Court Records
Filing # 116366269 E-Filed 11/09/2020 02:14:01 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 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
Beach County, Florida.
Defendants.
Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R.
BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm C O
c11i( i>DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG'S AMENDED OR ATTORNEYS' FEES
Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State A "SS?" alm Beach County, Florida, by and
i
,c is
kig vthrough the undersigned counsel, hereby mov rabic Court, pursuant to Rule 1.525, Fla. c
R. Civ. P. to enter an award of atto ' fee n his favor against Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA
HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of BEACH POST, and in support thereof states the
C
following:
1.
BEACH P
B ' I OR AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES
vem r 14
Ay , 2019, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM
aintiff") filed a complaint against DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of
Palm B unty, Florida (the "State Attorney" or "Defendant Aronberg") 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
Epstein grand jury materials, (the "Requested Materials"), pursuant to § 905.27(1) Fla. Stat.
*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL SHARON R BOCK, CLERK. 11/09/2020 02:14:01 PM ***
EFTA02732955
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
of informing the public.
3. On January 24, 2019, both the State Attorney and the Cle
the First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Count II (" ion to Dismiss).
Notably, the State Attorney's Answer/Motion to Dismiss assert is t to attorneys' fees for
defending the action and requested such relief from the C
4. On June 8, 2020, the Court ente s Granting Defendants Motions to reSt
that the State Attorney and the Clerk disclose the Requested Materials to Plaintiff for the purpose
it Answer to
Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's First Amended la with Prejudice ("Order").
5. Immediately following o Order, on June 8, 2020, the State Attorney,
through the undersigned counsel, 'ntiff with a demand pursuant to § 57.105 Fla. Stat.,
to voluntary dismiss/withdraw Amended Complaint and the claims against the State
Attorney, along with a ' for Attorneys' Fees ("57.105 Demand"). See, Exhibit "A".
Specifically, bec of e Court's Order only Count I of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
remained, w t Declaratory Relief under § 86.011, Fla. Stat.
ere, 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
EFTA02732956
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 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,
withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint and waiting t
after service of the motion" the State Attorney's Motion for Attom
Court on July 1, 2020. See, Exhibit "C".
10. Thereafter, on August 18, 2020, the S
Judgment ("Motion") and proceeded, on October
State Attorney's Motion ("Motion to Set")
of this matter without the Court's in
C d)11. Nonetheless, lat e day, rather than setting and participating in a hearing
on the merits as to State Attorney otion, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Dropping the State Attorney
("Notice") from the • stant as . See, Exhibit "D". Asa consequence of filing its Notice, Plaintiff s ,
has effectivel de admission that its allegations against the State Attorney have no basis in
fact or la
1
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." Caner v. Lake County, 840 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla.
5th DCA 2003).
resl: rousing to
isite "21 days
was filed with this
y filed his Motion for Summary
0, to file a Motion to Set Hearing on the
c clear that them would be no resolution
3
EFTA02732957
13. Specifically, Plaintiff's 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."
14. Rule 1.250(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 1.420(a)(1) subject to the exception ted
in that rule. If notice of fis pendens has been filed in the action against a so
dropped, the notice of dismissal shall be recorded and cancels the t of s
pendens without the necessity of a court order. Parties may be drop rder of
court on its own initiative or the motion of any party at any stage tion on
such terms as are just.
15. Rule 1.420(aX1), Fla. R. Civ. P., Voluntary Distyi
(1) By Parties. Except in actions in which prope,
custody of the court, an action, a claim, or an
dismissed by plaintiff without order of co
trial by stating on the record, a notice of
motion for summary judgment, or if no
retirement of the jury in a case tried
case to the court for decision, or
all current parties to the actio
the dismissal is without p
adjudication on the mer
any court an action bas
16. Notably,
Rule of Civil P
be dropped
except
n seized or is in the
action or claim may be
trial by serving, or during
1 ilt any time before a hearing on
or if the motion is denied, before
c a j or before submission of a nonjury
ng a stipulation of dismissal signed by
herwise stated in the notice or stipulation,
ept that a notice of dismissal operates as an
erved by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in
including the same claim.
1.250(6) expressly incorporates the procedural aspects of Florida
0(a)(1) governing voluntary dismissal by providing that parties may
manner provided for voluntary dismissal in rule 1.420(a)(1) subject to the
in that rule."' Siboni v. , 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 I .420(a)(1). Id. at 781.
4
EFTA02732958
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 Plaintiff 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
to disclose the Requested Materials. Nonetheless, Section 905.17(1), FloriCi
that Plaintiff's Requested Materials can only be released by the Cie
The stenographic records, notes, and transcriptions
stenographer shall be filed with the clerk who shall k
not subject to public inspection. The notes, r
confidential and exempt from the provisions of
the State Constitution and shall be released
jury for use by the grand jury or on order
Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020).
20. The State Attorney h
Requested Materials should th
the State Attorney to comply the relief sought by Plaintiff in its remaining claim for C
declaratory relief as be do no possess or control the Requested Materials and is statutorily barred
from any disc.
authority
makes clear
a court order.
out reporter or
in a sealed container
d transcriptions are
) and s. 24(a), Art. I of
e only on request by a grand
rt pursuant to s. 905.27.
tion to the Clerk producing and disclosing the
21.
t an order to that effect, however, it is impossible for
ough the State Attorney was prepared to make his argument to the Court,
Plaintiff db9ided 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
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. M, 52 So. 3d 779, 781 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2010); Rule 1.420(a)(1) Fla. R. Civ. P.
5
EFTA02732959
22. Consequently, the filing of Plaintiff's Notice triggered Rule 1.525, Fla. R. Civ. P.
and therefore:
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.
County Conservation Alliance v. County, 73 So. 3d 856, 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
(finding that "Courts are not at liberty to disregard the legislative mandate that co I impose
sanctions in cases without foundation in material fact or law. The word " § 57.105, Fla. Ci] )
Stat., evidences the legislative intent to impose a mandatory penalty t sc a c baseless claims,
by placing a price tag on losing parties who engage in these a • • ies3fxtion 57.105 expressly
o dismiss, baseless claims or *states courts "shall" assess attorney's fees for bringing,
defenses.").
23. In fact, "Section 57.105(1) cl tia vplicitly confers upon the trial court the
authority to award attorney's fees to the vatllig party upon the court's initiative, if 'the court
finds that the losing party . . . kne grave known that a claim or defense when initially
presented to the court or at a efore trial. . . [w]as not supported by the material facts
necessary to establish th • or defense." v. la 47 So. 3d 320, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA
2010).
24. imple fact of the matter is that Plaintiff failed to withdraw its Amended
Comp 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.
25. Furthermore, based on the impossible nature of Plaintiff's demand of the State
Attorney, it was proper to demand withdrawal of Plaintiff's remaining claim for declaratory relief
6
EFTA02732960
and serve the 57.105 Motion for Attorneys' Fees due to Plaintiff's claim lacking any basis in fact
or law. Again, neither the State Attorney nor his office has possession, custody or control of the
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.
i26. Consequently, the State Attorney is entitled to recover 149 's reasonable 0
attorneys' fees in defending this suit by virtue of 57.105, Florida Sta
REASONABLENESS AND AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
Nt i27. From the service of the 57.105 Demand to e this motion, the attorneys for
the State Attorney have rendered 42.2 hours of leg or a total amount of $18,275.00 in S in
iips„defending this action. Sec time sheets detail* : c ount of hours by each timekeeper, the s it
timekeeper's hourly rate, and a descri ' of tasks done during those times, on attached
Exhibit "E". Of that amount, the ed has been paid $0.00 as the engagement with the
State Attorney is on a pure con gen fee basis. The undersigned expects to incur an additional
4.0 hours at $425.00 an h reparing for and attending the hearing on attorneys' fees. Thus,
the total amount urly torneys' fees the State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of
$19,975.00. er set forth below, the State Attorney also seeks a multiplier of 2.0, which
when a17jlyRFlnakes 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
EFTA02732961
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 Bar and Florida Patient's
Compensation Fund v. M, 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, cons ng nearly
75 hours of legal work. Moreover, the issues in c y were
novel and complex in that Plaintiff sought to c to ne private
statutory cause of action under Florida Status • , implicated
several 1st Amendment issues, and so t declaratory
relief pursuant to said Statute. Final! , t i • gation has been
ongoing for nearly a year and required ' 1 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 t lved in this litigation and
considering the relative sm s e firm representing the State
Attorney, the undersig a s were forced to turn away or
delay representing of r c especially during critical stages of
the litigation, due I t aired 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 is f $425.00/hour for Mr. Wyler's services s,
and $475.00 o fo Mr. services are reasonable for
lawyers • heir respective communities possessing equal
expert ce ill.
(D) the significance of, or
amount involved in, the
subject matter of the
representation, and the
results obtained e s i
e out e of this case is of great public significance to the State
lo as it pertains to the disclosure of grand jury records and
the e of the State Attorney concerning such disclosure. Here,
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 ti c -mi ions
imposed b ent or
by th r i i Lances and,
as bctwee i attorney and
client, any additional or
special time demands or
requests of the 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 of quickly
and efficiently.
(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
EFTA02732962
(G) the experience,
reputation, diligence, and
This representation required experience in a field available to few
lawyers, which included defending the State Attorney from claims
ability of the lawyer or of a media entity and lawyers from multiple states regarding the
lawyers performing the release of information with a nationwide interest. Accordingly, the
service and the skill,
expertise, or efficiency of
undersigned counsel conducted the representation with skill and
efficiency wherein Defendant Arenberg was dismissed from the
effort reflected in the
actual providing of such
services
action prior to any hearing on the merits before the court.
(H) whether the fee is The fee arrangement herein was entirely contin en wherein
fixed or contingent, and, if obtaining a fee was conditioned upon prevailing a ining an
fixed as to the amount or
rate, then whether the
client's ability to pay
rested to any significant
degree on the outcome of
order awarding fees.
O 'S
the representation. Amt.
JUSTIFICATION FOR M IPLIER
'SSI)s,30. Defendant Aronberg was able to proi ' is litigation only if counsel would
receive a court order awarding contingency b 1%, s' fees upon achievement of a successful
outcome in this case. See, Exhibit "G". en rs and the fact that counsel risked a total of 74.8
hours of work for no pay, of w ' ours is subject to the 57.105 Demand, Defendant
Arenberg submits that multipli of would be appropriate in this case. Based upon the hours
expended, the hourly ra 0 multiplier, Defendant Aronberg respectfully requests an award
of attorneys' f anctions as stated herein.
31. regard to the application of a multiplier, the court must analyze the three
facto 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 arc
applicable, especially the amount involved, the results obtained, and the type of fee
arrangement between the attorney and his client.
See, Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Pulloquinga, 183 So. 3d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).
9
EFTA02732963
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 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 v0 t needing
representation by other, private counsel. Although the undersigned co law firm are
General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys' Association ., AA") the instant
matter did not fall within the scope of representation for th
th
engagement between Defendant Aronberg and the ur rgit counsel. Accordingly, the
endant Aronberg on a contingency undersigned counsel and his law firm agreed to rec t
Sfee basis and to try the case to final judgment e g that there was no other counsel willing s ,
to represent Defendant Aronberg on suc s.
33. With respect to the a ors to be considered in applying a multiplier as set
forth in Quanstrom, here Defers nberg was unable to mitigate against non-payment of fees
d required a separate
because as a purely taxp> pded entity, the Office of State Attorney had no other means by
which to pay th dersi ed counsel. Additionally, Defendant Aronberg meets each of the
individual R tors as set forth in the table located above on pages 8-9. Accordingly, based
on the the application of a multiplier herein is proper. In this vein, the 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
EFTA02732964
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. M, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985).
34. Additionally, the Quanstrom court confirmed and modified the approach, as
follows:
However, we find that the multiplier in should be modified as follows: ltth
trial court determines that success was more likely than not at the outse
apply a multiplier of 1 to 1.5; if the trial court determines that the F ood f
success was approximately even at the outset, the trial judge may ap tiplier
of 1.5 to 2.0; and if the trial court determines that success was unli h outset
of the case, it may apply a multiplier of 2.0 to 2.5. Accordingl e decision
is modified to allow a multiplier from 1 to 2.5.
Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2. 4 (Fla. 1990). Thus, based
upon all of the foregoing factors, Defendant Aronberg y submits that a multiplier of 2.0
is appropriate for this representation.
CERTIFICATION OF CO AITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE
The undersigned certifies that th effort was made to resolve the issues raised in
this motion by agreement of t The parties were unable to resolve by agreement the
issues of entitlement to fees or ount of fees.
WHEREFO , I dant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach
County, Flori y at this Honorable Court will enter an Order awarding Defendant Aronberg
his reaso meys' fees with a multiplier of 2.0 against the Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA
HOLDIN LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, in the amount of $39,950.00.
ERTIFICATE 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
EFTA02732965
SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC
/s/ Douglas A. Wyler
Arthur I. Esq.
Fla. Bar No.: 10249
Richard J. Scholz, Esq.
Fla. Bar No.: 0021261
Douglas A. Wyler, Esq.
Fla. Bar No.: 119979
961687 Gateway Blvd., Sui
Fernandina Beach, Flon 34
([Phone Redacted]
([Phone Redacted] Fax
Primary: jacob z comcast.net
AttoraeysfØefe
;v nt, Dave Aronberg
12
EFTA02732966
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "A"
EFTA02732967
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 ARONBERG ET AL.
Date: Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Douglas Wyler
To: '[Email Redacted]', [Email Redacted], [Email Redacted], [Email Redacted],
[Email Redacted], [Email Redacted]
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 Beacktounty,
Florida G.
Case No: Case No. 2020-CA-014681
—Sr Plaintiff: CA Florida Holdings, LLC
Defendant: Dave Aronberg c 1/4
Title of Documents
Served:
• Fla. Stat. § 57.105 Demand Letter
• Defendant, Dave Aronberg's Mono to
Ne,—)
orneys' Fees
Sender's Name and
Telephone Number:
Douglas Wyler
([Phone Redacted] "CA) , .
Sincerely,
a yler, Esq.
Scholz & Wyler, LLC
961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-I
Fernandina Beach, FL 32034
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted] (fax)
dougalerPcomcast.net
Please be advised that this e- any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client
communication or may otherwi 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
EFTA02732968
JACOBS SCHOLZ 8c WYLER, LLC.
THE LAW °mots OF
S ASSOCIATES. P.A.
MINIM I.
A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
GATEWAY TO AMELIA
901587 GATEWAY BLVD.. SUITE 201.1
FIDDIA-NDENA BEACH. FLORIDA 02034
TELEPHONE (904/ 261.3693
FAX NO. ([Phone Redacted]
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 Aronbe
,,iPalm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA
Dear Mr. Mendelsohn:
As you are aware our firm represents the intere
County, Florida, in the above referenced ma
dismissal of your First Amended Complaj
is made pursuant to section 57.105, Fl
As you know, Section 57
(1) Upon the court's
reasonable a rney's
prevailing pa
on anyj1aim o
the
h
RICHARD J. SCHOLZ. P.A.
RICHARD J. SCHOLZ
DOUGLAS A. WYLER, P.A.
DOUGLAS A. WYLCR
A Cos
Arenberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach
rpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary
omplaint"), dated January 17, 2020. This demand
e or motion of any party, the court shall award a
ee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the
ual amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney
efense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which
Inds that the losing party or the losing party's attorney knew or should
that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any
ore trial:
Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or
defense; or
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
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 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.
EFTA02732969
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, custody, or control of the
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 d laratory relief k ,
fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2 I rids Statutes,
which states:
When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (
case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their atto
to their legal associates and employees. However the grand
such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or p ecu
criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever.
Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the decla
to comply with any court order granting disclosure of
Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney fo
custody, or control of the 2006 Epstein grand ju
Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is
the enclosed Motion for Attorney's Feessy
and your firm, recovery of the legal ex
Please govern yourself accordin
k lISIIIIDouglas A. Wyler, Esq. ZVFor the Firm
ion for Attorneys' Fees
n a civil
by the latter
ony afforded
'on of the civil or
, Mr. Aronberg would be unable
ed documents because neither Mr.
nth Judicial Circuit have possession,
d within 21 days of the service of this letter,
and we will seek as sanctions, from your client
urred in defending this frivolous action.
EFTA02732970
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC,
Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST,
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.
CASE NO.: 19-CA-O14681
O SA
C
DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S M R ATTORNEYS' FEES
Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as S of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and
through the undersigned attorneys, mov Co , pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105,
to award him reasonable attorneys' e defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint,
(the "Complaint"), and as rods r, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served
a copy of this Motion, togeth a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with
subsection (4) of abo'tute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior
to the filing o s on. In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which
establis mplaint is without support of the facts or the law.
REFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach
County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff's
attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion.
EFTA02732971
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.
SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC
Is/ Douglas A. Wyler
Arthur I. , Esquire
Fla. Bar No.: 108249
Richard J. Scholz, eFla. Bar No.: 0021
Douglas A. Wyl
Fla. Bar No.: 1
961687 Gate d., Suite 201-I
Fenian ch, Florida 32034
(904
(9; 9
[Email Redacted]
ttorneys for Defendant
EFTA02732972
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B"
EFTA02732973
GT GreenbergTraurig
Stephen A. Mendelsohn
Tel [Phone Redacted]
Fax [Phone Redacted]
mendelsohnegtlaw.com
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 ei at
Case No. 2019-CA-014681
Dear Mr. Wyler:
We are in receipt of your letter of June 8, 2020 with y
In your letter and your proposed motion, you
firm of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. should be li
Attorney Aronberg after the date of your I
(a) and (b) for support. As shown below
and we expect that if the State Attom
Your letter omits a citation to
may not be awarded where th
reversal of existing law or the es
a reasonable expectation
ed Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion.
Florida Holdings, LIE and the law
attorneys' fees to be incurred by State
letter cites to Fla. Stat. sections 57.105(1)
o basis for a Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion,
make such a motion, the court should deny it.
5(3). Subsection 57.105(3Xa) provides that sanctions
good faith argument for the extension, modification or
shment of new law, as it is applied to the material facts, with
" We have such a good faith argument.
Contrary to your lysis of Fla. Stat. section 905.27, there are actually three instances where a
court may ord' se of grand jury materials. As we argue, the court may order release "in
furtherance t. just e.' There are few cases in Florida reviewing this provision and its scope. It is
an open t t uestion as to whether the court may order release of grand jury transcripts to
them r both the statute and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in furtherance
of justice. e 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 thaurig, P.A. I Attorneys at Law
5100 Town Center Circle I Stite 400 I Boca Raton, Florida 33486 I T +[Phone Redacted] I F +[Phone Redacted]
Albany. Amsterdam. Atlanta. Austin. Berlin: Boot Raton. Boston. Chicago. Dallas. Delaware. Denver. Fon 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 Aviv: Tokio: Warsaw: Washington, D.C. West Palm Beach. Westchester County.
re s. besionammOarg ufr*Atsos Umgronag• 'CromeoineeeC 'Creapirmetsva 'am., ben uPraTts• twagatOimeA P- .• law ea. no. OA .451 ben•••••••Cfnewol•Agessael
wswelavecom
EFTA02732974
possession of the Epstein grand jury materials, which has yet to be demonstrated,
the matter. The State Attorney was named as a party not simply as a custodj
records. The State Attorney was named in his official capacity as his office
interest the protection of its grand jury system." [Italics in original.] In re
832 F. 3d 554, 559 (11th Circuit 1987). In that case, the US petitioned
State Attorney to turn over grand jury transcripts. The State Attome
citing to Fla. Stat. section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury sub
State Attorney for delivery of state grand jury testimony. The
federal court that it would produce the transcripts, thereby,
have physical possession of the materials, he had legal
should also be noted that the State Attorney moved
unlawful under Florida law and Fla. Stat. section 90
grand jury materials, the relevant State Attorney,
jury that the Office of State Attorney supervis
of the grand jury materials. These are some
in this case.
Also, assuming the State Attome
there is nothing in Florida law
provide copies to the State Atto
a State Attorney demand at the
criminal case has conclu
d tracks release of
whether the Stat
instances or
discoverab
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
is not end
d jury
as its primary
Proceedings
dge to order the
inst their release
the Broward County
d State Attorney advised the
ting that while it may not
obtain and deliver them. It
e subpoena arguing that it was
case indicates that where one seeks
cessary party in order to protect the grand
ake arguments, if need be, against release
e reasons why the State Attorney was named
ve physical possession of the grand jury materials,
bits the State Attorney from requesting that the Clerk
pter 905, Fla. Stats. does not contain a prohibition against
erk grant his office access to grand jury materials, even after a
on information and belief, the Clerk's office maintains a log that
materials to the State Attorney upon its request. Please confirm
orney has accessed grand jury materials from the Clerk's office in other
ver done so. If the Clerk has such a log, then its contents should be
ect to Florida Public records laws.
Greenberg Traurig, P.A. I Attorneys at taw
www.gilaw.com
EFTA02732975
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 be withdrawn.
Thank you,
Very truly yours,
/s/Slephen Mendelsohn
Stephen Mendelsohn
SAM:ls
ACTIVE 51081659v1
Greenberg Transit P.A. I Attorneys at taw
mwtgilaw.can
EFTA02732976
EXHIBIT "C"
EXHIBIT "C"
EFTA02732977
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 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.
cos
DEFENDANT. DAVE ARONBERG'S MO Ol ATTORNEYS' FEES
Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State y f Palm Beach County, Florida, by and
through the undersigned attorneys, moves tlt Qurt, ursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105,
to award him reasonable attorneys' f defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint,
tmC d(the "Complaint"), and as gro served
a
, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was
a copy of this Motion, together ' a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with
subsection (4) of th bov ute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior
to the filing of • n.
YYYY
In said letter, Defendant's attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which
establish mplaint is without support of the facts or the law.
WW REFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach
County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff's
attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion.
EFTA02732978
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.
SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC
/s/ Douglas A. Wyler
Arthur I. ME, Esquire At
Fla. Bar No.: 108249 its
Richard J. Scholz, Esqui
Fla. Bar No.: 002126
Douglas A. Wyle
Fla. Bar No.: 11
961687 Gateway ., Suite 201-I
Femandi h, Florida 32034
(904)
(
Gs'
[Email Redacted]
eys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg
EFTA02732979
EXHIBIT "D"
EXHIBIT "D"
EFTA02732980
Filing I/ 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,
Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POS7;
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.
CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB
DIVISION: AG
PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINQS‘
NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY. DAVE ARONBERG
O SA
.)
Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. Rjw. P.)1250(b), hereby notifies the parties that
it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronber bove case.
Respectfully submitted,
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Attorneys for 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: ([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile: ([Phone Redacted]
By: is/Stephen A. Mendelsohn
STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN
Florida Bar No. 849324
[Email Redacted]
smithl(a)gtlaw,com
FLServicea.gtlaw.com
EFTA02732981
By: Is/ Michael IGrvgiel
MICHAEL J GRYGIEL
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
54 State St., 6th Floor
Albany, New York 12207
Telephone: ([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile: ([Phone Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
By: /s/ Nina D. Bovajian
NINA D. BOYAJIAN
(Admitted Pro Hoc Vice)
1840 Century Park East, Sui
Los Angeles California
Telephone: (310) 586-7
Facsimile: (310) 586-7
bow'. ian
riveraalO
CERTIFICATE 0
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 2151
foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of
will send a notice of electronic servi
ACTIVE 533173414
October, 2020, a true and correct copy of the
urt ITsing the State of Florida e-filing system, which
nits of record herein
/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn
STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN
2
EFTA02732982
EXHIBIT "E"
EXHIBIT "E"
EFTA02732983
lir Scholz & Wyler, LLC
Gateway Blvd., Suite 2011
Fernandina Beach, FL 32034
United States
[Phone Redacted]
Dave Aronberg
IM Scholz & Wyler, LLC
Balance $32,440.00
Invoice # 00307
Invoice Date November 6, 2020
Payment Ter
Due Date
Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC
CO
Time Entries
Date EE Activity Description — NY — Rate Hours Line Total
11/26/2019 DW Review Initial review of summon plaint. $425.00 1.5 $637.50
11/26/2019 DW Review Reviewed motion lo o ha and Judge
Hafele' order grant $425.00 0.2 $85.00
11/26/2019 DW Teleconference Teleconferen Client. re: response to lawsuit $425.00 0.5 $212.50
11/26/2019 DW Draft Drafted4gagern \rint letter and sent to client $425.00 0.3 $127.50
11/26/2019 DW Review Retie-b•led iirCircuit local rules $425.00 1.0 $425.00
11/26/2019 AIJ Review InitVeyjew of complaint $475.00 1.0 $475.00
11/26/2019 AIJ Meeting \'...4teting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy $475.00 0.5 $237.50
11/26/2019 DW Meeting 7-- . Va ! Meeting w/ AU to discuss lawsuit and strategy $425.00 0.5 $212.50
11/26/2019 AIJ Teleconference Teleconference w/ Client. re: response to lawsuit $475.00 0.5 $237.50
12/02/2019 DW A. qesear ., ar iChon &
N.
Research and prep for Motion to dismiss $425.00 2.0 $850.00
12/02/2019 oWt
'
'Matt 1st Draft motion to dismiss $425.00 1.0 $425.00
12/02/2019
.
OW Teleconference Teleconference w/ Client. re: draft motion to
dismiss $425.00 0.5 $212.50
12/02/2019 AIJ Review Reviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss $475.00 0.3 $142.50
12/02./2019 AIJ Teleconference Teleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to
dismiss $475.00 0.5 $237.50
12/03/2019 AIJ Meeting Meeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dsmiss $475.00 0.2 $95.00
12/03/2019 OW Meeting Meeting w/ AIJ, re: MTDismiss $425.00 0.2 $85.00
12/06/2019 DW Draft Completed final draft of motion to dsmiss: 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
EFTA02732984
12/06/2019 DW Teleconference Spoke with Clerks attorney. re: response $425.00 0.5 $212.50
12/06/2019 AIJ Review Reviewed final draft MTDismiss $475.00 0.2 $95.00
12/06/2019 AIJ 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 Prs Amended Complaint $425.00 1.0 $425.00
01/17/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke with dient, re: Amended Complaint $425.00 0.5 $212.50
01/17/2020 DW Review Reviewed Prs notice of filing $425.00 il 0.1 $42.50
01/20/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed Prs Am. Comp/ $475.00 0.3 $142.50
01/21/2020 DW Review Reviewed Judge Marx's Order Cancelling
MTDismiss Hearing $425;00
IC, \i'., ,..;,. 0.1
"1-
$42.50
01/21/2020 DW Review Reviewed Prs Objection to Defendants' MTDismiss had 0.2 $85.00
01/21/2020 OW Teleconference Spoke with dient, re: Amended complaint 25.00 0.5 $212.50
01/21/2020 AIJ Meeting Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Cogin $475.00 0.2 $95.00
01/21/2020 OW Meeting Meeting w/ AU, re: response to Am. OAS TV $425.00 0.2 $85.00
01/22/2020 DW Review Reviewed Order granting pro hao e ion $425.00 0.1 $42.50
01/22/2020 DW Research & Draft Researched and drafted resriense toltherided
Complaint $425.00 1.0 $425.00
01/23/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke with Clerk's y, r esponse to
amended comp n $425.00 0.2 $85.00
01/24/2020 OW Various Completed An ismiss Amended
Complaint filed 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 Reieewecifinal Answer/MTDismiss $475.00 0.2 $95.00
01/27/2020 OW Review icz-r< Reviewed Clerk's Answer/MTDismiss $425.00 0.3 $127.50
02/03/2020 DW 11( Review ..---- . Reviewed Order setting hearing on Deis'
MTDismiss $425.00 0.1 $42.50
02/03/2020 DW
,,%\,'.‘ .
Teleconlerente Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss
hearing for March 24, 2020 $425.00 0.5 $212.50
03/13/2020 D. VW,iimon &view Reviewed Prs Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss
& Clerks MTDismiss $425.00 1.5 $637.50
03/13/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed PIS Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss
& Clerk's MTDismiss $475.00 0.7 $332.50
03/18/2020 OW Teleconference $425.00 Reviewed email from Pi's counsel, re: motion to
continue hearing 0.1 $42.50
03/18/2020 OW Review Reviewed PIS unopposed motion for continuance $425.00 0.1 $42.50
03/18/2020 DW E-mail Emails w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Prs 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
EFTA02732985
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 AIJ 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 A 0.2 $85.00
05/28/2020 DW E-mail Reviewed Pi'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 Pi's 500+ page binder, re: MTDisrniss &
prepped for hearing 4‘ , I $425.00 3.0 $1,275.00
06/02/2020 DW E-mail Drafted and sent email to client, re: MID -k, '6
tomorrow --. 111‘..
$425.00 0.1 $42.50
06/03/2020 DW Attend Hearing Prepped for and attended 'sat -oaring 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 cou pies riAronberg's Answer and
MTDismiseito 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 AIJ Attend Hearing Attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom $475.00 1.0 $475.00
06/03/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudce $475.00 0.3 $142.50
06/08/2020 DW Review ffevmTpieiswedmissCouurtn'st OrderpGreriaudinttineg Defendants $425.00 0.5 $212.50
06/08/2020 DW Various
ii! N
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
.4
Dl 7 ic -,„
k -)
N -Various
-
Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.: drafted 57.105
demand letter and proposed motion for attorneys'
fees/sanctions; Served Pi's counsel with demand
letter and proposed motion.
$425.00 2.0 $850.00
06/08/2020 AIJ 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 AIJ Review Reviewed 57.105 demand arid 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 Pi's letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss
amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called
and spoke w/ client, re: Pi's refusal & next steps
$425.00 1.0 $425.00
EFTA02732986
06/23/2020 OW E-mail Sent client copy of Pl's letter refusing to dismiss
complaint $425.00 0.1 $42.50
06/23/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed PI'S letter refusing to dismiss Count VAm.
Compl. $475.00 0.1 $47.50
07/01/2020 OW Various
Spoke w/ client, re: filing of 57.105 motion for
fees/sanctions: filed motion for attorneys' fees
based on Pi's failure to voluntarily dismiss
amended complaint count 1
$425.00 0.5 $212.50
07/02/2020 OW 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 AIJ Teleconference Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for
Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence $475.0/11-4 -0.7 $332.50
07/10/2020 DW Draft Created 1st draft of Aronberg Affidavit: shared w/
client 1.0 $425.00
07/10/2020 AIJ Various Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW ?b. 5. 0.3 $142.50
07/10/2020 OW Meeting Discussed draft affidavit w/ AU $,25.00 0.2 $85.00
07/13/2020 OW Review Reviewed Ks Request to Produce, re: Clerft- . $425.00 0.1 $42.50
07/13/2020 OW Teleconference Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel. re: Request b Produce $425.00 0.2 $85.00
07/27/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Amended Reque o re:
Clerk $425.00 0.1 $42.50
07/27/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel mendedRequest to
Produce $425.00 0.1 $42.50
07/28/2020 OW Draft Revised Arenberg fi '
.tv
$425.00 0.5 $212.50
07/29/2020 OW Draft
... . „
Finalized Arenberg Affidavit and sent to client --__ $425.00 0.5 $212.50
07/29/2020 DW Research F.
Preparation
Resear an regotor Makin for Summary
J n $425.00 1.0 $425.00
07/30/2020 OW Various Received executed Aronberg Affidavit $425.00 0.1 $42.50
07/30/2020 OW Draft Began drafting Motion for Summary Judgment $425.00 2.0 $850.00
08/05/2020 DW Draft VZontinued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment $425.00 1.0 $425.00
08/07/2020 DW RevidS Reviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to set
hearing on 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions $425.00 0.1 $42.50
08/10/2020 OW I.l,mail .... Sent responsive email to Ks counsel $425.00 0.1 $42.50
08/17/2020 DIg :tiAneting Discussed draft MSJ w/ AU $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
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/ Pi's counsel, re: ctispute as to whether
MSJ should be heard before 57.105 fee motion or
vis versa - call was unsuccessful
$425.00 0.5 $212.50
EFTA02732987
09/02/2020 AIJ Meeting Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ F1's counsel $475.00 0.2 $95.00
09/02/2020 DW Meeting Discussed w/ AIJ phone call w/ Pt's counsel $425.00 0.2 $85.00
09/16/2020 DW E-mail
Reviewed email from Pt's counsel requested
Aronberg 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 AIJ 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 Prs 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 Prs email insisting that 57.105 motion be withdrawn $425A R oe 0.1 $42.50
09/18/2020 DW E-mail
Replied to Prs counsel that the 57.105 motion for
sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for
response, re: CMC
r 1/4 0.1 $42.50
09/18/2020 DW E-mail Sent client copy of email exchange w/ Prs ' called and spoke w/ Client $425.00 0.5 $212.50
09/22/2020 DW Various
/ ftDrafted and filed Notice of Hearing on) set
up Court Call; spoke w/ client, re:-naarinpda $425.00 0.7 $297.50
10/02/2020 DW Review Reviewed Prs Memo of La ing Arenberg's
57.105 motion for fees/s $425.00 0.7 $297.50
10/02/2020 DW Review Reviewed Prs Response to iktnnberg's request to
schedule 57.105 tiorilorfees after MSJ $425.00 0.5 $212.50
10/02/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed Pis -of Law opposing 57.105
motion ...‘;\ $475.00 0.5 $237.50
10/02/2020 AIJ Review Re ted esponse to Aronberg's request to
sc ule 57. 05 motion after MSJ $475.00 0.4 $190.00
10/12/2020 DW Research ,i-- "c"3/4
Resea c caselaw & statutes, re: response to PI'S
21‘erno of Law
$425.00 1.0 $425.00
10/13/2020 DW Researctvg
Analyze '\
Continued researching caselaw, re: response to
Pre memo of law $425.00 1.0 $425.00
10/13/2020 DW --:\ \''' graft -..N.il Created 1st draft of Response to Prs Memo of Law
and shared w/ Client $425.00 4.0 $1,700.00
10/13/2020 L,--IDW eting
\
— - Me
L
Discussed w/ Al.) caselaw and draft response to
mem° $425.00 0.5 $212.50
10/13/2020 Al,) Various Reviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and
caselaw $475.00 0.7 $332.50
10/14/2020 OW Draft Finalized and Ned Response to Pre 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 $8500
10/14/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law $425.00 0.1 $42.50
10/15/2020 OW Attend Hearing Attended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC; called
client to discuss $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. $425.00 0.5 $212.50
EFTA02732988
10/15/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ Pi's counsel, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 $42.50
10/15/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Prs settlement proposal $425.00 0.2 $85.00
10/15/2020 AIJ Various Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMC;
discussed w/ client
$475.00 1.0 $475.00
10/15/2020 AIJ Various Discussed Prs 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/ AIJ $425.00 0.2 $85.00
10/16/2020 DW Various Drafted and shared proposed order w/ Prs counsel $425.00 0.5 $212.50
10/16/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ Prs counsel, re: settlement $425.00 0.2 $85.00
10/16/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Pi's settlement proposal $425.00 4 0.5 $212.50
10/16/2020 DW Meeting Discussed Pi's settlement proposal w/ AU $425.00 Ar----4-2, .. 4. 0.2 $85.00
10/16/2020 AIJ Meeting Discussed Pi's settlement proposal w/ DAW $475*
-
0.2 $95.00
10/19/2020 DW Various Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge
Hatele $425.01
A- "4,:..., ">1
\Y
0.1 $42.50
10/19/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Pi's settlement proposal $425.00 0.2 $85.00
10/19/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ Prs counsel, re: settlement .,,,, ..4 $425.00 0.1 $42.50
10/19/2020 AIJ Meeting Discussed Pi's settlement proposal w/j EAVtik4 „II $475.00 0.2 $95.00
10/19/2020 OW Meeting Discussed Pi's settlement proposal vii AU , $425.00 0.2 $85.00
10/20/2020 OW Various
. . ,.
Reviewed email from Pt, re: settlement; sent copy
to Client and called to discussN4- $425.00 0.5 $21a50
10/20/2020 OW Telephone 4 \ Spoke w/ client, re:Slemert1 `4 $425.00 0.4 $170.00
10/20/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ Prs co4uhlel,..rksettlement $425.00 0.1 $42.50
10/20/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ c' $425.00 0.1 $42.50
10/20/2020 DW Meeting Discusatt ers setitement proposal w/ AIJ $425.00 0.2 $85.00
10/20/2020 AIJ Meeting Dideussed A /settlement proposal w/ DAW $475.00 0.2 $95.00
10/21/2020 OW Various
it
_ ,---4, ii - "it/
Ili
Drafted-end filed Motion to Set Hearing on
Aronberg MSJ; drafted proposed order granting --44 motion to set; checked court availability; emailed
Pi's counsel, re: chOOse date for hearing
$425.00 1.0 $425.00
10/21/2020 DW Revie4 Ns Reviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary $425.00 0.1 $42.50
10/21/2020 DW .
4
lel ephr,le S Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 0.2 $85.00
10/21/2020 D \ T I n 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 AIJ Meeting Discussed media response w/ DAW $475.00 0.3 $142.50
10/21/2020 DW Meeting Discussed meda response w/ AU $425.00 0.3 $127.50
10/22/2020 DW Various
Reviewed Pi's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as
party: spoke w/ Client and AU, re: notice and next
steps
$425.00 0.5 $212.50
EFTA02732989
Reviewed Pl's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as
10/22/2020 AIJ Various 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
Sub-Total: $32,440.00
Total: $32,440.00
Amount Paid: $0.00
Balance pue: $32,440.00
EFTA02732990
EXHIBIT "F"
EXHIBIT "F"
EFTA02732991
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 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-C 14681
DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of
Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R.
BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm
Beach County, Florida.
Defendants.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF NASSAU
CO S
AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNc9
( lBEFORE ME, the undersigned am ' cared Douglas A. Wyler, Esq., who, after
being first duly sworn, deposes and saAc ,
partI. Affiant is a r f SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, counsel for
- Defendant, DAVE ARONB G, aj to Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, ("Aronberg"),
as well as general cou to the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, ("FPAA"), and makes
this Affidavit o own rsonal knowledge.
2. i t is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida, is an active member of
the Flo 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 Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to § 57.105,
Florida Statutes, on June 8, 2020, in defending against Count I of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
EFTA02732992
and Plaintiff's October 21, 2020 Notice of Dropping State Attorney, Dave 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 law firm has
demand was served, the Affiant
5. Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg' demand was
served, the total time Affiant has expended services rendered to dates S. hours at the rate of
$425.00 per hour. Likewise, the total time Affiant's law partn rt . M, has expended
services rendered to date is 6.8 hours at the rate of $475.0
expended a total of 42.2 hours. Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg's 57.105
Asseic
6. Accordingly, since Defendant Aronbe, demand was served, Defendant
Aronberg's counsel, la SCHOLZ & WYLE)<ILC, has rendered services in the amount
of $18,275.00, in conjunction with the de f the instant action pursuant to § 57.105, Florida
Statutes. See, Exhibit "C" attache
7. Affiant expect tb i
J
r additional 4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for
and attending the hearing on eys' 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
$39,950.01).
Dated this 9th day of November, 2020.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
No. 119979 Douglas AJ Wyler, Esq., Fla. B
EFTA02732993
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF NASSAU
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9th day of November, 2020,
by Do . Wyler, Esquire, who is personally known to me and who did take an oath.
Sig f otary Public — State of Florida
4itraN R. CacKson Name typed, printed or stamped
.
TAUPE PI JACKSpt
9 7,:\ Notary Public - State of rlbrlda
di Commission N GG ram
„pr .... My Comm. Expires Aug 17. ND
landed thrash Kaden! Notary Ann.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of Novem
been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal
+6s
, a copy of the foregoing has
on all parties of record herein.
SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC
?S yS Douglas A. Wyler
Arthur I. 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 2014
Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034
([Phone Redacted]
([Phone Redacted] Fax
Primary: [Email Redacted]
Attorneys for Defendant Dave Aronberg
EFTA02732994
EXHIBIT "A"
EXHIBIT "A"
EFTA02732995
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 ARONBERG ET AL.
Date: Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Douglas Wyler
To: [Email Redacted], [Email Redacted], [Email Redacted], [Email Redacted],
[Email Redacted], [Email Redacted]
Attachments: 2020-06-08 Aronberg 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys' Fees.pdf
Court:
Florida
Case No: Case No. 2020-CA-014681
Plaintiff: CA Florida Holdings, LLC
Defendant: Dave Aronberg
Title of Documents • Fla. Stat. § 57.105 Demand Letter
Served: • Defendant, Dave Aronberg's Motion tto Fees
Sender's Name and Douglas Wyler
S )Sincerely,
Telephone Number: ([Phone Redacted]
Doug Wyler, Esq.
Scholz & Wyler, LLC
961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-I
Fernandina Beach, FL 32034
[Phone Redacted]
[Phone Redacted] (fax)
Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach Cnunty,
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 coreNation is strictly prohibited.
Page 1 of 1
EFTA02732996
SCHOLZ 8c WYLER, LLC.
THE Lao OnICCS co
ASSOCIATES. PA.
ARTHUR
A UMITED LIABIUTY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
GATEWAY TO AmELIA
961457 GATEWAY BLVD.. SUITE 201.1
FERNANDLYA BEACH, FLORIDA 32034
TELEPHONE ([Phone Redacted]
FAx NO 1904) 261.78710
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 a
Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA- 1468
Dear Mr. Mendelsohn:
As you are aware our firm represents the interes
County. Florida, in the above referenced ma
dismissal of your First Amended Complai
is made pursuant to section 57.105, Flo •
As you know, Section 57.
\ e ronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach
rpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary
plaint"), dated January 17, 2020. This demand
RICHARD J, SCHOLZ. A.
RicHARO J. SCHOLZ
DOUGLAS A. WYLER, PA.
DOUGLASA. %TYLER
(I) Upon the court' 0or motion of any party, the court shall award a
reasonable atto ee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the
prevailing party in I amounts by the losing party and the losing party's attorney
on any cl r defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which
the court r t the losing party or the losing party's attorney knew or should
ha known t a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any
fore trial:
a. as 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 11 of the
Plaintiff's Complaint. Pursuant to the Court's ruling, the Plaintiff's only remaining cause of action
consists of Count 1, 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.
EFTA02732997
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, custody, or control of the 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 ford tory relief fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2) Statutes, which states:
When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection ( a civil case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their atto the latter
to their legal associates and employees. However, the grand Iry te. •nv afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense firer ecut n of the civil or
criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever.
Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the decla
to comply with any court order granting disclosure of
Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for
custody, or control of the 2006 Epstein grand jury
Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is
the enclosed Motion for Attorney's Fees
and your firm, recovery of the legal ex
Please govern yourself according
4
Douglas A. Wyler, .Est er
For the Firm
End.: Defer s Mo n for Attorneys' Fees
. Mr. Aronberg would be unable
documents because neither Mr.
th Judicial Circuit have possession,
within 21 days of the service of this letter,
and we will seek as sanctions, from your client
d in defending this frivolous action.
EFTA02732998
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 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.
i
s
,
DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
\ / ti\i t
Nc
Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as Sta
n
t on'A o y of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and
( S ethrough the undersigned attorneys, moves n, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105,
to award him reasonable attorneys' for t defense of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint,
(the "Complaint"), and as go‘t e r, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served
a copy of this Motion, together wi a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with
\a.) subsection (4) of the- ve 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.
NWHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach
County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff's
attorneys to pay said Defendant's attorneys' fees incurred herein after service of this Motion.
EFTA02732999
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.
~SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC
/s/ Douglas A. Wyler
Arthur I. Esquire
Fla. Bar No.: IM249 .41at
Richard J. Scholz,
Fla. Bar No.: 00212
Douglas A. Wyl
Fla. Bar No.: 1 9979
961687 Gate 1 ., Suite 2014
Fern • ' . lorida 32034
(904)
9
[Email Redacted]
ttoWzeys for Defendant
EFTA02733000
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B"
EFTA02733001
Filing # 115383434 E-Filed 10/21/2020 04:13:35 PM
CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LW,
Publisher of THE PALAIBEACHPOST,
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.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB
DIVISION: AG .
PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS' ,LC e
NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTO IrT,A E ARONBERG • V
Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. i . 0(b), hereby notifies the parties that
..X
it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronber /ros in tlybove case. < s,„
+6s
Respectfully submitted,
GREENBERG TRALIRIG, P.A.
Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings. LW. Publisher
of The Palm Beach Post
Stephen A. Mendelsohn. Esq.
401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000
Boca Raton, Florida 33486
Telephone: ([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile: ([Phone Redacted]
By: /s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn
STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN
Florida Bar No. 849324
mendelsohnslittlay..com
sm
FLServiceVislaw.com
EFTA02733002
By: 4/Michael/Gm/el
MICHAEL J GRYGIEL
(Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
54 State St., 6th Floor
Albany, New York 12207
Telephone: ([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile: ([Phone Redacted]
[Email Redacted]
By: 1st Nina D. Bovedian
NINA D. BOYAJ1AN
(Admitted Pro Hat Vice)
1840 Century Park East, Suit
Los Angeles California 9006
Telephone: ([Phone Redacted]
Facsimile: ([Phone Redacted] )
bovajiannegtlaw coin
riv
CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21' 1ber, 2020, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of ng the State of Florida e-filing system, which
will send a notice of electronic semi all ies of record herein
w is/ Sievhen A. Mendelsohn
STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN
2
EFTA02733003
EXHIBIT "C"
EXHIBIT "C"
EFTA02733004
Time Entries
Fp Scholz & Wyler, LLC
Gateway Blvd., Suite 2011
Femandina Beach, FL 32034
United States
[Phone Redacted]
Dave Aronberg
Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC
Z .:4Q
Scholz & Wyler, LLC
Balance
Invoice #
Invoice Date
Payment Term
Due Date
$32,440.00
00307
Rcnber 6, 2020
Date EE Activity Description Rate Hours Line Total
11/26/2019 OW Review Initial review of summons doom $425.00 1.5 $637.50
11/26/2019 DW Review Reviewed motion for pro hac vIce_and Judge
Hatele' order granting $425.00 0.2 $45.00
11/26/2019 OW Teleconference TeleconferewV/ Client, re: response to lawsuit $425.00 0.5 $212.50
11/26:2019 DW Draft Draftedyarinentletter and sent to client $425.00 03 $127.50
11/26/2019 DW Review RevieWedt5th ckcuit local rules $425.00 1.0 $425.00
11/26/2019 AU Review Initial review of complaint 5475.00 1.0 $475.00
11/26/2019 AU Meeting Meeting'w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy 5475.00 0.5 $237.50
11/26/2019 DW Meeting ,,,iwicr__
-
Meeting WI AU to discuss lawsuit and strategy $425.00 0.5 $212.50
11/26/2019 AU Teleconferenc( Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit $475.00 0.5 $237.50
12/02/2019 OW Renton &
PreparatiOn Research and prep for Motion to dismiss $425.00 2.0 $850.00
12/02/2019 OW c.. Draft 1st Draft motion to dismiss $425.00 1.0 $425.00
12/022019 AT DOVA\i' ,
\
Teleconference Tel econference w/ Client, re: draft motion to
dismiss $425.00 0.5 $212.50
12/02/2019 AIS Review Reviewed 1st 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/ AIJ, re: MTDisrniss $425.00 0.2 $85.00
12/06/2019 OW 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
EFTA02733005
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 5212.50
01/16/2020 DW Review Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants'
MTDismiss $425.00 0.1 $42.50
01/16/2020 OW Review Reviewed motion for pro hac vice $425.00 0.1 $42.50
01/17/2020 DW Review Reviewed Prs Amended Complaint $425.00 1.0 5425.00
01/17/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint $425.00 0.5 $212.50
01/17/2020 DW Review Reviewed Prs notice of fling $425.00 _ 0.1 $42.50
01/20/2020 AU Review Reviewed Prs Am. Comp! $475.09, - --N3 $142.50
01/21/2020 OW Review Reviewed Judge Marx's Order Cancelling
MTOismi ari S ss He ng S25A . 0.1 $42.50
01/21/2920 OW Review Reviewed Prs Objection to Defendants' MTDismiss -- 0.2 $85.00
01/21/2020 OW Teleconference Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint i L. $9 5,® 0.5 $212.50
01/21/2020 AU Meeting Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Co . $475.00 0.2 $95.00
01/21/2020 OW Meeting Meeting w/ AIJ, re: response to Mt 9tom . $425.00 0.2 $85.00
01/22/2020 OW Review Reviewed Order granting pro hat vtieLacfritisrvicrn $425.00 0.1 $42.50
01/22/2020 OW Research & Draft Researched and drafted rtsNrn li ended
Complaint A
$425.00 1.0 $425.00
01/23/2020 OW Teleconference Spoke with Clerk's lo rre use to
amended co $425.00 0.2 $85.00
01/24/2020 DW Various Completed MereerilAT miss Amended
Complaint; reedivithLourt; semi copy to Client 5425.00 1.0 $425,00
01/24/2020 OW Draft Drafted and filedNotice of Unavailability $425.00 0.4 $170.00
01/24/2020 AU Review ,Revicnved$ An sweriMTDismiss $475.00 0.2 $95.00
01/27/2020 OW Review Reviered Clerk's Answer/MTDismiss $425.00 0.3 $127.50
02/03/2020 OW Review Reviewed Order setting hearing on Deis'
MTDismiss $425.00 0.1 $42.50
02/03/2020 DW ( '.-- Teletrlerence t
Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss
heating for March 24, 2020 $425.00 0.5 $212.50
03/13/2020
i
DW L aTair
A .,..
Reviewed Prs Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss
& Clerk's MTDismiss $425.00 1.5 $637.50
03/[Phone Redacted] Review Reviewed Prs Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss
& Clerk's MTDismiss 5475.00 0.7 $332.50
03/18/2020
r
DW Teleconference Reviewed email from Prs counsel, re: motion to
continue hearing $425.00 0.1 542.50
03/18/2020 OW Review Reviewed Pt's unopposed motion for continuance 5425.00 0.1 $42.50
03/18/2020 DW Email Emails w/ Clerk's counsel. re: Prs request to
continue hearing $425.00 0.2 $85.00
03/19/2020 OW E•maA Reviewed email from Pt re: agreed order &
responded 5425.00 0.1 $42.50
03/20/2020 OW Review Reviewed Court's agreed order continuing hearing $425.00 0.1 $42.50
EFTA02733006
04/21/2020 DW Review
Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Dels'
MTDismiss $425.00 0.1 $42.50
04/21/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ client, re: order rescheduling MTDismiss
hearing for June 3, 2020 5425.00 0.3 $127.50
04/21/2020 AU Review Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing $475.00 0.1 $47.50
05/2212020 OW 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 OW Review Reviewed Glories ling: change of any of record $425.00 0.1 $42.50
05/27/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke with Clerk's new counsel. Nicole Fingerhut $425.00 - i 0.2 $85.00
05/28/2020 DW E-mail forReviewed Pt's email, re: cases and authorities
MTDismiss hearing; responded $425.04n alt S1 $42.50
05/29/2020 DW Preparation Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss 2eN. 1.0 $425.00
06/01/2020 DW E-mail Reviewed email from Judge Marx's JA and
responded L$425.00
)
0.1 $42.50
06/02/2020 DW Various Reviewed Prs 500+ page binder, re: MT •
prepped for hearing $425.00 3.0 $1,275.00
06:02/2020 DW E-mail Drafted and sent email to client, re. a
tomorrow A
$425.00 0.1 $42.50
06/03/2020 DW Attend Hearing Prepped for and attended 'ION ng via
Zoom A
$425.00 1.5 $637.50
06/03/2020 DW Teleconference Spoke w/ Client, re. 1814ciffsmiss hearing $425.00 0.5 $212.50
06/03/2020 DW E-mail Emailed courses co of Aronberg's Answer and
MTDismiss. ge $425.00 0.1 $42.50
06/03/2020 DW E-mail Reviewed re se from Client and replied $425.00 0.1 $42.50
06/03/2020 AU Attend Hearing Alleuxlik‘MtaisMiss hearing via Zoom $475.00 1.0 $475.00
06/03/2020 AU Review Reviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudice 3475.00 0.3 $142.50
06/08/2020 DW Review Rei4Sed Courts Order Granting Defendants
MTDismiss Count II w/ Prejudice $425.00 0.5 $212.50
06/08/2020 DW VanOis Shared order w/ Client and Spoke w/, result and
plan going forward, re: 57.105 $425.00 0.5 $212.50
06/08/2020
II
OW • Varibus __ .,
Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.: drafted 57.105
demand letter and proposed motion for attorneys'
lees/sanctions: Served Pt's counsel with demand
letter and proposed motion.
$425.00 2.0 $850.00
06/08/2020 AU Meeting Meeting wi DAW, re: Order & 57.105 $475.00 0.3 $142.50
06/08/2020 DW Meeting Meeting w/ AU. re: Order 8. 57.105 $425.00 0.3 $127.50
06/08/2020 AIJ Review Reviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for
sanction $475.00 0.2 $95.00
06/10/2020 DW Various $425.00 Reviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk:
called and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerra 0.3 $127.50
0623/2020 DW Various
Reviewed Prs letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss
amended complaint despite 57.105 demand: called
and spoke w/ client, re: Pt's refusal & next steps
$425.00 1.0 $425.00
EFTA02733007
06/23/2020 DW E-mail Sent client copy of PCs letter refusing to dismiss
complaint $425.00 0.1 $42.50
06/23/2020 AU Review Reviewed Fts letter refusing to dismiss Count VAm.
Cornpl. $47600 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 OW 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
..44
$297.50
07A58/2020 AU Teleconference Discussed w/ Client drafting and Ming Motion for
Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence $475.00
/4
.Ar---==— 07
Th`,
$332.50
07/10/2020 DW Draft Created 1st draft of Aronberg Affidavit: shared w/
client
7 .
1.0 $425.00
07/10/2020 AU Various Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW — 75.00I 0.3 $142.50
07/10/2020 DW Meeting Discussed draft affidavit w/ AU II $425.00 0.2 $85.00
07/13/2020 DW Review Reviewed Pl's Request to Produce, re: Genic/N ‘ --- 5425.00 0.1 $42.50
07/13/2020 OW Teleconference Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, re: Requestt6Prod ,I $425.00 0.2 $85.00
07/27/2020 DW Review Reviewed PCs Amended Request Sci/Produce. re:
Clerk $425.00 0.1 $42.50
07/27/2020 OW Teleconference
. ,
Spoke w/ Clerk's counsel, need Request to ,
Produce $425.00 0.1 $42.50
07/28/2020 DW Draft Revised Aronberii,Cfidavi 7 $425.00 0.5 $212.50
07/29/2020 DW Draft Finaized Aro rg ralvit and sent to client $425.00 0.5 $212.50
07)29/2020 OW Research 8
Preparation
Research Motion for Summary
Judgmelk $425.00 1.0 $425.00
07/30/2020 DW Various FtereeiviiizAted Aronberg Affidavit $425.00 0.1 $42.50
07/30/2020 OW Draft E'agan drafting Motion for Summary Judgment $425.00 2.0 $850.00
08/05/2020 OW Draft Continued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment $425.00 1.0 $425.00
08/07/2020 OW Review /
..--
Reviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to set
hearing on 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions $425.00 0.1 $42.50
08/102020 OW E-mail Sent responsive email to PIS counsel $425.00 0.1 $42.50
08/17/2020 OW if Meebng ' Discussed draft M5,1w/ 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 OW Draft Finalized Motion for Summary Judgment; tiled 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
09101/2020 OW Various Reviewed Fts email and accepted conference call
invite for 9/2/20 5425.00 0.1 $42.50
09/02/2020 DW Review Reviewed genes response to request for
production $425.00 0.2 $85.00
09/02/2020 DW Teleconference
Spoke w/ Pts counsel. re: dispute as to whether
MSJ should be heard before 57.105 lee motion or
vis versa - call was unsuccessful
$425.00 0.5 $212.50
EFTA02733008
09/02/2020 AU Meeting Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ F1's counsel $475.00 0.2 $95.00
09/02/2020 OW Meeting Discussed WI AU phone cal w/ Prs counsel $425.00 0.2 $85.00
09/16/2020 DW E-mail
Reviewed email from Prs counsel requested
Aronberg to withdraw sanctions motion w/o
prejudice
$425.00 0.1 $42.50
09/17/2020 OW 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 Prs 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 A0.1 $42.50
09/182020 OW E-mail Reviewed Prs email insisting that 57.105 motion be
withdrawn $425c , 0.1 $42.50
09/18/2020 DW E-mail
Replied to Prs counsel that the 57.105 motion for
sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for
response, re: CMC
1/4 ( 0.1 $42.50
0918/2020 DW E-mail Sent client copy of email exchange w/ Prs
called and spoke w/ Client
New)
$425.00 0.5 $212.50
09/22/2020 OW Various Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing 1
up Courl Call; spoke wr dent. re. $425.00 0.7 $297.50
10/02/2020 OW Review Reviewed Fts Memo of Law, nberg's
57.105 motion for fees/ $425.00 0.7 $297.50
10/02/2020 OW Review Reviewed Pt's R Ar rg's request to schedule 57.105 fo after MSJ $425.00 0.5 $212.50
10;02/2020 AU Review Reviewed ' limo 0 opposing 57.105
motion 3475.00 0.5 $237.50
10/02/2020 AU Review pt's nse to Aronberg's request to
schedeili<S7.)05 motion after MSJ $475.00 0.4 $190.00
10/12/2020 DW Research Research caselaw & statutes. re: response to Prs
litemoOf Law $425.00 1.0 $425.00
10113/2020 DW Research a '-',,, - Analyze
Continued researching caselaw, re: response to
-Prs memo of law $425.00 1.0 $425.00
10113/2020 OW Oraft Created 1st draft of Response to PI'S Memo of Law
and shared w/ Client $425.00 4.0 $1,700.00
10/13/2020 DW Meeting Discussed w/ AIJ 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 Prs Memo of Law $425.00 1.0 $425.00
10/14/2020 DW Telephone Spoke wr client, re: memo of law $425.00 0.2 $85.00
10/14/2020 OW Telephone Spoke wr client again, re: response to memo of law $425.00 0.1 $42.50
10/15/2020 OW Attend Hearing Attended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMG: called
client to discuss $42540 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. $425.00 0.5 $212.50
EFTA02733009
10/15/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ Prs counsel, re: settlement $425.00 0.1 $42.50
10/15/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Pis settlement proposal $425.00 0.2 $85.00
10115/2020 AU Various Attended hearing. re: motion to set CMC:
discussed w/ client
$475.00 1.0 $475.00
10/15/2020 AU Various Discussed Prs settlement proposal wl DAW and
then w/ Client $475.00 0.4 $190.00
10/15/2020 DW Meeting Discussed Prs settlement proposal w/ AU $425.00 0.2 $85.00
10/16/2020 DW Various Drafted and shared proposed order w/ Prs 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: Prs settlement proposal $425.00 0.5 $212.50
10/16/2020 OW Meeting Discussed Prs settlement proposal w/ AU $425.00 $85.00
10/16/2020 AU Meeting Discussed Prs settlement proposal w/ DAW $475. 0.2 $95.00
10/19/2020 DW Various Uploaded proposed order. re: CMC for Judge
Hafele - 0 0.1 $42.50
10/19/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: Prs settlement proposal Ifr $425.00 0.2 $85.00
10/19/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ Prs counsel, re: settlement S`$425.00 0.1 $42.50
10/19/2020 AU Meeting Discussed Pis settlement proposal wi DAlt ‘11All $475.00 0.2 $95.00
10/19/2020 DW Meeting Discussed Prs settlement proposal W/ AU 7- / $425.00 0.2 $85.00
1020/2020 DW Various Reviewed email from Pl. re: settlement: Seth copy
to Client and called to cliscip •--- . $425.00 0.5 $212.50
10/20/2020 OW Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: sejlfteeze
c
$425.00 0.4 $170.00
10/20/2020 OW Telephone Spoke w/ Prs coFR re: aldermen $425.00 0.1 $42.50
10/20/2020 DW Telephone Spoke w/ "peeve: segment $425.00 0.1 $42.50
10/20/2020 DW Meeting Discussed fikentment proposal w/ AU $425.00 0.2 $85.00
10.20/2020 AU Meeting Discu Pre settlement proposal wi DAW $475.00 0.2 $95.00
10/21/2020 DV/ Various
).--- ---',---
(Drafted aa -filed Motion to Set Hearing on
eSeg MI; drafted proposed order granting
melon to set; checked cowl availability: emaded
R'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 OW ir Telephone Spoke vii client, re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50
1021/2020 .\': ZolePhone Spoke w/ client. re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50
1021/2020 `47- -DW-‘. Telephone Spoke w/ client, re: media response $425.00 0.1 $42.50
10/21/2020 (34/ Telephone Spoke WI client, re: media response 5425.00 0.1 $42.50
10/21/2020 DW Email Sent email w/ Arenberg statement to media $425.00 0.1 $42.50
10/21/2020 AU Meeting Discussed media response wr DAW $475.00 0.3 $142.50
1021/2020 DW Meeting Discussed media response wr AU $425.00 0.3 $127.50
10/22/2020 OW Various
Reviewed Pt's Notice of Dropping Arenberg as
party: spoke w/ Client and AIJ. re: notice and next
steps
$425.00 0.5 $212.50
EFTA02733010
Reviewed Pt's Notice of Dropping Aronberg as
10/22/2920 AU Various party: spoke wi 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
Sub-Total: $32,440.00
Total: $32440.00
Amount Paid: $0.00
Balance DB.: $32,440.00
EFTA02733011
EXHIBIT "G"
EXHIBIT "G"
EFTA02733012
THE LAW °TYKES OF
ASSOCIATES. ►A.
AWIHuR L ttttttttttta
November 26, 2019
MINAGILITY COLMAN./ OF ►ROTESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
GATEWAY TO AMELIA
DO166, GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE BOIL
FERNANDINA BEAM FLORIDA 32004
Office of the State Attorney
15th Judicial Circuit
Attn: Jeanne Howard
401 North Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
SCHOLZ 8: WYLER, LLC.
TELEPHONE (004) E51-2403
►A% NO. MOH/ ROI-7079
Re: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Arenberg et al.
Case No.: 2019-CA-014681
Dear Mrs. Howard:
RICHARD J. SCNOLZ. ►A.
RICHARD SCHOLZ
04GUOCAS A. WYLER. ►.A.
DOUGLAS A WYLCR
The purpose of this letter is to confirm that 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, rates. At this time, our current 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 our firm shall be calculated by the above listed hourly rates
multiplied by the number of hours expended in defending this action or 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 and dated copy of this
letter to ow 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,
Douglas A. A. Wyler, Esq.
For the Firm
Date
EFTA02733013