Filing # 116366269 E-Filed 11/09/2020 02:14:01 PM INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHEFIFTEENTHJUDICIALCIRCUIT INANDFORPA LMBEACHCOUNTY,FLORIDA cafloridaholdings,llc, PublisherofthePALMBEACHPOST, Plaintiff, v. CASENO.:19 -CA-014681 Attorneyof PalmBeachCounty,Florida;SHARONR. BOCK,asClerkandComptrollerofPalm Defendants._/ DEFENDANTDAVEARONBERG’SAMENDEDMOTIONFORATTORNEYS’FEES Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney ofPalm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 1.525, Fla. R. Civ. P. to enter an award of attorneys’ fees in his favor against Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, and in support thereof states the following: BASISFORAWARDINGATTORNEYS’FEES L On November 14,2019, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher ofthe PALM BEACH POST (“Plaintiff’) filed a. complaint against DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida (the “State Attorney” or “Defendant Arpnberg”) and SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida (the “Clerk”). The basis of the action was asking the Court to order the State Attorney and the Clerk to disclose the 2006 Jeffrey I Epsteingrandjurymaterials,(the“RequestedMaterials”),pursuantto§905.27(r)Fla.Stat, Party JOINT ID#. J25 DATE ADMITTED:ev#J25 q/fe/a>ZZ Case No. 2019-CA-014681 JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK CIRCUIT COURT CA/ArcpU«|>pp0Ma BEACH COUNTY, FC JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM Joint Exhibit J25 V - NOT A CERTIFIED COPY "" I ..... filing# 116366269 E-Filed 11/09/2020 02:14:01 PM :, INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHEFIFTEENTHJUDICIALCIRCUIT INANDFORPA LMBEACHCOUNTY,FLORIDA CAFLORIDAHOLDINGS,LLC, PublisheroftheP ALMBEACHPOST, Plaintiff, V. DA VEARONBERG,asStat!! Attorneyof PalmBeachCounty ,Florida;SHARONR. BOCK,asClerkandComptrollerotPalm BeachCounty,Florida. Defendants. I --------------- CASEN0.:19 -CA-014681 DEFENDANTDA VEARONBERG'SAMENDEDMOTIONFORA TTORL~EYS'FEES Defendant, DA VE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Flonru.i, by and through the undersigned c.ounsel, hereby moves· this Honorable Court, purs'qant to Rule 1.525, Fla. R. Civ. P. to enter an award of attorneys' fees in his favor against Pl~intiff, CA FLORIDA HOLDJ;NGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, and iri. support thereof states the I following: BASISFORA WARDI.NGATTORNEYS'FEES L On November 14, 2019, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST ("Plaintiff') filed a. complaint against DA VE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, floriga (the "State Att9rn~y'' or "Def~ndant Aronberg") and SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm. Beach County, Florida (the "Cl¢rk"). The basis of the action was asking the Court to order the State Attorney and the Clerk to disclose the 2006 Jeffrey I E pstei ngrand jurymaterial_s, ( the"RequestGdMatGnals ") ,pursuantto§ 905. 2 7 ( 1 )Fla.Stat Party JOINT ID#. J25 EV#J"lS I DATEADMITTEO: q/Gl2.o1Z/ r I Joint Exhibit Case No. 2019-CA-014681 I , JOSEPH ABRUZZO CLERK I f . , 6 CIRCUIT COURT 1 1 CA/ArOfl~f))PPt3J.,N BEACH COUNTY, EC JOSEPH ABRuzko, CLERK. 3~2112023 4:10:49 PM J25 2. On December 6, 2019, the State Attorney filed his Motion to Dismiss, then on December 13, 2019, the Clerk also filed a Motion to Dismiss. In response, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on January 17, 2020, which in addition to its original claim under § 905.27 Fla. Stat. (Count II) added a claim for Declaratory Relief (Count I) that sought an order declaring that the State Attorney and the Clerk disclose the Requested Materials to Plaintiff for the purpose of informing the public. 3. On January 24, 2019, both the State Attorney and the Clerk filed their Answer to the First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Count II (“Answer/Motion to Dismiss). Notably, the State Attorney’s Answer/Motion to Dismiss asserted its right to attorneys’ fees for defending the action and requested such relief from the Court. 4. On June 8, 2020, the Court entered its Order Granting Defendants Motions to Dismiss Count II ofPlaintiffs First Amended Complaint with Prejudice (“Order”). 5. Immediately following the Court’s Order, on June 8, 2020, the State Attorney, through the undersigned counsel, served Plaintiff with a demand pursuant to § 57.105 Fla. Stat., to voluntary dismiss/withdraw the First Amended Complaint and the claims against the State Attorney, along with a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“57.105 Demand”). See, Exhibit “A”. Specifically, because of the Court’s Order only Count I of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint remained, which sought Declaratory Reliefunder § 86.011, Fla. Stat. 6. Here, in properly serving his 57.105 Demand on Plaintiff, the State Attorney also properly put Plaintiff on notice that he would seek sanctions by filing the 57.105 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees if Plaintiff failed to dismiss the remainder of its First Amended Complaint within 21 days ofservice of the 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. 2 CA/AroBIMEg9OO0aM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 2. On December 6, 2019, the State Attorney filed his Motion to Dismiss, then on December 13, 2019, the Clerk also filed a Motion to Dismiss. In response.I Plaintiff filed its First I Amended Complaint on January 17, 2020, which in addition to its original 1 claim under§ 905.27 Fla. Stat. (Count 11) added a claim for Declaratory Relief (Count I) that sought an order declaring that the State Attorney and the Clerk disclose the Requested Materials to Ptaintiff for the purpose of informing the public. 3. On January 24, 2019, both the State Attorney and the Clerk filed their Answer to the First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Count II ("Answer/Motion to Dismiss). Notably, the State Attorney's Answer/Motion to Dismiss asserted its right to attorneys' fees for defending the action and requested such relief from the Court. 4. On June 8, 2020, the Court entered its Order Granting Defendants Motions to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint with Prejudice ("Order"). 5. Immediately following the Court's Order, on June 8, 2020, the State Attorney, through the undersigned counsel, served Plaintiff with a demand pursuant to§ 57.105 Fla. Stat., to voluntary dismiss/withdraw the First Amended Complaint and the claims against the State Attorney, along with a Motion for Attorneys' Fees ("57.105 Demand"). See, Exhibit "A". Specifically, because of the Court's Order only Count I of Plaintiffs. Amended Complaint remained, which sought Declaratory Relief under§ 86.011, Fla. Stat. 6. Here, in properly serving his 57 .105 Demand on Plaintiff, the State Attorney also properly put Plaintiff on notice that he would seek sanctions by filing the 57 .105 Motion for Attorneys' Fees if Plaintiff failed to dismiss the remainder of its First Amended Complaint within 21 days of service of the 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys' Fees. 2 CA/[email protected] BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM 7. On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a response to the 57.105 Demand refusing to withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint. See, Exhibit “B”. 8. § 57.105, Florida Statutes states the following: A motion by a party seeking sanctions under this section must be served but may not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service ofthe motion, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. 9. Accordingly, after receiving Plaintiff’s June 23, 2020, response refusing to withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint and waiting the prerequisite “21 days after service of the motion” the State Attorney’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees was filed with this Court on July 1, 2020. See, Exhibit “C”. 10. Thereafter, on August 18, 2020, the State Attorney filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) and proceeded, on October 21, 2020, to file a Motion to Set Hearing on the State Attorney’s Motion (“Motion to Set”) after it became clear that there would be no resolution of this matter without the Court’s intervention. 11. Nonetheless, later the same day, rather than setting and participating in a hearing on the merits as to State Attorney’s Motion, Plaintifffiled its Notice ofDropping the State Attorney (“Notice”) from the instant case. See, Exhibit “D As a consequence offiling its Notice, Plaintiff has effectively made an admission that its allegations against the State Attorney have no basis in fact or law. 12. “An essential distinction between a notice of dropping a party and a voluntary dismissal is that the former concludes the action as to the dropped party while the latter is generally utilized to conclude the action in its entirety.” Carter v. Lake County, 840 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). ! 3 CA/Aroritjaf>0D03^3 BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3^27/20234:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 1 ... " 7. On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff's counsel sent a response to the 57.105 Demand refusing to withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint. See, ~xhibit "B". I 8. § 57.105, Florida Statutes states the following: J A motion by a party seeking sanctions under this section must be ~erved but may not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days aft~r service of the motion, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. 9. Accordingly, after receiving Plaintiff's June 23, 2020, : response refusing to withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint and waiting the prerequisite "21 days after service of the motion" the State Attorney's Motion for Attorneys' Fees was filed with this Court on July 1, 2020. See, Exhibit "C". 10. Thereafter, on August 18, 2020, the State Attorney filed his Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion") and proceeded, on October 21, 2020, to file a Motion to Set Hearing on the State Attorney's Motion ("Motion to Set") after it became clear that there would be no resolution of this matter without the Court's intervention. 11. Nonetheless, later the same day, rather than setting and participating in a hearing on the merits as to State Attorney's Motion, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Dropping the State Attorney ("Notice") from the instant case. See, Exhibit "D ". As a consequence of filing its Notice, Plaintiff has effectively made an admission that its allegations against the State Attorney have no basis in fact or law. 12. "An essential distinction between a notice of dropping a party and a voluntary dismissal is that the former concludes the action as to the dropped party while the latter is generally utilized to conclude the action in its entirety." Carter v. Lake County, 840 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. I 5th DCA 2003). 3 CA/ArOflllaE!D}PB03..1\'a BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3(27/2023 4:10:49 PM 7 13. Specifically, Plaintiffs Notice states: “Plaintiff, [sic], pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.250(b), hereby notifies the parties that it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case.” i 14. Rule 1.250(b), Fla. R. Civ. P. states: (b) Dropping Parties. Parties may be dropped by an adverse party in the manner- providedfor voluntary dismissal in rule 1.420(a)(1) subject to the exception stated in that rule. If notice of lis pendens has been filed in the action against a party so dropped, the notice of dismissal shall be recorded and cancels the notice of lis pendens without the necessity of a court order. Parties may be dropped by order of court on its own initiative or the motion of any party at any stage of the action on such terms as are just. 15. Rule 1.420(a)(1), Fla. R. Civ. P., Voluntary Dismissal states: (1) By Parties. Except in actions in which property has been seized or is in the custody of the court, an action, a claim, or any part of an action or claim may be dismissed by plaintiffwithout order of court (A) before trial by serving, or during trial by stating on the record, a notice of dismissal at any time before a hearing on motion for summaryjudgment, or ifnone is served or ifthe motion is denied, before retirement ofthejury in a case tried before ajury or before submission of a nonjury case to the court for decision, or (B) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all current parties to the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice ofdismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits when served by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court an action based on or including the same claim. 16. Notably, “[R]ule 1.250(b) expressly incorporates the procedural aspects of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1) governing voluntary dismissal by providing that parties may be dropped ‘in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in rule 1.420(a)(1) subject to the exception stated in that rule.’” Siboni v. Allen, 52 So. 3d 779, 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). 17. Likewise, because Rule 1.250(b) specifies that a party is dropped “in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in Rule 1.420(a)(1), the Siboni court concluded that “the manner” includes the same entitlement to costs and attorney’s fees which would have been enjoyed had the dismissal occurred entirely under Rule 1.420(a)(1). Id. at 781. 4 CA/AroRHfSsPOOQm BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 13. Specifically, Plaintiffs Notice states: "Plaintiff, [sic], purs-µant to Fla. R. Civ. P. l .250(b ), hereby notifies the parties that it has dropped State Attorney, DJve Aronberg from the I above case." 14. Rule l.250(b), Fla. R. Civ. P. states: (b) Dropping Parties. Parties may be dropped by an adverse party in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in rule l.420(a)(J) subject to the exception stated in that rule. If notice of lis pendens has been filed in the action against a party so dropped, the notice of dismissal shall be recorded and cancels the notice of lis pendens without the necessity of a court order. Parties may be dropped by order of court on its own initiative or the motion of any party at any stage of the action on such terms as are just. 15. Rule l.420(a)(l), Fla. R. Civ. P., Voluntary Dismissal states: (1) By Parties. Except in actions in which property has been seized or is in the custody of the court, an action, a claim, or any part of an action or claim may be dismissed by plaintiff without order of court (A) before trial by serving, or during trial by stating on the record, a notice of dismissal at any time before a hearing on motion for summary judgment, or if none is served or if the motion is denied, before retirement of the jury in a case tried before a jury or before submission of a non jury case to the court for decision, or (B) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all current parties to the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an acijudication on the merits when served by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court an action based on or including the same claim. 16. Notably, "[R]ule l.250(b) expressly incorporates the procedural aspects of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure l.420(a)(l) governing voluntary dismissal by providing that parties may be dropped 'in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in rule l.420(a)(l) subject to the exception stated in that rule."' Siboni v. Allen, 52 So. 3d 779, 780 (Fla. 5th ·DCA 2010). 17. Likewise, because Rule l.250(b) specifies that a party is dropped "in the manner I provided for voluntary dismissal in Rule l.420(a)(l), the Siboni court concluded that "the manner" ! ! includes the same entitlement to costs and attorney's fees which would have been enjoyed had the dismissal occurred entirely under Rule l.420(a)(l). Id. at 781. 4 CA/[email protected] BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM 18. Accordingly, the Siboni court held that a “party dropped from litigation under rule 1.250(b) is subject to the time limitation contained in rule 1.525 governing service of a motion seeking a judgment for costs and attorney’s fees.” Id. 19. Although Plaintiff filed its Notice the claims asserted by Plaintiffhave been, since I the filing of its initial complaint, completely without support of the facts or the law. At their very core, all of Plaintiff’s claims are based on the presumption that the State Attorney has the authority to disclose the Requested Materials. Nonetheless, Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes makes clear that Plaintiff’s Requested Materials can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to a court order. The stenographic records, notes, and transcriptions made by the court reporter or stenographer shall be filed with the clerk who shall keep them in a sealed container not subject to public inspection. The notes, records, and transcriptions are confidential and exemptfrom the provisions ofs. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution and shall be released by the clerk only on request by a grand juryfor use by the grandjury or on order ofthe courtpursuant to s. 905.27. Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020). 20. The State Attorney has no objection to the Clerk producing and disclosing the Requested Materials should the Court grant an order to that effect, however, it is impossible for the State Attorney to comply with the relief sought by Plaintiff in its remaining claim for declaratory reliefas he does not possess or control the Requested Materials and is statutorily barred from any disclosure. 21. Although the State Attorney was prepared to make his argument to the Court, Plaintiff decided instead to drop him as a party. Despite Plaintiff’s decision, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the above authorities make clear that because Rule 1.250 specifies that a party t is dropped “in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in Rule 1.420(a)(1),” it therefore “operates as an adjudication on the merits. ” See, Siboni v. Allen, 52 So.13d 779, 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Rule 1.420(a)(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 5 i CA/ArcfWS)O003M BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 18. Accordingly, the Siboni court held that a "party dropped from litigation under rule 1.250(b) is subject to the time limitation contained in rule 1.525 governilg service of a motion seeking a judgment for costs and attorney's fees." Id. I I 19. Although Plaintiff filed its Notice the claims asserted by Pl4intiff have been, since the filing of its initial complaint, completely without support of the facts or the law. At their very core, all of Plaintiff's claims are based on the presumption that the State Attorney has the authority to disclose the Requested Materials. Nonetheless, Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes makes clear that Plaintiff's Requested Materials can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to a court order. The stenographic records, notes, and transcriptions made by the court reporter or stenographer shall be filed with the clerk who shall keep them in a sealed container not subject to public inspection. The notes, records, and transcriptions are confidential and exemptfrom the provisions ofs. 119.07(1) ands. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution and shall be released by the clerk only on request by a grand jury for use by the grand jury or on order ofthe court pursuant to s. 905.27. Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020). 20. The State Attorney has no objection to the Clerk producing and disclosing the Requested Materials should the Court grant an order to that effect, however, it is impossible for the State Attorney to comply with the relief sought by Plaintiff in its remaining claim for declaratory relief as he does not possess or control the Requested Materials and is statutorily barred from any disclosure. 21. Although the State Attorney was prepared to make his argument to the Court, Plaintiff decided instead to drop him as a party. Despite Plaintiff's decision, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the above authorities make clear that because Rule 1.250 specifies that a party I is dropped "in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in Rule 1.420(a)(l)," it therefore "operates as an adjudication on the merits. " See, Siboni v. Allen, 52 So. 3d 779, 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Rule l.420(a)(l) Fla. R. Civ. P. 5 CA/AroJltlffl'.!IJ)PD03.N BEACH COUNTY; FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM TL Consequently, the filing of Plaintiffs Notice triggered Rule 1.525, Fla. R. Civ. P. and therefore: I Under [§ 57.105], the legislature has expressed its unequivocal intent that where a party files a meritless claim, suit or appeal, the party who is wrongfully required to expend funds for attorneys’ fees is entitled to recoup those fees. Martin County Conservation Alliance v. Martin County, 73 So. 3d 856, 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (finding that “Courts are not at liberty to disregard the legislative mandate that courts shall impose sanctions in cases without foundation in material fact or law. The word “shall” in § 57.105, Fla. Stat., evidences the legislative intent to impose a mandatory penalty to discourage baseless claims, by placing a price tag on losing parties who engage in these activities. Section 57.105 expressly states courts “shall” assess attorney’s fees for bringing, or failing to dismiss, baseless claims or defenses.”). 23. In fact, “Section 57.105(1) clearly and explicitly confers upon the trial court the authority to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party upon the court's initiative, if ‘the court finds that the losing party . . . knew or should have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial. . . [w]as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense.” Koch v. Koch, 47 So. 3d 320, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). 24. The simple fact of the matter is that Plaintiff failed to withdraw its Amended Complaint against the State Attorney within the 21-day period provided for in section 57.105(4), and therefore the State Attorney was permitted to file his 57.105 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees as sanctions. I 25. Furthermore, based on the impossible nature of Plaintiff’s demand of the State Attorney, it was proper to demand withdrawal ofPlaintiff s remaining claim for declaratory relief i 6 CA/ArolMj>O603i0 BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3^27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 22. Consequently, the filing of Plaintiff's Notice triggered Rule 1.525, Fla. R. Civ. P. and therefore: ! I Under[§ 57.105], the legislature has expressed its unequivocal int~nt that where a party files a meritless claim, suit or appeal, the party who is wrongfµlly required to expend funds for attorneys' fees is entitled to recoup those fees. Martin County Conservation Alliance v. Martin County, 73 So. 3d 856, 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (finding that "Courts are not at liberty to disregard the legislative mandate that courts shall impose sanctions in cases without foundation in material fact or law. The word "shall" in§ 57.105, Fla. Stat., evidences the legislative intent to impose a mandatory penalty to discourage baseless claims, by placing a price tag on losing parties who engage in these activities. Section 57 .105 expressly I states courts "shall" assess attorney's fees for bringing, or failing to dismiss, baseless claims or defenses."). 23. In fact, "Section 57.105( 1) clearly and explicitly confers upon the trial court the authority to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party upon the court's initiative, if 'the court finds that the losing party ... knew or should have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial ... [ w ]as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense." Koch v. Koch, 47 So. 3d 320, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). 24. The simple fact of the matter is that Plaintiff failed to withdraw its Amended Complaint against the State Attorney within the 21-day period provided for in section 57.105(4), and therefore the State Attorney was permitted to file his 57.105 Motion for Attorneys' Fees as sanctions. I 25. Furthermore, based on the impossible nature of Plaintiff's demand of the State I Attorney, it was proper to demand withdrawal of Plaintiff's remaining claitl,_ for declaratory relief I I 6 I CA/AroJillm'.!D}PB0J.ffl BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3~27/2023 4:10:49 PM and serve the 57.105 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees due to Plaintiffs claim lacking any basis in fact or law. Again, neither the State Attorney nor his office has possession, custody or control of the j Requested Materials. Likewise, the State Attorney has no objection, and never has had any objection, to the Clerk releasing the records sought by Plaintiff, as disclosure of the Requested Materials sought by Plaintiff lies solely within the providence of the Clerk pursuant to an order of the Court. ; 26. Consequently, the State Attorney is entitled to recover 'all of his reasonable attorneys’ fees in defending this suit by virtue of 57.105, Florida Statutes, j REASONABLENESS AND AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES 27. From the service ofthe 57.105 Demand to the date ofthis motion, the attorneys for the State Attorney have rendered 42.2 hours of legal services for a total amount of $18,275.00 in defending this action. See time sheets detailing: the amount of hours by each timekeeper, the timekeeper’s hourly rate, and a description of the tasks done during those times, on attached Exhibit “E”. Of that amount, the undersigned has been paid $0.00 as the engagement with the State Attorney is on a pure contingency fee basis. The undersigned expects to incur an additional 4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for and attending the hearing on attorneys’ fees. Thus, the total amount ofhourly attorneys’ fees the State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of $19,975.00. As further set forth below, the State Attorney also seeks a multiplier of 2.0, which when applied makes the grand total attorneys’ fees as sanctions sought herein $39,950.00. 28. An Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees is attached hereto as Exhibit “F”, which details and breaks down the attorneys’ fees sought herein. ! i I i 7 CA/AropUagpO^QMQ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY and serve the 57.105 Motion for Attorneys' Fees due to Plaintiffs claim lacking any basis in fact or law. Again, neither the State Attorney nor his office has possession, Jstody or control of the I Requested Materials. Likewise, the State Attorney has no objection, aiid never has had any I ' objection, to the Clerk releasing the records sought by Plaintiff, as discldsure of the Requested Materials sought by Plaintiff lies solely within the providence of the Clerk pursuant to an order of the Court. ' 26. I Consequently, the State Attorney is entitled to recover !all of his reasonable attorneys' fees in defending this suit by virtue of 57.105, Florida Statutes. 1 ' REASONABLENESS Ai~D AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES 27. From the service of the 57.105 Demand to the date of this motion, the attorneys for the State Attorney have rendered 42.2 hours oflegal services for a total amount of $18,275.00 in defending this action. See time sheets detailing: the amount of hours by each timekeeper, the timekeeper's hourly rate, and a description of the tasks done during those times, on attached Exhibit "E". Of that amount, the undersigned has been paid $0.00 as the engagement with the State Attorney is on a pure contingency fee basis. The undersigned expects to incur an additional ' ; 4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for and attending the hearing on 'attorneys' fees. Thus, the total amount of hourly attorneys' fees the State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of $19,975.00. As further set forth below, the State Attorney also seeks a multiplier of2.0, which when applied makes the grand total attorneys' fees as sanctions sought herein $39,950.00. 28. An Affidavit of Attorneys' Fees is attached hereto as Exhibit "F", which details and breaks down the attorneys' fees sought herein. 7 CA/AroFt~OP~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3(27/2023 4:10:49 PM 29. The State Attorney would offer the following facts and arguments as they relate to the factors promulgated in Rule 4-1.5 ofthe Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985): Factor Facts and Arguments (A) the time and labor required, the novelty, complexity, and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly The time involved by counsel was substantial, consuming nearly 75 hours of legal work. Moreover, the issues in controversy were novel and complex in that Plaintiff sought to create a new private statutory cause ofaction under Florida Statute § 905.27, implicated several 1st Amendment issues, and further sought declaratory relief pursuant to said Statute. Finally, this litigation has been ongoing for nearly a year and required skill and knowledge in these areas of the law. (B) the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer Because of the amount of time involved in this litigation and considering the relative small size ofthe firm representing the State Attorney, the undersigned attorneys were forced to turn away or delay representing other clients especially during critical stages of the litigation, due to time required in the instant matter. (C) the fee, or rate of fee, customarily charged in the locality for legal services of a comparable or similar nature The base fees consisting of $425.00/hour for Mr. Wyler’s services and $475.00/hour for Mr. Jacobs’ services are reasonable for lawyers in their respective communities possessing equal experience and skill. (D) the significance of, or amount involved in, the subject matter ofthe representation, and the results obtained The outcome ofthis case is of great public significance to the State of Florida as it pertains to the disclosure of grand jury records and the role of the State Attorney concerning such disclosure. Here, the results obtained were the maximum sought by Defendant Aronberg as he was dismissed from the case, albeit not within the time constraints of the safe-harbor provision within § 57.105, Fla. Stat. (E) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances and, as between attorney and client, any additional or special time demands or requests ofthe attorney by the client There were not any extraordinary limitations imposed by the client, however, Defendant Aronberg expected and received zealous representation, with the desire that the case be dispensed ofquickly and efficiently. I i (F) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client As general counsel for the FPAA the undersigned counsel has represented Defendant Aronberg since the beginning of his tenure as State Attorney in civil matters throughout the State of Florida as well as matters before the Florida Legislature. 8 CA/Arcpttffig>OMlW BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 29. The State Attorney would offer the following facts and arguments as they relate to the factors promulgated in Rule 4-1. 5 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bl and Florida Patient's I Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985): ' Factor (A) the time and labor required, the novelty, complexity, and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly (B) the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer (C) the fee, or rate of fee, customarily charged in the locality for legal services of a comparable or similar nature (D) the significance of, or amount involved in, the subject matter of the representation, and the results obtained (E) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances and, as between attorney and client, any additional or special time demands or requests of the attorney by the client (F) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client Facts and Arguments The time involved by counsel was substantfal, consuming nearly 75 hours of legal work. Moreover, the issue~ in controversy were novel and complex in that Plaintiff sought to create a new private statutory cause of action under Florida Statute§ 905.27, implicated several 1st Amendment issues, and further sought declaratory relief pursuant to said Statute. Finally, thi~ litigation has been ongoing for nearly a year and required skill and knowledge in these areas of the law. Because of the amount of time involved in this litigation and considering the relative small size of the firm representing the State Attorney, the undersigned attorneys were forced to turn away or delay representing other clients especially during critical stages of the litigation, due to time required in the instant matter. The base fees consisting of $425.00/hour for Mr. Wyler's services and $475.00/hour for Mr. Jacobs' services are reasonable for lawyers m their respective communities possessmg equal experience and skill. The outcome of this case is of great public significance to the State of Florida as it pertains to the disclosure of grand jury records and the role of the State Attorney concerning such disclosure. Here, the results obtained were the maximum sought by Defendant Aronberg as he was dismissed from the case, albeit not within the time constraints of the safe-harbor provision within § 57 .105, Fla. Stat. There were not any extraordinary limitations imposed by the client, however, Defendant Aronberg expected and received zealous representation, with the desire that the case be dispensed of quickly and efficiently. As general counsel for the FP AA the undersigned counsel has represented Defendant Aronberg since the bJginning of his tenure as State Attorney in civil matters throughout the State of Florida as well as matters before the Florida LecislaturJ. I 8 CA/Arc.¥1'1.fil!O>OP.Pi.i,M BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM ' (G) the experience, reputation, diligence, and ability ofthe lawyer or lawyers performing the service and the skill, expertise, or efficiency of effort reflected in the actual providing of such services This representation required experience in a 'field available to few lawyers, which included defending the State {Attorneyfrom claims of a media entity and lawyers from multiple states regarding the release ofinformation with a nationwide interest. Accordingly, the undersigned counsel conducted the representation with skill and efficiency wherein Defendant Aronberg was dismissed from the action prior to any hearing on the merits before the court. (H) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, and, if fixed as to the amount or rate, then whether the client’s ability to pay rested to any significant degree on the outcome of the representation. The fee arrangement herein was entirely contingent, wherein obtaining a fee was conditioned upon prevailing and obtaining an order awarding fees. JUSTIFICATION FOR MULTIPLIER 30. Defendant Aronberg was able to proceed with this litigation only if counsel would receive a court order awarding contingency based attorneys’ fees upon achievement ofa successful outcome in this case. See, Exhibit “G”. Given this and the fact that counsel risked a total of 74.8 hours of work for no pay, of which 39.4 hours is subject to the 57.105 Demand, Defendant Aronberg submits that multiplier of 2.0 would be appropriate in this case. Based upon the hours expended, the hourly rates and a 2.0 multiplier, Defendant Aronberg respectfully requests an award of attorneys’ fees as sanctions as stated herein. 31. With regard to the application of a multiplier, the court must analyze the three factors set forth in Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990): (1) whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel; (2) whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way; and (3) whether any of the factors set forth in Rowe are applicable, especially the amount involved, the results obtained, and the type of fee arrangement between the attorney and his client. j See, Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Pulloquinga, 183 So. 3d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). I 9 CA/AronIIWOBEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY i (G) the experience, reputation, diligence, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the service and the skill, expertise, or efficiency of effort reflected in the actual providing of such serv1ces (H) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, and, if fixed as to the amount or rate, then whether the client's ability to pay rested to any significant degree on the outcome of the representation. This representation required experience in a :field available to few lawyers, which included defending the State ~ttomey from claims of a media entity and lawyers from multiplb states regarding the release of information with a nationwide inteiest. Accordingly, the undersigned counsel conducted the represetltation with skill and efficiency wherein Defendant Aronberg wak dismissed from the action prior to any hearing on the merits before the court. The fee arrangement herein was entirely contingent, wherein obtaining a fee was conditioned upon prevailing and obtaining an order awarding fees. JUSTIFICATION FOR MULTIPLIER 30. Defendant Aronberg was able to proceed with this litigation only if counsel would receive a court order awarding contingency based attorneys' fees upon achievement of a successful outcome in this case. See, Exhibit "G". Given this and the fact that counsel risked a total of 74.8 hours of work for no pay, of which 39.4 hours is subject to the 57.105 Demand, Defendant Aronberg submits that multiplier of 2.0 would be appropriate in this case. Based upon the hours expended, the hourly rates and a 2.0 multiplier, Defendant Aronberg respectfully requests an award of attorneys' fees as sanctions as stated herein. 31. With regard to the application of a multiplier, the court must analyze the three factors set forth in Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990): (1) whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee mult1plier to obtain competent counsel; (2) whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way; and (3) whether any of the factors set foryh in Rowe are applicable, especially the amount involved, the results obtained, anq the type offee arrangement between the attorney and his client. I See, Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Pulloquinga, 183 So. 3d 1134 (Fla. 3d DOA 2015). I I 9 CA/AroJ\J:laE!D)OP@Jffi BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM 32. Here, as to the first factor there was no other counsel in the relevant market who would agree to represent Defendant Aronberg under the contingency fee agreement needed due to the financial situation of the Office of the State Attorney as a public entity'fundedentirely by the taxpayers of the State of Florida. Although “Risk Mitigation” within the Florida Department of Financial Services and the Office of the Attorney General indeed represent the State Attorney in some instances, this case was not picked up by either and Defendant Aronberg was left needing representation by other, private counsel. Although the undersigned counsel and his law firm are General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys’ Association, Inc., (“FPAA”) the instant matter did not fall within the scope of representation for the FPAA and required a separate engagement between Defendant Aronberg and the undersigned counsel. Accordingly, the undersigned counsel and his law firm agreed to represent Defendant Aronberg on a contingency fee basis and to try the case to final judgment considering that there was no other counsel willing to represent Defendant Aronberg on such terms. 33. With respect to the other factors to be considered in applying a multiplier as set forth in Quanstrom, here Defendant Aronberg was unable to mitigate against non-payment of fees because as a purely taxpayer funded entity, the Office of State Attorney had no other means by which to pay the undersigned counsel. Additionally, Defendant Aronberg meets each of the individual Rowe factors as set forth in the table located above on pages 8-9. Accordingly, based on the foregoing the application of a multiplier herein is proper. In this vein, the Rowe court set guidelines for the size of a multiplier, as follows: Based on our review of the decisions of other jurisdictions and commentaries on the subject, we conclude that in contingent fee cases, the lodestar figure calculated by the court is entitled to enhancement by an appropriate contingency risk multiplier in the range from 1.5 to 3. When the trial court determines that success was more likely than not at the outset, the multiplier should be 1.5; when the likelihood of success was approximately even at the outset, the multiplier should 10 CA/ArcMfBgiODWa BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 32. Here, as to the first factor there was no other counsel in the relevant market who would agree to represent Defendant Aronberg under the contingency fee aJeement needed due to I the financial situation of the Office of the State Attorney as a public entity! funded entirely by the taxpayers of the State of Florida. Although "Risk Mitigation" within the florida Department of Financial Services and the Office of the Attorney General indeed represent the State Attorney in some instances, this case was not picked up by either and Defendant Aronberg was left needing representation by other, private counsel. Although the undersigned counsel and his law firm are General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys' Association, Inc., ("FP AA") the instant matter did not fall within the scope of representation for the FP AA and required a separate engagement between Defendant Aronberg and the undersigned counsfl. Accordingly, the undersigned counsel and his law firm agreed to represent Defendant Aronberg on a contingency fee basis and to try the case to final judgment considering that there was no other counsel willing to represent Defendant Aronberg on such terms. 33. With respect to the other factors to be considered in applying a multiplier as set forth in Quanstrom, here Defendant Aronberg was unable to mitigate against non-payment of fees because as a purely taxpayer funded entity, the Office of State Attorney had no other means by which to pay the undersigned counsel. Additionally, Defendant Aronberg meets each of the individual Rowe factors as set forth in the table located above on pages 8-9. Accordingly, based on the foregoing the application of a multiplier herein is proper. In this vein, the Rowe court set ' guidelines for the size of a multiplier, as follows: Based on our review of the decisions of other jurisdictions and commentaries on the subject, we conclude that in contingent fee cases, the lodestar figure calculated by the court is entitled to enhancement by an appropriate contingency risk multiplier in the range from 1.5 to 3. When the trial court determiries that success I was more likely than not at the outset, the multiplier should be j 1.5; when the likelihood of success was approximately even at the outset, the mµItiplier should I ; CA/ArofitlsEli)PB~Lffl BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3(27/2023 4:10:49 PM be 2; and, when success was unlikely at the time the case was initiated, the multiplier should be in the range of 2.5 to 3. Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). i 34. Additionally, the Quanstrom court confirmed and modified the Rowe approach, as follows: However, we find that the multiplier in Rowe should be modified as follows: If the trial court determines that success was more likely than not at the outset, it may apply a multiplier of 1 to 1.5; if the trial court determines that the likelihood of success was approximately even at the outset, the trialjudge may apply a multiplier of 1.5 to 2.0; and ifthe trial court determines that success was unlikely at the outset ofthe case, it may apply a multiplier of 2.0 to 2.5. Accordingly, our Rowe decision is modified to allow a multiplier from 1 to 2.5. Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828, 834 (Fla. 1990). Thus, based upon all ofthe foregoing factors, Defendant Aronberg respectfully submits that a multiplier of 2.0 is appropriate for this representation. CERTIFICATION OF GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE The undersigned certifies that a good faith effort was made to resolve the issues raised in this motion by agreement of the parties. The parties were unable to resolve by agreement the issues of entitlement to fees or the amount of fees. WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, prays that this Honorable Court will enter an Order awarding Defendant Aronberg his reasonable attorneys’ fees with a multiplier of 2.0 against the Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, in the amount of $39,950.00. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of November, 2020, a copy of the foregoing Defendant, Dave Aronberg’s Amended Motion for Attorneys’ Fees has been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. 11 CA/Aromel>0D(X12a BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY be 2; and, when success was unlikely at the time the case was initiated, the multiplier should be in the range of 2.5 to 3. I Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 198~). ' I 34. Additionally, the Quanstrom court confirmed and modified !the Rowe approach, as follows: However, we find that the multiplier in Rowe should be modified as follows: If the trial court determines that success was more likely than not at the outset, it may apply a multiplier of 1 to 1.5; if the trial court determines that the likelihood of success was approximately even at the outset, the trial judge may apply a multiplier of 1.5 to 2.0; and if the trial court determines that success was unlikely at the outset of the case, it may apply a multiplier of 2.0 to 2.5. Accordingly, our Rowe decision is modified to allow a multiplier from 1 to 2.5. Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828, 834 (Fla. 1990). Thus, based upon all of the foregoing factors, Defendant Aronberg respectfully submits that a multiplier of2.0 is appropriate for this representation. CERTIFICATION OF GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE The undersigned certifies that a good faith effort was made to resolve the issues raised in this motion by agreement of the parties. The parties were unable to resolve by agreement the issues of entitlement to fees or the amount of fees. WHEREFORE, Defendant, DA VE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, prays that this Honorable Court will enter an Order awarding Defendant Aronberg his reasonable attorneys' fees with a multiplier of 2.0 against the Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA i HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, in the amount of $39,950.00. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of November, 2020, aicopy of the foregoing Defendant, Dave Aronberg's Amended Motion for Attorneys' Fees has been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. I 11 CA/Arc:if'ill919}0ll~l2G BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 31/27/2023 4:10:49 PM JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC /s/Douglas A. Wyler I_i_ Arthur I. Jacobs, Esq. j Fla. Bar No.: 10249 i Richard J. Scholz, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 0021261; Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904) 261-3693 (904) 261-7879 Fax Primary: [email protected] Attorneysfor Defendant, Dave Aronberg 12. CA/AroFMj)O0032(ll BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 12. JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC I Isl Douglas A. Wyler ! i Arthur I. Jacobs, Esq. I Fla. Bar No.: 10249 1 Richard J. Scholz, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 0021261: Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvdt, Suite 201-I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904) 261-3693 (904) 261-7879 Fax Primary: j [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg CA/ArofltleEgJ)01.)@J2\11 BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM EXHIBIT “A” EXHIBIT “A” BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3 27 2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY ;;; EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT "A" CA/Arolf'lfuIEl!j)OB@J20: BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM Friday, September 18, 2020 at 11:09:24 Eastern Daylight Time Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT; CASE NO. 2019-CA-014681; CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC V. DAVE ARON BERG ETAL. | Date: Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Douglas Wyler To: '[email protected]', [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] | Attachments: 2020-06-08 Aronberg 57,105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys' Fees.pdf Please see attached and below in this matter. Court: Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case No: Case No. 2020-CA-014681 ; Plaintiff: CA Florida Holdings, LLC Defendant: Dave Aronberg Title of Documents Served: • Fla. Stat. § 57.105 Demand Letter • Defendant, Dave Aronberg's Motion for Attorneys' Fees Sender's Name and Telephone Number: Douglas Wyler (904) 261-3693 Sincerely, Doug Wyler, Esq. Jacobs, Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-1 Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 904-261-3693 904-261-7879 (fax) [email protected] Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. |

Page 1 of 1 i CA/Arcf)Mg)0Da32a BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Friday, September 18, 2020 at 11;:0~:24 Eastern Daylight Time . . I Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT; CASE NO. 2019-CA-014681; CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC V. DAVE ARON BERG ET AL. Date: Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Douglas Wyler To: 'mendelsoh [email protected]', smith [email protected], [email protected], Boyajiah [email protected], dveraal@gtlaw:com, [email protected] • I • Attachment.s: 2020-06-08 Aron berg 57 .. 105 Demand and Motjon for Attorneys' Fe~s.pdf Please see attached and below in this matter. Court: Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case No: Case No. 2020-CA-014681 ' Plaintiff: CA Florida Holdings, LLC Defendant_: Dave Aron berg: Title ofDocuments • Fla. Stat.§ 57.105 Demand Letter Served: • Defendant, Dave Aron berg's Motion for Attorneys' Fees Sender's Name and Douglas Wyler Telephone Number: (904) 261-3693 Sincerely, Doug Wyler, Esq. Jacobs, Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-1 Fernandina Beach, FL 32"034 904-26-1-3693 904-261~7879 (fax) [email protected] Please be a.dvised that this e-mail a11d a_ny files transmitted with it are confidential ~ttorney-client comm\jnicatjon or may·otherwi~e be privileged or confidenti~I and are intended _solely for the individua_l or entity to whom· they are addressed. If you ~re not the intended recipient, please do not rfad, copy pr retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized djss~mination, distribution or copying bf this comrriunicapon is strictly prohibited. Page.1 of 1 CA/Arorillat~OB0.12G BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 31/27/2023 4:10:49 PM THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOBS & ASSOCIATES. P.A. ARTHUR I. JACOSS Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, llc. A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS^ ATTORNEYS AT LAW GATEWAY TO AMELIA 961687 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 2OI-I Fernandina Beach, Florida32034 RICHARD J. SCHOLZ. P.A. RICHARD J. SCHOLZ DOUGLAS A. WYLER. P.A. DOUGLAS A. WYLER TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693 FAX NO. (90-4) 261-7879 June 8, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. Greenburg Traurig, P.A. 5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33486 RE: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 Dear Mr. Mendelsohn: As you are aware our firm represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, in the above referenced matter. The purpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary dismissal of your First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), dated January 17, 2020. This demand is made pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes. As you know, Section 57.105 provides: (1) Upon the court’s initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the court finds that the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial: a. Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense; or b. Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts. Today, Judge Marx granted, with prejudice, Defendant Aronberg’s Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Plaintiffs Complaint. Pursuant to the Court’s ruling, the Plaintiffs only remaining cause of action consists of Count I, for Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, we believe that the Complaint filed herein and its sole remaining Count for Declaratory Relief is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims asserted, and that your claims are not supported by the application of current law to said material facts. i CA/AroLtW)0DM24l BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY ii JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, llLC. A LIMITEO LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONSII • ATTORNEYS AT LAW GATEWAY TO AMELIA THE LAW .OFFICES OF JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. • I 961687 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 201-1 1 ARTHUR I. JACOBS FERNANDINA BEACH, FLoRIDA 32034, June 8, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. Greenburg Traurig, P.A. 5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 . Boca Raton, FL 33486 TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693- FAX NO. (904) 261-7879 RE: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 Dear Mr. Mendelsohn: RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A. RICHARD J. SCHOLZ DOUGLAS A. WYLER. P.A. DOUGLAS A. WYLER As you are aware our firm represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, in the above referenced matter. The purpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary dismissal of your First Amended Complaint, (the "Complaint"), dated January 17, 2020. This demand is made pursuant to section 57 .105, Florida Statutes. As you know, Section 57 .105 provides: (1) Upon the court's initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a reasonable attorney's fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the court finds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial: a.· Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense; or b. Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts. Today, Judge Marx granted, with prejudice, Defendant Aronberg's Motion t9 Dismiss Count II of the Plaintiff's Complaint. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, the Plaintiff's only remaining cause of action consists of Count I, for Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, we believe that th~ Complaint filed herein and its sole. remaining Co-uni for Deciai-atoi-y Relief is not supported by.the mate.rial facts necessary· to · establish the claims asserted, and that your claims are not supported by the abplication of current law to said material facts. 1 CA/Arofll:let'.!!J}PB0J.2« BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM First and foremost, the Complaint is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims asserted because neither Defendant Aronberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein. Simply put, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records from my client that are impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to this action because no matter what, he and his office do not have possession,1 custody, or control ofthe requested materials. ; In addition to the foregoing material facts that negate the claims asserted in the Complaint, your claims are also not supported by the application of current law. Specifically, your action for declaratory relief fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2), Florida Statutes, which states: When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (1) for use in a civil case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand jury testimony afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution ofthe civil or criminal case andfor no other purpose whatsoever. Moreover, even ifthe Plaintiffwere to prevail in the declaratory action, Mr. Aronberg would be unable to comply with any court order granting disclosure of the requested documents because neither Mr. Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit have possession, custody, or control of the 2006 Epstein grand jury records. Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is not dismissed within 21 days of the service of this letter, the enclosed Motion for Attorney’s Fees will be filed and we will seek as sanctions, from your client and your firm, recovery of the legal expenses incurred in defending this frivolous action. Please govern yourself accordingly. Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. For the Firm Encl.: Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees CA/Aromat>0Da32a BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY •·. First and foremost, the Complaint is not supported by the material facts pecessary to establish the claims asserted because neither Defendant Aronberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury I materials sought therein. Simply put, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records from my client that are impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to this action because no matter what, he and his office do not have possession,! custody, or control of the requested materials. ' ln addition to the foregoing material facts that negate the claims asserted in the Complaint, your claims are also not supported by the application of current law .. Specifically, your attion for declaratory relief fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2), Florida Statutes, which states: • • When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (I) for use in a civil case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand iury testimony afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution o[the civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the declaratory action, Mr. Aronberg would be unable to comply with any court order granting disclosure of the requested documents because neither Mr. Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit have possession, custody, or control of the 2006 Epstein grand jury records. Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is not dismissed within 21 days of the service of this letter, the enclosed Motion for Attorney's Fees will be filed and we will seek as sanctions, from your client and your firm, recovery of the legal expenses incurred in defending this frivolous 'action. Please govern yourself acc::;gL 1xr--+-~j Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. For the Firm • Encl.: Defendant's Motion for Attorneys' Fees CA/Ar01IM~PB032a BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA • I. CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, | Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, | Plaintiff, ■ ’ ■. •. • . • ! • v- CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm I Beach County, Florida. i Defendants. : ___ / DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney ofPalm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys’ fees for the defense of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiffwas served a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing ofthis Motion. In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiffofthe facts which establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiffs attorneys to pay said Defendant’s attorneys’ fees incurred herein after service ofthis Motion. i I CA/AroHfclelfJ)000326l BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY J _- _- ·: .. • --- . -· -: -' -_- -- '-:_ --: : : __ ., . • •. j _- •. IN THE CIRCUITCOURT OF THEFIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT . ._. • . .·. ·.. . . I - IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, : -- - - • -- i _-- Publisher of the PALM BEACI-{ POST, I Plaintiff, V. DAVE ARONB~RG, as ~tate A~omey of Palm Beach County, Floricla; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and C:orilptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida.· Defendants. I -------,---,--------- I i \ •. CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 DEFENDANT, DA VE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of.Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorney_s, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, . (the "Complaint"), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with . . . subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. WHEREFORE, Defendant, DA VE ARONBERG, as State A~orney of Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court eriter an Order requiring'.Plaintiff and Plaintiff's attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. : - I . ' I I ' CA/Arofl~OB~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day , 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein. JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC /s/Douglas A. Wyler Arthur I. Jacobs, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 108249 Richard J. Scholz, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904)261-3693 ' (904)261-7879 : [email protected] Attorneysfor Defendant CA/ArcfWj)Oe032?l BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3;/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this __ day ___ , 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed . I - via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties ofrecord herein. I . : ,· JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC i Isl Douglas A. Wylef Arthur I. Jacobs, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 108249 Richard J. Scholz, Esquire I Fla. Bar No;: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, ~squire Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blyd., Suite 201-I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904) 26i~3693 ' (904) 261-7879 j [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant CA/AroJYll.e£!JJ)0D0J21[ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3\/27/2023 4:10:49 PM EXHIBIT “B” EXHIBIT “B” CA/AroJMS>O9032Q BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3727/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY EXHIBIT ''B'' EXHIBIT "B" CA/AroJl"tl.et:!IJ)PD~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM GT GreenbergTraurig Stephen A. Mendelsohn Tel 561.955.7629 I Fax 561.659.9119 I [email protected] | i I i June 23, 2020 Douglas A. Wyler Jacob Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd. Suite 201-1 Fernandina Beach, Fl. 32034 Re: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. Case No. 2019-CA-014681 Deaf Mr. Wyler: We are in receipt ofyour letter ofJune 8,2020 with your proposed Fla. Stat, section 57.105 motion. In your letter and your proposed motion, you assert that CA Florida Holdings, LLC and the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. should be Hable for the attorneys’ fees to be incurred by State Attorney Aronberg after the date of your letter. Your letter cites to Fla. Stat, sections 57.105(1) (a) and (b) for support. As shown below, there is no basis for a Fla. Stat, section 57.105 motion, and we expect that if the State Attorney were to make such a motion, the court should deny it. Your letter omits a citation to section 57-105(3). Subsection 57.105(3)(a) provides that sanctions may not be awarded where there is a “good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, as it is applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation of success.” We have such a good faith argument. Contrary to your analysis of Fla. Stat, section 905.27, there are actually three instances where a court may order the release of grand jury materials. As we argue, the court may order release “in furtherance ofjustice.” There are few cases in Florida reviewing this provision and its scope. It is ah open and valid question as to whether the court may order release of grand jury transcripts to the media, under both the statute and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in furtherance ofjustice. The statutory language you cite refers to instances where a person is seeking grand jury materials for use in a civil or in a criminal case. In these limited situations, the statute allows for such uses and for no other reason. However, the statute does not state, as you assert, that where the media seeks grand jury materials based upon its constitutional standing, which the Circuit Court acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 hearing includes The Palm Beach Post, that the statutory Greenberg Traurig. P.A. | Attorneys at Law 5100 Town Center Circle | Suite 400 | Boca Raton, Florida 33486 | T +1 561.955.7600 | F +1 561.338.7099 Albany. Amsterdam. Atlanta. Austin. Berlin Boca Raton. Boston. Chicago. Dallas. Delaware. Denver. Fort Lauderdale. Houston. Las Vegas. London* Los Angeles. Mexico City? Miami. Milan? Minneapolis. Nashville. New Jersey. New York. Northern Virginia. Orange County. Orlando. Philadelphia. Phoenix. Sacramento. San Francisco. Seoul* Shanghai. Silicon Valley. Tallahassee. Tampa. Tel AyhvTotyo* Warsaw. Washington, D.C. West Palm Beach. Westchester County- Optnlss w. "’Ciurtberjlftcrij 0<a5»»f.LLP; 'A UK eetrty: *Crweber, fount 6 Ci Mini; ^Cteeebai, TitunjlLF Fctti^Le^l Cc«u*1ik1 Oriw; *A totses ctGiuMbcif fr»«rit PA, US\ =Cf TokxHwtts GrattJoj | www.gtlaw.com CA/ArcWlffl|>0pa32Q BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3;/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY IJ GreenbergTraurig Stephen A. Mendelsohn· Tel 561.955.7629 Fax 561.659.9119 [email protected] June 23, 2020 Douglas A. Wyler Jacob Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 GatewayBlvd. Suite 2Ql-l Fernandina Beach, Fl. 3'2034 Re: CA Florida Holdings, UC v. Dave Aronberg et al. Case No. 2019-CA-014681 Dear Mr. Wyler: Weare in receipt of your letter offune 8,2020 with your proposed Fla. Stat. section57.105 motion. In yoµr letter and your proposed motion, you assert tha,t CA Florida Holdings, LLC and the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. shoufd be liaple for tl},e attorneys' fees to be jncurred by State Attorney Aronberg after the date of your letter. Your letter cites to Fla. Stat. sections 57.105(1) (a) and (b) for support. As shown b.elow, there is no basis for a Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion, and we expect that if the State Attorney-were to make such a motion, the court should deny it. You.r lett~r omits a citation to section 57.105(3). Subsection 57.105(3)(a) provid~s that sanctions may not be awarded where there is a "good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, as it is applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation of success." We have such a good faith argument'. Contrary to your analysts of Fla. Stc!t. section 905.27, there are actually tl;iree instances wher~ a court may order the release of grand jury materials. As we argue, the cou~ may order relea_se "in furtherance of justice." There are few cases in Florida reyiewing this provision and its scope. It is an open and valid question as to whether the .court may order release of gfand jury transcripts to the media, under both the statute and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in furtherance of justice. The ~tatutory language you cit~ refers to ip.stanc~s where a persop is 1,eeking grand jury materi_als for use in a civil or in a criminal case. In these limited situations, the statute ailows for such uses _and for no other reason. However, the statute does not state, as you assert, that where the media seeks grand jury materials based upon its constitutional stand1ng, which the Circuit . - - t Court acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 heating includes The Palm Beach Post, :that the statutory I Gre1enb~rg Traurig, P.A. I Attorney!i at Law 5100 Town Center Circle I Suite :.ioo I Boca Raton, Flcirida 33486 I T +1 56f.955.7600 I F +1 561.338. 70991 Albany. Amsterdam. Atlanta. Austin. Berlin:·Boca Raton. Boston. Chicago. Dallas. Delaware. Denver. Fort Lauclerdale.·Houston. Las Vegas. London'. Los Angeles. Mexico City~ Miami. ~lilan: Minneapolis. Nashville. New Jersey. Ne\v York. Northern Virginia. ()range ¢ou:nty. Orlando. Ph 1 iladelphia. Ph_oeni.~. Sacramento. San Francisco. Seout Shanghai. Silicon ValleyiTallahassee. Tampa. TelAvh-'.Tolq·o: '\.Varsa,;: Washington, D.C. West Palm Belch. WestchesierCouniy. o~~ t,r. "'c,_t>«,Tnlm',10~~•,:ll.P; ;"= U~lllt ~ .. ~~•;1:=u.ir. ·c:r_•tcl>er, Trai.n~ ii<;: ~c, .. ~~lr_!ll";~1::a t::~•: ..,Cteod),u; Tn::ri-Jl~ ~Cl'~!.C?,I ~-m::.~rJ.Ot'.:~; ':~ t11e~ dC1etnbu{I irHri,_ P.!,.~ ~~~-- US.\,: ~CTT~l!_«~kn~ ~~~ t~G ... --e~~,k www.gtlaw.com i CA/ArQflruIEIJ)PP~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3:/27/2023 4:10:49 PM I Correspondence to Douglas A. Wyler June 23, 2020 Page 2 use limitation you cite applies. No reported Florida case has addressed this issue and there is a good faith basis for our view of Fla. Stat, section 905.27 ' Your letter also argues that sanctions are applicable because the State Attorney has alleged that it does not possess the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts. This allegation is also contained in the State Attorney’s Answer. Assuming that the State Attorney does not currently have physical possession ofthe Epstein grand jury materials, which has yet to be demonstrated, this does not end the matter. The State Attorney was named as a party not simply as a custodian of grand jury records. The State Attorney was named in his official capacity as his office has “as its primary interest the protection ofits grand jury system.” [Italics in original.] In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F. 3d 554, 559 (ll4 Circuit 1987). In that case, the US petitioned a state judge to order the State Attorney to turn over grand jury transcripts. The State Attorney argued against their release citing to Fla. Stat, section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury subpoenaed the Broward County State Attorney for delivery of state grand jury testimony. The Broward State Attorney advised the federal court that it would produce the transcripts, thereby demonstrating that while it may not have physical possession of the materials, he had. legal authority to obtain and deliver them. It should also be noted that the State Attorney moved to quash the subpoena arguing that it was unlawful under Florida law and Fla. Stat, section 905.27. This case indicates that where one seeks grand jury materials, the relevant State Attorney is a necessary party in order to protect the grand jury that the Office of State Attorney supervised and to make arguments, ifneed be, against release ofthe grandjury materials. These are some ofthe same reasons why the State Attorney was named in this caSe. Also, assuming the State Attorney does not have physical possession of the grand jury materials, there is nothing In Florida law that prohibits the State Attorney from requesting that the Clerk provide copies to the State Attorney. Chapter 905, Fla. Stats, does not contain a prohibition against a State Attorney demand that the Clerk grant his office access to grand jury materials, even after a criminal case has concluded. Upon information and belief, the Clerk’s office maintains a log that tracks release of grand jury materials to the State Attorney upon its request. Please confirm whether the State Attorney has accessed grand jury materials from the Clerk’s office in other instances or that it has never done so. If the Clerk has such a log, then its contents should be discoverable, or subject to Florida Public records laws. Greenberg Traurig, P.A. | Attorneys at Law vwAV.gtlaw.com i CA/ArcmiM0>0M33Q BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Correspondence to Douglas A Wyler June 23, 2020 • Page2 use limitation you cite applies. No reported Florida case has addressed this issue and there is a good faith basis for our view of Fla. Stat. section 905.27 : I Your letter also argues th_at sanctions are applicable because the Stat~ Attorney has alleged that it does not possess th·e Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts. This allegation is also contained in: the State Attorney's Ahswet. Assuming that the State Attorney does rtot currently have physical possession of the Epstein grand jury materials, which has yet to be demonsttated, this does notend the matter. The St.ate Attorney was named as a party not simply as a custodian of grand jury records. The State Attorney was named in h_is official capacity as his office has "as its primary interest the: protecli on of j t~ grand jury system." [Italics in original.] In re Grand J l.iry Proceedings, 832 F. 3d 554, 559 (11 th Circuit 1987). In that case, the US petitioned a state judge to ·order the State Attorney to turn over grand jury transcripts. The State Attorney argubd against their release citing to Fla. Stat. s~ction 905.27. Lat~r, a feder~ granci jury subpoen_aed the Broward. County St.ate Attorney for delivery of state grand jury te~timony. The Broward State Attorney aclvised the federal cour:t that it W01Jld produce the transcripts, thereby demo11strating that while it may not have physical possession ofthe materials, he had. legal authority to obtai_n and deliver them. It should also be noted that the State Attorney moved to quash the subpoeha arguing that it was unlawful under Florida law and Fla. Stat. section 905.27. This case indicates that where one seeks grand jury materi~s, Jhe relevant _State At_torney is a necessary party in order to prot!;:ctthe grand jury that the ~ffi~e of ~tate Attorney supervised and to m_ake argu_ments, if ryeed be, ag_ain_st release of the grand Jury matehals. These are some of the same reasons why the State Attorney was named in this case. Also, assuming the _State Attorney does not have physical posse~sion of the grandjury material~, there is nothing in Ftorida law that prohibits the State Attorney from requesting that the Clerk provide copies to the State Attorney. Chapter 905, Fla. Stats. does not contain a prohibition against a State Attorney demand tha.tthe Clerk grant his office acces·s to grand jury materials, even after a criminal case has concluded. Upon information and belief, the Clerk's office maintains a log that tracks release of gr~d jury materials to the State Attorney 1Jpon it~ request Please confirm whether the State Attorney ha_s accessed grand jury matericils from the Slerk's offi_ce jn 9ther instances or that it has never done so. If the Clerk has such a log, then ;its contents shoul4 be discoverable, or subject to Florida Public records laws. • Greenberg Traurig. P.A. I Attorneys at Law wy/W.gtlaw._c:om I CA/Arc:i'illa:EID-PD-'lUO. BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3;/27/2023 4:10:49 PM Correspondence to Douglas A. Wyler June 23, 2020 Page 3 For these reasons, we decline your Fla. Stat, section 57.105 demand that the case be dismissed against the Office of the State Attorney. We expect that your demand will 6e withdrawn. Thank yOu, Very truly yours, /s/SiephenMendelsohn Stephen Mendelsohn SAM :1s ACTIVE 51081659v1 Greenberg Traurig. P.A. | Attorneys at Law wvAy.gtlaw.com CA/Aropu^omasu BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Correspondence to Douglas A. Wyler June 23, 2020 • • Page3 For these reasons, we decline your Fla. Stat. section 57 .105 demand that lthe case be dismissed against the Office ofthe State Attorney, We expect that your ciemand will 9e withdrawn. Thank you, Very truly yours, /s/S(ephen Mendelsohn Stephen Mendelsohn SAM:ls ACT1VE 51081659v1 Greenberg Traurig. P.A. I Attorneys at Law WW\V.gtlaw.<;om CA/AroF11:lafID01)@J3.\11 BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM EXHIBIT “C” EXHIBIT “C” CA/AroJte$)O00330 BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3 27 2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY EXHIBIT ''C'' EXHIBIT "C" CA/AroFlllaE~PP~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORID/. CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher ofthe PALM BEACH POST, Plaintiff, v. CASENO.: 19-CA-014681 DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller ofPalm Beach County, Florida. Defendants._/ DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney ofPalm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys’ fees for the defense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiffwas served a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing ofthis Motion. In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiffofthe facts which establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiffs i attorneys to pay said Defendant’s attorneys’ fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. CA/AroFi®®)O^0a39[ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, I Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, Plaintiff, V. DA VE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendants. I --------------- CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 DEFENDANT, DA VE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES Defendant, DA VE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys' fees for the defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, (the "Complaint"), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorn~y, in accordance with subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint; at least 21 days prior to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. WHEREFORE, Defendant; DA VE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiffs attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. I I CA/Arofl~OP~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 1st day July, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein. JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC /s/Douglas A. Wyler Arthur I. Jacobs, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 108249 ' Richard J. Scholz, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 002126f Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904) 261-3693 (904)261-7879 [email protected] Attorneysfor Defendant, Dave Aronberg CA/ArcHMS>0DM3<I BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 1st day July, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed via I the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record heretn. JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC Isl Douglas A. Wyler Arthur I. Jacobs, Esquµe Fla. Bar No.: 108249 Richard J. Scholz, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904) 261-3693 (904) 261-7879 . [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg CA/Arcilr'iH.fE~OBfll34 BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3'./27/2023 4:10:49 PM I EXHIBIT “D” EXHIBIT “D” I CA/Arom®fi>0DO33a BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY EXHIBIT ''D'' EXHIBIT "D" CA/ArOfiM~PB0.JJ{if BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3./27/2023 4:10:49 PM Filing # 115383434 E-Filed 10/21/2020 04:13:35 PM IN THE.CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB Publisher of THEPALMBEACHPOST, . C - DIVISION:AG . . Plaintiff, \ ' v. ■. • ■ ’ , DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON Ri BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, Defendants. : PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC’S NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1250(b), hereby notifies the parties that it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case. Respectfully submitted, By: GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. Attorneysfor CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Telephone: (561)955-7629 Facsimile: (561)338-7099 /s/Stephen A. Mendelsohn _ STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN Florida Bar No. 849324 . [email protected] smith [email protected] | CA/Ardniifig)0Da33a BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY • Filing# 115383434 fr-Fil.eel 10/Z 1/2020 04: 13:35 PM . . • . .. . . . . . . • . . - CA FLORiDA HOLDThlGS, LLC, _ Publisher o( THE P ALMBEACH POST, .• •.... . . . .- . •. . ··- • ... • - ·.-_ . - __ • •. P1airit1ff, . . V .. • -_ -· . . • • . ~ . . • . . .. . . . • • • • . -· DA VE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of . Palm Beach County,Florida; SHARON R: • BOCK, ·as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Be_ach Courity, Florida,. • • Defendants.· . . . . iN THE cr~curr COURT OF THE . . •. . . ·- I • ' _._ • -· FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND • FOR p ALM BEACI.fCOUNTY, FLORIDA • • . : . --.· .. • .. ' .I . . • CA.SE NO.: so.:2019-~A-014681-XXXX-MB - DIVISION: ,t\G . .. . PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC'S NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG . . . . . . ·_ Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. I 250(b), hereby"notifies the parties that ··._ it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case. Respectfully submitted, GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.· Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher ofThe_PalmBeach Post .· • • • • • Stephen A. -Mendelsohn, Esq. 40 I East Las Olas Bou]evard Suite 2000 Boca Raton,Florida 33.486 Telephone: (561) 955~ 7629 Facsimile: (561-) 338-7099 • By: • l~/Siephen A.-}Aenclelsohn _- STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN Florida Bar No. 849324 mendelsohns@gt law .~om smith l(a)gtla \V :co1i1 [email protected] CA/Ardnlla!,V.OBf).136 BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM By: /s/ MichaelJGrygiel. I MICHAEL J GRYGIEL (Admitted Pro HacVice) 54 State St., 6th Floor Albany, New York 12207 Telephone: (518)689-1400 Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 ; [email protected] . By: Isl Nina D. Boyajian._ NINA D. BOYAJIAN . (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles California 90067 Telephone: (310)586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7.800. [email protected] . • [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21st day of October, 2020, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing has been filed with the Clerk ofthe Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein /s/Stephen A. Mendelsohn_ STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN ACTIVE 53317341v1 2 : ’ • ‘i CA/AroLtlW0p033?l BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY By: ·Isl Michael J Grygiel • MiCHAEL J GRYGIEL ·(Admitted Pro Hae Vice) • 54 State St., 6th Floor Albany, Ne,v York 12207 Telephone: ( 518) 689-1400 • Facsimile: (518) 689--l499 • -· grygielm@gtla\v.coin. • • . . . . By: Isl ;ina JJ: Bo~aiiali •· • • NINA D. BOY AJJAN . I (Admitted-Pro Hae Vice) • ' 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900. · Los Angeles Califoft1ia 90067 Teiephone: (310) 586-7700 ' Facsimiie: (310) 586-7.800. boyaj [email protected] .com [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE • I HEREBY CERTIBYthat on this 21 st day of October, 2020; a true and correct copy or°the foregoing has been· filed with the Clerk of the Court-using the State of Florida e-filing sy~tem, which will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein • Isl Stephen A. Mendelsohn STEPHEN A.·MENDELSOHN, ACTIVE 53317341v1 2 I CA/AroJillet:~PD~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM EXHIBIT “E” EXHIBIT “E” CA/AroRHag)O0a330 BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY EXHIBIT "E" EXHIBIT "E" CA/AroF\~0B0J.Jtl BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM I Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 2011 Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 United States 904-261-3693 Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, LLC Daye Aronberg Balance Invoice# Invoice Date Payment Terms Due Date $32,440-00 00307 November 6, 2020 Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC Time Entries Date EE Activity Description i Rate Hours Line Total 11/26/2019 bw Review Initial review of summons and complaint. $425.00 1.5 $637.50 11/26/2019 DW Review Reviewed motion for pro hac vice and Judge Hafele' order granting $425.00 0.2 $85.00 11/26/2019 DW Teleconference Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit $425.00 0.5 $212.50 11/26/2019 DW Draft Drafted engagement letter and sent to client $425.00 0.3 $127.50 11/26/2019 DW Review Reviewed 15th circuit local rules $425.00 1.0 $425.00 11/26/2019 AU Review Initial review of complaint $475.00 1.0 $475.00 11/26/2019 AU Meeting Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy $475.00 0.5 $237.50 11/26/2019 DW Meeting Meeting w/ AU to discuss lawsuit and strategy $425.00 0.5 $212.50 11/26/2019 AU Teleconference Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit $475.00 0.5 $237.50 12/02/2019 DW Research & Preparation Research arid prep for Motion to dismiss $425.00 2.0 $850.00 12/02/2019 DW Draft 1 st Draft motion to dismiss $425.00 1.0 $425.00 12/02/2019 DW Teleconference Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to dismiss $425.00 0.5 $212.50 12/02/2019 AU Review Revidwed 1 st Draft MTDismiss $475.00 0.3 $142.50' 12/02/2019 AU Teleconference Teleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to dismiss ^475.00 0.5 $237,50 12/03/2019 AU Meeting Meeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss ^475.00 0.2 $95.00 12/03/2019 DW Meeting Meeting w/ AU, re: MTDismiss $<425.00 0.2 $85.00 12/06/2019 DW Draft Completed final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with Court $■425.00 0.7 $297.50 12/06/2019 DW Teleconference Spoke w/client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss $^425.00 0.5 $212.50 CA/AronbWOp033Q BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK, 3 27 2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 2011 Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 u·nited States 904-261-3693 Dave Aronberg Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, LLC Balance lnvoic~#: Invoice Date • I Payment Terms Due Date $32,440.00 003Q7 November 6, 2020. Aronberg {SA015) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC Time Entries Date EE Activity Description Rate Hours Line Total 11/26/2019 ow Review Initial review of summons and complaint. $425.00 1.5 $637.50: 11/26/2019 ow Review Reviewecj motion for pro hac vice and Judge $425.00 0.2 $85.00 Hafele' order granting 11i26/2019 ow Teleconference Teleconference w/ Clf_ent, re: response to lawsuit $425.00 0.5 $212.50 11/26/2019 ow Draft Drafted engagement letter and sent to client $j425.00 0.3 $127.50 11/26/2019 ow Revie"'.>' Reviewed 15th cirGuit lqcal rules ~25.00 1.0 $425,00 11/26/2019 AIJ Review Initial review of complaint $475.00 1.0 $475.00 11/26/2019 AIJ Meeting Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy $475.00 0.5 $237.50 11/26/2019 ow Meeting Meeting w/ AIJ to discuss lawsuit and strategy $425.09 0.5 $212.50 11/26/2019 AIJ Teleconference Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit ~75.00 0.5 $237.50 ' 12/02/2019 ow Research & Pr!;!paratiqri_ Research and prep for Motion to dismiss $425.00 2.0 $850.00 12/02/2019 ow Draft 1 sl Draft motion to dismiss $425.00 1.0 $425.00 12/02i2019 ow Tel!:lcorifereiice Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to dismiss $425.00 0.5 $212.50 12/02/2019 AU Review Reviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss $475.00 0.3 $142.50 12/02/2019 AIJ Teleconference Teleconferenc_e w/ client, re: draft motion to +75.00 0.5 $237,50 dismiss 12/03/20Hl AI_J Meeting Meeting w/ DAW, re: m9tion to dismi~ $f7!,.00 0.2 $95.00 12/03/2019 ow Meeting Meeting w/ AIJ, re: MTDismiss $f25.00 0.2 $85.00 12/06/2019 ow Draft Qompleted finql dr?ft otmotion to dismiss; filed with I 0.7 $2l:17.50 Court $r425.oo 12/06/2019 ow Teleconie•rence Spoke w/ client, re: final draft ·of motion to dismiss $f25.00 0.5 $212.50 I CA/Aroflllsm!D)PP~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3 1/27/2023 4:10:49 PM I 12/06/2019 DW Teleconference Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response $425.00 0.5 $212.50 12/06/2019 AU Review Reviewed final draft MTDismiss $475.00 0.2 $95.00 12/06/2019 AU Review Reviewed Clerk's MTDismiss $475.00 0.2 $95.00 12/13/2019 DW Review Reviewed Clerk's Motion to Dismiss $425.00 0.5 $212.50 01/16/2020 DW Review Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants' MTDismiss $425.00 0.1 $42.50 01/16/2020 DW Review Reviewed motion for pro hac vice $425.00 0.1 $42.50 01/17/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Amended Complaint $425.00 1.0 $425.00 01/17/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint $425.00 0.5 $212.50 01/17/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's notice of filing $425.00 0.1 $42.50 01/20/2020 AU Review Reviewed Pi’s Am. Compl $475.00 0.3 $142.50 01/21/2020 DW Review Reviewed Judge Marx's Order Cancelling MTDismiss Hearing $425.00 0.1 $42.50 01/21/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Objection to Defendants' MTDismiss $425.00 0.2 $85.00 01/21/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint $425.00 0.5 $212.50 01/21/2020 AU Meeting Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Compl. $475.00 0.2 $95.00 01/21/2020 DW Meeting Meeting w/ AU, re: response to Am. Compl. $425.00 0.2 $85.00 01/22/2020 DW Review Reviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission $425.00 0.1 $42.50 01/22/2020 DW Research & Draft Researched and drafted response to Amended Complaint $425.00 1.0 $425.00 01/23/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response to amended complaint $425.00 0.2 $85.00 01/24/2020 DW Various Completed Answer/MTDismiss Amended Complaint; filed with Court; sent copy to Client $425.00 1.0 $425.00 01/24/2020 DW Draft Drafted and filed Notice of Unavailability $425.00 0.4 $170.00 01/24/2020 AU Review Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss $475.00 0.2 $95.00 01/27/2020 DW Review Reviewed Clerk’s Answer/MTDismiss $425.00 0.3 $127.50 02/03/2020 DW Review Reviewed Order setting hearing on Defs' MTDismiss $425.00 0.1 $42.50 02/03/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss hearing for March 24, 2020 $425.00 0.5 $212.50 03/13/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss $425.00 1.5 $637.50 03/13/2020 AU Review Reviewed Pl's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss $475.00 0.7 $332.50: 03/18/2020 DW Teleconference Reviewed email from Pl’s counsel, re: motion to continue hearing $425.00 0.1 $42.50 03/18/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's unopposed motion for continuance $425.00 0.1 $42.50 03/18/2020 DW E-mail Emails w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Pl's request to continue hearing $425.00 0.2 $85.00 03/19/2020 DW E-mail Reviewed email from PI, re: agreed order & responded $<425.00 0.1 $42.50 03/20/2020 DW Review Reviewed Court's agreed order continuing hearing $425.00 0.1 $42.50 CA/AromttWO0a34a BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 31/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 12/06/2019 DW Teleconference Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response $f25.00 0.5 $212.50 12/06/2019 AIJ Review Reviewed final draft MTDismiss $475.00 0.2 $95.00 I 12/06/2019 AIJ Review Reviewed Clerk's MTDismiss $475.00 0.2 $95.00 I 12/13/2019 DW Review Reviewed Clerk's Motion to Dismiss $425.00 0.5 $212.50 I Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants' I 01/16/2020 DW Review $425.00 0.1 $42.50 MTDismiss I 01/16/2020 DW Review Reviewed motion for pro hac vice $~25.00 0.1 $42.50 ' 01/17/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Amended Complaint $425.00 1.0 $425.00: 01/17/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint $425.00 0.5 $212.50 01/17/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's notice of filing $425.00 0.1 $42.50 01/20/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed Pl's Am. Campi $475.00 0.3 $142.50 ' 01/21/2020 DW Review Reviewed Judge Marx's Order Cancelling $~25.00 0.1 $42.50 MTDismiss Hearing 01/21/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Objection to Defendants' MTDismiss $425.00 0.2 $85.00 01/21/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint $425.00 0.5 $212.50 01/21/2020 AIJ Meeting Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Campi. $475.00 0.2 $95.00 01/21/2020 DW Meeting Meeting w/ AIJ, re: response to Am. Campi. $425.00 0.2 $85.00 01/22/2020 DW Review Reviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission $425.00 0.1 $42.50 01/22/2020 DW Research & Draft Researched and drafted response to Amended $425.00 1.0 $425.00 Complaint 01/23/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response to $425.00 0.2 $85.00 amended complaint 01/24/2020 DW Various Completed Answer/MTDismiss Amended Complaint; filed with Court; sent copy to Client $425.00 1.0 $425.00 01/24/2020 DW Draft Drafted and filed Notice of Unavailability $425.00 0.4 $170.00 01/24/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss $475.00 0.2 $95.00 01/27/2020 DW Review Reviewed Clerk's Answer/MTDismiss $425.00 0.3 $127.50 02/03/2020 DW Review Reviewed Order setting hearing on Deis' $425.00 0.1 $42.50 MTDismiss 02/03/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss hearing for March 24, 2020 $425.00 0.5 $212.50 03/13/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk's MTDismiss $425.00 1.5 $637.50 03/13/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed Pl's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss $475.00 0.7 $332.50. & Clerk's MTDismiss 03/18/2020 DW Teleconference Reviewed email from Pl's counsel, re: motion to continue hearing $425.00 0.1 $42.50 ' 03/18/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's unopposed motion for continuance $~25.00 0.1 $42.50 Emails w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Pl's request to I 03/18/2020 DW E-mail $425.00 0.2 $85.00 continue hearing I 03/19/2020 DW E-mail Reviewed email from Pl, re: agreed order & responded $r25.00 0.1 $42.50 03/20/2020 DW Review Reviewed Court's agreed order continuing hearing $f25.00 0.1 $42.50 CA/Aref\lla:E§J>0P.Pi.3.,4'Q BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3!/27/2023 4:10:49 PM I 04/21/2020 DW Review Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Defs' MTDismiss $ 425.00 0.1 $42.50 04/21/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ client, re: order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing for June 3, 2020 $ 425.00 0.3 $127.50 04/21/2020 AU Review Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing $<475.00 0.1 $47.50 05/22/2020 DW Review Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: MTDismiss $-425.00 0.1 $42.50 05/22/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/client, re: hearing will be via Zoom $425.00 0.2 $85.00 05/27/2020 DW Review Reviewed Clerk's filing: change of atty of record $-425.00 0.1 $42.50 05/27/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke with Clerk's new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut $425.00 0.2 $85.00 05/28/2020 DW E-mail Reviewed Pl’s email, re: cases and authorities for MTDismiss hearing; responded $425.00 0.1 $42.50 05/29/2020 DW Preparation Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss hearing $425.00 1.0 $425.00 06/01/2020 DW E-mail Reviewed email from Judge Marx’s JA and responded $425.00 0.1 $42.50 06/02/2020 DW Various Reviewed Pl's 500+ page binder, re: MTDismiss & prepped for hearing $425.00 3.0 $1,275.00 06/02/2020 DW E-mail Drafted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing tomorrow $425.00 0.1 $42.50 06/03/2020 DW Attend Hearing Prepped for and attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom $425.00 1.5 $637.50 06/03/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ Client, re: debrief MTDismiss hearing $425.00 0.5 $212.50 06/03/2020 DW E-mail Emailed courtesy copies of Aronberg's Answer and MTDismiss to Judge Marx $425.00 0.1 $42.50 06/03/2020 DW E-mail Reviewed response from Client and replied $425.00 0.1 $42.50 06/03/2020 AU Attend Hearing Attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom $475.00 1.0 $475.00 06/03/2020 AU Review Reviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudice $475.00 0.3 $142.50 06/08/2020 DW Review Reviewed Court's Order Granting Defendants MTDismiss Count II w/ Prejudice $425.00 0.5 $212.50 06/08/2020 DW Various Shared order w/ Client and spoke w/, re: result and plan going forward, re: 57.105 $425.00 0.5 $212.50 06/08/2020 DW Various Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.; drafted 57.105 demand letter and proposed motion for attorneys' fees/sanctions; Served Pl’s counsel with demand letter and proposed motion. $425.00 2.0 $850.00 06/08/2020 AU Meeting Meeting w/DAW, re: Order & 57.105 $475.00 0.3 $142.50 06/08/2020 DW Meeting Meeting w/ AU, re: Order & 57.105 $425.00 0.3 $127.50 06/08/2020 AU Review Reviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for sanction $-475.00 0.2 $95.00 06/10/2020 DW Various Reviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk; called and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerra $<425.00 0.3 $127.50 06/23/2020 DW Various Reviewed Pl's letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called and spoke w/ client, re: Pl's refusal & next steps $425.00 1.0 $425.00 I CA/ArofMgpOm^U BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Deis' I 04/21/2020 ow Review MTDismiss $i25.00 0.1 $42.50 04/21/2020 ow Teleconference Spoke w/ client, re: order rescheduling MTDismiss I 0.3 $127.50 hearing for June 3, 2020 $r25.00 04/21/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing $~ 75.00 0.1 $47.50 05/22/2020 ow Review Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: $~25.00 0.1 $42.50 MTDismiss ' 05/22/2020 ow Teleconference Spoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom $425.00 0.2 $85.00 05/27/2020 ow Review Reviewed Clerk's filing: change of atty of record $:425.00 0.1 $42.50 05/27/2020 ow Teleconference Spoke with Clerk's new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut $425.00 0.2 $85.00 05/28/2020 ow E-mail Reviewed Pl's email, re: cases and authorities for $425.00 0.1 $42.50 MTDismiss hearing; responded 05/29/2020 ow Preparation Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss $425.00 1.0 $425.00 hearing 06/01/2020 ow E-mail Reviewed email from Judge Marx's JA and $425.00 0.1 $42.50 responded 06/02/2020 ow Various Reviewed Pl's 500+ page binder, re: MTDismiss & $425.00 3.0 $1,275.00 prepped for hearing 06/02/2020 ow E-mail Drafted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing $425.00 0.1 $42.50 tomorrow 06/03/2020 ow Attend Hearing Prepped for and attended MTDismiss hearing via $425.00 1.5 $637.50 Zoom 06/03/2020 ow Teleconference Spoke w/ Client, re: debrief MTDismiss hearing $425.00 0.5 $212.50 06/03/2020 ow E-mail Emailed courtesy copies of Aronberg's Answer and $425.00 0.1 $42.50 MTDismiss to Judge Marx 06/03/2020 ow E-mail Reviewed response from Client and replied $425.00 0.1 $42.50 06/03/2020 AIJ Attend Hearing Attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom $475.00 1.0 $475.00 06/03/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudice $475.00 0.3 $142.50 06/08/2020 ow Review Reviewed Court's Order Granting Defendants $425.00 0.5 $212.50 MTDismiss Count II w/ Prejudice Shared order w/ Client and spoke w/, re: result and ' 06/08/2020 ow Various plan going forward, re: 57.105 $425.00 0.5 $212.50 Researched§ 57.105 Fla. Stat.; drafted 57.105 06/08/2020 ow Various demand letter and proposed motion for attorneys' $425.00 2.0 $850.00 fees/sanctions; Served Pl's counsel with demand letter and proposed motion. 06/08/2020 AIJ Meeting Meeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105 $475.00 0.3 $142.50 06/08/2020 ow Meeting Meeting w/ AIJ, re: Order & 57.105 $~25.00 0.3 $127.50 06/08/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for I 0.2 $95.00 sanction $r75.oo 06/10/2020 ow Various Reviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk; I 0.3 $127.50 called and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerra ~25.00 Reviewed Pl's letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss I 06/23/2020 ow Various amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called i25.00 1.0 $425.00 and spoke w/ dient, re: Pl's refusal & next steps i CA/AroFl~OI>~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. ~/27/2023 4:10:49 PM I 06/23/2020 DW E-mail Sent client copy of Pl's letter refusing to dismiss complaint 425.00 0.1 $42.50 06/23/2020 AU Review Reviewed Pl’s letter refusing to dismiss Count l/Am. Compl. $475.00 0.1 $47.50 07/01/2020 DW Various Spoke w/client, re: filing of 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions; filed motion for attorneys' fees based on Pl's failure to voluntarily dismiss amended complaint count 1 $425.00 0.5 $212.50 07/02/2020 DW E-mail Email to client, re: affidavit and summary judgment $425.00 0.1 $42.50 07/08/2020 DW Teleconference Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence $425.00 0.7 $297.50 07/08/2020 AU Teleconference Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence $475.00 0.7 $332.50 07/10/2020 DW Draft Created 1 st draft of Aronberg Affidavit; shared w/ client $425.00 1.0 $425.00 07/10/2020 AU Various Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW $475.00 0.3 $142.50 07/10/2020 DW Meeting Discussed draft affidavit w/ AU $425.00 0.2 $85.00 07/13/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Request to Produce, re: Clerk $425.00 0.1 $42.50 07/13/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Request to Produce $425.00 0.2 $85.00 07/27/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl’s Amended Request to Produce, re: Clerk $425.00 0.1 $42.50 07/27/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Amended Request to Produce $425.00 0.1 $42.50 07/28/2020 DW Draft Revised Aronberg affidavit $425.00 0.5 $212.50 07/29/2020 DW Draft Finalized Aronberg Affidavit and sent to client $425.00 0.5 $212.50 07/29/2020 DW Research & Preparation Research and prep for Motion for Summary Judgment $425.00 1.0 $425.00 07/30/2020 DW Various Received executed Aronberg Affidavit $425.00 0.1 $42.50 07/30/2020 DW Draft Began drafting Motion for Summary Judgment $425.00 2.0 $850.00 08/05/2020 DW Draft Continued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment $425.00 1.0 $425.00 08/07/2020 DW Review Reviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to set hearing on 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions $425.00 0.1 $42.50 08/10/2020 DW E-mail Sent responsive email to Pl's counsel $425.00 0.1 $42.50 08/17/2020 DW Meeting Discussed draft MSJ w/ AU $425.00 0.2 $85.00 08/17/2020 AU Various Reviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss $475.00 0.5 $237.50 08/18/2020 DW Draft Finalized Motion for Summary Judgment; filed w/ court along with Aronberg affidavit $425.00 2.0 $850.00 08/27/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: request to produce $425.00 0.1 $42.50 09/01/2020 DW Various Reviewed Pl's email and accepted conference call invite for 9/2/20 $425.00 0.1 $42.50 09/02/2020 DW Review Reviewed Clerk's response to request for production $425.00 0.2 $85.00 09/02/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: dispute as to whether MSJ should be heard before 57.105 fee motion or vis versa - call was unsuccessful $425.00 0.5 $212.50 CA/AromtJWO0(X34a BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 06/23/2020 DW E-mail Sent client copy of Pl's letter refusing to dismiss +25.00 0.1 $42.50 complaint 06/23/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed Pl's letter refusing to dismiss Count I/Am. + 75.00 0.1 $47.50 Compl. Spoke w/ client, re: filing of 57.105 motion for !25.00 07/01/2020 DW Various fees/sanctions; filed motion for attorneys' fees 0.5 $212.50 based on Pl's failure to voluntarily dismiss I amended complaint count 1 07/02/2020 DW E-mail Email to client, re: affidavit and summary judgment $~25.00 0.1 $42.50 07/08/2020 DW Teleconference Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for $425.00 0.7 $297.50 Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence 07/08/2020 AIJ Teleconference Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for $475.00 0.7 $332.50 Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence 07/10/2020 DW Draft Created 1st draft of Aronberg Affidavit; shared w/ $425.00 1.0 $425.00 client 07/10/2020 AIJ Various Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW $475.00 0.3 $142.50 07/10/2020 DW Meeting Discussed draft affidavit w/ AIJ $425.00 0.2 $85.00 07/13/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Request to Produce, re: Clerk $425.00 0.1 $42.50 07/13/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Request to Produce $425.00 0.2 $85.00 07/27/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Amended Request to Produce, re: $425.00 0.1 $42.50 Clerk 07/27/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Amended Request to $425.00 0.1 $42.50 Produce 07/28/2020 DW Draft Revised Aronberg affidavit $425.00 0.5 $212.50 07/29/2020 DW Draft Finalized Aronberg Affidavit and sent to client $425.00 0.5 $212.50 07/29/2020 DW Research & Research and prep for Motion for Summary $425.00 1.0 $425.00 Preparation Judgment 07/30/2020 DW Various Received executed Aronberg Affidavit $425.00 0.1 $42.50 07/30/2020 DW Draft Began drafting Motion for Summary Judgment $425.00 2.0 $850.00 08/05/2020 DW Draft Continued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment $425.00 1.0 $425.00 08/07/2020 DW Review Reviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to set $425.00 0.1 $42.50 hearing on 57 .105 motion for fees/sanctions 08/10/2020 DW E-mail Sent responsive email to Pl's counsel $425.00 0.1 $42.50 I 08/17/2020 DW Meeting Discussed draft MSJ w/ AIJ $425.00 0.2 $85.00 08/17/2020 AIJ Various Reviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss $475.00 0.5 $237.50 08/18/2020 DW Draft Finalized Motion for Summary Judgment; filed w/ court along with Aronberg affidavit $425.00 2.0 $850.00 08/27/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: request to produce $425.00 0.1 $42.50 Reviewed Pl's email and accepted conference call 09/01/2020 DW Various invite for 9/2/20 I $42.50 $425.00 0.1 I 09/02/2020 DW Review Reviewed Clerk's response to request for production $~25.00 0.2 $85.00 I Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: dispute as to whether ~25.00 09/02/2020 DW Teleconference MSJ should be heard before 57 .105 fee motion or 0.5 $212.50 vis versa - call was unsuccessful I CA/Arci'itl.a!fl)OP.Pi.3_,~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM 09/02/2020 AU Meeting Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ Pl's counsel $475.00 0.2 $95.00 09/02/2020 DW Meeting Discussed w/ AU phone call w/ Pl's counsel $'425.00 0.2 $85.00 09/16/2020 DW E-mail Reviewed email from Pl's counsel requested Aronberg to withdraw sanctions motion w/o prejudice $■425.00 0.1 $42.50 09/17/2020 DW Meeting Discussed w/ AU filing motion for CMC $425.00 0.1 $42.50 09/17/2020 AU Meeting Discussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC $475.00 0.1 . $47.50 09/18/2020 DW Various Drafted and filed motion to set case management conference; re: MSJ 1st or Fee hearing 1st $425.00 0.5 $212.50 09/18/2020 DW E-mail Responded to Pl's 9/16/20 email and refused to withdraw 57.105 motion; provided copy of motion to set CMC and available dates for hearing $425.00 0.1 $42.50 09/18/2020 DW E-mail Reviewed Pl’s email insisting that 57.105 motion be withdrawn $425.00 0.1 $42.50 09/18/2020 DW E-mail Replied to Pi's counsel that the 57.105 motion for sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for response, re: CMC $425.00 0.1 $42.50 09/18/2020 DW E-mail Sent client copy of email exchange w/ Pl's counsel; called and spoke w/ Client $425.00 0.5 $212.50 09/22/2020 DW Various Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/20; set up Court Call; spoke w/ client, re: hearing date $425.00 0.7 $297.50 10/02/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl’s Memo of Law opposing Aronberg’s 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions $425.00 0.7 $297.50 10/02/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl’s Response to Aronberg’s request to schedule 57.105 motion for fees after MSJ $425.00 0.5 $212.50 10/02/2020 AU Review Reviewed Pl's Memo of Law opposing 57.105 motion $475.00 0.5 $237.50 10/02/2020 AU Review Reviewed Pl's Response to Aronberg’s request to schedule 57.105 motion after MSJ $475.00 0.4 $190.00 10/12/2020 DW Research Research caselaw & statutes, re: response to Pl’s Memo of Law $425.00 1.0 $425.00 10/13/2020 DW Research & Analyze Continued researching caselaw, re: response to Pl’s memo of law $425.00 1.0 $425.00 10/13/2020 DW Draft Created 1 st draft of Response to Pl's Memo of Law and shared w/ Client $425.00 4.0 $1,700.00 10/13/2020 DW Meeting Discussed w/ AU caselaw and draft response to memo $425.00 0.5 $212.50 10/13/2020 AU Various Reviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and caselaw $475.00 0.7 $332.50 10/14/2020 DW Draft Finalized and filed Response to Pl's Memo of Law $425.00 1.0 $425.00 10/14/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: memo of law $425.00 0.2 $85.00 10/14/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/15/2020 DW Attend Hearing Attended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC; called client to discuss i $*425.00 1.5 $637.50 10/15/2020 DW Various Reviewed email and letter from PI, re: settlement. Sent copy to Client and called to discuss. $ 125.00 0.5 $212.50 CA/AroRtiaj)OO03^[ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3 27 2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 09/02/2020 AIJ Meeting Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ Pl's counsel $~75.00 0.2 $95.00 09/02/2020 ow Meeting Discussed w/ AIJ phone call w/ Pl's counsel $~25.00 0.2 $85.00 Reviewed email from Pl's counsel requested J25.00 09/16/2020 ow E-mail Aronberg to withdraw sanctions motion w/o 0.1 $42.50 prejudice I 09/17/2020 ow Meeting Discussed w/ AIJ filing motion for CMC $425.00 I 0.1 $42.50 09/17/2020 AIJ Meeting Discussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC $~75.00 0.1 $47.50 Dratted and filed motion to set case management I 09/18/2020 ow Various conference; re: MSJ 1st or Fee hearing 1st $425.00 0.5 $212.50 Responded to Pl's 9/16/20 email and refused to 09/18/2020 ow E-mail withdraw 57.105 motion; provided copy of motion to $425.00 0.1 $42.50 set CMG and available dates for hearing 09/18/2020 ow E-mail Reviewed Pl's email insisting that 57.105 motion be withdrawn $425.00 0.1 $42.50 Replied to Pl's counsel that the 57 .1 05 motion for 09/18/2020 ow E-mail sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for $425.00 0.1 $42.50 response, re: CMC 09/18/2020 ow E-mail Sent client copy of email exchange w/ Pl's counsel; $425.00 0.5 $212.50 called and spoke w/ Client 09/22/2020 ow Various Dratted and filed Notice of Hearing on 1 0/15/20; set $425.00 0.7 $297.50 up Court Call; spoke w/ client, re: hearing date 10/02/2020 ow Review Reviewed Pl's Memo of Law opposing Aronberg's $425.00 0.7 $297.50 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions Reviewed Pl's Response to Aronberg's request to I 10/02/2020 ow Review schedule 57.105 motion for fees after MSJ $<125.00 0.5 $212.50 10/02/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed Pl's Memo of Law opposing 57 .105 $475.00 0.5 $237.50 motion 10/02/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed Pl's Response to Aronberg's request to $475.00 0.4 $190.00 schedule 57.105 motion after MSJ 10/12/2020 ow Research Research caselaw & statutes, re: response to Pl's Memo of Law $425.00 1.0 $425.00 10/13/2020 ow Research & Continued researching caselaw, re: response to $~25.00 1.0 $425.00 Analyze Pl's memo of law 10/13/2020 ow Draft Created 1st draft of Response to Pl's Memo of Law $425.00 4.0 $1,700.00 and shared w/ Client 10/13/2020 ow Meeting Discussed w/ AIJ caselaw and draft response to $425.00 0.5 $212.50 memo 10/13/2020 AIJ Various Reviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and $475.00 0.7 $332.50 caselaw 10/14/2020 ow Draft Finalized and filed Response to Pl's Memo of Law $425.00 1.0 $425.oo· 10/14/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: memo of law ~25.00 0.2 $85.00 10/14/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law $f25.00 0.1 $42.50 Attended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMG; called i 10/15/2020 ow Attend Hearing client to discuss $r25.00 1.5 $637.50 10/15/2020 ow Various Reviewed email and letter from Pl, re: settlement. Sent copy to Client and called to discuss. $f25.00 0.5 $212.50 CA/Arorrtl.at'.!D}PB03.,~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3./27/2023 4:10:49 PM 10/15/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/15/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Pl's settlement proposal $425.00 0.2 $85.00 10/15/2020 AU Various Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; discussed w/ client $^475.00 1.0 $475.00 10/15/2020 AU Various Discussed Pl’s settlement proposal w/ DAW and then w/ Client ^475.00 0.4 $190.00; 10/15/2020 DW Meeting Discussed Pi's settlement proposal w/ AU $425.00 0.2 $85.00: 10/16/2020 DW Various Drafted and shared proposed order w/ Pl's counsel $425.00 0.5 $212.50 10/16/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement $425.00 0.2 $85.00: 10/16/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Pl's settlement proposal $425.00 0.5 $212.50: 10/16/2020 DW Meeting Discussed Pi's settlement proposal w/ AU $425.00 0.2 $85.00: 10/16/2020 AU Meeting Discussed Pl’s settlement proposal w/ DAW $475.00 0.2 $95.00 10/19/2020 DW Various Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge Hafele $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/19/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Pl's settlement proposal $425.00 0.2 $85.00: 10/19/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ Pl’s counsel, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/19/2020 AU Meeting Discussed Pl’s settlement proposal w/ DAW $475.00 0.2 $95.00: 10/19/2020 DW Meeting Discussed Pl’s settlement proposal w/ AU $425.00 0.2 $85.00 10/20/2020 DW Various Reviewed email from PI, re: settlement; sent copy to Client and called to discuss $425.00 0.5 $212.50 10/20/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: settlement $425.00 0.4 $170.00 10/20/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/20/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/20/2020 DW Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AU $425.00 0.2 $85.00 10/20/2020 AU Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW $475.00 0.2 $95.00 10/21/2020 DW Various Drafted and filed Motion to Set Hearing on Aronberg MSJ; drafted proposed order granting motion to set; checked court availability; emailed Pl’s counsel, re: choose date for hearing $425.00 1.0 $425.00 10/21/2020 DW Review Reviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 0.2 $85.00 10/21/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50: 10/21/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50. 10/21/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 DW E-mail Sent email w/ Aronberg statement to media $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 AU Meeting Discussed media response w/ DAW $475.00 0.3 $142.50 10/21/2020 DW Meeting Discussed media response w/ AU $425.00 0.3 $127.50 10/22/2020 DW Various Reviewed Pl's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as party; spoke w/ Client and AU, re: notice and next steps $ 425.00 0.5 $212.50 CA/ArcfflfSgWDa&M BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 10/15/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement $f25.00 0.1 $42.50 10/15/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Pl's settlement proposal $f25.00 0.2 $85.00 10/15/2020 AIJ Various Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMG; $r75.00 1.0 $475.00 discussed w/ client 10/15/2020 AIJ Various Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW and $r75.00 0.4 $190.00, then w/ Client 10/15/2020 ow Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AIJ ~25.00 0.2 $85.00. I 10/16/2020 DW Various Drafted and shared proposed order w/ Pl's counsel $425.00 0.5 $212.50 10/16/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement $:425.00 0.2 $85.oo. 10/16/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Pl's settlement proposal $425.00 0.5 $212.50 I 10/16/2020 ow Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AIJ $f25.00 0.2 $85.00 10/16/2020 AIJ Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW $475.00 0.2 $95.00 I 10/19/2020 ow Various Uploaded proposed order, re: CMG for Judge $425.00 0.1 $42.50 Hafele 10/19/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Pl's settlement proposal $~25.00 0.2 $85.00. 10/19/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/19/2020 AIJ Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW $:475.00 0.2 $95.00· 10/19/2020 ow Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AIJ $425.00 0.2 $85.00 10/20/2020 ow Various Reviewed email from Pl, re: settlement; sent copy $425.00 0.5 $212.50 to Client and called to discuss 10/20/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: settlement $425.00 0.4 $170.00 10/20/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 $42.50 ! 10/20/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/20/2020 DW Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AIJ $425.00 0.2 $85.00 I 10/20/2020 AIJ Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW $:475.00 0.2 $95.00 Drafted and filed Motion to Set Hearing on I ' 10/21/2020 DW Various Aronberg MSJ; drafted proposed order granting $425.00 1.0 $425.00 motion to set; checked court availability; emailed i Pl's counsel, re: choose date for hearing I 10/21/2020 ow Review Reviewed Order, re: CMG unnecessary $425.00 0.1 $42.50. I 10/21/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $~25.00 0.2 $85.00 10/21/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50; 10/21/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50. 10/21/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50 I 10/21/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 ow E-mail Sent email w/ Aronberg statement to media $f25.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 AIJ Meeting Discussed media response w/ DAW $f 75.00 0.3 $142.50 10/21/2020 ow Meeting Discussed media response w/ AIJ $f25.00 0.3 $127.50 Reviewed Pl's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as f2soo 10/22/2020 ow Various party; spoke w/ Client and AIJ, re: notice and next 0.5 $212.50 steps I I I CA/Ardf'illal~OBfll,44: BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3 1/27/2023 4:10:~9 PM 10/22/2020 AU Various Reviewed Pl's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as party; spoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next steps $ 475.00 0.5 $237.50 Totals: 74.8 $32,440.00 Time Entry Sub-Total: $32,440.00 I Sub-Total: i $32,440.00 Total: $32,440.00 Amount Paid: $0.00 i Balance Due: $32,440.00 CA/ArcMfHg>OM:m BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3.,727/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Reviewed Pl's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as 10/22/2020 AIJ Various party; spoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next steps I $475.00 0.5 I ITotals: 74.8 I Time Entry Sub-Total: I Sub-Total: ! I Total: Amount Paid: i Balance Due: $237.50 $32,440.00 $32,440.00 $32,440.00 $32,440.00 $0.00 $32,440.00 CA/Arc.J'itlsRIJ)OD~l,4a BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. ~/27/2023 4:10:49 PM EXHIBIT “F” EXHIBIT “F” CA/Aroptie|®0^^^[ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY ; EXHIBIT "F" EXHIBIT "F" I CA/AroFll:.,Ef.ID9~()J_,4Jv[ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. ~/27/2023 4:10:49 PM I IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher ofthe PALM BEACH POST, Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendants. AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF NASSAU BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority appeared Douglas A. Wyler, Esq., who, after being first duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. Affiant is a partner of JACOBS, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, counsel for Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, (“Aronberg”), as well as general counsel to the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, (“FPAA”), and makes this Affidavit of his own personal knowledge. 2. Affiant is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida, is; an active member of the Florida Bar in good standing and has engaged in the practice of law in the' State of Florida since 2015. ! 3. As detailed herein, the services rendered by Affiant and his firm pertain to Affiant’s demand letter and motion for attorneys’ fees sent to Plaintiffs counsel pursuant to § 57.105, Florida Statutes, on June8, 2020, in defending against Count I of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint CA/Aroph€0)0p(\347| BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY ·:' _- ..,. ....... ___ -_ -_ - -_- - __ --___ - -/-· - - - - - - - _-_ - - -_ - - IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL.CIRCUIT • • • . 1 IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA - - - t I CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, I Plaintiff,- v. DA VEARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroiler of Palm • Beach County, Florida. Defendants. I --------------- CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 AFFIDA VIt OF ATTORNEYS' FEES St A TE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF NASSAU BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority appeared Douglas A. Wyler, Esq., who, after being first duly sworn, deposes and says: I. Affiant is a partner of JACOBS, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, counsel for Defendant, DA VE ARON BERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, f1orida, ("Aronberg"), as well as general counsel to the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, ("FPAA"), and makes this Affidavit of his own personal knowledge. 2. I Affiant is licensed to practice law· in the State of Florida, is: an active member of I I the Florida Bar in good standing and has engaged in the practice of law in the 1 State of Florida since - I 2015. 3. As detailed herein, the services rendered by Affiant and his firm pertain to Affiant's demand letter and motion for attorneys' fees sent to Pia inti ff s counsel pursuant to § 57.105, _-- - --- ; __ .- - - - - - - - I- - - - _- ·F1orida Statutes,-tiif June s,-2020; iifdefending'againscCoffnt I of Plaint1ff's'Afnende0Complafrir • CA/ArOfltlsIEIDP,~:t4lr BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3;/27/2023 4:10:49 PM and Plaintiff’s October 21, 2020 Notice of Dropping State Attorney, Daye Aronberg from the above-captioned lawsuit. See, Exhibits “A” and “B” attached hereto. ■ 4. The total time Affiant’s law firm has expended services rendered to date is 74.8 hours, however, from the date of Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 demand, Affiant’s la\v firm has expended a total of 42.2 hours. Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 .. demand was served, the Affiant 5. : Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 demand was . served, the total time Affiant has expended services rendered to date is 35.4 hours at the rate of $425.00 per hour. Likewise, the total time Affiant’s law partner, Arthur I. Jacobs, has expended services rendered to date is 6.8 hours at the rate of $475;00 per hour. 6, Accordingly, since Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 demand was served, Defendant Aronberg’s counsel, JACOBS, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, has rendered services in the amount of $18,275.00, in conjunction with the defense of the instant action pursuant to § 57.105, Florida Statutes. See, Exhibit “C” attached hereto. 1. Affiant expects to incur an additional 4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for and attending the hearing on attorneys’ fees. Thus, the total amount of hourly attorneys’ fees the State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of $19,975.00. Additionally, the State Attorney seeks a multiplier of 2.0, which when applied makes the grand total attorneys’ fees sought herein $39,950.00. Dated this 9th day of November, 2020. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. Douglas MWyler, Esq.,: Fla. Bari No. I19979 CA/AroftargjQipoa^l BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY . ·.:. and Plaintiffs October 21, 2020 Notice of Dropping State Atto~ey, Dave Aronb~tg from the - - .. • - - - • • • I : . above-:~a~tloned lawsuit. See, Exl,ibif! "A" and ,;B,, attached hereto: • ) . • . -. . . . • . . • . • I, .· . ·. . • -The total time Affiant's law finn has expended services reridered _to date is 74.8 -ho~rs, however, -fr()m !he __ date of Defendant Aroriberg' s 5 7. I 05 demand; Affiant' s law firm -has • • • . . ·• . • • •.. ·. . expen~ed a. total of 42.2 hours. Of the42.2 hours expended sin~e Defendant Aronberg'.s 57.105· demand w~ served,_the Affiahf 5. - Of the 42.2 hours expended .since Defe.nda~t Aronberg's 57.105 cie~and was served, the total tim,e Affiant has expended services rende_red ~o date is 35.4 hou~ at the rate of_ - $425.QO per hour. Like\vise, the total time Affiant's law· partrier, Arthur I. ·Jacobs, has expended . . .• • -· . . . . . .. . . . services rendered to date is 6.8 hours at the rate of $475;00 per hour. ·. . .. 6: A~cordingly, since Defendant Aronberg's 57.105 demai;id was served; Defendant Aronberg's cou~se( JACOBS, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, has rendernd services in the amount • . • • . . . - -of $18,275.00, in conjunction with the defense of the instant action pursuant to § 57.105, Florida : • ; .:· . -- ·._: •. Statutes. See, Exhibit "C" attached hereto. 7. Affiant expects to incur an additional 4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for and attending the hearing on attorneys' fees. Thus, the total amount of hourly attorneys' fees the I . • • -· State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of $19,975.00. Additionally, the State Attorney seeks a rriGltiplier of 2.0, which when applied makes the grand total attorneys' fees sought herein $39;950.00. -__ _ Dated this 9th day of November, 2020. FURTHER AFFIANT_SA YETH NOT. •• - Dotiglas • CA/AroF1~P~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF NASSAU The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9th day of November, 2020, by Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire, who is personally known to me and who did take an oath. Sign^tywLofNotary Public - State ofFlorida Notary Public. State of Florida L . . Commission # GG 354841 ;■ *. My Comm.Expires Aug 17. 2023. P . Bonded through National Notary Assn. • Name typed, printed or stamped CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day ofNovember, 2020, a copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein. JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC /s/Douglas A. Wyler Arthur I. Jacobs, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 10249 Richard J. Scholz, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904)261-3693 (904)261-7879 Fax ; Primary: [email protected] Attorneysfor Defendant, Dave Aronberg CA/AropharjjQPM^ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY i STA TE QF FLORIDA COUNTY OF.NASSAU ·.· . .· ·. . . .. . .··. . j . .. ·. . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9th day of November, 2020, by Dou ~ A. Wyler, Esquire, who fs personally known to me and wh9 did take an oath. Name typed, printed or stamped .• CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . •• . =·.- • . - . . . I HEREBYCERTIFY that on this9th day of November, 2020, a copy of the foregoi~g has . . been electronically filed with the Florida E~File Portal fore-service on all patties of record herein. . . . . . ~ JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC Isl DouglasA. Wyler Arthur I. Jacobs, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: I 0249 , .Richard J. Scholz, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: I 19979 .. 961687 Gat~\.vay Blvd., Suite 201-1 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904) 261-3693 (904) 261-7879 Fax Primary: [email protected] . Allorneysfor Defendant. Dave Aronberg I I CA/Arof)~!D)PP{i}J_,4'Q BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM ' EXHIBIT“A” EXH1BH “A” CA/Arcrt®S)PP0a5a BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3727/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY CA/ArOflt:lmIDPP~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM Friday, September 18, 2020 at 11:09:24 Eastern Daylight Time Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT; CASE NO' 2019-CA-014681; GA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLCV. DAVE ARONBERG ET AL. Date: Monday,June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Douglas Wyler To: '[email protected]', [email protected], [email protected] [email protected] . ■•• ’. • Attachments: 2020-06-08 Aronberg 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys' Fees.pdf Court: - - • I . ■ ■ 1 -. Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida Case No: Case:No. 2020-CA-014681 Plaintiff: Defendant: CA Florida Holdings, LLC DaveJ Aron berg Title of Documents Served: Sender's Name and Telephone Number: •j Fla. Stat. § 57.105 Demand Letter •; Defendant, Dave Aronberg's Motion for Attorneys' Fees Douglas Wyler (904) 261-3693 Sincerely, Doug Wyler, Esq. ; Jacobs, Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-1 Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 904-261-3693 904-261-7879 (fax) Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted.with it are confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication but destroy if immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. i T I I I

Page 1 of 1 CA/Arcfm®)0P&m BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Frida~; Septe~ber 18, 2020 at 11:09:24 Eastern Daylight Time. .. . --· . . . -• -.. -· . - .- . . .. I' Subject: •• SERViCE OF COURT DOCUMENT; CASE No: 2019-CA-014681; CA FLci'RiDAHOLDINGS, HCV DAVE ARON BERG ET AL • • • .•. • . . • •• • • . . •. •.• .• • . I . . . ,' . . Date: Mo~day,'Junei; W20 ap:58:58 PM Eastern DaylightTime ••••.••. •• • . Froin: OciugiasWyler ·• I . ••• .. •. . • . •'. . . .. . 'i . . . . . . •' To: '[email protected]', [email protected],flser'[email protected], [email protected], ··. riveraal~gtla~'.com, [email protected] •. •. • . . l .. · . . ··..•. . . Attl:lchments: 2020~06~08 Aroiiberg 57.ios Demand and Mption for Attorneys' Fees.pdf • .· ·.· ·.. •.. . , . . . · .•..• ·. ·. ·.· . • • . .· . . . . I . - Court: • Case No: Plaintiff: Defendant: . Title of Documents Served: Sender's Name and Telephone Number: Sincerely, Doug Wyler, Esq . - -. . . I • . ·I. • ·. . • ·. . • • . . •.• • :__ :· • i .. . : _- • • Clr'cJit C~urt of the Fifteenth.Judicial Circuit; in and f~r Palm Beach County, I • . .. •. • Flori~a Case\No. :?020-CA-014681 CA Florida Holdings, LLC Dav~Aronb~rg • •; Fla. Stat§ 57.105 Demand Letter . •; Defendant, Dave Aron berg's Motion for Attorneys' Fees Douglas Wyler (904j 261-3693 .. Ja~obs, S_c:~6lz $,._Wyler, LL~ . 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-1 Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 904-261-3693 904-261-7879 (fax) ------- Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client comm~nicatio~ or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.· 1t you are not the intended recipient, pleased~ not read, copy or. retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. • • ···-· ----···- .. -- ---------·-----··· ·················-- -- • =---···-·---- -·--·--··---······· ...

Page 1 of 1 CA/ArofiIDIEIJ)OP~~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3./27/2023 4:10:49 PM , THE LAW OFFICES OF. JACOBS A ASSOCIATES, P.A. ARTHUR I. JACOBS Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, llc. A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS '• ATTORNEYS AT LAW . GATEWAY TO AMELIA \ 9eiBB7 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 2014 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693 FAX NO. (90-4) 261-7879 RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A. RICHARD J. SCHOLZ DOUGLAS A. WYLER. P.A. DOUGLAS A. WYLER June 8, 2020 VTA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL J Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. . . ; Greenburg Traurig, P.A, 5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33486 RE: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Daye Aronberg et.al. Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 Dear Mr. Mendelsohn: As you are aware our firm represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney ofPalm Beach County, Florida, in the above referenced matter. The purpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary dismissal ofyour First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), dated January 17,2020. This demand is made pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes. As you know, Section 57.105 provides: (1) .Upon the court’s initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee, including prejudgment interest, to!be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney on any Claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the court finds that the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial: a. ' Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense; or . i ■ b. Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts. Today, Judge Marx granted, with prejudice, Defendant Aronberg’s Motion to; Dismiss Count II of the Plaintiffs Complaint. Pursuant to the Court’s ruling, the Plaintiffs only remaining cause of action consists of Count I, for Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, we believe that the Complaint filed herein and its sole remaining Count for Declaratory’ Relief is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims asserted, and that your claims are not supported by the application of current law .to.said.materiai.facts.:.......- _.— .—.••- - > . ■ . i - - - . • • ■ I I. BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY -1 JAc.9as Sc~9i;z :~-- WnER,· 1[Ai:c ..• ·- A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ' . , .. . . . . ·ATT_ORNEYS AT"l.AW • · . .!~E: LAWpfF'tCE:S OF._ _ JACOBS. & ASSOCIATES, P.A. ARTHUR 1. JAco·ss • • _961687 GATEWAY_BLVD.,.-SUITE 201-1 . •• FER.'l.A..'IDINA BEAGH, FLORIDA 32034 • •• VIA E~ECTRONIC&U~S. MAIL StephenA Mendelsohn~ Esq. Greenbµrg Tralirig, P.A. ·_ . . . . 5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 BocaRaton, FL 33486 • TELEPHONE (!;104) 261-3693- FAX NO. (904) 261-7879 -__ --. . • • ·_-_. ·_ '. . • . RE: CAFl~rida Holdings, u,c v. Da~'eAronberg et:a1. Palm Bea~h County, C_ase No.: 2019-CA-014681 Dear Mr. Mendelsohn: i i l_ RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A. R1cHAR6 J. sCHoLz DOUG~~s:.wYLER, P:A . • OOUGL.:AS A. WYLER . . . : . . As you are aware our finn·represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State' Attorney of Palm Beach· County, Florida: in the above referenced matter. The purpose oftnis letter is.to demand the voluntary dismissal of your First A_mended Complaint, (the "Complaint"), dated January 17, 2020. This demand is made pursuant to section 57. I 05, Florida Statutes. • • As you know, Section 57. I 05 provider (I) Upon the court's initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a reasonable attorney's· fee, inclu~ing prejudgment interest, to: be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing paity•s attorney on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the court finds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney knew or should have known that a cl~im or defense when initially presented to th 1e court or at any time before trial: . • • • · · . • a. 'Was not supported by the material facts necessary to esta~lish the claim or defense; or • b. Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts. Today, Judge Marx granted, with prejudice, Defenqant Aronb~rg's Motion to: Dismiss Count II of the •• Plaintiffs Complaint. Pursuant to the Court;s ruling, the Plaintiffs only remaining cause of action co11sists of Count!, for Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, we be_lieve that thi Cmnplaint filed herein and its sole remaining Count for Declaratory Relief is not supported by the miterial facts necess~ry to • estab!ish the claims asserted, and that your claims _are not supported by the application of current law _____ -10 .. Said:in:ate"ri~i-faCts:~- ___ ~--- . ·:- ----·· ·--- ---· -· .. . _-__ . ··-----: ____ -.. -~----·. ----· ~-- --- -- ·J __ ~_ - --- ...... --· .. -_ ----- ----- ---------- -----• -------- i CA/Arofltl.m:!D)PP~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 31/27/2023 4:10:49 PM I First and foremost, the. Complaint is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims asserted because .neither Defendant Aronberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein.' Simply put, the. declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records from my client that are impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is hot a proper party to this action because no matter what, he and his office do not have possession, custody, or control ofthe requested materials. . In addition to the foregoing material facts that negate the claims asserted in the Complaint, your.claims are also hot supported by the application ofcurrent law. Specifically, your action,for declaratory relief fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2), Florida Statutes, which states: ' ’ •• • •• ’ ■ I When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (1 j for use.in a civil case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter to their legal associates and employees. However, the erand jury testimony afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense orprosecution ofthe civil or criminal case and for no otherpurpose whatsoever. Moreover, even ifthe Plaintiffwere to prevail in the declaratory action, Mr. Aronberg would be unable to comply with any court order granting disclosure of the requested documents because neither Mr. Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit have possession, custody, or control of the 2006 Epstein grand jury records. Based bn the foregoing, if the Complaint is not dismissed within 21 days of the service of this letter, the enclosed Motion for Attorney’s Fees will be filed and we will seek as sanctions, from your client and your firm, recovery of the legal expenses incurred in defending this frivolous action. Please govern yourself accordingly. Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. For the Firm Encl.: Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys' Fees CA/Arontl«J)OD033a BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY I .·. I First and foremo;t,. tll~. Complaint is not support~d. by the mat~~ial facts necessary ~o establish the ••• cl.aims .·asseri:eq. because rieither Defendant Aron berg, nor The Office. of the State Attorn~y for the . Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is. in custody or control of the .2006 grand jury !materials sought therein: Simply put, the deciaratory n:lief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records I fro~ my dient •. that are impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aron berg is not a proper party to this action because no mattet what, he and his office do not have possession,:custody, or·controi of the requested materials. • • • • • • • ..• In ackHtion to the foregoingmat~riat facts that negate the ~!aims asserted_in_the Compl~i~t,your~lai.ms are also not supported by the application of current iaw .. Specifically, your action fordeclaratdry i-eli.ef .· fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 90'5.27(2), Florida Statutes, which states: • • .• • . . · • • • •. . ' . · • • . · · . • . . . . . . . . . ! When such.disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (I) for use in a civil case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter to their legal associates and empl9yees. However, the grand iury testimony afforded such persons by the court can on/ybe used in the defense or prosecution ofthe civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever. • Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the declaratory action, Mr. Aron berg would be unable. to comply with any court order granting disclosure of the requested documeriis because neither Mr. Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit have possession, custody, or c.ontrol of the 2006 Epstein grand jury records. Based on the foregoing, ifthe Complaint is not dismissed within 21 days of the service of this letter, the enclosed Motion for Attorney's Fees will be filed and we will seek as sanctions, from your client and your firm, recovery of the legal expenses incurred in defending this frivolous action. Pleare r:;;:1t•'~ Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. For the Firm .Encl.: Defendant's Motion for Attorneys· Fees CA/Aro,rt:Im:gpPD~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OFTHE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, . Plaintiff, v- CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681 DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendants.. ____/ DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney ofPalm Beach County, Florida, by and through the.undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys’ fees for the defense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), and as.grounds therefor, would show that on June 8,.2020, Plaintiff was served a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing ofthis Motion. In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiffofthe facts which establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiffs attorneys to pay said Defendant’s attorneys’ fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. • ... ... . . • • ■ j CA/ArcM«Eg>0Da3M BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY • : __ -;.- :.::: ·,. ':,. . IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT • . IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY; FLORl])A .•• • CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS,LLC, Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, • . Plaintiff, DA VE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Paln:i, Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida. • • Defendants. I --,-----,---,,------------ CASE NO.: l9-CA-O 14681 DEFENDANT, DA VE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES Defendan~ DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and . . . .. . . . through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florid.a Statu.tes, Section 57. lQS, . . . • . • to award him reason~ble attorneys' fees for the d~fense of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, . (the "Complaint"), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served a copy of this Motion, together with a letter fro!Il the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection ( 4) of the above Statute, demanding diimiissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior .. to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. WHEREFORE, Defendant, DA VE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiffs attorneys fo pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion. I • . I i CA/Arc:i'tMIVOB0.:l!M BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties ofrecord,herein. JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC /s/Douglas A. Wyler Arthur: I.. Jacobs, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 108249 Richard J. Scholz, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-1 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904)261-3693 (904)261-7879 [email protected] Attorneysfor Defendant I I CA/ArcttlfSgiODaiW BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I - I I .• •• i .. _I . -! i I hereby certify that on this __ day ___ , 2020, t~e fmeg~ing was eiectroriically filed -_- via the Florida E-File Portal for ~iectronk service on the parties ofrecord herein. JACOB:s sclioLz & \VYLER, ~ic - ls!p;uglas A. Wyler Arthur I. Jacobs, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 108249- -_- __ Richard J. Schoiz; Esqlllre Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler; Esqui~e Fla. Bai No.: il 9979 961687 Gate~ay 1;3lv'ci., Suite 20i-I Fernandina ·Beach, Florida 32034 (904) 261-3693 (904) 261-7879 _ [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant . CA/ArO[AJ:l.eE!U)PD~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM EXHIBIT “B” EXHIBIT “B” CA/Aroptea)OP@^ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3 27 2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY • • • • •••••• ·.C •C• •• : • . EXHIBIT "B'' . . ._: ____ ···- ----------- -,-EXHIBlT.·-'-'B·'-·'-·-··-- CA/AroFl~!IJ)PP~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM Filing # 115383434 E-Filed10/21/2020 04:13:35 PM . , . ' . ' > ■: ' ■ . i ■ ■ • ■■ ■' ’ -■ ■ ■ ■ . . IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE . FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, CASENO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB Publisher of THE PALMBEACHPOST, DIVISION: AG Plaintiff . v. '■■■■ ■ ‘ DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, Defendants. . ~ ~ PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC’S NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1250(b), hereby notifies the parties that it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case. Respectfully submitted, GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. Attorneysfor CA Florida Holdings. LLC, Publisher ofThe Palm Beach Post Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Telephone: (561) 955-7629 Facsimile: (561) 338-7099 By: /s/Stephen A. Mendelsohn STEPHEN A- MENDELSOHN Florida Bar No. 849324. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] CA/Aromel>0D039?l BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY i • ·-:i .,_ -. I I. -Filing# 115383434 E-Filed 10/2U2020 04: 13:35 -Pfyt -- - I ._. i --• ,CAFLORIDA HOLD_INGS, LLC, . I • -_ . . . . .. ·i- : .. . • IN THE CIRCl)IT ~QlJRT Of THE _ . _ FIFTEENT_l-I J_UDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM-BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA _ - - _ Pubjisher of THE PALM BµCHPOST, CASE NO.: 50~2019~CA-014681--XXXX-MB .. DIVISION: AG - Plaintift V. - • . . . . . . DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palin Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk an~ Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, Defendants. . PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC'S NOTICE OF DROPPING ST ATE ATTORNEY, DA VE ARONBERG - -Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant.to Fla. R. Civ. P. I250(b), hereby notifies the part"ies that • ·_ it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case. Respectfully submitted, GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. Auorneysfor CA Florida Hoidings. LLC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Po:~, • Stephen A. Mendelsohn; Esq. _ 40 I East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 Boca Raton, Florida_3~486 Telephone: (561) 955-16~9 Facsimile: (561 )338-7099 • • By: /\-/Stephen A. Mendelwhn STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN Florida Bar No. 849324. mendelsohns@gtlaw:com sniithlrc/,brtlaw .coni FLServicetti1gtlaw:com I -: CA/ArOf\l:laE!U)PB0..l!Nr BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM ·-.- . ..:. :· ■< / j-/ - ,.'L By: K! MichaelJ Grygiel . / ; MICHAEL J GRYGIEL ' (Admitted Pro Hdc Vice) 1 54 State St., 6th Floor • Albany, New York12207 Telephone: (518) 689-1400 Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 [email protected] By: 7s/ Nina D. Bovaiian_ NINAD. BOYAJIAN (Admitted Pro Hoc Vice) 1840 Century Park East, Suite 19.00 Los Angeles California 90067 Telephone: (310)586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 boya [email protected] . [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21s1 day ofOctober, 2020, a true and correct copy of the- foregoing has been filed with the Clerk ofthe Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which will send a notice ofelectronic service for all parties of record herein /s/Stephen A. Mendelsohn_ STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN ACTIVE 5331734 M CA/Arc»ti^0DQ3a& BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY By: /s/ Michael J Grygiel MICHAEL J GRYGIEL • (Adrhjtted Pr~ Ha; Vice) 54 State St., 6th Floor .· • • · A[bany,New York 12201 Telephone: (5,l8) 68~~1400 Facsimile: (518) 6~9-1499 gi-vgielrn@ctl~w;c6m •• By: Isl Nina D. Boyaii;n NINA D. BOY AJiAN • (AdrrtittedProH~Vice) • i 840 C:entury Park East, Suite 1900 • Los Angeles Caltfornia 90067 • Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310). 586:: 7800 b6vajiann(m.gtlaw.com • riveraal@gtia,\;.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY C:ERTIFY that on this 21 st day of October, 2020, a true and correct copy c:,f the· . . foregoing has been filed ~ith the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which . will send a notice of electrc,nic service for all parties of record herein Isl Stephen A. Mendelsohn STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN ACTIVE 53317341v1 2 CA/Aror\Ha@OB~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM EXHIBIT “C” EXHIBIT “C” i CA/Arolte®)O0039Q BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY ; .• i i . ' . • . • . . EXHIBIT "C" CA/AroFl.tlaE!D)OP~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd./Suite 2011 Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 United States ' 904-261 -3693 Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, LLC Dave Aronberg Balance $32,440.00 Invoice # 00307 Invoice Date November 6, 2020 Payment Terms Due Date Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC Time Entries Date EE Activity Description Rate Hours Line Total 11/26/2019 DW . Review Initial review of summons and complaint. $425.00 1.5 $637.50 11/26/2019 DW Review Reviewed motion for pro hac vice and Judge Hafele' order granting $425.00 0.2 $85.00 11/26/2019 DW Teleconference Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit $425.00 0.5 $212’50 11/26/2019 DW Draft Drafted engagement letter and sent to client $425.00 0.3 $127.50 11/26/2019 DW Review . Reviewed 15th circuit local rules $425.00 1.0 $425.00 11/26/2019 AU Review Initial review of complaint $475.00 1.0 $475.00 11/26/2019 AU Meeting Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy $475.00 0.5 . $237.50 11/26/2019 DW Meeting Meeting w/ AU to discuss lawsuit and strategy - $425.00 0.5 : $212.50 11/26/2019 AU Teleconference Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit $475.00 0.5 $237.50 12/02/2019 DW Research & Preparation Research and prep for Motion to dismiss $425.00 2:0 $850.00 12/02/2019 DW Draft 1st Draft motion to dismiss . $425:00 1.0 $425.00 12/02/2019 DW Teleconference Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to dismiss $425.00 0.5 $212.50 12/02/2019 AU Review Reviewed 1 st Draft MTDismiss $475.00 0.3 $142.50 12/02/2019 AU Teleconference Teleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to dismiss $475.00 0.5 $237.50 12/03/2019 I AU Meeting Meeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss $475.00 0,2 $95.00 12/03/2019 DW Meeting_ Meeting w/AU, re: MTDismiss $425.00 ■ ' 0.2 $85.00. 12/06/2019 I DW Draft Completed final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with Court . $425.00 0.7 $297.50 12/06/2019 DW Teleconference Spoke w/client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss $425.00 0.5 $212.50 i I i I BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY i ··.·1··· i ,.: :.:. . ·.,.'.· . ·' , . i .·. •.· Jacd~s Scho~z 8t ~yler, LLC ;< · •• .· 961·5a?Gateway s1v<:i/Siiite 201 r ·• ·.I·• Jacobs Scholz -& Wyler, LLC I Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 • United States • • • • • • 904-26103693 ·. • • : Dav~ Aron berg.· . . . B~la~ce·· Invoice# . . . . lnvoi~e Date· • • ·.Paymer,t Terms· Due.Date . . . • $32,440.QO 00307 November 6, 2020 - - - -.. - - - .. ---.• --- • ·_ ------- . - •.. --- -·. - --- - -- - - - - - - - . - -- - •• - -- • - -- - . - - - - - -- - - - - - -- • - --- ---- . -... - _.- -- - ----- - - - - - - -- -- -- - -- _· ~ronberg (SA0-15) adv. CA Florida Hol.dings, LLC Time Entries Date··. EE ... Activity Description • Rate Hours Urie Total 11/26/2019 ,OW Review Initial review of summons and complaint. $425.00 1.5 $637.50 11/26/2019 ow Review Reviewed motion for pro hac vice and Judge Hafele' order granting. $425.00 0.2 $85.00 11/26/2019 ow Teleconference Teieconference w/ Client, re: response tci lawsuit $425.00 0.5 $212.50 I. 11/26/2019 ow Draft Drafted engagement letter and sent to client $425.00 0.3 $f27.50 11/26/2019 ow Review Reviewed 15ih circuit local rules $425.oo· 1.0 $425.00 11/26/2019 AIJ Review lnitiafreview of complaint $4.75.00 1.0 $475.00 11/26/2019 AIJ Meefing Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit ~nd strategy $475.0ci 0.5 ·. $237.50 11/26/2019 ow Meeting Meeting w/ AIJ to discuss lawsuit and strategy . $425:oo 0.5 • $212.~0 .. 11/26/2019 AIJ Teleconference . Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit $475.00 0.5 $237.50 12/02/2019 ow Research & Pr.eparation Research and prep for Motion to dismiss $425.00 2,0 $850.00 12/02/2019 ow Draft 1st Draft motion to dismiss . $425'.00 1.0 $425.00 12/02/2019 ow Teleconference· Teleconference w/ Client, re: dmft motion to $425.00 0.5 $212,50 dismiss 12/02/2019 Al.) Review Reviewed· 1st Draft MTDismiss $475.00 0.3 $142.50 12/02/2019 :AIJ Teleconference Teieconference w/ client, re: draft motion to $475.00 0;5 $237.50 dismiss 12/03/2019 AIJ .Meeting • Meeting w/.DAVJ, re: motion to dismiss $475.00 0,2 $95:00 :1 . , M9-E!tjng Meeting ~/ AJJ, r~: MT!)i~rriis,s. .~4~?-go .. . 121031201 L P.'-"'_ 0.2 -~5.00a ... ---·------- - - a ····--·--·-· ------- --·- -~--- .. --- . ··-- ·-·•·- ... Completed final; draft of motion to dlsmiss; filed with I .12/06/2019 bw Draft . $4k5.oo 0.7 $297.50 .Court ·, -: ; .. 12/06/20.19 ow Teleconference· Spoke w/ client,-~e: fin:al dr~ft-cif motion to dismiss $425.00 0.5 $212:50 I CA/Arofrt:lslEIJ)~lP~:J.00 BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM .-’I 12/06/2019 . DW Teleconference Spoke with.Clerk's attorney, re: response . .< . $425,00 0.5 $212.50 12/06/2019 AU Review Reviewed final draft MTDismiss $475.00 0.2 $95.00 12/06/2019 AU Review Reviewed Clerk's MTDismiss $475.00 . ; 0.2 ' $95.00 12/13/2019 DW Review Reviewed Clerk's Motion to Dismiss $425.00 0,5 $212.50 01/16/2020 / DW Review Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants’ MTDismiss $425.00 0.1 $42.50 01/16/2020 DW Review Reviewed motion for pro hac vice ; . $425.00 0.1 $42.50 01/17/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Amended Complaint $425.00 1.0 $425.00 01/17/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint , .. $425.00 ■0.5 $212.50 01/17/2020 DW Review Reviewed, Pi's’notice of filing . $425.00 0.1 ; $42.50 01/20/2020 AIJ Review . Reviewed Pl's Am. Compl $475.00 0.3 $142.50 01/21/2020 DW Review Reviewed Judge Marx's Order Cancelling . MTDismiss Hearing $425.00 0.1 ■ $42.50. 01/21/2020. . DW Review Reviewed Pl's Objection to Defendants' MTDismiss $425.00 0.2 $85.00 01/21/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke With client, re: Amended complaint $425.00 0.5 $212.50 01/21/2020 AU Meeting Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Compl. $475.00 0.2; $95.00 01/21/2020 DW Meeting Meeting w/ AIJ, re: response to Am. Compl. $425.00 0.2 $85.00 01/22/2020 DW Review Reviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission $425.00 0.1, $42.50 01/22/2020 DW Research & Draft Researched and drafted response to Amended Complaint $425.00 1.0 $425.00 01/23/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response to amended complaint $425.00 0.2 $85.00 01/24/2020 DW Various Completed Answer/MTDismiss Amended Complaint; filed with Court; sent copy to Client $425.00 i:o $425.00 01/24/2020 DW Draft Drafted and filed Notice of Unavailability $425.00 0.4 $170.00 01/24/2020 AU Review Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss $475.00 0.2 $95.00 01/27/2020 DW . Review Reviewed Clerk's Answer/MTDismiss $425.00 0.3 $127.50 02/03/2020 DW Review Reviewed Order setting hearing on Defs’ MTDismiss $425.00 0.1 $42.50 02/03/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss hearing for March 24, 2020 $425.00 0.5 $212,50 03/13/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk's MTDismiss $425.00 1.5 $637.50 03/13/2020 AU Review Reviewed Pl's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk's MTDismiss $475.00 0.7 $332.50 03/18/2020 DW Teleconference Reviewed email from Pl's counsel, re: motion to continue hearing ... $425.00 0.1 $42.50 03/18/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl’s unopposed motion for continuance • $425.00 <. o.i $42.50 03/18/2020 DW E-fnail Emails w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Pl’s request to continue hearing $425.00 0.2 $85.00 03/19/2020 DW E-mail Reviewed email from PI, re: agreed order & responded $425.00 0.1 . $42.50 03/20/2020 DW Review Reviewed Court's agreed order continuing hearing $425.00 0.1 $42.50 CA/AroFt®gp0e9aaSU BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 12i06i2019 OW ·· Teleconference :12/06/2019 AIJ Review.·. 12/06/20.1.9. AIJ Review ·_12/.13/2019_. OW •• Review- '01116/2020 ow Review .. 01/16/2020 ow· Review 01/17/2020 .. D.W 01/17/2020 Teieconfererice. 01/17/2020 . .ow Review 01/20/2020 AIJ Review 01/21/20:20 OW Review 01/21/2020 DW Review 01/21/2020 OW Teleconference 01/21/2020 AIJ 01/.21/2020 OW Meeting 01_/22/2020 DW _Review 01I22i2020 OW Research & Draft 01/23/2020 OW TelElconference 01/24/2020 OW Various 01/24/2020 OW Draft 01/24/2020 AIJ Review 01/27/2020 OW Review 02/03/2020 OW Review 02/03/2020 OW Teleconference 03/13/2020 OW Review 03/13/2020 AIJ • Review 03/18/2020 OW Teleconference .. 03/18/2020 OW Review 03/18/2020 OW ·E-inail Spo.ke wfrh.Clerk's attorney, re: response , . -· . .. : -.. ' . . . -:· . . . ·- . . : Revi~Wed final draft MTDismiss ••• .-. ... .. . . · .. , . _ ... R~yiewed Qlerk's r-,1TDis~iss Revie~ed Clerk's' Motion 'io Dis~iss Revie~ed Order SEltting Hearing on Defe~da~ts' ~TDisrriiss Revfewed motion for. pro hac vice Reviewed p1:s Arriended. Co~plaint Sp~ke with clieni, re:,Amended Complaint _: _:_ ........ ·--.. -· . . -· Reviewed.Pl'~'notice of filing Reviewed Pl's'Arn. Conipl . . -.·:. •. Revie~ed J~dge Marx's Order Cancelling , MTDismiss Hearing Reviewed Pl's Objection to Defendants' MTDismiss Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint Meeting '!"'_I DAW, re: response to Am. Corripl. Meeting w/ AIJ, re: response to Am. Campi. fleview~d Ord.er granting pro hac vice admissio_n Researched and drafted response to' Amended Complaini• • Spoke with Clerk's attorney, re: response to ~m~nded complaint Completed ·A_nswer/MTDismiss Amended Complaint; filed with Court; sent copy to Client Drafted and filed Notice of UnavaiJability Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss Reviewed Clerk's Answer/MTDismiss Reviewed Order setting hearing on Deis' MTDis_miss • Spoke .wt client, re: order setting MTDismiss hearing for March 24,_ 2020 • Reviewe<:J Pl's Opposjtion to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk's MTDismiss Reviewed Pl's Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk:s MTDismiss Reviewed e·mail from Pl's counsel, re: motion to continue hearing Revie1;Ved Pl's unopposed motion for continuance Emails w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Pl's request lei coniint.;~ fi~aring • • $475.00 ·j ··- ... 0.2 ., $475.00 0.2. $95.00 $425.00 • I. $212.50 $425.00 • 0.1. $42.50 $425.00 0.1 ~2.50 .. -$425.00 1.0 . $212.50 $425.00 0.1 $475.00 0.3 $142.50 0.1 $42.50 0.2 $85.00 $425,00 .0.5 $212.50 $475.00 0.2 $95:oo $425.00 0.2 .· ... $85.00 • $425.00 0.1 $42.50 $425.00 1.0 $425.00 $425.00 0.2 $85.00 $425.00 rn $425.00 $425.00 0.4 $170.00 $475.00 0.2 $95.oa· $425.00 0.3 $127.50 $425.00 0.1 $42.50 $425.00 0.5 $212.50 $425.00 1.5 $637.50 $475.00 0.7 $332.50 $425.00 0.1 $42.50 . $425.00 ••. 0.1 $42.50 $425.00 0.2 $8?.00 i_ ••• •.- •• . ···---·-·· ··-·- • .. 1------+---1--------l-----'------------...:....----+----,~--------t----,-,--,,-t·-. ·- - ••• ···-. 03/19/2020 OW E~mail 03/20i2020 • OW • Review Reviewed email from Pl, re: agreed _order & r~sponded • • Reviewed Court's agreed order continuing hearing $425.00 0.1 $42.50 $425.cici 0.1 $42.50 CA/AroFlruEJ)Ol>~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM .64721/2020 DW . Review . Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on.Defs' MTDismiss / ; $425.00 ■I'- •' 0.1 ■$42.50 04/21/2020 , DW Teleconference Spoke w/ client, re: order rescheduling MTDisrhiss hearing for June 3, 2020 $425.00 6.3 $127.50 04/21/2020 ? AU . Review Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing $475.00 O.1 $47.50 05/22/2020 pw Review . Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: MTDismiss $425.00 0.1 $42.50 05/22/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom $425.00 ./ 0.2 . . $85.00 05/27/2020 DW Review Reviewed Clerk's filing: change of atty of record $425.00 0.1 . ' $42.50 05/27/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke, with Clerk's new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut $425.00 6.2 $85.00 05/28/2020 DW E-mail. Reviewed Pl's email, re: cases and authorities for MTDismiss hearing; responded $425.00 0.1 $42.50 05/29/2020 DW ; Preparation Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss . hearing ' . $425.00 .1.6 $425.00 06/01/2020 • dw : E-mail Reviewed email from Judge Marx's JA and responded ■ $425.00 0.1 $42.50 06/02/2020 DW . Various ' Reviewed Pl's 500+page binder, re: MTDismiss & prepped for hearing $425.00 3.0 $1,275.00 06/02/2020 pw E-maii Drafted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing tomorrow $425.00 0.1 $42.50 06/03/2020 DW Attend Hearing Prepped for and attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom' ■ . $425.00 1.5 $637.50 06/03/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ Client, re: debrief MTDismiss hearing $425.00 0.5 $212.50 06/03/2020 pw E-mail Emailed courtesy copies of Aronberg's Answer and MTDisrhiss to Judge Marx . $425.00 0.1 $42.50 06/03/2020 DW . E-mail Reviewed response from Client and replied $425.00 0.1 $42.50 06/03/2020 AU Attend Hearing Attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom $475.00. 1.0 $475.00 06/03/2020 . AU . Review Reviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudice $475.00 0.3 $142.50 06/08/2020 DW Review Reviewed Court's Order Granting Defendants MTDismiss Count II w/ Prejudice $425.00 0.5 $212.50 06/08/2020 DW Various Shared order w/ Client and spoke w/, re: result and plan going forward, re: 57.105 ■ $425.00 0.5 $212.50 06/08/2020 DW Various Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.; drafted 57.105 demand letter and proposed motion for attorneys' fees/sanctions; Served Pl's counsel with demand letter and proposed motion. $425.00 2.0 $850.00 06/08/2020 AU Meeting Meeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105 $475.00 0:3 $142.50 06/08/2020 DW Meeting Meeting w/ AU, re: Order & 57.105 $425.00 0.3 $127.50 06/08/2020 AU Review Reviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for sanction , $475.00 0.2. $95 00 06/10/2020 DW Various Reviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk; called and spoke w/ new couhseiCyrithia Guerra $425.00 .0.3 $127.50 06/23/2020 pw... Various Reviewed Pl's tetter refusing to voluntarily dismiss amended cortiplaint despite 57.105 demand; called and spoke w/ client, re: Pl's refusal & next steps $425.00 1.0 $425.00 I I CA/Aropijagpo^^aaa beach county, fl, Joseph abruzzo, clerk. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 pm NOT A CERTIFIED COPY •· • - ---------·---··· --- b~,2~i2020 • •• bw . .£: ·- ·.-. 04/21/.!020 OW.·· Teleconference .:_1_ ._,_ .•· 0412112020 AiJ 05/22/2020 . _ow Review Q5iw2020 ow Teleconference .. .. Review 05/27/2020 bW 05/28/2020 ow E-mail 05/29/2020 • ow ' Preparation 06/01/2020 • OW E-mail 06/02/2020 DV\f Vanous 06/021?020 OW .E-maii 06/03/2020 ow Attend Hearing 06/03/2020 ow Teleconference 06/03/2020. ow E-mail 06/03/2020 • ow E-mail '06/03/2020 AIJ Attend Hearing 06/03/2020. . . AIJ Review 06/08/2020 ow Review 06/08/2020 ow Various 06/08/2020 ow Various 06/08/2020 AIJ Meeting 06/08/2020 ow Meet,ng 06/08/2020 J\IJ Review 06/10/2020 . ow Various .... Reviewed orde(reschedµling hearing ori Deis' MTDismiss • • • • .: • • ., •. ' •. • Spoke w/ dient, re: order' rescheduiin~· MTDismiss ti~aring for Ju~e 3, 2020' • • • • • Revi~\'>'ed Order re~9~eduling MTOis[TliSS hearing Revi~~ed order setting Zoo~ he·ari~g, re: MTDismiss Spoke wFclierit, .re: hearin.g :will be via Zoom. Re~ie~ed Clerk's filing: chii~ge 61 atty of record . • • • : • I •• ; . . ·• • ._ : . • • • . ' ~ • • .• , Spoke.witii·cie~k's new counsel; Ni~le Finge'°riiut. Reviewed Pl's email, re: case~ and auth~rities for MTDis_miss hearing; responded Began oral argument prep for sis MTDismiss heaiiri~ :- • • • • • Revie~ed email from Judge _M?f)('s JA and re~ponded •• Rev°iewed Pl's 500+ ·page binder, re: MTDismi~ & prepped for hearing • • •• Drafted and sent email to dient, re: MTD hearing tomorrow Prepped for and attended MTDismis_s hearing via Zoom .. Spoke .wt _Client, re: debrie·f Mtbismiss hearing ·Emailed 9ourtesy copies of. Aro.nberg's. Answer a,nd •• ~TDi~fhiss io Judge Mall< • R~vie_wed response from Client and replied Atten~ed MTDisiniss hearing via Zoom ·Reviewed ·order .graritirig MTDismiss w/ prejudice Reviewed Co_~rt's Order Granting Defendants MTDismiss Count II w/ Prejudice Shared.order w/ Client ·and spoke w/, re: result and pla~ going forward, re: 57.105 • Researched§ 57.105 Fla. Stat.; drafted 57.105 demand _lettE:ir and proposed rriotion for att'orneys' . fees/sanctions; Served Pl's counsel with demand lelt~r and pr_oposed motion. Meeiing w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105 Meeting w/ AIJ, re: Ord.er & 57.105 .· ·Reviewed 57.105 demand and proposed m·otion for iianciion ' • ' -! I ··' I ·, ••.. I •.· $425.00 . I • .1 • ~25.00 $475.00 ~25.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $475.00. $475.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $475.00 $425.00. $425.00 0.1 0.3 ,·" 0.1 0.1 • -0.2 0.1 0.2 '0.1 i:o 0.1 3.0 0.1 1.5 0.5 0.1 0.1· 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.5 2.0 0;3 0.3 0.2 .0.3 ·•_•$42,5q $127.50 ••• $47.50 $42.50 $8s:od · > $42 .• 50 $85:00 ·' ; $42.50 $425.00 $42:~0 .. $1,275.00 .. $42.50 $637.50 $212.50 $42.50 -~t2,50 $475;00 $142.50 $212.50 $212.50 $850.00 $142.50 $127.50 $95.00 · $127.50 . ; ... - .. :·, ---~-- --·-- -- -----· . -.--•··-·· --·· Reviewed notice of change o(attorney, re: c'ierk; caited aild spoke w/ ri11w counseLCyrittiia Guerra.· .. --1--;..._ __ ;..._·_···-··--· ._ .. 1-·· ... •·-··--._···-··-··--· ._ ...... ,._ ... ..,.-~· ·._ •••• _. _. -· .. _· ... _ •• _,,_ .. _. ·-··...,, ··-·-· _.·. -· -···-· -··--------------··...,· ,,...---1,-··-· ·---,--·· ·----·-·+· ·,...---· --,-----1 --··· --· ••••••••• Reviewed Pl's letter refusi~g to volunt~nly dis~iss • I 06/23/2020 ow -Various .. : amendeci'~mplai(lt despite 57.105 demand; called $425.00 ~nd spoke wi client, re: .Prs refus~t'& nexi sieps I . . 1 .I 1.0 $425.00 CA/AroF1iJsWDOP~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM I I ! 06/23/2020 ; DW E-mail ■Sent cjiehtcopy of Pl's letter refusing to dismiss complaint ?.■ . . • .J $425.00 0.1 $42.50 . 06/23/2020 AU Review. Reviewed Pl's letter refusing to dismiss Count l/Am . Compl. .-. $'475.00 i ■ 0.1 $47.50 07/01/2020 DW Various Spoke w/ client, ,re: filing of 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions; filed motion for attorneys’ fees based oh Pl's failure to voluntarily dismiss amended complaint countT $425.00 0.5 $212.50 . 07/02/2020 DW E-mail Email to client, re: affidavit and summary judgment $425.00 , 0.1 $42.50 07/08/2020 DW Teleconference Discussed w/Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence $425.00 0.7 $297.50, 07/08/2020 AU Teleconference Discussed W/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary judgment and MSJ evidence . . $475,00 0.7 $332.50 07/10/2020 DW Draft Created 1st draft of Aronberg Affidavit; shared w/ client $425.00 1.0. $425:00 . 07/10/2020 AU Various Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW $475.00 0.3 $142.50 07/10/2020 DW Meeting Discussed draft affidavit w/ AU $425,00 0.2 $85.00 07/13/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Request to Produce, re: Clerk $425.00 O.i $42.50 07/13/2020. DW Teleconference Spoke w/.CIerk’s counsel, re: Request to Produce $425.00 0.2 $85.00 07/27/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl’s Amended Request to Produce, re: Clerk. . $425.00 0.1 . $42.50 07/27/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Amended Request to Produce $425.00 o.i $42.50 07/28/2020 DW Draft Revised Aronberg affidavit $425.00 0.5 $212.50 07/29/2020 . DW Draft Finalized Aronberg Affidavit and sent to client $425.00 0.5 $212.50 07/29/2020 DW Research. & Preparation Research and prep for Motion for Summary Judgment $425.00 1.0 $425.00 07/30/2020 DW Various Received executed Aronberg Affidavit $425.00 0.1 $42.50 07/30/2020 DW Draft Began drafting Motion for Summary Judgment $425.00 2.0 . $850.00 08/05/2020 DW Draft Continued drafting Motion for Sumriiary Judgment $425.00 1.0 $425.00 08/07/2020 DW Review Reviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to set hearing bn 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions $425.00 0.1 $42.50 08/10/2020 DW E-mail Sent responsive email to Pl's counsel $425.00 0.1 $42.50 08/17/2020 DW Meeting Discussed draft.MSJ w/AU $425.00 0.2 $85.00 08/17/2020 AU Various Reviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss $475.00 0.5 $237.50 08/18/2020 DW Draft Finalized Motion for Summary Judgment; filed w/ Court along with Aronberg affidavit $425.00 2.0 $850,00 08/27/2020 - DW Teleconference Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: request to produce $425.00 o.i $42.50 09/01/2020 DW Various Reviewed Pl's email and accepted conference cali invite for 9/2/20 $425:00 .0.1 $42.50 . 09/02/2020 DW Review Reviewed Clerk's response to request for □reduction -..... $425.00 0.2 $85 00 09/02/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: dispute as to whether MSJ should be heard before 57,105 fee motion or vis versa - call was unsuccessful . $425.00 ‘. ,'i 0,5 $212.50 I I- CA/Aroptiewowa^ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 'J . ---·~·-·-··· ..•. -· I I . i [ 06/23i2020 , , Sentq)ient copy of Pl's letter ~efusing to dismiss .I ·J· ... •• $425.00 0.1 06/23/2020 AIJ Review. ,, -:-· 07/01/2020 ••• ow Various 07/0212,020 bw E-mail _,,. ,. ; •. ··;-· ' :·-·.. • 07/08/2020 OW. Teleconference . -... , ,, .. ' 07/08/?020 AIJ Teleconference ·, 07/10/2020 ow Draft 07/10/2020 AIJ Various 07110/2020. ow ,Meeting 07/13/2020 ow .. Review ,, 07/13/2020 ow Teleconference 07127/2920, ow Review 07/27/2020 ow Teleconference 07/28/2020 07/2!1/2020 07/29/2020 ow ow ow Draft Draft Research_& Preparation 07/30/2020 OW Various 07/30/2020 DW Draft 08105/2020 DW Draft 08/07/2020 OW Review 08/10/2020 OW E-mail 08/17/2020 DW Meeting 08/17/20.20 AIJ Various 08/18/2020 ow Draft 08/27/2020 ow Teleconference 09/01/2020 ow Various 09i02/2020 ow Review ·--···-·····•···· -- -- ··-. ·--··--·- ··--- 09/02/2020 ow Teleconference .... --·_ ~-~Pf~i,:,{: > •• -• .; - - - - - • Reviewed pj•; letter ~efu~ing io di~miss Count I/Am. C~inpl. ••• , • ••..• .. • , Spoke w/ cliei:it,.re: filiilg4t_ 57,105'inotion for . feesisanctions; filed moikm for attorneys' fees .• bru;ed oii pj;~ failure to. voluntarily dismiss . a~endecj complaint counn , , . -· . .. . .-, -· . Emall to ~iie~t. re: affidavit and summary judgment . •. . ! ~_:: . • • ·- . . •. • . • . . . . • . . • • • Di~cussed ~iciie~t d;afting'and filing Motion ior • summary Judgment arid MSJ evicieiicil •• •• •• Discu~ed ~/ Client drafting·and _filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence • Created 1st d~ft of Aronoerg Affida~it; shared w/ c)ient , . ·, • , , , '·, Reviewed drift affidavit and di_scussed w/ DAW niscussed draft affidavit w/ AIJ Reviewed ~l's Requesi to Produce, re: Clerk Spoke vitl,Clerk's counsel, re: Request to Produce Reviewed Pl'ii° Amended Request to Produce, re: Cleric·· • Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Amerided Request to Produce •• _Revised Ar,onber~ affidalrit .Finalized Aronberg Affidavit and_ s_ent to client Research and prep for _Motion· for Summary Judgn,_ent Received executed Aronberg Affidavit Began drafting M~tion for_ Summary Judgment_ Continued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment Reviewed email from Plaintiff attem.pting to set hearing on 57.105 inptioi) for fees/sanctions Sent responsilie em~I to Prs counsel Discussed draft ~SJ wi AIJ Reviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss Finalized Motion for Summary Ju_dgment; filed w/ court along with Aronberg affidavit Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: request to produce Re~ie~ed Pl's email and a~epted conference cali • invite for 9/2/20 • • I , .. .i' $~75:oo 0.1 ! : $425,00 0,5 ,, $425.00 -0.1 • __ $425.00 ,;o.1 . $475,00 0.7 $425.00 1,0, $475,00 0,3 $425,00 o.i $425.00 0,1 $425,00 0.2 ,, $425,00 0,1 $425,00 o.i $425,00 0,5 $425.00 0.5 $425,90 1.0 $425,00 0,1 $425'.0Q 2.0 $425,00 1.0 $425,00 0,1 $425.00 0,1 $425,00 0.2 $475,00 0,5 $425.00 2.0 $425.00 0.1 $425:00 0.1 • Reviewed Clerk's response to request for $425_00 0_2 ,producti~n- i ' - -- : : • • ... - ·· • · · ,, .. - ··· -- - ··· ·- - : . ·--- ·· - - Spokew/Pl's counsel, re: dispute as to whether MSJ sho1.i°ld be heard before 57.105 fee motion or vis ve~sa • call ~as unsuccessful 0,5 $42,50 • i." $47,50 $212.50 $42,50 $297.~0 $332,50 $425:00 $142,50 • $85,00 $42,50 $85,00 .. $42.50 $42.50 $212.50 $212.50 $425.00 . $42.50 $8?0,00 $425.00 $42,50 $42,50 $85,00 $237.50 $850.,00 $42.50 $42,50 $212,50 CA/AroF@JID()~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM 09/02/2020 . : AU Meeting . Discussed w/ DAW.phone call w/ Pl's counsel ;. f $475.00 \ 0-2 ? $95,00 09/02/2020 pw' : Meeting Discussed w/AU phone call w/Pl’s counsel . $425,00 0.2 : $85.00 • 09/16/2020 DW E-mail Reviewed email from Pl's counsel requested Arqnberg to withdraw sanctions motion w/o . ■ . prejudice . $425.00 0.1 -- $42.50 09/17/2020 DW Meeting Discussed w/AiJ filing motion for CMC $425.00 0.1 $42.50 09/17/2020 AU Meeting Discussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC $475,00 0.1 $47.50 09/18/2020 DW Various Drafted and filed motion to set case management conference; re: MSJ 1 st or Fee hearing 1 st $425 00 : 0.5 ’ . $212.50 09/18/2020 DW E-mail Responded to Pl’s 9/16/20 email and refused to withdraw 57.105 motion; provided copy of motion to set CMC arid available dates for hearing $425.00 0.1 $42.50 09/18/2020 DW E-mail Reviewed Pl's email insisting that 57.105 motion be withdrawn $425.00 0.1 $42.50. 09/18/2020 DW E-mail Replied to Pl's counsel that the 57.105 motion for sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for response, re: CMC $425,00 0.1 $42.50 09/18/2020 DW E-mail Sent client copy of email exchange w/.PI's counsel; called and spoke vy/ Client $425.00 0.5 $212.50 09/22/2020 DW Various Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/20; set up Court Call; spoke w/ client, re: hearing date $425.00 0.7 $297.50 10/02/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Memo of Law opposing Aronberg’s 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions $425.00 0.7 $297.50 10/02/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Response to Aronberg’s request to schedule 57.105 motion for fees after MSJ $425.00 0.5 $212.50 10/02/2020 AU Review Reviewed Pl's Memo of Law opposing 57.105 motion. $475.00 0.5 $237 50 10/02/2020 AU Review Reviewed Pl’s Response to Aronberg’s request to schedule 57.1 05,motion after MSJ $475.00 0.4 $190.00 10/12/2020 DW Research Research caselaw & statutes, re: response to Pi's Memo of Law $425.00 1.0 $425.00 10/13/2020 DW Research & Analyze Continued researching caselaw, re: response to Pl’s memo of law , . $425.00 1.0 $425.00 10/13/2020 DW Draft Created 1st draft of Response to Pl's Memo of Law and shared w/ Client . $425.00 4.0 $1,700.00 10/13/2020 DW Meeting Discussed w/ AU caselaw and draft response to memo $425.00 0.5 $212.50 10/13/2020 AU Various Reviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and caselaw $475.00 0.7 $332.50 10/14/2020 DW Draft Finalized and filed Response to Pl’s Memo of Law $425:00 1.0 $425.00 10/14/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: memo of law $425.00 0.2 $85.00 10/14/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/15/2020 DW Attend Hearing Attended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC; called- client todiscuss-- $425.00 . . ._1,5 . .:. .. $63.7.50 ... 10/15/2020 DW Various Reviewed email and letter from Pi, re: settlement. Sent copy to Client and called to discuss. : $425.00 0.5 $212 50 I I CA/Aropfia©OP0^I BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY ii 09/Q2/2020 AIJ · Meeting 09i0212020 • DW. • . • Meet\ng •· 09/16/2020 DW 09/17/2020 DW 09/1 !l2020 AIJ 09/18/2020 DW 09/18/2020 09/18/2020 09/18/2020 DW 09i1Bi2020 DW 09/22/2020 DW DW· 10/02/2020 DW 10/02/2020 AIJ 10/02/2020 AIJ 10/12/2020 DW fo/1312020 DW 10/13/2020 DW 10/13/2020 DW 10/13/2020 AIJ 10/14/2020 DW 10/14/2020 DW 10/14/2020 DW 10/15/2020 DW 10/15/2020 .DW E-mail .. MeeUng Meeting Various E~mail E-mail E-mail Various Review Review Review Review Research Research & Analyze Draft Meeting Various Draft Te_lephone Telephone Various Discusse~ w/'DAW_phope cali \V/Pl's counsel . ~ : - ··: : . . _ _._ ·, _. . . . -. .. . . . . . . . -•• Discussed w/ AIJ phone call ·w, Pl'.S counsel. . - . . . . . . ~ : . . . , . . . . . . ·- Reviewed email f;oin Prs qiunsel requested Aronberg to withdraw sanctions mC>tion w/o . prejudice Discussed Yfl AiJ filing motion f9r CMG • Dis~uss;d wl DAW filing motion for CMC Dralted and filed ;i;citiori tci set case mariagem~rit • • • ~orifererice; re: Ms.i 1st :~r F.~e ~El_aring 1·~1 •• • Re~porided to Prs 9/16/20 email ant;! reftised to • wiihdra~ 57. i 05 motion; provided copy 61 motion to set CMC and·avaiiable dates for hearirig • ·, • Reviewed Pl's email insisting that 57: 105 ·motion be withdrawn • • ' • Replied to Pl's counsel ttiat the 57.105 motion for sanctions will not l:>e withdrawn and asking for response, ~e: CMC • Sent dient copy of email exchange w/.Pl's counsel; called and spoke w/Client • Dratted and fil~d Notice of He~ring on 10/15/20; set lip Court Ca_ll; spoke w/ client, re: heariryg date_ Re~iew~d Pl's Merrie oi law opposing Aronberg's 57 .105 motion for iees/sanctions Reviewed Pl's Response to Aronberg's request to sched~le 5 7 .105 motion for fees ~tier MSJ Reviewed Prs Memo of Law o·pposing 57.105 mciti_ori. • • • • Reviewed PJ's Response to Aronberg's request to schedule 57.105motionafter MSJ Research caselaw & statutes, re: response :to P·rs Memo of Law • Continued·fesearching ca,selaw, re: response to PJ's memo of law. , Created 1st draft of Response to Pt's Memo of Law and shared w/ Client • Discussed w/ AIJ caselaw and d_raft response· to memo Reviewed draft MSJ, _discussed draft w/ DAW and caselaw Finalized and filed Response to _Pt's Memo of La~ Spokfl w/ client, re: memo of law E.pok~ w/ dient again, ~e: response ·10 memo of law Reviewed e·inail and letter from' Pt; re: settleine~t. Sent copy to 9ieni and called to discuss .. • I ,. I .. • • i .. ·-'- ·_-i .. •• • $425.00 $425:00 -- ·-., • $475_.oo ; . -·-.- •. $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $475.00 $475.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $425.00 $475.00 $425:M $425.00 $425.00 • $425.00 ...... ···-·-· ... ··. $425.oo· $85.00 0.1 $42.50, 0.1 $42.50 •. 0.1 $47.50 b.5 $212.50 0.1 $42.50 0.1 $42.50 .. 0.1 $42.50 $212.50 0.7 $297.50 0.7 $297.50 0.5 $212.50 0.5 $237.50 0.4 $190.00 1.0 $425.00 1.0 $425.00 4.0 $1,700.00. 0.5 $212.50 0.7 $332.50 1.0 $425.00 0.2 $85.00 $42.50 0.5 $212.50 CA/Arofl~OP~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM 10/15/2020 DW Telephone . Spoke w/Pl's counsel, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 .: $42.50 . 10/15/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Pi's settlement proposal $425.00 0.2 ' $85.00 10/15/2020 AU Various Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; discussed w/ client $475.00 i 1 1.0 $475.00 10/15/2020 AU . Various Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW and then w/ Client $475.00 0.4 $190.00 10/15/2020 DW Meeting Discussed Pl’s settlement proposal w/ AU $425,00 0.2 $85.00 10/16/2020 DW Various Drafted and shared proposed order w/ Pl's counsel . $425.00 0.5 $212.50 10/16/2020 DW Telephone. Spoke w/PCs counsel, re: settlement .. $425.00 0.2 ■ ? $85.00 10/16/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Pl's settlement proposal $425.00 0'5 ;$212.50 10/16/2020 DW Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AU $425.00 $85.00 10/16/2020 AU Meeting Discussed Pi’s settlement proposal w/ DAW $475,00 0.2 $95:00 10/19/2020 DW Various Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge Hafele $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/19/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Pl s settlement proposal $425.00 0.2 $85.00 10/19/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/19/2020 AU Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW $475.00 0.2 $95.00 10/19/2020 DW Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AU $425.00 . 0.2 $85.00 10/20/2020 DW Various Reviewed email from Pl, re: settlement; sent copy to Client and called to discuss $425.00 0.5 $212.50 i 0/20/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: settlement $425.00 0.4 $170.00 .10/20/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/20/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/20/2020 DW Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AU $425.00 0.2 $85.00 10/20/2020 AU Meeting Discussed Pi's settlement proposal w/ DAW $475.00 0.2 $95.00 10/21/2020 DW Various Drafted and filed Motion to Set Hearing oh Aronberg MSJ; drafted proposed order granting motion to set; checked court availability; emailed Pl's counsel, re: choose date for hearing $425.00 1.0 $425.00 10/21/2020 DW Review Reviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 DW telephone Spoke w/client, re: media response $425.00 0.2 $85.00 10/21/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 . 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/client, re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 DW E-mail Sent email w/ Aronberg statement to media $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 AU Meeting Discussed media response w/ DAW $475.00 0.3 $142.50 10/21/2020 DW Meeting Discussed media response w/ AU $425.00 0.3 $127.50 10/22/2020 □W Various Reviewed Pl's Notice of DrpppingAronbergas- party; spoke w/ Client and AU, re: notice and next steps $425.00 0.5 $212.50 CA/Aropte®)pP93^( BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY 10/15/2020 DW Tel~pho_ne Spoke w/ f'l's courisel, re: settle_rnerif . ' $425:oo 0.1 $42.50 . . . . I. .. Telephone Spoke w/dient, re: Pl's settlement proposal I 0.2 • $85.0ci 10/15/2020 DW ~425,00 Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; I 10/15/2020 AIJ Various $475.00 1.0 $475.00 discussed w/ client • • l •• I Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW and i 10/15/2020 AIJ Various then w/Client • • • $475.00 0.4 $190.00 10/15/2020 DW Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AIJ $425,00 0.2 $85.00 Drafted and shareci'propos~d order w/ Pl's COUril'!el .. .. $425.00 $2_1~.50 10/16/2020 DW Various 0.5 ' . . . -. Telephone Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, rei: se_~lement . . • 10/16/2020 ow $425.00 0.2 ,$85.00 -, 10/16/2020 DW Telephone Spoke ·w, client: re: Pl's settlement proposal $425.00 0.5 .. $212.50 . . -- . . . . -. . -- 10/16/2020 _ DW Meeting Discussed Pl's_ settlemerit proposal wi AIJ $425.00 0.2 $85.00 ,. 10/16/2020 . AIJ Mee\ing Discus~ed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW $475.00 0.2 • $95:oo 10/19/2020 ow Various Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge $425.00 0.1 $42.50 Hafele. 10/19/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Pi's settlement proposal $425.00 0.2 $85.00 10/19/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: seitlement $425.00 0.1 • $42:50 10/19/2020 -AIJ Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ DAW $475.00 0.2 $95.00 10/19/2020 ow Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AIJ $425.00 0.2 $85.00 10/20/2020 ow Various Reviewed email from Pl, re: settlement; sent copy • $425.00 0.5 $212.50 to Client and called to discuss 10/20/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: settlement $425.00 0.4 $170.00 .10/20/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ Pl's counsel, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/20/2020 ow Telephone_ Spoke w/ client, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 $42,50 10/20/2020 ow Meeting Discussed Pl's settlement proposal w/ AIJ $425.00 0.2 $85.00 10/20/2020 AIJ Meeting Discussed Pl's settlemen_t proposal w/ DAW $475.00 0.2 $95.00 Drafted and filed Motion to Set Hearing ort 10/21/2020 ow Various Aronberg MSJ; draited proposed order granting $425.00 1.0 $425.0ci motion to set; checked court availability; emailed Pl's counsel, re: choose date for hearing 10/21/2020 ow Review Reviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media _response $425.00 0.2 $85.00 10/21/2020 ow Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 . 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client: re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.0ci 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 DW E,mail Sent e.m~il w/ Aronberg statement to media $425.00 0.1 $42.50 10/21/2020 AIJ Meeti.ng Discussed media response w/ DAW $475.00 0.3 $142.50 10/21/2020 ow Meeting Discussed media response w/ AIJ $425.00 0.3 • $127.50 . ---- --·-·· . .. ----- - ------· -···--- - • . -·-·- ----- -ReviewedPl's·NoticeofDropping·Aronberg·as·- -- -- ··--·-·· --- ·-·--· ----· ·-· ----·· .. ·-- ·------·· -------- - 10/22/2020 ow Various party; spoke w/ Client and AIJ, re: n_otice and next $425.00 o.5·. $212.50 steps CA/AroflruIDD}Pf)~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM .10/22/2020 AU ' Various Reviewed Pl's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as . / partyfspoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next steps ’. -J;-":; . $475.00 f ' 05 ■ . $237.50 Totals: 74.8. $32,440.00 •J ■ Time Entry Sub-Total: $32,440.00 Sub-Total: $32,440.00 . total: $32,440.00 Amount Raid: ’ $0.00 Balance Due: $32,440.00 CA/AroPUagj)OP@aeQ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY -._. , 10/22/26:fo - - J\IJ. Va1o~s Revie;;...ed Pl's Notice of Dropping ArcinbJirg.?S ' party;'sp~~El ~/ Client an!foA\.ii; -re: ~otic~ arid 'next • steps. I. I 0,5 - C , $237 :50 totals: • •.. I ••• . -_! • :· . • •. · Tim,e Entry Sub-Total: $32,440.00 Slib~Total: • - $_32,440.bo ·- - -- Total: _- •- • $32;440:oq: • Amount Paid: -_ $0.00 ._ • BaiiiinceOue: -• - $32,440;()0 I i . • '· i I CA/AroJlll.arIDOP~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM EXHIBIT “G” I EXHIBIT “G” CA/AropteSpO^M BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY EXHIBIT "G" EXHIBIT "G" CA/AroBt:relEIDP~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM JaCOBSSgHOLZ & WYIJER, LLC . THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOBSS ASSOCIATES. PA \ ARTHUR I. JACOBS. A LIMBED LIABILITY COMPANYpF PROFESSIONAL ASSOC'ATtONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW. . ' : . GATEWAY TO AMELIA /. BBiGB? GATEWAY^BLVD., SUITE 2OI.J ' ? Fernandina.Bhagh,Florida 32034 RICHARO J SCHOLZ. P.A.. RICHARD J. SCHOLZ TELEPHONE <904) 261-3693 : FAX NO. (904) 201-7679 DOUGLAS A. WYLER. P.A. DOUGLAS A. WYLER November 26,2019 . Office of the State Attorney 15th Judicial Circuit " Attn: Jeanne Howard 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Re: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et ai. Case No.: 2019-CA-014681 Dear Mrs. Howard: The purpose ofthis letter is to confirm that Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, LLC will represent you regarding the above-referenced matter. Our fees will be contingent upon our success in this matter. You will not be liable or required to pay any monies to our office unless we are successful in our representation of you regarding the above-referenced litigation and receive a court order awarding attorneys’fees. Accordingly, should we be successful in this matter, you agree to be billed for the time incurred in defending this action at our current hourly raites. At this time, our cun-ent hourly rates are: $475.00/hour for senior partners, $425.00/hour for other partners, $375.00/hour for associate attorneys, and $125.00/hour for paralegal time. Furthermore, the attorneys’ fees paid to pur firm shall be calculated by the above listed hourly rates multiplied by the number ofhours expended in defending this action dr the total fee mandated and awarded by the court order herein, whichever is greater. By signing below, you agree to the terms as set forth above. Please return a signed arid dated copy of this letter to our office. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact our office. On behalf of the firm, we are proud to represent you in this matter. Sincerely, CA/AroPM3OO0aOei BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3727/2023 4:10:49 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY . ... ,.... 4-···. ·_.·· ·.: ARTHUR I . .;l/lCOSS · : Offi~ of th_; $tiite_Atto,ftey 15th.Judicial Circuit·•· ••• • . Attn:. J~nel-f~ward . 40 l North [)bde }ugti~~y West PalmBeach,-FlJ34Q.f TELEPHONE: (~4) ?61'3693 ••• ·_: FAX.NO. (_904) 2!61-787°9 .... •. Re: _·. CA,Fk>rida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg ~- al: Case No~: 2019:.CA-0i4681 •• • . .. Dear Mrs. Howard: • . I . . •• RICHAR0..1; S~Hciui. P.A .. , • • • . ·.~11::HARO·.J .• ,SCHO\.Z • oou;~As A. w.-i.~R. ~-A; •• DOUGLAS A. WYLE:A •. _Th~ purp<>~ of this l~ttei' is to confirm th.at Jacobs S<:holz & Wyler, LLC witi repnisent you regardi~glhe • above-referenced matter. . • • • • • • • • O~r fees will be contingent upori our success in. this matte~.-You will· not l,e liable or required_to p~y any. monies to our.office unless we~ successful in our"representation ·of you regarding the abovNeferenced •• litiga:tion and receiv~ a court order awarding atto,rneys' fees. • • • • • • • • • • •• ·_ Accordingly, ;houid we be suc~sful in this matter,-you .agi:(:e to be billed for the time incurred in defending • this action at our current.hourly rates. At this time, our current llourly rates are: $4 75.00/hour for seriio_r partners, $425.00/hmir. .for,other partners, $375.00/hour for- associate attorneys, and $125.00/hour for . paralegal time. ·•· • • • • • • • • - fuf$emtore, the attorrieyf f~s paid io our firm shall be ca_l~ulate~ :by the above)isted hourly rates multiplied by the number of hours expended in defending this action o·r the total fee mandated and awarded by the court order herein, whichever is_greater. • • • • By ~igning beiow; yo~ agree to ihe tetins as set forth a~ve. Pl~ return a signed and dated copy ~fthis • _ letter to our office:·.-·· 1r you have any questions or concerns, please contact our office. On behalf of the • firm; we~ pi:oud to n:present you in, this matter. • • Sinr+-kr- bouglas A;Wyler; Esq. • For the Firm • • ti '-I I ;Jc.;,O • Pate CNAroFl~OP~ BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 3/27/2023 4:10:49 PM

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page

No text available for this page