 1034 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 144 of 316 PageID 1035 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 145 of 316 PageID 1036 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 146 of 316 PageID 1037 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 147 of 316 PageID 1038 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 148 of 316 PageID 1039 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 149 of 316 PageID 1040 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 150 of 316 PageID 1041 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 92 Filed 04/25/01 Page 151 of 316 PageID 1042 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 85 Filed 03/20/01 Page 1 of 8 PageID 851 Appendix 6 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 85 Filed 03/20/01 Page 2 of 8 PageID 852 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 85 Filed 03/20/01 Page 3 of 8 PageID 853 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 85 Filed 03/20/01 Page 4 of 8 PageID 854 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 85 Filed 03/20/01 Page 5 of 8 PageID 855 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 85 Filed 03/20/01 Page 6 of 8 PageID 856 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 85 Filed 03/20/01 Page 7 of 8 PageID 857 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 85 Filed 03/20/01 Page 8 of 8 PageID 858 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 1 of 18 PageID 1340 Appendix 7 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 2 of 18 PageID 1341 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 3 of 18 PageID 1342 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 4 of 18 PageID 1343 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 5 of 18 PageID 1344 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 6 of 18 PageID 1345 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 7 of 18 PageID 1346 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 8 of 18 PageID 1347 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 9 of 18 PageID 1348 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 10 of 18 PageID 1349 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 11 of 18 PageID 1350 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 12 of 18 PageID 1351 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 13 of 18 PageID 1352 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 14 of 18 PageID 1353 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 15 of 18 PageID 1354 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 16 of 18 PageID 1355 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 17 of 18 PageID 1356 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 116 Filed 08/01/01 Page 18 of 18 PageID 1357 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 118 Filed 08/20/01 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1360 Appendix 8 Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 118 Filed 08/20/01 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1361 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT CASE l-IO .. EUGENE R. CLEMENT, GAY ANN BLOMEFIELD , and NEIL GILLESPIE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Appellants, i
1
1 I I
v. AMSCOT CORPORATION, Appellee. ______________, 1 JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE The Parties, by and th_ou(Jh tI-leir undersigrled counsel, .. flg amicably resolved this matter, pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 42 (b) move for dismissal with prejtldice ""to: th each party bearing its own fees and costs. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this day of November, 2001. RODEMS & COOK, Gray, Harris, Bobinson, Shackleford, Farrior WILLIAM J. CO K, ESQUIRE R. FERNANDEZ, ES Florida Bar No. 986194 Florida Bar No. 008 5 300 West Platt Street 501 E. Kennedy Blvd 150 Sllite 1400 Tampa, Florida 33606 Tampa, Florida 33602 (813) 489-1001 (TEL) (813) 273-5000 (TE"L) (813) 489-1008 (FAX) 273-5145 Z.:\.t to rrle :i5 for Appe11ant .. for Appellee Appendix 9 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and Eleventh Circuit Rule 26.1-1, counsel for the Appellants certify that the following persons and entities have an interest in the outcome of this case. Alpert, Jonathan L., Esq. Alpert & Ferrentino, P.A. Amscot Corporation Anthony, John A., Esq. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. Barker, Chris A., Esq. Blomefield, Gay Ann Clement, Eugene R. Cook, William J., Esq. Gillespie, Neil Gray, Harris, Robinson, Shackleford, Farrior, P.A. Lazzara, The Honorable Richard A. United States District Judge, Middle District of Florida MacKechnie, Ian Rodems, Ryan Christopher, Esq. Case 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Document 121 Filed 12/10/01 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1363 Appendix 10 ARBITRATION, CLOSED, EAJ U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:99-cv-02795-RAL Clement v. Amscot Corporation Assigned to: Judge Richard A. Lazzara Demand: $0 Case in other court: 01-14761-A Cause: 15:1640 Truth in Lending Date Filed: 12/08/1999 Date Terminated: 08/01/2001 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: Federal Question Plaintiff Eugene R. Clement individualy and on behalf of others similarly situated represented by Jonathan L Alpert Jonathan L. Alpert Suite 821 4041 Collins Ave Miami Beach, FL 33140 813-230-9915 Fax: 786-248-0436 Email: JONALPERT@AOL.COM TERMINATED: 12/18/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Scott J. Flint Scott J. Flint, PA Suite 276 695 Central Ave St Petersburg, FL 33701 727-483-8404 Email: flintlawfirm@gmail.com TERMINATED: 12/18/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY William J. Cook Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA Suite 790 501 E Kennedy Blvd Tampa, FL 33602 813/489-1001 Fax: 813/489-1008 Email: wcook@barkerrodemsandcook.com LEAD ATTORNEY V. Defendant https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?663123559727506-L_1_0-1 Appendix 11 Amscot Corporation A Florida Corporation represented by Christine Noworyta Smith GrayRobinson, P.A. 301 E. Pine St., Suite 1400 P.O. Box 3068 Orlando, FL 32802-3068 407/843-8880 LEAD ATTORNEY John A. Anthony Anthony & Partners, LLC Suite 2800 201 N Franklin St Tampa, FL 33602 813/273-5066 Fax: 813/273-5145 Email: janthony@anthonyandpartners.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Mediator Peter J. Grilli represented by Peter J. Grilli Peter J. Grilli, P.A. 3001 W. Azeele St. Tampa, FL 33609-3138 813/874-1002 Email: meditr@aol.com PRO SE V. Movant Carita M. Wells TERMINATED: 06/13/2001 represented by Carita M. Wells Carita M. Wells, Esq. 1435 w. Busch Blvd., Suite A Tampa, FL 33612 813/935-8668 PRO SE Intervenor Plaintiff Gay Ann Blomefield represented by Scott J. Flint (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY William J. Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Intervenor Plaintiff https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?663123559727506-L_1_0-1 Neil Gillespie represented by Scott J. Flint (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY William J. Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Intervenor Defendant Amscot Corporation represented by Christine Noworyta Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY John A. Anthony (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counter Claimant Amscot Corporation represented by Christine Noworyta Smith (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY John A. Anthony (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED V. Counter Defendant Gay Ann Blomefield represented by Scott J. Flint (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY William J. Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Counter Defendant Neil Gillespie represented by Scott J. Flint (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?663123559727506-L_1_0-1 William J. Cook (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Date Filed # Docket Text 12/08/1999 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT filed; jury trial demanded, injunctive relief requested (bls) (Entered: 12/10/1999) 12/08/1999 MAGISTRATE JUDGE CASE ASSIGNMENT Magistrate assigned: Elizabeth A. Jenkins (bls) (Entered: 12/10/1999) 12/08/1999 FILING FEE PAID. ( Filing Fee $ 150.00 Receipt #T002057) (bls) (Entered: 12/10/1999) 12/08/1999 SUMMONS issued for Amscot Corporation. Consent issued. (bls) (Entered: 12/10/1999) 12/08/1999 Arbitration candidate. (bls) (Entered: 12/10/1999) 12/14/1999 2 NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3.05 - TRACK 3. (ctc) (src) (Entered: 12/14/1999) 12/15/1999 3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed as to Amscot Corporation 12/10/99; Answer due on 2/8/00 for Amscot Corporation (src) (Entered: 12/16/1999) 12/20/1999 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of [2-1] track 3 notice by Eugene R. Clement (src) (Entered: 12/22/1999) 12/22/1999 5 MOTION by Eugene R. Clement with memorandum in support for leave to take discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins (src) (Entered: 12/23/1999) 01/07/2000 6 MEMORANDUM by Amscot Corporation in opposition to [5-1] motion for leave to take discovery (src) (Entered: 01/10/2000) 02/11/2000 7 CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT. (src) (Entered: 02/14/2000) 02/23/2000 8 ORDER Directing Counsel to Confer and Report. Response to joint interrogatories due 5/1/00 Preliminary Pretrial Hearing set for 9:30 5/15/00 Scheduled for Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins (s/rjc) ctc (src) (Entered: 02/24/2000) 02/29/2000 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of [8-1] order by Eugene R. Clement (src) (Entered: 03/01/2000) 02/29/2000 10 MOTION by Eugene R. Clement with memorandum in support (unopposed) to extend time to move for class certification (src) (Entered: 03/01/2000) 02/29/2000 11 ORDER denying as moot [5-1] motion for leave to take discovery ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins ) ctc (src) (Entered: 03/01/2000) 03/02/2000 12 ORDER granting [10-1] motion to extend time to move for class certification; resetting motion filing deadline for 5/8/00 ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (src) (Entered: 03/03/2000) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?663123559727506-L_1_0-1 03/09/2000 13 MOTION by Amscot Corporation with memorandum in support to dismiss complainti for failure to state claim (src) (Entered: 03/10/2000) 03/28/2000 14 FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT by Eugene R. Clement amending [1-1] complaint (Answer due 4/14/00 for Amscot Corporation ); demand (src) Modified on 03/29/2000 (Entered: 03/29/2000) 03/28/2000 15 AGREED MOTION with memorandum in support by Eugene R. Clement (agreed) to obviate filing response to defendant's motion to dismiss (dfd) (Entered: 03/29/2000) 03/30/2000 16 ORDER granting [15-1] consent motion to obviate filing response to defendant's motion to dismiss, denying as moot [13-1] motion to dismiss complaint for failure to state claim ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (src) (Entered: 03/30/2000) 04/14/2000 17 MOTION by Amscot Corporation with memorandum in support to dismiss first amended class action complaint (src) (Entered: 04/17/2000) 04/28/2000 18 RESPONSE to standard interrogatories filed by Eugene R. Clement (src) (Entered: 05/01/2000) 04/28/2000 19 MEMORANDUM by Eugene R. Clement in opposition to [17-1] motion to dismiss first amended class action complaint (src) (Entered: 05/01/2000) 05/04/2000 20 MOTION by Eugene R. Clement with memorandum in support to extend time to move for class certification (src) (Entered: 05/05/2000) 05/08/2000 22 RESPONSE to standard interrogatories filed by Amscot Corporation (src) (Entered: 05/09/2000) 05/09/2000 21 ORDER granting [20-1] motion to extend time to move for class certification. Plaintiff shall have up to 7/7/00 to file motion for class certification. ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (src) (Entered: 05/09/2000) 05/15/2000 23 PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE held on 5/15/00 before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins. Parties are directed to attend mediation between 7/15/01 & 9/1/01. Parties will select their own mediator. Court Reporter: Diane Montana (src) (Entered: 05/16/2000) 05/16/2000 24 ORDER on preliminary pretrial conference. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins ) ctc (src) (Entered: 05/17/2000) 05/18/2000 25 CASE MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULING ORDER setting Third-Party/Joinder deadline on 9/1/00; Discovery cutoff 7/1/01; dispositive motion filing deadline for 9/1/01 Pretrial conference for 9:30 2/7/02; Scheduled for Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins ( signed by Deputy Clerk ) ctc (src) (Entered: 05/19/2000) 05/18/2000 DEADLINE updated; setting jury trial for term commencing 3/4/02 scheduled for Judge Richard A. Lazzara (src) Modified on 05/19/2000 (Entered: 05/19/2000) 07/07/2000 26 MOTION by Eugene R. Clement for class certification (sak) (Entered: 07/10/2000) 07/07/2000 27 MEMORANDUM by Eugene R. Clement in support of [26-1] motion for class certification. (sak) (Entered: 07/10/2000) 07/07/2000 28 NOTICE of filing deposition transcripts of Bill Worling, Ian Andrew MacKechnie and Ian MacKechnie in support of motion for class certification by Eugene R. Clement. (sak) (Entered: 07/10/2000) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?663123559727506-L_1_0-1 07/07/2000 29 DEPOSITION of Bill Worling by Eugene R. Clement re: [26-1] motion for class certification. (Transcript filed separately.) (sak) (Entered: 07/10/2000) 07/07/2000 30 DEPOSITION of Ian Andrew MacKechnie by Eugene R. Clement re: [26-1] motion for class certification. (Transcript filed separately.) (sak) (Entered: 07/10/2000) 07/07/2000 31 DEPOSITION of Ian MacKechnie by Eugene R. Clement re: [26-1] motion for class certification. (Transcript filed separately.) (sak) (Entered: 07/10/2000) 07/07/2000 32 REQUEST for oral argument by Eugene R. Clement re: [26-1] motion for class certification. (sak) (Entered: 07/10/2000) 07/07/2000 33 NOTICE of filing unreported authorities cited in memorandum in support of motion for class certification by Eugene R. Clement. (Cases cited filed under separate cover.) (sak) (Entered: 07/10/2000) 07/12/2000 34 CONSENTED MOTION and incorporated memorandum of law by Eugene R. Clement (unopposed) to extend time to file memorandum in response to motion for class certification (bls) (Entered: 07/13/2000) 07/13/2000 35 ORDER granting [34-1] unopposed motion to extend time to file memorandum in response to motion for class certification; response to motion set to 8/11/00 for [26-1] motion for class certification by plaintiff ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (eec) (Entered: 07/14/2000) 07/18/2000 36 NOTICE of filing supplemental authority by Eugene R. Clement in opposition to [17-1] motion to dismiss first amended class action complaint (rjc) (Entered: 07/19/2000) 08/08/2000 37 MOTION by Amscot Corporation with memorandum in support to extend time until 8/31/00 in which to respond to motion for class certification (rm) (Entered: 08/09/2000) 08/10/2000 38 ORDER granting [37-1] motion to extend time until 8/31/00 in which to respond to motion for class certification, response to motion set to 8/31/00 for [26-1] motion for class certification by plaintiff No further extensions will be granted absent compelling and extraordinary circumstances. (Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara) ctc (rm) (Entered: 08/11/2000) 08/28/2000 39 MOTION by Amscot Corporation with memorandum in support to compel more complete responses to first set of interrogatories referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins (rm) (Entered: 08/29/2000) 08/31/2000 40 RESPONSE by Amscot Corporation in opposition to [26-1] motion for class certification (rm) (Entered: 09/01/2000) 08/31/2000 41 MOTION by Amscot Corporation with memorandum in support to compel plaintiff to respond to certified question and related questions referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins (rm) (Entered: 09/01/2000) 08/31/2000 42 ORDER denying without prejudice [39-1] motion to compel more complete responses to first set of interrogatories. Defendant may refile the motion in compliance with the local rule. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins) ctc (rm) (Entered: 09/01/2000) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?663123559727506-L_1_0-1 08/31/2000 43 NOTICE of filing deposition of Eugene R. Clement with related documentation by Amscot Corporation (rm) (Entered: 09/01/2000) 08/31/2000 44 DEPOSITION with exhibits of Eugene R. Clement by Amscot Corporation re: [17-1] motion to dismiss first amended class action complaint Transcript filed separately. (rm) (Entered: 09/01/2000) 09/08/2000 45 ORDER denying [17-1] motion to dismiss first amended class action complaint (Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara) ctc (rm) (Entered: 09/11/2000) 09/18/2000 46 RESPONSE by Eugene R. Clement in opposition to [41-1] motion to compel plaintiff to respond to certified question and related questions (rm) (Entered: 09/19/2000) 09/18/2000 47 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Eugene R. Clement with memorandum in support for leave to file reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's motion for class certification Proposed reply attached. (rm) Modified on 09/19/2000 (Entered: 09/19/2000) 09/20/2000 48 ORDER granting [41-1] motion to compel plaintiff to respond to certified question and related questions granting [47-1] consent motion for leave to file reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's motion for class certification to the extent that plaintiff may file a reply 10 days after defendant files its supplement to its response. The clerk shall not docket the reply that was submitted along with the unopposed motion (Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara) ctc (rm) (Entered: 09/21/2000) 09/22/2000 49 ANSWER, affirmative defenses and counterclaim by Amscot Corporation to [14-1] first amended complaint (rm) (Entered: 09/25/2000) 10/10/2000 50 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Amscot Corporation with memorandum in support (unopposed) to extend time to continue deposition of plaintiff as to certified question and related questions, due to plaintiff's illness referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins (rm) (Entered: 10/11/2000) 10/12/2000 51 ORDER granting [50-1] consent motion to extend time to continue deposition of plaintiff as to certified question and related questions, due to plaintiff's illness (Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara) ctc (rm) (Entered: 10/13/2000) 10/26/2000 52 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE by Amscot Corporation in opposition to [26-1] motion for class certification. (sak) (Entered: 10/27/2000) 10/26/2000 53 NOTICE of filing deposition transcript of continued deposition of Eugene R. Clement in support of supplemental response in opposition to motion for class certification by Amscot Corporation. (sak) (Entered: 10/27/2000) 10/26/2000 54 DEPOSITION of Eugene R. Clement by Amscot Corporation re: [52-1] supplemental response in opposition to motion for class certification. (Transcript filed separately.) (sak) (Entered: 10/27/2000) 11/09/2000 55 REPLY by Eugene R. Clement to response to [26-1] motion for class certification (rm) (Entered: 11/15/2000) 11/09/2000 56 MOTION with memorandum in support to intervene by Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie as plaintiffs and proposed class representatives (rm) (Entered: 11/15/2000) 11/21/2000 57 NOTICE of supplemental authority in support of motion for class certification by Eugene R. Clement (rm) (Entered: 11/22/2000) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?663123559727506-L_1_0-1 11/28/2000 58 RESPONSE by Amscot Corporation in opposition to [56-1] motion to intervene by Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie as plaintiffs and proposed class representatives (rm) (Entered: 11/29/2000) 12/11/2000 59 NOTICE of supplemental authority in opposition to motion for class certification by Amscot Corporation (rm) (Entered: 12/12/2000) 12/14/2000 60 JOINT MOTION (STIPULATION) by Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie (stipulation) to substitute the firm of Barker, Rodems and Cook in place of the firm of Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino and Cook (rm) (Entered: 12/15/2000) 12/14/2000 61 NOTICE of lien by Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie (rm) (Entered: 12/15/2000) 12/14/2000 62 NOTICE of supplemental authority in opposition to motion for class certification by Amscot Corporation (rm) (Entered: 12/15/2000) 12/18/2000 63 ORDER granting [60-1] joint stipulation to substitute the firm of Barker, Rodems and Cook in place of the firm of Alpert, Barker, Rodems, Ferrentino and Cook; terminated attorney Scott J. Flint and attorney William J. Cook for Eugene R. Clement. ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (eec) (Entered: 12/19/2000) 12/18/2000 64 THIRD NOTICE of filing supplemental authority by Amscot Corporation re: [58-1] opposition response to motion for class certification (jlh) (Entered: 12/19/2000) 12/18/2000 65 VERIFIED NOTICE of filing documents pertaining to transactions regarding Gay Ann Blomefield and Neil Gillespie by Amscot Corporation (jlh) (Entered: 12/19/2000) 12/26/2000 66 FOURTH NOTICE of supplemental authority in support of opposition to motion for class certification by Amscot Corporation (rm) (Entered: 12/27/2000) 12/28/2000 67 MOTION by Amscot Corporation with memorandum in support for partial stay of Local Rule 4.04(e) (rm) (Entered: 12/29/2000) 01/03/2001 68 FIFTH NOTICE of supplemental authority in support of opposition to motion for class certification by Amscot Corporation (rm) (Entered: 01/04/2001) 01/08/2001 69 MOTION by Amscot Corporation for protective order in response to subpoena for production of documents directed to the attorney individually referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins. STRICKEN PURSUANT TO [70-1] ORDER DATED 1/10/01. (rm) Modified on 01/11/2001 (Entered: 01/09/2001) 01/10/2001 70 ORDER striking [69-1] motion for protective order in response to subpoena for production of documents directed to the attorney individually. The clerk is directed to strike the motion and return it to counsel for plaintiff. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins) ctc (rm) (Entered: 01/11/2001) 01/12/2001 71 MOTION by Eugene R. Clement with memorandum in support to extend time until 1/26/01 in which to respond to motion for partial stay of Local Rule 4.04(e) (rm) (Entered: 01/12/2001) 01/16/2001 72 ORDER granting [71-1] motion to extend time until 1/26/01 in which to respond to motion for partial stay of Local Rule 4.04(e), response to motion set to 1/26/01 for [67-1] motion for partial stay of Local Rule 4.04(e) by defendant (Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara) ctc (rm) (Entered: 01/17/2001) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?663123559727506-L_1_0-1 01/22/2001 73 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Eugene R. Clement with memorandum in support (unopposed) for leave to file memorandum in response to defendant's notices of supplemental authority in opposition to motion for class certification Proposed response attached. (rm) Modified on 01/23/2001 (Entered: 01/23/2001) 01/24/2001 74 MOTION by Carita M. Wells for protective order referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins (jlh) (Entered: 01/25/2001) 01/24/2001 75 ORDER granting [73-1] consent motion (unopposed) for leave to file memorandum in response to defendant's notices of supplemental authority in opposition to motion for class certification ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 01/25/2001) 01/26/2001 76 MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE by Eugene R. Clement to [67-1] motion for partial stay of Local Rule 4.04(e) (jnb) (Entered: 01/29/2001) 01/26/2001 77 ORDER denying [74-1] motion for protective order. However, if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute they may request a telephonic hearing during the deposition by contacting chambers. ( Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins ) ctc (jnb) (Entered: 01/29/2001) 01/30/2001 78 ORDER that [67-1] motion for partial stay of Local Rule 4.04(e) is referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins, that [76-1] motion response is referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins (Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara) ctc (rm) (Entered: 01/31/2001) 01/31/2001 79 SECOND NOTICE of supplemental authority in support of plaintiff's motion for class certification by Eugene R. Clement (rm) (Entered: 02/01/2001) 02/02/2001 80 NOTICE of filing report and recommendation in connection with Amsoct's fourth notice of supplemental authority in opposition to motion for class certification by Amscot Corporation (rm) (Entered: 02/05/2001) 02/07/2001 81 RESPONSE by Amscot Corporation in opposition to [79-1] notice (rm) (Entered: 02/08/2001) 02/09/2001 82 SIXTH NOTICE of supplemental authority in opposition to motion for class certification by Amscot Corporation (rm) (Entered: 02/12/2001) 03/12/2001 83 NOTICE of supplemental authority in support of plaintiff's motion for class certification by Eugene R. Clement (rm) (Entered: 03/12/2001) 03/12/2001 84 SEVENTH NOTICE of supplemental authority in opposition to motion for class certification by Amscot Corporation (rm) (Entered: 03/13/2001) 03/20/2001 85 ORDER granting [56-1] motion to intervene by Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie as plaintiffs and proposed class representatives set class action complaint deadline at 3/26/01 for Neil Gillespie, for Gay Ann Blomefield denying without prejudice [26-1] motion for class certification, to filing an amended motion for class certification by 4/23/01. Defendant shall file a response to motion for class certification by 5/18/01. (Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara) ctc (rm) (Entered: 03/20/2001) 03/23/2001 86 INTERVENOR'S COMPLAINT by Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie against Amscot Corporation. Jury demand. (rm) (Entered: 03/26/2001) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?663123559727506-L_1_0-1 03/27/2001 87 ANSWER and affirmative defenses by Amscot Corporation to [86-1] intervenor complaint (rm) (Entered: 03/28/2001) 03/27/2001 87 COUNTERCLAIM by Amscot Corporation against Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie (rm) (Entered: 03/28/2001) 03/28/2001 88 ORDER denying without prejudice [67-1] motion for partial stay of Local Rule 4.04(e) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins) ctc (rm) (Entered: 03/28/2001) 04/23/2001 89 MOTION by Eugene R. Clement to certify class action (jlh) (Entered: 04/24/2001) 04/23/2001 90 MOTION by Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie for leave to file memorandum in excess of page limit (jlh) (Entered: 04/24/2001) 04/25/2001 91 ORDER granting [90-1] motion for leave to file memorandum in excess of page limit. Plaintiffs shall have a 10 page extension. (Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara) ctc (rm) (Entered: 04/26/2001) 04/25/2001 92 MEMORANDUM by Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie in support of [89-1] motion to certify class action (rm) (Entered: 04/26/2001) 05/09/2001 93 NOTICE of supplemental authority in support of renewed motion for class certification by Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie (rm) (Entered: 05/10/2001) 05/14/2001 94 MOTION by Amscot Corporation to extend time until 6/4/01 in which to file response to renewed motion for class certification (rm) (Entered: 05/15/2001) 05/16/2001 95 ORDER granting [94-1] motion to extend time until 6/4/01 in which to file response to renewed motion for class certification, response to motion set to 6/4/01 for [89-1] motion to certify class action by plaintiff ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 05/16/2001) 06/01/2001 96 MOTION by Amscot Corporation with memorandum in support to extend time until 6/14/01 in which to respond to renewed motion for class certification (rm) (Entered: 06/04/2001) 06/05/2001 97 ORDER granting [96-1] motion to extend time until 6/14/01 in which to respond to renewed motion for class certification response to motion set to 6/14/01 for [89-1] motion to certify class action by plaintiff (Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara) ctc (rm) (Entered: 06/05/2001) 06/08/2001 98 MOTION by Carita M. Wells to strike name from service list (jlh) (Entered: 06/11/2001) 06/12/2001 ENDORSED ORDER granting [98-1] motion to strike name from service list ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/13/2001) 06/14/2001 99 MOTION by Amscot Corporation for leave to file response in opposition to renewed motion for class certification in excess of page limit (jlh) (Entered: 06/15/2001) 06/18/2001 100 ORDER granting [99-1] motion for leave to file response in opposition to renewed motion for class certification in excess of page limit ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (jlh) (Entered: 06/19/2001) 06/18/2001 101 RESPONSE by Amscot Corporation in opposition to [89-1] motion to certify class action (jlh) (Entered: 06/19/2001) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?663123559727506-L_1_0-1 06/18/2001 102 NOTICE of filing original deposition in support in opposition to renewed motion for class certification by Amscot Corporation (jlh) (Entered: 06/19/2001) 06/18/2001 103 DEPOSITION of Gay Ann Blomefield by Amscot Corporation re: [101-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (jlh) (Entered: 06/19/2001) 06/18/2001 104 DEPOSITION of Neil J. Gillespie by Amscot Corporation re: [101-1] opposition response Transcript filed separately. (jlh) (Entered: 06/19/2001) 06/18/2001 105 ORDER granting [99-1] motion for leave to file response in opposition to renewed motion for class certification in excess of page limit ( Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara ) ctc (jlg) (Entered: 06/19/2001) 06/28/2001 106 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Amscot Corporation (unopposed) to extend time discovery until 8/1/01 referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins (rm) (Entered: 06/29/2001) 07/02/2001 107 ORDER granting [106-1] consent motion to extend discovery until 8/1/01, reset discovery due for 8/1/01 (Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara) ctc (plk) (Entered: 07/02/2001) 07/09/2001 108 NOTICE of mediation conference set for 8/13/01 at 9:30 by Peter J. Grilli (rm) (Entered: 07/09/2001) 07/10/2001 109 ORDER appointing Peter J. Grilli as mediator in this action. (Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara) ctc (rm) (Entered: 07/11/2001) 07/11/2001 110 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie with memorandum in support (unopposed) for leave to file reply brief to Amscot's memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification Proposed reply brief attached. (rm) Modified on 07/12/2001 (Entered: 07/12/2001) 07/11/2001 111 NOTICE of filing deposition of Eileen Vasquez in support of renewed motion for class certification by Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie (rm) (Entered: 07/12/2001) 07/11/2001 112 DEPOSITION of Eileen Vasquez by Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie re: [89-1] motion to certify class action Transcript filed separately. (rm) (Entered: 07/12/2001) 07/16/2001 113 ORDER granting [110-1] consent motion for leave to file reply brief to Amscot's memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification (Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara) ctc (rm) (Entered: 07/17/2001) 07/16/2001 114 MEMORANDUM by Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie in support of [89-1] motion to certify class action (rm) (Entered: 07/17/2001) 07/31/2001 115 MOTION by Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie with memorandum in support to compel discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins (rm) (Entered: 08/01/2001) 08/01/2001 116 ORDER denying [89-1] motion to certify class action. Count I is dismissed with prejudice. Counts II and III are dismissed without prejudice to bringing them in state court. The clerk is directed to close this file. (Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara) ctc (rm) (Entered: 08/02/2001) https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?663123559727506-L_1_0-1 08/01/2001 CASE CLOSED. (rm) (Entered: 08/02/2001) 08/01/2001 MOTION(S) no longer referred: [115-1] motion to compel discovery, [106-1] consent motion (unopposed) to extend time discovery until 8/1/01, [74-1] motion for protective order, [69-1] motion for protective order in response to subpoena for production of documents directed to the attorney individually, [50-1] consent motion (unopposed) to extend time to continue deposition of plaintiff as to certified question and related questions, due to plaintiff's illness, [41-1] motion to compel plaintiff to respond to certified question and related questions, [39-1] motion to compel more complete responses to first set of interrogatories (plk) (Entered: 08/21/2001) 08/01/2001 MOTION(S) no longer referred: [39-1] motion to compel more complete responses to first set of interrogatories, [5-1] motion for leave to take discovery (plk) (Entered: 08/21/2001) 08/02/2001 117 ORDER denying as moot [115-1] motion to compel discovery (Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara) ctc (rm) (Entered: 08/03/2001) 08/20/2001 118 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Eugene R. Clement, Gay Ann Blomefield, Neil Gillespie re: [116-1] order. Filing fee $ 105.00; Receipt #T011535; Transcript information form due 9/4/01 ctc (plk) (Entered: 08/21/2001) 08/21/2001 TRANSMITTAL of initial appeal package to USCA consisting of certified copies of notice of appeal, docket sheet, order/judgment being appealed, and motion, if applicable, re: [118-1] appeal. Transcript information form sent. (plk) (Entered: 08/21/2001) 08/28/2001 NOTICE dated 8/23/01 assigning 11th Circuit case number re: [118-1] appeal. Appeal number assigned: USCA case #: 01-14761-A (crs) (Entered: 08/29/2001) 08/29/2001 119 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM filed re: [118-1] appeal; transcript not requested; Certificate of readiness due 9/12/01. USCA #01-14761-A (crs) (Entered: 08/29/2001) 09/25/2001 120 CERTIFICATE of readiness with certified copies of indexed district court docket sheet sent to USCA re: [118-1] appeal (ROA consists of: Volume pleadings: 4; Volume exhibits: 4 folders which include documents filed separately;) USCA#01-14761-A (crs) (Entered: 09/25/2001) 10/17/2001 ACKNOWLEDGMENT by USCA of receiving certificate of readiness on 9/28/01 re: [118-1] appeal. USCA #01-14761-A (crs) (Entered: 10/17/2001) 12/10/2001 121 ORDER (USCA) dismissing [118-1] appeal. The parties joint stipulation for dismissal of this appeal with prejudice, which is construed as a motion to dismiss this appeal with prejudice, with the parties bearing their own costs and attorney's fee, is granted. Issued as the mandate: 12/7/01. USCA #01-14761-AA (crs) (Entered: 12/10/2001) PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 10/30/2013 12:13:55 PACER Login: ng0053 Client Code: njg Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 8:99-cv-02795-RAL https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?663123559727506-L_1_0-1 Billable Pages: 10 Cost: 1.00 https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?663123559727506-L_1_0-1 United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 56 Forsyth Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303-2289 (404) 335-6100 Closed Docket #: 01-14761-AA Short Style: Eugene R. Clement v. Amscot Corporation Docket Date: 08/23/2001 Lead Case: Agency: Nature of Suit: Other: Statutory Actions Misc. Type: Clerk: Dixon, Eleanor Clerk Phone: (404) 335-6172 District Information Docket #: 99-02795-CV-T-26 Judge: Richard A. Lazzara Dkt Date: 12/08/1999 District: Florida-Middle NOA Date: 08/20/2001 Office: MFL-Tampa Secondary Case Information Docket #: Judge: Dkt Date: / / Case Relationships Docket # Short Style Relation Status Pending Motions No Pending Motions http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/CHMSDKTP.FWX Appendix 12 United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 56 Forsyth Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303-2289 (404) 335-6100 01-14761-AA Eugene R. Clement v. Amscot Corporation EUGENE R. CLEMENT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, GAY ANN BLOMEFIELD, NEIL GILLESPIE, Plaintiffs-Intervenors Counter-Defendants Appellants, versus AMSCOT CORPORATION, A Florida Corporation, http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/CHMSDKTP.FWX Defendant-Intervenor Counter-Claimant Appellee. United States Court OF Appeals FOR the Eleventh Circuit 56 Forsyth Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303-2289 (404) 335-6100 Appellant Appellant Attorney Eugene R. Clement Address Not On File Record Excerpts filed on 10/03/2001 Fees: Paid on 08/20/2001 William John Cook Barker, Rodems & Cook P.A. 400 N ASHLEY DR STE 2100 TAMPA, FL 33602-4350 (813) 489-1001 Fax: (813) 489-1008 wcook@barkerrodemsandcook.com No Briefing Information Found. Gay Ann Blomefield Address Not On File No Briefing Information Found. Fees: Paid on 08/20/2001 William John Cook Barker, Rodems & Cook P.A. 400 N ASHLEY DR STE 2100 TAMPA, FL 33602-4350 (813) 489-1001 Fax: (813) 489-1008 wcook@barkerrodemsandcook.com No Briefing Information Found. Neil Gillespie Address Not On File Appellant Brief Filed filed on 10/03/2001 Fees: Paid on 08/20/2001 William John Cook Barker, Rodems & Cook P.A. 400 N ASHLEY DR STE 2100 TAMPA, FL 33602-4350 (813) 489-1001 Fax: (813) 489-1008 wcook@barkerrodemsandcook.com No Briefing Information Found. Appellee Appellee Attorney Amscot Corporation Address Not On File Person Not Found No Briefing Information Found. http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/CHMSDKTP.FWX John A. Anthony GrayRobinson, P.A. 201 N FRANKLIN ST STE 2200 TAMPA, FL 33602-5822 (813) 273-5066 Fax: (813) 221-4113 janthony@gray-robinson.com No Briefing Information Found. Initial Service Lara R. Fernandez 101 E KENNEDY BLVD STE 2700 TAMPA, FL 33602-5150 (813) 227-7404 Fax: (813) 229-6553 lfernandez@trenam.com
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 56 Forsyth Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303-2289 (404) 335-6100 File Date Entry Party Pending 08/20/2001 Fee Status: Paid (08/20/01) for Eugene R. Clement Eugene R. Clement No 08/20/2001 Fee Status: Paid (08/20/01) for Gay Ann Blomefield Gay Ann Blomefield No 08/20/2001 Fee Status: Paid (08/20/01) for Neil Gillespie Neil Gillespie No 08/24/2001 DKT7CIV (Docketing 7) issued. cc: Loesch, Sheryl L. cc: Cook, William J. cc: Anthony, John A. No 08/24/2001 Briefing Notice Issued No 09/04/2001 Appearance Form Submitted: William J. Cook William John Cook No 09/04/2001 Transcript Order Form: Appellants- No transcript required No 09/04/2001 Civil Appeal Statement Form- Appellants No 09/05/2001 Probable Jurisdiction Noted No http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/CHMSDKTP.FWX 09/07/2001 Appearance Form Submitted: John A. Anthony John A. Anthony No 09/28/2001 Certificate of Readiness No 10/03/2001 Appellant's Brief Filed: Appellants-Clement, Eugene R., Blomefield, Gay Ann, and Gillespie, Neil (Atty: William J. Cook) Neil Gillespie No 10/03/2001 Record Excerpts: Appellant-Clement, Eugene R. (Atty: William J. Cook) Eugene R. Clement No 11/09/2001 Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Appeal with Prejudice No 12/07/2001 The parties joint stipulation for dismissal of this appeal with prejudice, which is construed as a motion to dismiss this appeal with prejudice, with the parties bearing their own costs and attorney fees, is GRANTED(JLE/RB).j No 12/07/2001 DIS-4 (Dismissal 4 Letter) issued. cc: Cook, William J. cc: Anthony, John A. To: Loesch, Sheryl L. No 12/07/2001 CASE CLOSED No Send Comment Change Client Code Search http://pacer.ca11.uscourts.gov/CHMSDKTP.FWX INTHEDISTRICTCOURTOFAPPEALOFTHESTATEOFFLORIDA SECONDDISTRICT APPELLATEDIVISION NEILJ. GILLESPIE, APPELLATECASENO.: Defendant/Appellant, LowerCourtCaseNo. 05-CA-007205 vs. BARKER,RODEMS &COOK,P.A., aFloridaCorporation;and WILLIAMJ. COOK, Plaintiffs/Appellees. / ONAPPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORTHE THIRTEENTHJUDICIALCIRCUITOFFLORIDA APPELLANT'SINITIALBRIEF RobertW. Bauer,Esq. CounselfortheAppellant,NeilJ. Gillespie FloridaBarNo. 0011058 2815NW13 th Street, Suite200E Gainesville,Florida Telephone: (352)375-5960 Fax: (352)337-2518 OralArgumentRequested Appendix 13 TABLEOFCONTENTS TableofCitations, Statutes,andOtherAuthorities iii StatementoftheCaseandFacts v SummaryofArgument viii Argument: StandardofReview x I. THETRIALCOURTERREDINAWARDING ATTORNEY'SFEESUNDER 57.105,FLA. STAT. (2003)TOTHEAPPELLEESBECAUSETHEPROSE APPELLANTHADAGOODFAITHBELIEFTHAT HISCLAIMWAS SUPPORTEDBYLAW 1 A. Thiscourtshouldreversetheawardofattorney'sfees in favoroftheappelleesbecausethetrialcourtabusedits discretioninholdingaproselitigantandaprofessional attorneytothesamestandardofcare 3 0 B. Thiscourtshouldreversetheawardofattorney'sfees in favoroftheappelleesbecausethetrialcourterredin findingthattheappellant'slawsuitwasfrivolous 8 Conclusion 13 CertificateofService 14 CertificateofCompliance 15 11 TABLE OF CITATIONS, STATUTES, AND OTHER AUTHORITIES 57.105, Fla. Stat. (2003) viii, 1 Bacon v. American Federation ofState, County, and Municipal Employees Council #13 795 F.2d 33 (7th Cir. 1986) 2, 3, 4 Biermann v. Cook 619 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) 4, 5 Bowen v. Brewer 936 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) 9 Clark v. Green 814 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1987) 3 Cankaris v. Cankaris 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) x Connelly v. Old Bridge Village Co-Op, Inc. 915 So.2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) 1 Graefv. Dames & Moore Group, Inc. 957 So.2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) x Harlow v. Bergson 893 F.2d 187 (8th Cir. 1990) 3 Langford v. Ferrera 823 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) 9 Mason v. Highlands County Bd. OfCounty Com 'rs 817 So.2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) 1 Mercury Ins. Co. v. Coatney 910 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) x Peyton v. Horner 920 So.2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) x 111 Schulmeister v. Yaffe 912 So.2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) 1 Ship Construction and Funding Services (USA), Inc. v. Star Cruises, PLC 135 Fed. Appx. 218 (11th Cir. 2005) 8, 9 StagI v. Bridgers 807 So.2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) 1, 8,9,10 Turovets v. Khromov 943 So.2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) x, 2, 3 Visoly v. Security Pacific Credit Corp. 768 So.2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) 1, 5, 6 Yakavonis v. Dolphin Petroleum, Inc. 934 So.2d 246 (Fla. 4th 2006) x IV STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS This is a case of an inexperienced, unknowledgeable pro se litigant who filed a nlotion which he in good faith believed was supported by material facts being sanctioned because he does not possess the skills and qualities of an attorney. His motion was a carbon copy of a motion filed by the opposing counsel. In his confusion about the proper format of this kind of motion, the pro se appellant used the opposing counsel's motion as an example. He believed that following the example of practiced attorneys would ensure that his motion would be properly styled. As a pro se appellant, he should not be held to the standard of a licensed attorney and should instead be granted leniency by the court. Barker, Rodems, and Cook represented the appellant in an action against Amscot Corporation, and it was this case that led to the action before this Court. R. at 11. The case ended in a settlement in which each of the three plaintiffs, including the appellant, received $2,000, and Barker, Rodems, and Cook were awarded $50,000 for attorney's fees and costs. R. at 12. The appellant became suspicious of his attorneys' motives during the course of settlement discussions because of the attorneys' insistence that the true barrier to settling the case was paying the plaintiffs. R. at 13-14. The appellant was told that the $50,000 award of attorney's fees was ordered by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11 th Circuit. R at 8. However, this v was not true, as that Court actually dismissed the case with prejudic,e, and ordered each party to pay their own attorney's fees and costs. R. at 31. Only later did the law finn disclose to the appellant how much was actually expended in legal fees, and the figure was much less than the $50,000 the firm received in the settlement. R. at 13. This discrepancy in the actual costs and expenses and those awarded led the appellant to file a complaint against his former attorneys for breach of contract and fraud. R. at 8-31. After the appellant filed his initial complaint, the Oefendants responded with a "Motion to Dismiss and Strike." R. at 32-33. Parts of this motion were not successful. R. at 36-37. Later, the Defendants filed their "Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim," which made claims against the appellant for libel. R. at 38-48. The appellant responded to this motion with "Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim," in which the appellant made claims in paragraphs 3-8 that were almost identical to those made in the Defendants' previous "Motion to Dismiss and Strike." R. at 49-50. This pleading prompted the Defendants to file "Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes," which was later amended. R. at 55-57; 82-105. Attorney's fees were eventually awarded against the appellant on March 27, 2008. R. at 204-205. On April 25, 2008, the appellant filed his "Notice of Appeal." R. at 206-208. The issue on review for this Court is whether the lower VI court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees against the appellant. The appellant respectfully asks this Court to reverse the trial court's award of attorney's fees against the appellant. VII SUMMARYOFARGUMENT Thisappealaddresseswhetherattorney'sfees shouldbeawardedagainsta proseappellantwholackstheeducationandexperienceofanattorneywhenhis claimheingoodfaithbelievedtobesupportedbymaterialfacts. Theappellant followedtheexampleofopposingcounselindraftingthemotionthatwasthe subjectof theawardofattorney'sfees andbelievedthatbecausehewasfollowing theirexamplethattheclaimswithinhismotionweresupportedbymaterialfacts. Anawardforattorney'sfees isproperwhenaclaimiscompletelydevoidofmerit orusedas amethodofabusingthejusticesystem. Thisdidnotoccurinthiscase. Thelowercourtawardedattorney'sfees againsttheproseappellant. Abuse of discretionisthestandardofreviewofawardsofattorney'sfeesunder57.105, Fla. Stat. (2003). ThisCourtshouldreversetheawardofattorney'sfeesbecause thelowercourtabuseditsdiscretioninnotgrantingtheappellantleniencydueto hisprosestatus. Givingproselitigantsleniencyduetotheirinexperiencewiththe legalsystemhasfound supportinthecourtsandiswithintheirdiscretion. Itis unfairtoexpectaproselitigantto actinthesamemannerasanattorneywould. ThisCourtshouldgranttheappellantthatleniency. Thelowercourtalsoerredinfindingtheappellant'smotiontobefrivolous becausetheappellantwithdrewthemotionbeforeitwasevercompletelyheardby thecourt. Todetermineifamotionorpleadingmeritsanawardofattorney'sfees VIII against the presenting party, it is examined at the time it is initially filed. If it sufficient then, it is not frivolous and does not merit and award of attorney's fees. The appellant's motion was sufficient when initially filed, and because it was never entirely heard by the court, it never even became frivolous. This Court should reverse the trial court's award of attorney's fees against the appellant because he should be granted leniency due to his pro se status and the motion he filed was not frivolous. IX STANDARDOFREVIEW Thetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionwhenitawardedattorney'sfees under 57.105,Fla. Stat. (2003)infavoroftheappelleeswhentheproseappellant's pleadingwasnotfrivolous andthecourtdidnottograntleniencytotheprose appellant. Thestandardofreviewofanawardofattomey'sfees under57.105, Fla. Stat. (2003)is abuseofdiscretion. Peyton v. Horner, 920 So.2d180(Fla. 2d DCA2006); Turovets v. Khromov, 943 So.2d246(Fla. 4th2006); Yakavonis v. Dolphin Petroleum, Inc., 934So.2d615 (Fla. 4th2006);Mercury Ins. Co. v. Coatney, 910So.2d925 (Fla. 1st2005); Grae(v. Dames & Moore Group, Inc., 957 So.2d257(Fla. 2dDCA2003). Discretionisabusedifnoreasonablemancould joininthedecisionofthetrialcourt. Cankaris v. Cankaris, 382So.2d1197(Fla. 1980). x ARGUMENT I. THETRIALCOURTERREDINAWARDINGATTORNEY'SFEES UNDER57.105,FLA. STAT. (2003)TOTHEAPPELLEES BECAUSETHE PROSEAPPELLANTHADAGOODFAITHBELIEFTHATHIS CLAIMWAS SUPPORTEDBYMATERIALFACTS. Thetrialcourt'sawardofattorney'sfees againsttheproseappellantwas improperbecausethemotionthatwasthesubjectoftheawardwasnotfrivolous becausetheappellantbelieveditwassupportedbynecessarymaterialfacts. 57.105,Fla. Stat. (2003)providesthatwhena"losingparty...kneworshould haveknownthataclaim... wasnotsupportedbythematerialfactsnecessaryto establishtheclaim"acourt"shallawardareasonableattorney'sfeetobepaidto theprevailingparty." Thisstatutehasbeeninterpretedbycourtsto meanthata claimmustbecompletelyandclearlydevoidofmeritandfacts beforeattorney's fees maybeawarded. Stagl v. Bridgers, 807So.2d 177(Fla. 2dDCA2002); Mason v. Highlands County Bd. ofCounty Com 'rs, 817 So.2d922(Fla.2dDCA 2002). See also Schulmeister v. Yaffe, 912 So.2d53 (Fla.4thDCA2005); Visoly v. Security Pacific Credit Corp., 768 So.2d482(Fla. 3dDCA2000). Ifaclaimis "arguablysupportableunderthefacts andlaw,"courtshavefoundthatitdoesnot violatethestatute. Connelly v. Old Bridge Village Co-Op, Inc. 915 So.2d652(Fla. 2dDCA2005). Asaproselitigant,theappellantdoesnothavethesoundunderstandingand 1 foundation in the knowledge and practice of law that the appellees, attorneys, have. When the appellant filed his "Plaintiffs Motion to Strike and Dismiss Counterclaim" on February 10, 2006, he believed that it was supported by material facts because his motion was essentially identical to the appellees' "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike," filed September 9, 2005. R. at 34-35; 49-50. He chose to use their motion as an example because he was filing the same motion they had. By following the lead of licensed attorneys, the appellant believed he was drafting his motion properly. A reasonable pro se litigant in the appellants' position with the same level of experience in this procedural context would have filed this motion following the example of professional attorneys believing it was the proper format. Bacon v. American Federation o(State, County, and Municipal Employees Council #13,795 F.2d 33 (7th Cir. 1986). The appellant's claim did not violate 57.105, Fla. Stat. (2003) because when the claim was filed, he in good faith believed it was supported by material facts. The appellant mimicked the actions of the experienced opposing counsel because he had no experience drafting motions. He believed that by doing so, his motion would be properly drafted. The award of attorney's fees against the appellal1t was improper because his motion did not violate 57.105, Fla. Stat. (2003), and this court should show deference to the appellant in applying the statute because he is a pro se litigant and lacks the legal experience of an attorney. 2 A. Thiscourtshouldreversetheawardofattorney'sfees infavoroftheappellees becausethetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninholdingaproselitigantanda professionalattorneytothesamestandardofcare. Thedecisionto awardattorney'sfees infavorof theprevailingpartyunder 57.105,Fla. Stat. (2003)isamatterlefttothediscretionofthetrialcourt. Turovets v. Khromov, 943 So.2d246(Fla.4thDCA2006). Thisdiscretionallowsacourtto showdeferenceto aproselitigantbyapplyingthestatuteagainsthimmore lenientlythanalicensedattorney. Itisunreasonabletoholdaproselitigant,a laymanwithno legaleducationorexperience,tothesamestandardas alicensed attorneywhohaslegaleducationinadditiontopracticalexperience. Thetrial courtabuseditsdiscretionbyholdingaproselitigantto thesamestandardofcare asanattorney. Thereissupportforholdingproselitigantsandattorneystodifferent standardsofcareinthreeFederalCourtsof Appealscircuits. Onecourthaseven goneso farasto saythatit"wouldbecruelasitwouldbepointlesstohold laymen...toastandardof carethattheycannotattain." Bacon v. American Federation orState, County, and Municipal Employees Council #13, 795 F.2d33, 35 (7thCir. 1986). See also Clark v. Green, 814F.2d221 (5thCir. 1987);Harlow v. Bergson, 893 F.2d 187(8thCir. 1990). TheproselitigantinBacon suedhis union, lost, andthenattemptedtoappealthedecision. Inhisappellatebrief,Bacon 3 failedtoallegeanybasisas to whythelowercourterredintheirdecisionandthe courtcharacterizedhisbriefas incoherent. Id. at35. InBacon, the7 th Circuit expressedthatcourtsaregenerallymorelenientwithpro selitigantsincivilcases. Id. at35. Whenthepro seappellantfiled his"PlaintiffsMotionto DismissandStrike Counterclaim,"hewasnotabusingthelegalsystem. Thismotionwassimplya responseto the"Defendants'MotiontoDismissandStrike,"notamethodof abusingthelegalsystembypresentingincoherentramblingstothecourt. The pleadingwasnotunusualoroutoftheordinaryandwasnotusedas amethodof delayingtheproceedings. It wasamerelyresponseto theappellees'motion. Becausetherewasabasisfortheappellant'sclaim,unliketheproselitigantin Bacon, theappellantinthiscaseshouldbegivendeferenceintheapplicationofthe statuteagainsthimas heis aproselitigant. InFlorida,proselitigantshavebeenheldto adifferentstandardofcarethan thatofattorneysinordertoprovidetheconstitutionalrightofaccessto thecourts whichallowsthosewhomaynotbeabletoaffordlegalrepresentationafair opportunityto litigatetheirclaimsandto representthemselvesincourt. Biermann v. Cook. 619So.2d 1029(Fla. 2dDCA 1993). ThecourtinBiermann statedthat "proselitigantsmaybegivenacertainamountoflatitudeintheirproceedings." Id. at 1031. InBiermann, aproselitigantappealedadecisionthatquietedtitleto 4 his property which was taken by the Internal Revenue Service. Id. He then to relitigate matters that were res Judicata in his appeal. Id. at 1029. The pro se litigant in this case filed many outlandish pleadings filled with conspiracy theories and then began refusing to accept letters from the opposing counsel because the letters were not properly addressed, because he alleged it would be in violation of Florida procedure. Id. at 1030. The appellant's actions in this case did not resemble the pro se litigant's antics in Biermann. Clearly, the pro se litigant in Biermann was using pleadings as a method of unreasonably burdening and abusing the court system and was not entitled any leniency from the courts. In contrast, "Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim" was merely a response to a pleading he received from the opposing litigants. Subsequent pleadings the appellant filed were not outlandish because these pleadings were solely an attempt to procure counsel and did not contain unrelated conspiracy theories. While the pro se litigant in Biermann was not entitled to any leniency, the appellant is entitled to leniency fron1 the court because he did not use his pleadings in an attempt to abuse the legal system. InVisoly v. Security Pacific Credit Corp., 768 So.2d 482 (Fla. 3d 2000), the court held that a frivolous claim under 57.105, Fla. Stat. (2003) is one which raises arguments a reasonable lawyer would know are not well grounded in fact. The litigants in this case delayed a foreclosure for nine years by filing five appeals, 5 A f among other pleadings. Id. at 485. In their sixth appeal, Visoly and his wife, through their lawyer, appealed an award of attorney's fees against them under 57.105, Fla. Stat. (2003) claiming that they because they were not specifically named, they were not parties to the lawsuit. Id. at 489. A reasonable lawyer would have known that this claim was completely devoid of fact and merit sinceVisolys were obviously parties to the lawsuit because they had initiated various legal proceedings and filed documents with the court. Id. The court upheld the award of attorney's fees against them because the attorney's actions in filing the pleading. Id. The appellant in this case is not an attorney and cannot act as a reasonable attorney. He should not be held to the standard of what a reasonable lawyer would know is not well grounded in fact. The appellant can only be expected to act as a reasonable pro se litigant when filing pleadings with the court and should be held to the standard of what a reasonable pro se litigant would know. Although the appellant felt confident in his ability to proceed pro se, evidenced by filing "Plaintiffs Qualifications to Proceed Pro Se" on May 3, 2006, his resume and other accomplishments fall short of the skills, education, and experience that a licensed, experienced attorney possesses. R. at 73-77. The appellant is a well-educated man who received an A.B.A. degree in Business Administration and a B.A. degree in Psychology and Philosophy. R. at 73. 6 -------- . ' --_._------- However,theappellant'slegaleducationis limitedtothecompletionofcoursesin legalassisting,civillitigation,andlegalresearchandwriting. R. at73-74. Completionofthesethreeclassesis nowherenearequivalentto theappellees' level oflegalknowledge. Eventheappellantrealizedthathislimitedlegalexperiencewasinadequate whencomparedto theappelleesdespitehisstrongconfidenceinhisabilities. This isshownbyhisattemptstoacquireanattorneyoverthecourseoflitigation. On April25, 2006,theappellantfiled"PlaintiffsMotionfor AppointmentofCounsel, Attorney'sFees,andLegalRetainer"whichrequestedthatcounselbeappointed forhimattheexpenseoftheappellees. R. at63-72. Furtherevidenceofthe appellant'sbeliefthatheneededtheassistanceoflegalcounselis evidencedbythe appellant'sJuly31,2006,filingof"PlaintiffsNoticeofCancellationofHearings, NoticeofSeekingCounsel,ADA"whichnotifiedthecourtthattheappellantwas seekingassistanceofcounselthroughtheHillsboroughCountyBarReferral ServiceandwouldthenrequestappointmentofcounselundertheAmericanswith DisabilitiesActif unsuccessful. R. at 118. Althoughtheappellantinitiallyfelt confidentinhisabilityto representhimselfprose,hesoonrealizedheneededthe guidanceofanattorney. Pro selitigantsarenotonequalgroundwithattorneysas faraslegal educationandpracticalskillsandshouldnotbeheldto thesamestandardofcare. 7 ' Courts have a duty to protect pro se litigants from manipulation by more experienced opposing counsel. The courts have discretion to exercise more leniency with the appellant. Itis unfair and an abuse this court's discretion to hold the appellant, a pro se litigant, to a standard of conduct that he cannot attain; that of a licensed attorney. The court should give deference to the appellant, a pro se litigant, and apply the statute more leniently against him. B. This court should reverse the award of attorney's fees in favor of the appellees because the trial court erred in finding that the appellant's lawsuit was frivolous. An award of attorney's fees under 57.105 Fla. Stat. (2003) is only proper when a claim is frivolous -- so clearly devoid of merit and facts as to make it untenable. Stagl v. Bridgers, 807 So.2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The appellant had a good faith basis for making his claim because he used the example of seasoned attorneys and believed that a motion of this type should be formatted exactly the same way as the appellee's because he had never drafted a Motion to Dismiss and Strike. Before attorney's fees may be awarded to the prevailing party, the presenting party's claim must be frivolous. Ship Construction and Funding Services (USA). Inc. v. Star Cruises. PLC, 135 Fed.Appx. 218 (lith Cir. 2005). A claim's frivolity is determined when it is filed, and if it is sufficient when initially 8 ' filed, the party presenting the claim will not be subject to attorney's fees. Langford v. Ferrera. 823 So.2d 795, 797 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). In determining whether a claim was frivolous when filed, courts will focus on what the party presenting the claim knew or should have known at the time before and immediately after the suit was filed. Bowen v. Brewer. 936 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). At the time the appellant's motion was initially filed, it was not frivolous because there was a good faith basis for filing the motion. The appellant chose to follow the opposing attorneys' example by formatting his "Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss and Strike Counterclaim" after the appellees' Motion to Dismiss and Strike" because he believed that because the appellees are licensed attorneys, they knew what they were doing and their motion was a model. At no point did the appellant's motion become frivolous during the course of litigation. At the April 25, 2006, hearing on the appellant's motion to dismiss and strike the appellees' counterclaim, the judge denied several paragraphs of the motion, but was unable to consider the remaining paragraphs due to insufficient time. R. at 242. The failure of a claim does not automatically give rise to the awarding of attorney's fees to the prevailing party under 57.105, Fla. Stat. 2003. Ship, 135 Fed.Appx. at 222. In Stagl v. Bridgers. 807 So.2d 177 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), a pro se litigant's complaint was dismissed three times for failure to state a 9 ' causeofaction. Thecourtheldthatthiswasnotenoughto sustainanawardof attorney'sfees. Id. AftertheApril 25,2006hearing,therewereno furtherhearingsonthe motiontoconsidertheremainingparagraphs. Someoftheappellant'sclaimswere denied,butunderStagl, thiswouldnotbesufficientto meritanawardofattorney's fees infavoroftheappellees. Theappelleesarguethatbecauseseveralparagraphs oftheappellant'smotionweredeniedatthishearing,theappellantshouldhave knownthattherestoftheparagraphswouldalsobedenied. Atnotimedidthe courtmakeanyreferencetothemotion'sremainingparagraphsandtheirvalidity. Theonlysourcethatproclaimedtheinvalidityoftheremainderofthe appellant'smotionwastheappellees. InaletterdatedApril26,2006,attachedas Exhibit 1to the"Defendants'AmendedMotionfor SanctionsPursuantto 57.105 (1),FloridaStatutes"filedonJune6, 2006,theattorneyfortheappelleesinformed theappellantthattheremainderofthisclaimseitherlackedmeritorwouldbe denied. Rat 111. Theattorneyfurtherofferedthatiftheappellantwould withdrawhismotiontostrikeanddismisstheircounterclaim,theappelleeswould withdrawtheirmotionforsanctions. R. at 111. Noreasonableperson,whethera lawyerorproselitigantwouldbelievethattheopposingcounselwasofferingthis adviceinagoodnaturedattemptto behelpful. Thelawsuitbetweentheappellant andtheappelleesstartedoutas afraudclaim. Clearlytheappellanthadlosttrust 10 I and faith in these attorneys and did not believe the appellees' had his best interests in mind when advising him to withdraw his motion. While this was a clever bullying tactic, it further shows why the appellant was reasonable in believing that the remainder of the motion was valid. In addition, if the failure of a part of a motion is enough to merit an award of sanctions, the appellees would also be subject to sanctions as their motion to dismiss and strike fared about as well as the appellant's motion. In an "Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike," dated January 13,2006, Judge Nielsen denied parts of the appellees' motion. R. at 36. This is exactly what occurred in the April 25, 2006 hearing on the appellant's motion. If sanctions were not appropriate when parts of the appellees' motion were denied, sanctions are not appropriate in this instance when parts of the appellant's motion are denied. The court erred in awarding attorney's fees to the appellees. An award of attorney's fees is only proper when a party makes a claim that is completely devoid of fact or merit when initially filed or if an initially valid claim becomes frivolous over the course of litigation. The appellant's motion was not frivolous when initially filed because he had a good faith basis for making the claims. The appellant's motion did not become frivolous during litigation because the entire motion was never heard and the appellant had no reason to believe the motion was invalid. The appellant then withdrew the motion before the remainder could be 11 { I heard. Because the appellant's motion was neither initially frivolous nor did it become frivolous, this court should reverse the award of attorney's fees against the appellant. 12 , CONCLUSION Thetrialcourterredingrantinganawardofattorney'sfees againsttheappellant. Thiswouldresultinproselitigantsbeingunfairlyheldto thesamestandardsof careandconductoflicensed,experiencedattorneys. Aproseappellantwho clearlyshowsrespectforthelegalsystemandagoodfaithefforttoproperlyfile pleadingsandmotionsshouldbegivenleniencybecauseevenwiththeirgoodfaith effort,theysimplylacktheeducation,training, andexperienceofanattorney. Holdingproselitigantsto anunattainablestandardofconductdoesnotprotectthe integrityofthelegalsysteminthatitdoesnotprotecttheconstitutionalrightto accesstothecourt. ThisCourtshouldreversetheawardofattorney'sfees against theappellant. Respectfullysubmitted, ~ ~ ~ R O t 5 e ~ W. Bauer,Esq. CounselforAppellantNeilJ. Gillespie FloridaBarNo. 0011058 TanyaM. UhlEsq. FloridaBarNo. 0052924 2815NW13 th Street,Suite200E Gainesville,Florida Telephone: (352)375-5960 Fax: (352)337-2518 13 f CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE IHEREBYCERTIFYthatatrueandcorrectcopyoftheforegoing INITIAL BRIEFOFAPPELLANTNEILJ. GILLESPIEwasfurnishedto eachpersonlisted belowbyU.S. MailonJuly 3 ,2008. RyanChristopherRodems,Esq. 400NorthAshleyDrive, Suite2100 Tampa,FL33602 LawOfficeofRobertW. Bauer,P.A. ",r" ;;;-;7 B Y : ; t ~ ~ RobertW. Bauer,Esq. FloridaBarNo. 0011058 TanyaM. UhlEsq. FloridaBarNo. 0052924 2815NW13 th Street,Suite200E Gainesville,Florida Telephone: (352)375-5960 Fax: (352)337-2518 14 CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE TheundersignedattorneycertifiesthatthisBriefhasbeenpreparedin accordancewithRule9.210(a)andissubmittedinTimesNewRoman, 14-point font. LawOfficeofRobertW. Bauer,P.A. 7""----- .-c- - -. c._..--- RobertW. Bauer,Esq. FloridaBarNo. 0011058 TanyaM. UhlEsq. FloridaBarNo. 0052924 2815NW13 th Street, Suite200E Gainesville,Florida Telephone: (352)375-5960 Fax: (352)337-2518 15
75th Conference on Glass Problems: A Collection of Papers Presented at the 75th Conference on Glass Problems, Greater Columbus Convention Center, Columbus, Ohio, November 3-6, 2014
Richard L. Bast, and Inter-World Development Corporation International Investigations, Incorporated v. Victor Michael Glasberg Jeanne Goldberg Cohen, Dunn & Sinclair, P.C. J. Frederick Sinclair Thomas J. Curcio Carter & Kramer, P.C. Charles Warren Kramer Jacobovitz, English & Smith, P.C. David Benjamin Smith Barbara Ozella Reves Claude David Convisser William G. Billingham Nancy Gertner Jody L. Newman Roger A. Cox, and Antonia Leigh Pettit Patricia Griest John F. Davis Mary Audrey Larkin Lois Ames Delmar D. Hartley Anthony Joseph Pettit Maddona Lea Schamp Pettit, Removed to Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Anne Connell William C. Hillman, Richard L. Bast, and Inter-World Development Corporation International Investigations, Incorporated v. John F. Davis Anthony Joseph Pettit Maddona Lea Schamp Pettit, Removed to Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Victor Michael Glasberg Jeanne Goldberg Cohen, Dunn & Sinclair, P.C. J. Frederick Sinclair Thoma
(G.R. No. 222416, June 17, 2020) Fiamette A. Ramil, Petitioner, vs. Stoneleaf Inc. / Joey de Guzman / Mac Dones / Criselda Dones, Respondents. Decision REYES, J. JR., J.