transcript judge barton 9.30am jul 07 2007 57.105 discovery

8/13/2019 TRANSCRIPT Judge Barton 9.30am Jul 07 2007 57.105 Discovery

1/28

First-Choice Reporting Services, Inc.www.firstchoicereporting.com

Page 1IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION

NEIL J . GILLESPIE,P la in t i f f ,

vs . CASE NO. 05-CA-007295DIVISION CBARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,a Flor ida corpora t ion ; andWILLIAM J . COOK,

Defendants ._ /

PROCEEDINGS: Defendants Amended Motion for Sanct ionsPursuant to Sec t ion 57 .105(1) , Flor idaSta tu te s

BEFORE: The Honorable James M. Barton, I ITAKEN: Pursuant to Notice byCounsel for the DefendantsPLACE: George Edgecomb Courthouse

800 East Twiggs St r e e tRoom 512Tampa, Flor ida 33602

DATE: July 3, 2007TIME: 9:30 a.m. - 10:05 a.m.REPORTED BY: Kathryn C. SpiegelCourt Reporter andNotary Publ ic

Sta t e of Flor ida a t Large

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach & Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea11 a f1 f8 4b3e a43f fc8ff0900d4a


2/28


1 APPEARANCES:2 ROBERT W. BAUER, ESQUIRERobert W. Bauer, P.A.3 2815 N.W. 13th St r e e tSui te 200E4 Gainesvi l le , F lor ida 32609Telephone: 352.375.5960, Fax: 352.337.25185

Appeared on beha l f o f the P l a i n t i f f67 RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS, ESQUIREBarker , Rodems & Cook, P.A.8 400 North Ashley Drive

Sui te 21009 Tampa, Flor ida 33602Telephone: 813.489.1001, Fax: 813.489.100810 Appeared on beha l f o f the Defendants111213 INDEX TO PROCEEDINGS1415 Proceedings16

C er t i f i ca t e of Reporter171819202122232425

Page 2

PAGE3

28

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach & Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea11 a f1 f8 4b3e a 43f fc8ff0 900d4a


3/28


Page 31 The proceedings , Defendants Motion fo r2 Sanct ions Pursuant to Sec t ion 57 .105(1) , Flo r ida Sta tu t es ,3 were taken pursuan t to no t i c e by counse l fo r the4 Defendants , on the 3rd day of Ju ly , 2007, commencing a t5 9:30 a.m. , a t the George Edgecomb Courthouse, 800 Eas t6 Twiggs St ree t , Room 512, Tampa, Flor ida , before The7 Honorable James M Barton , I I , r epo r t ed by Kathryn C.8 Spiegel , Notary Publ ic , Sta t e of F lor ida a t Large.9

10 PROCEEDINGS11 THE COURT: A l l r i g h t . In Gi l l e sp i e versus12 Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. and Wil l iam J . Cook,13 w e re here on motions from the defendan ts , which I v e14 read through.15 I t looks l i k e I m the t h i r d judge in t h i s16 case17 MR RODEMS: Th a t s cor rec t , Your Honor.18 THE COURT: based on p r i o r motions . So, I19 mean - normal ly t h i s kind of a motion would r equ i re ,20 unless the under ly ing f ac t s are agreed t o , e s p e c i a l l y21 s ince such f a i r l y extreme sanc t ions are - 22 MR RODEMS: W h i c h - 23 THE COURT: - reques ted to the de f e nda n t s24 motions.25 MR RODEMS: Which t he re were two, Your Honor,

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach & Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea11 a f1 f8 4b3e a43f fc8f f0900d4a


4/28


Page 4and one was r ega r d ing an orde r to show cause .

2 THE COURT: Yeah.3 MR RODEMS: And t h a t has been - t he i s sue has4 been cured because t he discovery has now been5 produced.6 THE COURT: Oh good. Okay.7 MR RODEMS: So t h a t t akes ca re o f one; t h a t8 only l e aves the motion fo r Sec t ion 57.105.9 THE COURT: Okay. And even t h a t wi th aga in ,

10 s ince it s a motion fo r sanc t ions you know if11 t he r e are f a c t s to be e s t a b l i s he d , we have to come up12 wi th some - I mean un le s s it s a l l paper -based ;13 t h a t i s , motions were f i l e d , plead ings were f i l e d ,14 and h e r e s what happened as opposed to who may have15 sa id what to whom.16 MR RODEMS: Yes s i r . I th ink it i s a l l17 paper -based based on t he defenses t h a t were pled .18 THE COURT: Okay.19 MR RODEMS: May I give you j u s t a b r i e f h i s t o r y2 of t he case?21 THE COURT: Well o the r than w ha t s I mean22 aga in , I r ead your memorandum in suppor t23 MR RODEMS: Okay.24 THE COURT: - of your mot ions , which I t h ink25 gave qu i t e a h i s t o r i c a l background of t h i s case t h a t

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea11 a f1f8 4b3e a43f fc8 ff0900d4a


5/28


Page 51 was f i l e d back in 2005.2 And so now, are back in '06, t he re was a3 p e t i t i o n for c e r t t ha t was f i l e d .4 Were a l l appe l l a te o r what I ll c a l l quas i appe l l a te proceedings concluded?6 MR RODEMS: Yes, s i r .7 THE COURT: So you ' r e seeking today 57.1058 MR RODEMS: Yes, s i r .9 THE COURT: -- sanc t ions . Okay

10 MR RODEMS: All r i gh t . Thank you, Your Honor.11 The compla in t t ha t Mr. G i l l e s p i e f i l e d was f i l e d12 August 15th o f 2005.

'13 We f i l e d a motion to dismiss o r s t r i k e - - and I14 say "we," I 'm Chr is Rodems. I r ep re sen t Barker ,15 Rodems & Cook and Will iam J . Cook.16 We had a hear ing on t ha t . The u l t ima te answer17 o r t he u l t ima te orde r from the cour t came out on18 January 13th o f 2006, whi le Judge Nie lsen was still19 on t he case . So on January 19th of 2006, we f i l e d20 our answer , our a f f i rma t ive defenses , and our

counte rc la im.22 Fol lowing tha t , on February 8th o f 2006,23 Mr. G i l l e s p i e f i l e d h is motion to dismiss and s t r i k e24 t he counterc la im.25 And to make th ings e a s i e r today, I ' v e made

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach & Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea11 a f1 f8 4b3e a43f fc8ff0900d4a

21


6/28


Page 6cop ies of t h i ngs j u s t so t ha t you d o n t have to dig

2 through the cour t f i l e , Your Honor. But here i s a3 copy o f Mr. G i l le s p i e s motion to d i smiss and s t r i k e4 the counte rc la im.5 THE COURT: L e t s see . I s t ha t a t t ached to your6 motion?7 MR RODEMS: I m no t sure if it i s or if it - I8 d o n t be l i eve it i s , a c tu a l l y .9 THE COURT: In any event , I d o n t know t h a t you

10 need r e s t a t e a l l t h a t s in your amended motion fo r - MR RODEMS: Oh okay.12 THE COURT: - sanc t ions .

MR RODEMS: Well l e t - 14 THE COURT: Do you f ee l15 MR RODEMS: No sir - 16 THE COURT: - the need to do t h a t ?17 MR RODEMS: No s i r . No. Let me j u s t18 THE COURT: Usua l ly it s more produc t ive if you19 say t ha t , Judge the b a s i s o f my motion i s in my20 motion - 21 MR RODEMS: Okay.22 THE COURT: - to t u rn to the oppos ing p a r t y and23 see what the oppos ing p a r ty has to say .24 MR RODEMS: A l l r i gh t . Well l e t me summarize25 then , ve ry quick ly .

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea11 a f1 f8 4b3e a43f fc8ff0900d4a


7/28

First-Choice Reporting Services, Inc.www.fIrstchoicereporting.com

Page 7e f i l e d a coun t e r c l a im fo r l i b e l and s l ande r .

2 And the defenses we got were l i s t e d in t h i s motion to3 dismiss and s t r i k e coun t e r c l a im . e advi sed Mr.4 G i l l e s p i e , t h rough t he normal channel s , t h a t t hes e5 w e r e n t v iab l e , and Mr. G i l l e s p i e d id not withdraw6 them.7 e had a hea r ing on A pr i l 25th o f 2006 wi th8 Judge Nie l sen on t h i s ve ry motion to d i smis s .9 Because t he r e were so many i s s u e s l i s t e d we d id not

10 comple te it but Judge Nie l s en made o r a l ru l i ngs oneby one. And in each case he denied Mr. G i ll e s p i e s

12 motion.13 A fte r t h a t hea r ing , t he r e was no orde r en te red14 because it was contempla t ed t h a t we would come back15 to conclude a l l of t he i s s u e s in t he motion to16 dismiss before an orde r would be en te red .17 But in t h a t i n t e r im pe r iod , we aga in , adv i sed18 Mr. G i l l e s p i e , t h a t look, t he Cour t ru l ed aga in s t you19 on a l l of t he se t h ings . I f y o u l l withdraw them - 20 if y o u l l withdraw t he se de f ens es and answer you21 know w e l l withdraw our motion fo r sanc t ions . He22 t o l d us t h a t he would pr e va i l on those , and dec l ined23 to do t h a t .24 And so u l t i m a t e l y , to zoom to t he end o f the25 s i t u a t i o n , on Janua ry 26 th o f 2007 Mr. G i l l e s p i e

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea11 a f1f8 4b3e a43f fc8ff0900d4a


8/28

First-Choice Reporting Services, Inc.www.frrstchoicereporting.com

Page 8f i l e d an amended re sponse to our mot ion fo r s anc t ions

2 pursuan t to Sec t ion 57.105. And he f i n a l l y withdrew3 a l l of these de f ens es t h a t we contended had no4 f ac tua l bas i s o r l e ga l b a s i s .5 THE COURT: So a re you - so t hen your my6 guess , motion fo r f ees i s l i m i t e d to t h a t pe r iod of7 t ime before?8 MR RODEMS: Yes s i r . A n d - 9 THE COURT: How long i s t ha t ?

10 MR RODEMS: Well t h e r e s a couple o f hea r ingst h a t we had to pr epa r e fo r and

12 THE COURT: Do you have a l l of t h a t i t emized?13 MR RODEMS: No s i r . We ha dn t done t h a t ye t .14 The only purpose of today was t o f ind out15 THE COURT: E nt i t l emen t?16 MR RODEMS: E nt i t l emen t , yes , s i r .17 THE COURT: Okay.18 MR RODEMS: And b a s i c a l l y the r eason t h a t w e re19 br ing ing t h i s up i s because i n add i t i on to p o t e n t i a l20 f ees under 57.105 t he r e i s an ou t s t and ing o rde r from21 Judge Niel sen , which was t he one t h a t was t aken up on22 c e r t , and the Second DCA dismissed it23 T here s an ou t s t and ing o rde r from Judge Niel sen24 on d i s cove r y e n t i t l i n g the defendants to have t h e i r25 a t t o r n e y s f ees pa id . So our hope today i s t h a t if

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166ecea a f f8 4b3e a43f fc8ff0900d4a


9/28


Page 9you w i l l e n t e r an orde r on t h i s 57 .105 a l so awarding

2 en t i t l emen t , we can t hen b r i n g forward in ano the r3 hear ing the amount even - if we c a n t r e so l ve it4 through counse l .5 At t h a t po i n t t he on ly c l a im t h a t s pending6 before the Cour t r i gh t now i s t he counte rc la im fo r7 l i b e l and s l a n d e r .8 Our p r e s e n t i n t e n t i s once we l i q u i d a t e whatever9 a t t o r n e y s f e e s w e r e e n t i t l e d to , to j u s t dismiss

10 t h a t and proceed .I would po i n t ou t it s not s e t fo r he a r ing

12 today, bu t Mr. G i l l e s p i e has made an e f f o r t by f i l i n g13 a mot ion to withdraw h is n o t i c e o f d i smi ssa l o f h is14 c la ims . So t h a t i s pending out t h e r e a l s o . But in15 any even t , we b e l i e v e t h a t our motion fo r Se c t ion16 57.105 fees i s should be gra n te d , and we would ask17 you t o e n t e r an orde r today t h a t w e r e e n t i t l e d to18 a t t o r n e y s fees and c o s t s for hav ing to defend19 a g a i n s t t he s e va r ious e lements o f Mr. G i ll e s p i e s20 mot ion to d i sm i s s t h a t had no l ega l o r f a c t u a l b a s i s .21 THE COURT: For how - how long i s t h a t pe r iod22 be fo re - between you the 20-day - what w e l l23 c a l l t he 20-day grace per i od24 MR RODEMS: Oh okay.25 THE COURT: ran and t he da t e t h a t the cla ims



10/28


Page 10or defenses were withdrawn?

2 MR RODEMS: The motion fo r s anc t ions was3 o r i g i n a l l y f i l e d on February 28 th o f 2006 and t he4 defenses were f i n a l l y withdrawn by Mr. G i l l e s p i e on5 Janua ry 26 th o f 2007 so a lmos t e leven months .6 THE COURT: Okay. Al l r i g h t . Response?7 MR BAUER: May it p lease the Cour t , yes .8 My name i s Rober t Bauer . I am counse l fo r Nei l9 G i l l e s p i e . I v e r e c e n t l y corne on in t h i s case on ly

10 in the l a s t few months . I was not presen t fo r a l o to f t h i s as it was going on wi th t he p l a i n t i f f be ing

12 pro se a t t he t ime .13 What i s impor t an t fo r t he Cour t , I be l i eve , to14 look a t and fo r the C o u r t s convenience , I v e pu t15 a l l the case law t h a t I m going to c i t e today16 t oge the r in a packe t i s t h a t it s ve ry d i f f i c u l t17 to de te rmine exac t ly where t he cou r t s a r e going18 c u r r e n t l y on whether o r not you can s e c t i o n out on ly19 these smal l por t i ons o f a case as be ing f r i vo lous .20 I d id f ind case law in t he F i r s t DCA t h a t was21 doing t h a t , bu t s p e c i f i c a l l y to hold it to the second22 day - excuse me the Second DCA, I found in Stag l v .23 B r idge r s , 807 So. 2d 177 an award of a t t o r n e y s f ees24 pur s uan t to 57.105 , i s app rop r i a t i ve on l y when t he25 a c t i o n i s so c l e a r l y devoid o f both mer i t and f a c t s

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea11a f1 f8 4b3e a43f fc8ff 0900d4a


11/28


Page 111 in law as to be comple te ly untenable - 2 THE COURT: And isn t - - d o e s n t t h i s opin ion3 preda t e the amendment to 57.105 t ha t - - from4 e ve ry th ing I v e read and heard d i s c us s e d , does a l low

for what I c a l l a p iecemea l 57.105 approach; t h a t i s ,6 when any defense o r c la im i s found to be devo id of7 mer i t , t hen the aggr ieved p a r t y can send ou t t h i s ,8 b a s i c a l l y , you know demand l e t t e r , withdraw your9 c la im o r defense wi t h i n 20 days o r w e r e going to

10 i n s i s t on 57.105 fees?11 MR BAUER: I f I m no t mistaken , Your Honor I12 be l i eve the change t h a t y o u r e r e f e r r i n g i s in 1999.

3 THE COURT: Okay.14 MR BAUER: This he a r ing i s in - - excuse me15 t h i s ho ld ing i s in 2002. And a l l the 2002 ho ld ings16 of the Second DCA seem to still to r e f e r to as the17 e n t i r e ac t ion . The on ly - 18 THE COURT: Again it s hard to tell. Even19 though it s a 2002 case , when the , you know20 under ly ing motion was - - was brought - - and let s21 look a t 57.105 because I - - aga in , numerous a r t i c l e s22 have been w r i t t e n on t h i s , and we23 MR BAUER: Yes Your Honor and t ha t was p a r t

of my confus ion and I5 THE COURT: It seems l i k e we d i scuss t h i s a t

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea a f1f84b3e a43f fc8ff0900d4a

24


12/28


Page 12every j udge ' s conference t h a t we have, and as I

2 r e c a l l , eve ry th ing t h a t - 3 MR BAUER: I do know t h a t t h i s case r e f e r s4 to5 THE COURT: i s s a i d - if y o u ' l l pardon me6 MR BAUER: I 'm sor ry .7 THE COURT: i s t h a t the , you know, the8 amendment i s does a l low what I c a l l t h i s piecemeal9 approach.

10 And s p e c i f i c a l l y 57 .105(3) , which says , At anyt ime in any c i v i l proceed ing o r ac t ion in which the

12 moving pa r t y proves by a preponderance o f theil 3 evidence t h a t any a c t i on t aken by the oppos ing pa r t y14 inc lud ing , but not l i m i t e d t o , so it means anyth ing15 they do whether it s, you know, c h r on i c a l l y showing16 up l a t e fo r hear ings , fo r example, o r something l i k e17 tha t , then the cou r t s h a l l award damages to the18 moving p a r t y .19 But aga in , as in Subsec t ion 4, you got to give20 them t h i s , what I ll c a l l a 21-day demand l e t t e r21 grace per iod . And, you know, so - and c l e a r l y what22 the Stag l dec i s ion r e l a t e s to where t he re was a23 motion brought under the old s tandard which t a l k s24 about when the e n t i r e a c t i on i s disposed of .25 MR BAUER: Yes, Your Honor. I wi l l admit t h a t

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166

1ecea11a f1f8 4b3e a43ffc8ff0900d4 a


13/28

First-Choice Reporting Services Inc.www.frrstchoicereporting.com

Page 131 I read the s t a t u t e t ha t way and bel ieved it t h a t way,2 and found the case law very confusing on the poin t ,3 ac tua l ly , as to whether o r not it had been4 i n t e r p r e t ed t ha t way or the o ld - 5 THE COURT: And, in f ac t , the S tag l dec is ion6 c l e a r ly s t a t e s t ha t it s bas ing it on 57.105, the7 1997 vers ion .8 MR. BAUER: I j u s t no t i ced t ha t , Your Honor,9 whi le you had - when you had e a r l i e r had t ha t

10 ques t ion .THE COURT: Right .

12 MR. BAUER: Even - t ha t even being sa id , the13 s t a t u t e i t s e l f goes on to say t ha t the ind iv idua l14 as s e r t i ng it should have knew o r should have known15 t ha t those defenses or ac t ions t ha t they forwarded16 would have been f r ivo lous .17 The next case I would l i ke to c i t e i s Wendy's of18 Northeast Flor ida , Incorpora ted versus VanderGrif f ,19 in the Fi r s t DCA 865 So. 2d, 520, Pinpoin t 520,20 which i s on page 4 of the case t h a t I gave you. And21 the second paragraph holds , Taxings of fees for22 f i l i ng f r ivo lous p lead ings , c l e a r l y saying it s a23 f r ivo lous pleading , i s not always appropr i a t e even24 when the pa r ty seek ing the fees was success fu l in25 obta in ing the d i smis sa l of the ac t ion or summary

Orlando Tampa Melbourne Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea af1 f8-4b3e-a43f-fc8ff0900d4a


14/28

First-Choice Reporting Services, Inc.www.firstchoicereporting.com .

Page 14judgment in the ac t i on .

2 O'Hara Gal le ry , Inco rpora t ed versus Nader, the3 Third DCA 892 So. 2d 512, p inpo in t a t 513, on the4 second page of the copy provided , in the middle of5 the page, holds t h a t In de te rmining whether a par t y6 i s e n t i t l e d to s t a t u t e a t to rne y ' s fees as a sanc t ion7 for f i l i n g a f r ivo lous c la im i s determined when the8 cla im i s i n i t i a l l y f i l e d . What was the thought9 process then? What were they going th rough?

10 I t goes fu r t h e r on, too , t ha t the counse l11 the cour t must determine i the p a r t y o r its counsel

knew o r should have known the c la im or defenseas se r ted was not suppor ted by the fac t s o r

14 app l i ca t ion of the law.15 In kind o f a - - in a l ead i ng up, I ' v e c i t ed ,16 ac tua l ly , a c r i mi na l case next s imply fo r the17 purposes o f18 THE COURT: Okay. Well , to go back to the19 Wendy's case from the F i r s t Di s t r i c t , the Fi r s t20 D i s t r i c t found t he re t ha t Wendy's p o s i t i o n was not21 whol ly unsupported by the f ac t s a t any t ime because22 there was a j u s t i c i a b l e con t rove r sy as to whether23 Wendy's was i n su red by some insurance company, which24 was, you know, one o f the b i g i s sues the re . So, I25 mean, you know, t ha t brought i n to p l ay c e r t a i n -

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166ecea a f1 f8 4b3e a43ffc8ff0900d4a


15/28


Page 15t h a t p a r t i c u l a r i s sue .

2 So what - I agree wi th you as a genera l3 s ta tement of law t h a t and t ha t , o f course , t he4 proof i s in the pudding and a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h a t ru l e5 o f law to the f a c t s o f our case .6 MR BAUER: Yes Your Honor. And I t h i nk t h a t7 what t h a t does i s go to my next po in t i s , i s the8 genera l r u l e t ha t o f i n v i t e d e r r o r d o c t r i n e . This9 isn t t r u l y an i n v i t e d e r r o r d o c t r i n e i s sue . This i s

10 j u s t s imply as I m t r y in g to e labora t e on t ha t11 p r in c ip l e t h a t if - if you a re t he c o n t r i b u t i n g12 cause o f an i s sue t ha t you should not p r o f i t from it.13 And t ha t would be Czuback v . Sta te , 570 So. 2d 925.14 The po i n t i s , i s t h a t what was brought here i s15 G i l l e s p i e f i l e d h i s motion in response to c o u n s e l s16 motion t ha t was f i l e d . I f you look a t c o u n s e l s17 cla ims, t he re i s equa l l y f r ivo lous18 THE COURT: The Supreme Cour t on Czuback19 r e j e c t e d th a t e r r o r when the s t a t e t r i e d to say t ha t20 the s t a t e s key witness on c ros s - e xa m ina t ion oh21 by the way t h i s accused i s an escaped conv i c t . You22 know t ha t was an i n v i t e d e r r o r because t ha t comment23 was t o t a l l y unrespons ive to the defense l a w y e r s24 c ross -examina t ion .25 MR BAUER: Yes s i r , bu t t ha t i s t ha t i s a

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea11 a f1 f8 4b3e a43ffc8ff090 0d4a


16/28


Page 16c r im ina l case . The case t h a t was c i t e d s imply for

2 the ru l e3 THE COURT: And a l so t he r u l e o f evidence .4 MR BAUER: Yes sir.5 THE COURT: - as opposed to - wel l , what6 was7 MR BAUER: it s j u s t - it s j u s t8 THE COURT: the i n v i t e d e r r o r here?9 MR BAUER: It s it s no t t r u e i n v i t e d e r ro r ,

10 Your Honor. It s the p r i n c i p l e o f when you a re t he11 cause o f something t h a t you should not p r o f i t from12 it.13 Count I - 14 THE COURT: Right .15 MR BAUER: - i n t he motion to dismiss c l e a r l y16 asked t h a t - s a i d t h a t t he re should be a mot ion to17 d i sm i s s fo r f a i l u r e to s t a t e a cause o f ac t ion . This18 i s t he d e f e n d a n t s .19 Cl ea r l y a review of t he document of t he20 p l a i n t i f f s compla in t c l e a r l y s t a t e s a cause o f21 ac t i on fo r a c o n t r a c t . It a l l e g e s a c o n t r a c t . It22 says t h a t t h i ngs were no t done in compl iance with t he23 con t r ac t , and the defendan t was damaged.24 The mot ion to d i smiss was ove r tu rne d ou t of hand25 and c l e a r l y with one sentence , Any of t he - Any o f



17/28


Page 171 the r eques t s fo r d i smis sa l a re denied .2 The second the waiver and es t oppe l , was again,3 j u s t out - - out of t u rn dismissed by the judge .4 There was no a l l e g a t i o n s in the motion for d i smi ssa l5 i t s e l f on what bas i s t he re cou ld be any waiver o r6 es t oppe l .7 The one t h a t ' s e s p e c i a l l y g l a r i n g i s the8 economic l o s s r u l e . The economic l o s s ru l e i s a t o r t9 ru l e and app l i e s on ly to t o r t cases , but it was -

10 and t he re was - 11 THE COURT: And how d i d the defense12 MR BAUER: Count I I was a con t r ac t c la im.13 THE COURT: did they i n v i t e these cla ims? I14 d o n ' t unders tand t ha t .15 MR BAUER: I f you look a t - - defense forwarded16 cla ims themse lves t h a t were f r ivo lous , t ha t were not17 j u s t j u s t i c i a b l e and not based in law. They18 forwarded confus ing i s sues o f law t ha t poss ib ly could19 have - - t ha t only through t he looses t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s20 could have a p p l i c a t i o n i n a t tempt to t ake advan tage21 o f a pro se l i t i g a n t .22 The pro se l i t i g a n t , if you ' l l , look a t h is23 response , it's exac t ly i d e n t i c a l to t he i r s . He24 fo l lowed t h e i r l ead . All he d i d was look a t if

5 t h i s i s the way t h a t a t to rneys a re supposed to



18/28


Page 18presen t t h i ngs , I , as an inexper ienced l i t i g a n t , am

2 going to do the same t h ing . He f e l t tha t it was3 appropr i a t e to do what they were doing .4 THE COURT: So y o u ' r e ask ing me to app ly a5 d i f f e r e n t s t anda rd t o Mr. G i l l e s p i e because h e ' s a6 pro se l i t i g a n t ?7 MR BAUER: Which I t h i nk i s appropr i a t e , and8 the cour t s have found t h a t in the Biermann v . Cook,9 So. 2d 1029, Pinpo in t 1031, page 3, it s a t the

10 bot tom o f the page, it says , Our power and des i re toimpose sanc t i ons aga ins t pro se a nd /o r i nd i gen t

12 l i t i g a n t s i s l im i t e d , so t he re a d i f f e r e n c e , i s13 l imi t ed by the cons t i t u t i ona l r i gh t of access to the14 cour t s by s t a t u t o r y ambigui ty o f the i nd igen t s to15 ob t a i n cour t se rv i ces a t l e a s t a t little o r no cos t .16 And by w e l l - r e c ogn iz e d p r i n c i p l e t h a t non- lawyer17 l i t i g a n t s not be pena l i zed fo r an i n a b i l i t y to18 observe s t r i c t compl iance with r u l e s o f proc e dure .19 It does go on to say , None of t hese20 cons i de ra t i ons , however , should i n h i b i t a cour t from21 s t e pp ing in to pre ve n t abus ive and nu i sance22 l i t i g a t i o n .23 I d o n ' t t h i nk t h i s had the i n t e n t o f be ing24 abusive and nuisance . I t h ink he was t r y in g to25 respond in kind and do what he f e l t was appropr i a t e .

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea 11 a f1 f8 4b3e a43f fc8ff0900d4a


19/28


Page 19This the i s sue o f the cons t i t u t i ona l r igh t

2 for access had been r epea t ed l y addressed by the3 Second D i s t r i c t , a l s o aga in in Connel ly v . Old Bridge4 Vil lage Co-op. T h a t s c i t e d a t 915 So. 2d 6525 Pinpoin t 656 aga in showing the concern of t he6 cons t i t u t i ona l r i gh t of access .7 The t h i s has been a s i t u a t i o n I be l i eve t ha t8 has d i s so l ved on bo th s id e s . It s been a - - t h i s has9 been a case where the persona l con t ac t r e l a t i o n o f

10 a t t o r ney - c l i en t p r i v i l e g e - - excuse me o f11 a t t o r ney - c l i en t r e l a t i o n s h i p has gone awry. It s an12 i n t i ma t e r e l a t i o n s h ip . And when i n t i ma t e

, 13 r e l a t i o n s h ip s break up it becomes emot iona l . It14 becomes d i f f i c u l t .15 I be l i eve both s ides have go t t en very emot ional16 in t h i s case and have forwarded arguments t ha t17 weren t necessa ry , t h a t w e r e n t appropr i a t e .18 I d o n t be l i eve it s app ropr i a t e t o pena l i ze the19 pro se l i t i g a n t when h e s not e n t i t l e d to ask for20 a t to r n e y s fees because he wasn t r ep resen t ed a t the21 t ime, bu t a l low the a t t o r n e y to ask fo r a t t o r n e y s22 fees when the behavior has been equal on bo th s id e s .23 I t h i nk now t h a t we have counse l r ep re sen t ing24 bo th s ides , we can go back to a s i t u a t i o n o f a l e s s

emotional conf ron ta t ion s i t u a t i o n , r e i n j e c t

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166

1ecea 11 a f1 fS 4b3e a43f fcSff0900d4a

25


20/28


Page 20pro fe s s iona l i sm i n to t h i s s i t ua t i on on both s ides .

2 I th ink t h e r e ' s c l ea r evidence t ha t t he re - - you3 know, I admit t ha t t h e r e ' s been some problems with - 4 with the p l a i n t i f f in t h i s case , bu t I be l ieve t ha t5 t he re have been problems as well on the defendant ' s6 s ide .7 And it i s very d i f f i c u l t dea l ing with pro se8 rep re sen ta t ive s who don ' t necessa r i ly know a l l the9 law. And so I can very e a s i l y see and see how

10 j u s t i f i a b l y t h ings could get emotional and d i f f i c u l t .But I be l ieve t h i s i s the s i t u a t i o n why the

12 awarding of 57.105 sanc t ions i s subjec t to an abuse~ of d i s c r e t i on s tandard , which i s the l a s t case t ha t14 I ' ve c i t e d in Mercury Insurance Company v. Coatney,15 910 So. 2d 925, and you ' l l f ind t ha t on the t h i rd16 page l oca t ed a t Headnote 3.17 Your Honor, I t h ink in f i na l summation i s I18 be l i eve t ha t any cont inu ing 57.105 claims back and19 fo r th aga ins t each o the r i s not in the i n t e r e s t of20 j u s t i c e . It s not in the i n t e r e s t of j u d i c i a l21 economy. e need to be before t h i s Court address ing22 the i s sues of the complaint t ha t cour t s here have23 ru led have been from proper ly p led . They ' re v iab le24 counts . They need to be forwarded and determined25 whether or not ind iv idua l s have damages on them. And



21/28


Page 21we need to s t e p back and no t be concerned wi th a l l o f

2 t he s e 57 .105 mot ions .3 THE COURT: All r i g h t . Well I - as I v e4 i nd ica t ed , I have read th rough t he f i l e . I t has some5 h i s to ry , as has been b r i e f l y summarized. It s been6 more t han somewhat con t en t i ous . It i s a good t h ing7 fo r Mr. G i l l e s p i e t h a t he has r e t a i n e d counse l .8 The way in which Mr. G i ll e s p i e s s i de has been9 pre s e n te d today wi th - wi th a h igh degree o f

10 pro fess i ona l i sm and conf idence r e f l e c t s the wisdom o f11 t h a t d e c i s i o n .12 But n e v e r t h e l e s s , I v e got to app ly the s t a t u t e13 here , 57 .105 as it ~ x s t s And whi le t he c a se s do14 i n d i c a t e t h a t some a l lowance should be made fo r t hose15 i nd iv idua l s t h a t r ep re sen t themselves , it s a l so been16 made c l e a r by numerous a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s , i nc lud ing17 the Second D i s t r i c t in t he Biermann dec i s i on .18 I had anothe r case I was l ook ing a t , which had19 an e x c e l l e n t d i s c u s s i o n o f what the Cour t shou ld be20 looking a t .21 MR BAUER: I f I may r eques t , Your Honor?22 THE COURT: Pardon me?23 MR BAUER: I f I may r eques t , if the Cour t24 de te rmines t h a t fees a re warranted , we would r eques t25 t h a t nominal f e e s be addressed in l i g h t o f the i s s u e s

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-8166ecea a f1 f8 4b3e a43f fc8ff0900d4a


22/28


Page 221 prev i ous l y ra i s ed .2 THE COURT: Let me look a t t h i s case t h a t I had3 found. What d i d I do wi th t h a t one? I m su re it4 w a s n t Biermann.5 Wasn t t he re a - - I though t it was a F i f t h6 D i s t r i c t d e c i s i o n .7 MR RODEMS: Are you r e f e r r i n g to t he C o u r t s8 c o n s i d e r a t i o n on pro se l i t i g a n t s , Your Honor?9 THE COURT: Yeah.

10 MR RODEMS: Oh, okay. Well , I do have a F i f t h11 C i r c u i t case , which i s12 THE COURT: F i f t h D i s t r i c t ?13 MR RODEMS: F i f t h D i s t r i c t . I m s o r r y .14 Anderson - 15 THE COURT: No. It was one t ha t counsel fo r the16 p l a i n t i f f had - 17 MR RODEMS: Oh, I m so r ry .18 THE COURT: - - i n d i c a t e d . I d o n t know why it s19 not here .20 MR BAUER: Your Honor, we would -

THE COURT: Do you have t h a t one? You read from22 it. You quo ted from it.23 MR BAUER: I prov ided e ve ry th ing t h a t I quoted24 from, Your Honor.25 And I agree , Your Honor, t h a t t h e r e i s t he

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea11a f1 f8 4b3e a43f fc8ff09 00d4

21


23/28


Page 23au thor i ty for the Court to do t h i s . We are j us t

2 asking the Court , given the f ac t s , to exerc i se its3 d i s c re t i on .4 TH COURT: Yes, it i s from Biermann, from the5 Second Di s t r i c t , a c tua l ly . And it s it s worth6 reading and I th ink it s worth quot ing.7 This i s from Biermann, B-I-E-R-M-A-N-N v. Cook i8 a t 619 So. 2d 1029, 1993, Flo r ida Second Di s t r i c t9 Court of Appeal , where in the opinion, on page

10 1031, the Court t a lk s , I th ink , with some candor andwith some common sense s t a t i ng a t one poin t on page

12 1031 t ha t the majo r i ty of pro se l i t i g a n t s conduct13 themselves , if not always with the expe r t i s e of14 t r a ined a t to rneys , r e s pec t f u l l y , candidly, and with15 hones t e f f o r t to abide by ru le s of procedure; most,16 t ha t i s , but not a l l .17 And then the cour t goes on to poin t out t ha t18 This Cour t , meaning the appe l l a t e cour t , l i ke19 o the r s in t h i s country, opera tes with a f i n i t e number20 of judges and suppor t s tu f f , and under a f i n i t e21 amount of t ime. Each case competes with a l l o the r s22 for a f a i r d i v i s i on of j ud i c i a l resources . The23 s imples t case exhaus t s t axpayer funds. Such cos ts24 are seldom of f se t by f i l i n g fees , which, in any25 event , are not assessed aga ins t i nd igen t s .

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea11 a f1f8 4b3e a43f fc8ff0900d4 a


24/28

First-Choice Reporting Services, Inc.www.fIrstchoicereporting.com

Page 24And t hen t he cou r t goes on to say t h a t

2 Admit tedly pro se l i t i g a n t s have a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l3 r i g h t o f acces s t o the cou r t s and t h a t nonlawyer4 l i t i g a n t s should not be pena l i zed fo r any i n a b i l i t y5 to observe strict compl iance wi th r u l e s o f6 procedure , bu t t he cou r t t hen goes on in upholding7 the assessment of a t t o r ne y f ees fo r a f r i vo lous8 appeal aga in s t a pro se l i t i g a n t , t h a t , quote , none9 of the se cons ide ra t i ons , however, should i n h i b i t a

10 cou r t from s t epp ing i n t o prevent abus ive , nui sancel i t i g a t i o n .

12 And whi le t h i s case i s still ongoing, t he same,13 could be t r ue o f mat te r s t h a t need to be addressed14 under the cu r r en t ve r s ion o f 57.105. And t h a t ' s what15 I propose to do.16 I 'm going to f ind t h a t t he r e i s an en t i t l em en t17 to f ees on beha l f of the defendants under 57.105.18 And we w i l l as se s s t h a t amount a t a l a t e r hear ing o r19 upon agreement .20 And we' re not going to have two amount hea r ings .21 Apparen t ly t he r e i s t h i s ou t s t and ing d i scove ry22 sanc t ion o rde r t h a t awarded fees , bu t not an amount.23 So we have to dea l with t h a t as wel l . e can dea l24 with t h a t a t the same t ime .25 t would - - in your d i scus s ions wi th each o the r ,

Orlando, Tampa, Melbourne, Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661e e a f1f8 4b3e a43f fc8ff0900d4a


25/28

First-Choice Reporting Services Inc.www.firstchoicereporting.com

Page 251 c l ea r l y you 've got to l e t the o the r s ide know in some2 d e t a i l for t h i s eleven-month pe r iod3 MR RODEMS: Yes, s i r .4 THE COURT: and fo r the d i scove ry m at te r5 exac t ly what you r e seeking , what you r e ba s ing it6 on, the hour ly e n t r i e s and so fo r t h and so on.7 I would r equ i r e - - aga in , the Cour t has some8 f l e x i b i l i t y because in some of these cases , un l ike a9 preva i l ing pa r ty a t t o r n e y s fee hear ing , t h i s i s for

10 sanc t ions . And it's not n e c e s s a r i l y a d o l l a r - f o r do l l a r award o f t ime pu t i n t o a case .12 And my exper ience , fo r the most pa r t , has been,13 i n o the r s e t t i ngs , s ubs t a n t i a l l y l e s s than the amount14 o f t ime t ha t an a t to rney has pu t i n to something .15 In o the r cases , though, depending on what type16 o f sanc t i ons should be imposed, I v e taken the17 pos i t ion t ha t it could wel l be more than the ac tua l18 t ime t ha t an a t to rney has pu t in . That could be19 s t r e t ch i ng a po in t of law and I m - - I d o n t th ink20 I v e ever done t ha t , to be hones t wi th you. I m not21 sure I want to do t h i s in t h i s case .22 So it's e s s e n t i a l , you know, t he pun i shmen t23 should fit the cr ime. T h e r e s no - - and t h a t s a24 f igu re o f speech, obvious ly . There s no cr ime here ,5 j u s t an award o f 57.105.

Orlando Tampa Melbourne Daytona Beach Lake CountyVoice 407-830-9044 Fax 407-767-81661ecea a f1 f8 4b3e a43f fc8ff0900d4a


26/28

3


Page 261 So you-a l l - - it seems l i k e y o u r e working w e l l2 t oge t he r , which I g re a t l y a p p r e c i a t e . And I m su re

your c l i e n t s do too , because it s going to make t h i s4 l i t i g a t i o n go a l o t smoother .5 And then , aga in , t hese t h i ngs can t ake on a l i f e6 o f t h e i r own and in t h i s case your r o l e as counse lor7 i s probably more impor tan t in t h i s kind of a case8 t han your r o l e as advoca te . I urge you to draw on9 your a b i l i t i e s and exper ience in t h a t regard .

10 MR RODEMS: May I pre pa re a proposed orde rTHE COURT: Sure .

12 MR RODEMS: r e ga rd ing n t ~ t l m n t Okay.13 And of course , when and if it comes to the14 amount I s ha l l pre pa re a v e r i f i e d fee p e t i t i o n under15 oa th with the necessa ry hour ly breakdown and send it16 to Mr. Bauer .17 MR BAUER: And Your Honor may I assume t h a t18 t h a t the en t i t l emen t w i l l be a g a i n s t the pro se19 p l a i n t i f f only20 THE COURT: Right .21 MR BAUER: - - and I was not presen t then .22 THE COURT: Exac t ly . R ight .23 MR RODEMS: I mean t he r e c o rd should be c l ea r24 on t ha t ; t ha t Mr. Bauer carne in a f t e r a l l o f t hese25 i s sues a rose .



27/28


Page 271 TH COURT: All r i g h t . Thank you. We l l be in2 recess .345678910111213141516171819202122232425

The proceed ings concluded a t 10:05 a .m.)



28/28

2356789

10111213141516171819202122232425

28

;

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTERSTATE OF FLORIDA:OUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH:

I , Kathryn C. S p i e g e l , Cour t Repor t e r and NotaryPubl i c in and f o r t h e s t a t e o f Flo r ida a t Large c e r t i f yt h a t I was au th o r i zed to and d id s t e n o g ra p h i c a l l y repor tthe foregoing proceed ings ; and t h a t the t r a n s c r i p t i s at rue and accura te r ecord o f s a i d proceed ings .

I f u r t h e r c e r t i f y t h a t I am no t a r e l a t ive ,employee a t t o rn e y , o r counse l o f any o f t he p a r t i e s , noram I a r e l a t i v e o r employee o f any of the p a r t i e sa t to rney o r counse l connec ted wi th the a c t i o n , nor am If i nanc i a l l y i n t e r e s t e d in t he a c t i on .

Dated:

Kathryn C. SNotary Publ i cS t a t e o f Flor ida a t LargeCommission No. 454068My commission Expires :

7 /2 4 /0 9

transcript judge barton 9.30am jul 07 2007 57.105 discovery

Documents