1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 CASE NO.:

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 CASE NO.:"

Transcription

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 CASE NO.: 3 4 Plaintiff, 5 -vs- 6 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY a municipal corporation 7 and political subdivision of the State of Florida and 50 STATE SECURITY SERVICE, INC., 8 Defendant. 9 / 0 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 2 Defendant's Motion for summary Judgment 3 (Volume of ) 4 DATE TAKEN: Tuesday November 25, TIME: 3:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. 6 PLACE: Miami-Dade County Courthouse 73 West Flagler 7 Miami, FL BEFORE: Honorable Abby Cynamon Stenographically Reported By: Court Reporter

2 2 APPEARANCES 2 On Behalf of the Plaintiff: 3 KLEMICK & GAMPEL 953 SW 27th Avenue 4 Miami, FL 3345 BY: HERMAN KLEMICK, ESQUIRE 5 On Behalf of the Defendants: 6 MINTZER, SAROWITZ, ZERIS, LEDVA & MEYERS, LLP N.W. 57th Court Suite Miami, FL 3326 Rjavier@defensecounsel.com 9 BY: JAVIER RAMON, ESQUIRE 0 LAW OFFICE OF JAMES J. GALLAGHER 200 East Broward Suite Fort Lauderdale, FL 3330 BY: DONALD MATES, ESQUIRE INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS Page Court s Ruling 28 Certificate of Reporter

3 (The following proceedings were had :) 2 THE COURT: So I believe we have an hour 3 together. 4 MR. CIAMPA: We don't have to take an hour. 5 THE COURT: I am six minutes late, so you have an 6 extra six minutes. 7 MR. JAVIER: We have some props for you. You 8 have the video. 9 THE COURT: I remember the video. Wonderful. 0 Delightful. Let me get everything out because I have everything tabbed. Do you want me to come down and take a 2 look at the video when it's appropriate? 3 MR. JAVIER: Whatever you want. I can probably 4 prop it up for you, so you can stay at the bench. 5 THE COURT: Does anyone else need to see it? Do 6 you need to see me see it? 7 MR. MATES: No, Judge. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Well, then why don't you bring 9 it up here? Is the cord long enough? 20 MR. CIAMPA: May I stand on the side to look at 2 it? 22 THE COURT: Sure. I'll tell you what, why don't 23 you come down, this way we can all see it. You can come 24 on over here and we can all look together. 25 MR. JAVIER: This is about a five-minute video.

4 4 (Video commencing off the record.) 2 MR. CIAMPA: Your Honor, may I remain at the 3 table just so I can see? 4 THE COURT: Whatever you want. Everyone can be 5 where ever they want to be. I guess we should put on the 6 record that I just saw, I guess, what purports to be a 7 seven-and-a-half minute video re-enactment. 8 MR. MATES: Yes, Judge. Judge Donald Mates on 9 behalf of 50 States Security Services, Inc. Judge, it's 0 our motion for final summary judgment. Judge, my client had a contract with Miami-Dade County to provide security 2 services for the Metro Dade Transit System. That's the 3 Metrorail System only. We provided Your Honor, of course, 4 with the contract as a bid contract. 5 THE COURT: I remember it. 6 MR. MATES: We've also provided you with a 7 deposition of. is the Chief of 8 Safety and Security for Miami-Dade County. He is the 9 county contract administrator. He has supervisors that go 20 out into the Metrorail systems to ensure that 50 States is 2 in contract compliance. 50 States was to provide security 22 services to protect, and this is important, Judge States Security Service is to protect Miami-Dade transit 24 property, Miami-Dade County personnel and patrons of the 25 Metro Transit System.

5 5 THE COURT: And you argue he's not in any 2 category? 3 MR. MATES: That's correct, Judge. Patrons -- 4 is there for the county to enforce the 5 contract. His position is that patrons are people who 6 actually purchase tickets for the Metrorail System. 7 That's found on page 8 and again on page 65 of his 8 deposition. He also stated that security officers must be 9 at the kiosk. The kiosk is at the very end of that video 0 tape, Judge. Inside the kiosk -- and they're supposed to be turnstiles. He doesn't call them turnstiles. That's 2 an old fashion system. That's what I used to call them. 3 THE COURT: That's what I would call them, too. 4 MR. MATES: They call them fair gates. And 5 during peak hours -- peak hours are defined as 6:00 a.m. 6 and 9:00 a.m. That rush hour, obviously. The security 7 guard must be right at the fair gates to help, ensure 8 people don't jump over the gate. To help people if they 9 are in wheelchairs or need assistance to get through the 20 gates. Sometimes people have problems putting their 2 tokens in to get through -- he is right there at the gate 22 to ensure that they're there. He stated that if the 23 security guard went out onto the sidewalk on 27th Avenue 24 where Mr. was walking just before the incident 25 occurred or even was on the grassy area, they would be in

6 6 violation of the contract and 50 States would be subject 2 to a fine, administrative costs, they could even be 3 terminated for not being in contract compliance. 4 Because they wouldn't be in a position to see the 5 responsibilities of the fair-gate task that they were 6 responsible for during the time from six to nine and this 7 incident occurred slightly after 6:00 a.m. Now, here is 8 the law that I have indicated is that for security 9 guards -- security guards do not owe a general contractual 0 duty to people. They are not the premises owner. Miami- Dade County is premise owner and their duties are much 2 greater than 50 States Security duties. 50 States 3 Security duty is strictly defined by the contract. 4 The contract said that they have certain 5 responsibilities at open of the Metrorail System at 4:00 6 in the morning, certain responsibilities of closing at 7 :00 a.m. But during the peak hours at 6:00 a.m. and 8 9:00 a.m., they're supposed to be inside the Metrorail 9 building right by the turnstiles. The fair gates to help 20 make sure they're protecting the Miami-Dade property, 2 Miami-Dade personnel and patrons, people who actually buy 22 the tickets. That's where they're supposed to be. 23 Now, after Mr. was shot and you saw him 24 walk along the outside of the fence, through the gap in 25 the fence, pass the escalator and then around the building

7 7 to get into it, he was there and then he fell down and 2 that is exactly where the guard was at. That's exactly 3 where he's supposed to be. That's his contractual 4 obligations. When he fell down, the security guard 5 immediately responded, called fire rescue, called the 6 police. Fire rescue came and his life was saved. 7 The detectives found the bad guy and he was 8 eventually arrested and sentenced to ten years in jail. 9 Our position, Judge, simply is that we complied with the 0 contract. We complied with the duties and responsibilities of the contract. Mr. reviewed 2 everything and found there was no violation of the 3 contractual duties. We were never fined. We were never 4 disciplined in any way. We feel that we're entitled to a 5 summary judgment because there was no breach of the duty 6 that was owed to Mr. by 50 States Security. 7 Thank you, Judge. 8 THE COURT: Can I ask one question? 9 MR. MATES: Sure. 20 THE COURT: If he -- if he was somewhere in the 2 station -- if he were somewhere in the station, it seems 22 like he was on a walkway and then ran to a grassy -- he 23 was on a walkway on the way into a Metrorail station, but 24 was not per se in it. And then he saw the man with the 25 gun and then he ran into a fenced-in grassy area where he

8 8 was shot. Just -- I don't know the legal status of either 2 of those, either the sidewalk or the fenced in grassy 3 area. But just assume for purposes of my question that 4 that was within the Metrorail station, would you still 5 seek summary judgment because you would argue that the 6 guard only had a duty to be over by the fair gate? 7 MR. MATES: He has to be -- 8 THE COURT: I'm sorry if that's a weird question. 9 If he was shot on the platform and the guard was on the 0 fair gate -- I know he wasn't. MR. MATES: Well, if he was on the platform that 2 means he was a patron. That means he -- 3 THE COURT: So he wasn't a fair jumper? 4 MR. MATES: Right. He wasn't a fair jumper. If 5 he was up on the platform, then he's a patron and, yes, we 6 owe him a duty. There's no doubt about that. I wouldn't 7 be in front of Your Honor right now asking for a summary 8 judgment because we would owe him a duty. Maybe the jury 9 would see it a different way because we can't be upstairs 20 and downstairs at that same time, but clearly we would owe 2 him a duty and I wouldn't be in front of Your Honor. 22 He was walking along, as you saw, the 27th Avenue 23 sidewalk, like any other pedestrian in Dade County, 24 walking along the sidewalk. And he realized that he was 25 being followed by, what turned out to be, a shooter. He

9 9 then made a left-hand turn off the sidewalk and onto Dade 2 County property. Because they do own -- we found that out 3 there is Dade County property and as he was walking along 4 the walkway to the gates, but not through the gates, and 5 then he made a right turn away from the gate and along the 6 outside of the fence area where he was shot. 7 Now, you saw how the building was and where the 8 guards were located. They could not see anything. You 9 could barely hear anything. The guards who were paying 0 attention -- there is no doubt that the guards were paying attention and I don't believe there going to be an issue 2 as to that. They didn't hear or see anything because they 3 were exactly where they were supposed to be. As a matter 4 of fact and I understand the plaintiff's are going to say, 5 well, he could have been patrolling outside that area. We 6 asked Mr. that exact same question and that would 7 have been in violation of the contract. 8 It would have been subject to certain fines and 9 administrative problems because he was no longer at the 20 station. One more thing, Judge, and I know we brought 2 this up to you last time and you said it had no 22 prejudicial value, but I was the attorney at the exact 23 same station in another case. And, again, I showed you 24 the brief and showed you the procurement affirmed. 25 THE COURT: Yeah.

10 0 MR. MATES: And in that case the plaintiff was 2 shot at the bus station. The bus station -- you have the 3 Metrorail System basically right here, Judge. And the bus 4 station is right here. Within the fence area. They're 5 side-by-side. 6 The plaintiff in that case was never a patron of 7 the Metrorail. He was going from one bus to another. He 8 was waiting for the transfer when he was shot and he 9 brought an action against 50 States Security and the 0 trial -- the trial court in Dade County granted the motion for summary judgment saying there was no duty owed to him 2 because he was never a patron of the Metrorail System and 3 that went up on appeal and was a procurement affirmed. I 4 showed you the brief and I showed you the PCA. This case 5 is so much different. To me, it's so much more clearer 6 because he wasn't even inside the fenced area. 7 But, in any event, he certainly was not a patron 8 of the Metrorail System. 9 THE COURT: That grassy area where he said in 20 Spanish and then in English this is where he fell after he 2 was shot, I thought there was a fence around that. 22 MR. MATES: There's a fence. 23 THE COURT: So who owns that property? 24 MR. MATES: Dade County owns that property. 25 THE COURT: And you can establish, as a matter of

11 law, that 50 States has no obligation to control that 2 because it's not part of the Metrorail station? 3 MR. MATES: Yes. If you look at the contract, we 4 have the post orders. The post orders are very clear and 5 that's our duties. The case law that I've cited -- 6 THE COURT: Respectfully, you're answering a 7 different question than what I'm asking. It's probably my 8 fault because I'm not asking it clearly. I understand 9 that your client has post orders and that there are fines 0 and penalties and consequences with regard to wonder off their post and leave the facility, which they're supposed 2 to be guarding. And I understand that if someone had gone 3 through the fair gates, a duty is owed to that person 4 because that makes them a patron under the contract. I am 5 curious what you can show me where I can conclude, as a 6 matter of law, that fenced-in area, that fenced-in grassy 7 area where he was shot, was not part of the Metrorail 8 station; and, therefore, not part of 50 States contractual 9 duty to patrol. 20 MR. MATES: Well, because we asked Mr. 2 that same question. That's why I asked them if they were 22 out -- if the security guard had wandered away from his 23 post and into the grassy area, for example, which is what 24 you're suggesting -- and I asked him specifically you look 25 at his answer on page page 39 of 's

12 2 deposition. 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 MR. MATES: I am paraphrasing, but it basically 4 says, "If a security guard was on the sidewalk or on the 5 grassy area, he would be away from his post?" And if he's 6 away from his post, there are consequences that could 7 occur and that's why they had to be where they are. And 8 the case law, Judge, just to give you a level -- 9 THE COURT: Can I try this again? I'm sorry. I 0 have been in special sets all day and I must not be articulating my question. I am less concerned with, in 2 all respect given to Mr. and his position, I am 3 less concerned with his interpretation of the contract. 4 In fact, I can't allow his interpretation of the contract 5 inform my decision because that's having him do my job. 6 As the Court, I am supposed to, as a matter of law on this 7 motion for summary judgment determine -- it's you're 8 burden to show me that, as a matter of law. You're 9 entitled to be out of this case and I am not understanding 20 how Mr. testimony that if a guard left his post 2 he would be reprimanded, written up or whatever. 22 The answers to my question, which is simply don't they have -- I mean, that area is fenced in where he 24 was shot, so it's not a public sidewalk. He was shot in a 25 fenced-in grassy area.

13 3 MR. MATES: He was shot outside the fenced-in 2 area, outside the fenced-in area. There is a fence 3 between -- 4 THE COURT: Again, I just saw this five-minute 5 video. 6 MR. MATES: There is a fence. The fence is 7 on the grassy -- it's about ten yards, 5 yards in from 8 the sidewalk and from the sidewalk, you know, towards the 9 Metrorail is all Dade County property. There's no doubt 0 about that, Judge. THE COURT: All Dade County, but not within the 2 responsibility of 50 States to patrol? 3 MR. MATES: That's right. 4 THE COURT: Why? 5 MR. MATES: Because that's what the contract 6 says. 7 THE COURT: What part of the contract? 8 MR. MATES: The post -- 9 THE COURT: Not Mr. saying my guard would 20 get in trouble if they wandered off their post, I mean, I 2 understand that completely, but where does it say that 22 they can't control that area? 23 MR. MATES: It says it in the post orders, Your 24 Honor. In the post orders there are certain obligations 25 as to where they can patrol and where they can't patrol.

14 4 THE COURT: Did you want to go off the record and 2 answer it? 3 MR. MATES: So during opening hours and, Your 4 Honor, is correct. During opening hours -- remember the 5 security guards have to be there from either 4:00 in the 6 morning until :00 in the evening except for special 7 events and things like that because things may be 8 happening. But generally speaking, it's four to one. 9 When it's opening time, they do have to do an inspection 0 to see if there are any -- and they are supposed to contractually, by their post orders, walk around the 2 entire facility. That's the actual building itself, to 3 make sure there are no vagrants there, pick up garbage, 4 things like that and open because there is an iron gate 5 that comes down when it's closed. 6 They open up the gate and they do have some 7 responsibilities beyond the actual opening and the same 8 thing with closing. At closing time, they make sure that 9 no one is around. They get rid of all the vagrants and 20 all of that and they do walk around in the grassy areas 2 and things like that. But during the time when this man 22 was shot, that is not his responsibility. Their 23 responsibility is to be within that building. Now, the 24 county could have asked us and contracted for us to patrol 25 the entire area. They could have done that, but they

15 5 didn't do that. 2 And the case law is very clear. Their duty is 3 contractual. So if the contract says they're only 4 supposed to patrol -- let's say this is the entire area of 5 Dade County, but the security guard is only supposed to be 6 patrolling right here and never move from right here and 7 something happened way over there, there is no breach of 8 any duty because they're only supposed to be over there by 9 the contract. They can't violate the contract. 0 THE COURT: They would say in that hypothetical there would be no beach of the duty because there is no 2 duty. 3 MR. MATES: There is no duty. 4 THE COURT: I understand. Okay. What else do 5 you want to tell me? 6 MR. MATES: That's it, Judge. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 8 MR. JAVIER: Ramon Javier on behalf of Miami-Dade 9 County. 20 THE COURT: Good afternoon. 2 MR. CIAMPA: Your Honor, may I respond. I think 22 it would be easier. 23 THE COURT: Are you okay with that? He can 24 respond to 50 States and MR. JAVIER: I'm okay.

16 6 THE COURT: Cool tie by the way. 2 MR. CIAMPA: I think it would be easier if I can 3 respond to the one. 4 THE COURT: Just if you would indulge our court 5 reporter and project. 6 MR. CIAMPA: I will do that, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 8 MR. CIAMPA: When we had the first summary 9 judgment hearing, Your Honor stated at the end in ruling 0 the following: "I don't have enough here for me to know whether the duty element is met or isn't met because the 2 threshold question for the Court is whether this was the 3 property for the county, meaning the area where my client 4 was shot and that's sort of how I am. So if you want to 5 find me some supplemental information, because I agree 6 with the defense 00 percent. If this was not in the 7 Metrorail property, then 50 States would be out of it and 8 the county would be out of it under the discretionary 9 portion of sovereign immunity. 20 "But to get there, you have to show me that that 2 was not Metrorail's property. You understand that I need 22 something additional;" and that's how it ended. It can't 23 be -- and 50 States have not provided anything new, 24 anything additional in order to answer that question and 25 nothing additional that says that that area, that grassy

17 7 area where there's is a gap in the fence by the building 2 where he was first approached -- nowhere have they found 3 anything that supplements to show that that area was not 4 Metrorail station property. 5 The only thing they did was submit the case that 6 Mr. Mates keeps talking about, except that case is 7 completely distinguishable because in that case in taking 8 in the light most favorable to the plaintiff is that the 9 shooting occurred shortly after they exited the station 0 property, meaning they were not on the property anymore. The assailant shot plaintiff and stole his bicycle 2 approximately 00 yards from the security guard. 3 This was outside 50 States patrol area and the 4 security guard couldn't see the bus pay area where the 5 shooting occurred and that is not part of unincorporated 6 Dade County. And the whole argument was -- and it even 7 stated in the introduction there that, "Plaintiff seeks 8 damages for injuries he sustained as a result of being 9 shot by unidentified assailants while waiting for a Miami- 20 Dade bus in the bus space area located outside and 2 approximately 00 yards north of the entrance to the 22 Metrorail station." 23 In that case, all of the facts were that 24 everything took place outside of the Metrorail property 25 station, so it's not applicable to our case because in our

18 8 case we are stating that it took place inside. Your Honor 2 wanted to know and kept asking Mr. Mates here, "What is 3 there that says that this area that I just saw and point 4 out where he was approached and shot in that grassy area 5 was not part of the Metrorail station?" 6 The reason why the question could not be answered 7 by him simply is to show you is -- because it is part of 8 the Metrorail station. If we go to the deposition that 9 Mr. Mate's was referring to of their person in charge of 0 security, et cetera, Chief of Safety and Security for Miami-Dade County, Mr. or J. and we go to 2 page 49 of his deposition he was asked -- I would like you 3 to look at the first page. I think it's called 4 Brownsville Station at the top. That's the survey for 5 this particular property. 6 "Are you aware of the fact that the document 7 shows under crack A, the entire area of the Brownsville 8 Station, the Miami-Dade Transit Authority's property for 9 the Brownsville Station according to the site survey that 20 was provided to us by Miami-Dade County," -- and that has 2 been provided here, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Can you tell me again that exhibit? 23 Can you identify that for me by number? 24 MR. CIAMPA: I can try, Exhibit. 25 THE COURT: Okay. This is the plaque you're

19 9 referring to, Brownsville Station? 2 MR. CIAMPA: Yes. Question, "Does that encompass 3 just the building or does that encompass the entire area 4 including the grassy area, the bus way and the building?" 5 THE COURT: Where are you reading from, sir? 6 MR. CIAMPA: From Mr. deposition, page So he was asked whether that area that's the 8 Brownsville Station includes the grass area, the bus way, 9 the building. The witness, the answer is on line 9 0 Mr. says, "It includes the entire area." Question, "And that's Miami-Dade Transit 2 Authority's property for the Brownsville Station, 3 correct?" 4 Answer, "Yes." Then we go to page 55 same 5 deposition. 6 When he was asked at the top about the area and 7 being shown here between the plaza and 27th Avenue, "Is 8 that not grassy area, the Brownsville Station?" 9 Answer, "Yes." 20 Question, "And the property line would be 2 indicating on this diagram of documents that the grassy 22 area would be well within the Brownsville Station, 23 correct?" 24 Answer, "Yes." 25 That's it. That's the end of it. It answers the

20 20 question that was asked. It answered the question that 2 was asked of Mr. Mates because his own witness testified 3 as to it, so summary judgment needs to be denied based 4 upon that because we have our own client, Mr. 5 stating that he was shot inside the Metrorail station. 6 Mr. who is their expert, their own witness 7 in this and said that area is within the Metrorail 8 station. They don't answer the question because they know 9 that he had said it's within the Metrorail station. Your 0 Honor said they have not -- they have not done enough to be entitled to summary judgment and you gave them an 2 opportunity to come back and show you the supplement, to 3 show you why that area is within the Metrorail station. 4 They have supplied you nothing to show that, nothing new, 5 nothing, so it doesn't change. Do you want me to go on? 6 THE COURT: I just have one question. The other 7 case that you and Mr. Mates were both talking about, isn't 8 the real issue with that is that it procures -- 9 MR. MATES: It THE COURT: So there is really no option that 2 this Court could rely on. 22 MR. CIAMPA: Absolutely, Your Honor. I just went 23 to it because under the fact there, it was stipulated that 24 it was outside the Metrorail property, so I didn't want 25 that to go unnoticed.

21 2 THE COURT: Okay. Before I hear from you, 2 Mr. Javier -- Mr. Mates, did you want to briefly rebut? 3 MR. MATES: Yes, Judge. Mr. Ciampa has made a 4 very strong argument saying the shooting occurred on 5 Miami-Dade County property. I don't dispute that. That's 6 not the issue, Judge. The issue -- again, the law is very 7 clear. The only duty we have is a contractual duty. You 8 look at the contracts. You look at the post orders. You 9 look at the entire contracts and he didn't mention one 0 thing about the contracts because he knows that's a problem for them. Our duty is to be inside the station, 2 inside the station, not inside of Dade County property, 3 inside the station during the time of the shooting and 4 that's exactly where we were. 5 I am not disputing it may be Dade County 6 property. I will for the purposes of summary judgment, I 7 can see that the shooting occurred on Dade County 8 property. That's not the issue, Judge. The issue is what 9 duty did we owe Mr. who was not a patron, who is 20 not an employee of Dade County and it's not property of 2 Dade County, never bought a ticket. As far as we know, he 22 was never intending to buy a ticket. Even if he was 23 intending on buying the ticket, he never did buy a ticket. 24 We had to be in an area where we were and that's exactly 25 where we were. Under the case law, we did not owe him a

22 22 duty. 2 THE COURT: One question, Mr. Mates. 3 MR. MATES: Sure. 4 THE COURT: 50 States as a contract with the 5 county to provide security to the Brownsville Station, 6 correct? 7 MR. MATES: To the patrons of the Brownsville 8 Station, yes, Judge. 9 THE COURT: I don't need a surrebuttal. Thank 0 you. Mr. Javier, your turn, sir. MR. JAVIER: For purposes of the record, on page 2 96 of Mr. deposition, line through 2, he 3 talks about -- he says that the physical building -- 4 THE COURT: Page 96, line through 2, will you 5 indulge me when I get there. 6 MR. JAVIER: Sure. 7 THE COURT: Thank you. Okay, I'm there. 8 MR. JAVIER: Answer, "The physical building is 9 the station when you're in the transit industry." He goes 20 on, "The station is a physical building. The area in 2 which the transit services are provided. There is the 22 station. There is an entry and exit area and there is a 23 platform area. All the areas outside of that may be 24 Miami-Dade Transit. 25 THE COURT: Okay.

23 23 MR. JAVIER: With respect to Miami-Dade County, 2 Judge, I would submit to the Court that Miami-Dade County 3 is entitled to summary judgment because the undisputed 4 facts establish that there is a discretionary function 5 here and a public duty exception that is applicable to 6 these facts. 7 THE COURT: Okay. Let's talk about that. 8 MR. JAVIER: And this is something where it was 9 presented in the case of Miami-Dade versus Miller. We had 0 cited this case before. The court, the Third DCA found that the discretionary functions and the public duty 2 exception applied and I did point out to the Court that 3 case was abrogated -- 4 THE COURT: I remember this whole discussion. In 5 fact, Miller has been procedurally abrogated. I have that 6 note here and you pointed it out to me. Tell me again why 7 you pointed it out to me. 8 MR. JAVIER: Well, the facts are the same. It 9 was abrogated to the extent that certiorari jurisdiction 20 would not be applied concerning the governmental immunity 2 cases. That's what it was abrogated for. The bottom line 22 is the discretionary function and public duties exceptions 23 have not been touched. That's still the law. And based 24 upon that law, Miami-Dade County is immune from suit here 25 and that's it.

24 24 THE COURT: Okay. Let me pull out my highlighted 2 copy of Miller here again. I have to ask you a question. 3 You read Miller more recently by wager. I am reading from 4 headnote seven of Miller, left-hand column towards the 5 bottom, page six. "In the instant case, the county did 6 not create a special tort duty by placing Miller within a 7 zone of risk. Miller was on a public street waiting for a 8 bus. The county had no duty to post a law enforcement or 9 security enforcement at the bus stop or to employee other 0 security measures to protect citizens against law violations." It seems a little factually distinguishable 2 from the facts here. 3 MR. JAVIER: They are suggesting by the facts 4 that that sidewalk where the bus stop was, was not transit 5 property. Here we have an issue of whether or not it was 6 transit property, but we have still the public duty 7 exception that says that they need to be owed a specific 8 duty. That specific duty attaching if he's a patron. To 9 become a patron, you have to pay their fare. 20 THE COURT: Are you arguing for 50 States now or 2 the county? 22 MR. JAVIER: This is how the public duty 23 exception would apply and they would be able to get with a duty specifically owed to him. That's not the case 25 because he didn't pay his fair. But then if you go to the

25 25 discretionary function, they don't need to post a security 2 guard by the front entry way. They don't need to put one 3 also on the sidewalk. They don't need to put one on each 4 corner. There is a discretionary function and that's the 5 reason as to why the county is immune from suit here. 6 THE COURT: Okay. But what I'm stuck on here is 7 I'm aware of the distinctions between discretionary 8 functions and operational functions and sovereign 9 immunity. But the facts of Miller are quite different 0 from the facts in this case. So how do I say -- well, in Miller a public duty exception was found. In Miller, 2 which had different facts -- whereas in this case, this 3 gentleman was shot on property owned by the county. How 4 do I ignore that? 5 MR. JAVIER: Judge, since you're having a 6 difficulty with Miller -- 7 THE COURT: I'm not having a difficulty with you 8 or anybody I'm just trying to follow the law. 9 MR. JAVIER: I am just having a discourse with 20 the Court. 2 THE COURT: Absolutely. Discourse away. 22 MR. JAVIER: I think if Millers facts seem to you 23 that they're distinguishable from these facts, that's 24 perfectly okay. I think then while everybody has pointed 25 to Hato [phonetic] versus 50 States, which is that case

26 26 that everybody is talking about, I think that -- at the 2 very least, it should be some persuasive case for the 3 Court because that shooting occurs basically on the side 4 on the -- on the side of this property where it's 5 basically right next to that entrance. That's where the 6 bus bays are. 7 THE COURT: Right. 8 MR. JAVIER: And there that court -- I understand 9 it was a PCA, but they said that the county they were 0 entitled to the discretionary function and the public duty function, so the application of these various concepts is 2 applicable here and the county should be entitled to 3 summary judgment based upon those two -- those two 4 functions. 5 THE COURT: Okay. Anything else you want to tell 6 me? 7 MR. JAVIER: No, judge. 8 THE COURT: You want to respond? 9 MR. CIAMPA: Only if you want me to. 20 THE COURT: Absolutely. I believe in giving 2 everybody an opportunity. 22 MR. CIAMPA: I think Your Honor understands well 23 that Miller -- it says the attack upon Miller allegedly 24 occurred after he had exited the Metrorail station and 25 while he was on a public sidewalk waiting to board a bus.

27 27 He was not in a Metrorail station, so those facts are in 2 inapplicable to our case. It's a different case and it's 3 not president, under any circumstances, for our case. In 4 addition, the county decided to hire security officers for 5 the station. Once they decide to hire security officers 6 of a private nature and provide them, they have to do it 7 properly and the people who are acting out as the security 8 officer, have to do their job properly. 9 But once sovereign immunity doesn't come in when 0 they decide that, they're going to undertake after feeling the need to hire security. They have to then not do it 2 negligently. And whether or not they were negligent, is a 3 question for the jury. But in terms of the judgment, they 4 can't possibly, successfully, argue sovereign immunity 5 because they choose to hire 50 States and that's alleged 6 that they did. 7 THE COURT: Anything in response, Mr. Javier? 8 MR. JAVIER: No, Judge. I am going to rest on 9 the brief and I will rest on the argument and the law that 20 has been presented to you. 2 THE COURT: I am going to give you a ruling at 22 this time. With respect to 50 States and the county and, 23 you know, counsel, I don't think the law allows me to 24 grant either of your motions for summary judgment. With 25 respect to 50 States -- I'm giving you a thorough detailed

28 28 ruling in case you want to take me up. That's completely 2 fine. 3 I think the deposition of Mr. or 4 establishes that the property where this incident occurred 5 was part of the Metrorail station. And I don't believe 6 that the post orders or Mr. interpretation of 7 what 50 States duty can properly inform this Court in its 8 position, therefore I'm respectfully, denying your motion 9 for summary judgment on those grounds. And with regard to 0 the county motions, I am respectfully denying that one as well because I find Miller to be factually distinguishable 2 and that's it. We're in recess. 3 (Hearing concluded at 4:22 p.m.)

29 29 2 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 3 STATE OF FLORIDA 4 COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE 5 6 I, Court Reporter, certify that I 7 was authorized to and did stenographically report the 8 hearing of vs. Miami-Dade County, pages 9 through 28; that the transcript is a true record of my 0 stenographic notes. I further certify that I am not a relative, 2 employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor 3 am I a relative or employee of any of the parties' 4 attorneys or counsel connected with the action, nor am I 5 financially interested in the action. 6 Dated this 2st day of January,

16 PLACE: Miami-Dade County Courthouse 73 West Flagler Street 17 Miami, FL Stenographically Reported By: Court Reporter

16 PLACE: Miami-Dade County Courthouse 73 West Flagler Street 17 Miami, FL Stenographically Reported By: Court Reporter keep together IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND center FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 CASE NO.: 3 4 Plaintiff, 5 -vs- 6 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY a municipal corporation 7 and political

More information

>> THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS GARRETT VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA. >> WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY NAME IS MEGAN LONG WITH

>> THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS GARRETT VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA. >> WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY NAME IS MEGAN LONG WITH >> THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS GARRETT VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA. >> WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY NAME IS MEGAN LONG WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CA XXXX MB

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CA XXXX MB 9708 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 50 2008 CA 040969XXXX MB THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR CHASEFLEX TRUST SERIES 2007-3,

More information

STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF DONA ANA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT CV WILLIAM TURNER, Plaintiff, vs.

STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF DONA ANA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT CV WILLIAM TURNER, Plaintiff, vs. 0 0 STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF DONA ANA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT WILLIAM TURNER, vs. Plaintiff, CV-0- ROZELLA BRANSFORD, et al., Defendants. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS On the th day of November 0, at

More information

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 2 CASE NO. 12-CV MGC. Plaintiff, June 11, vs.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 2 CASE NO. 12-CV MGC. Plaintiff, June 11, vs. Case 1:12-cv-21799-MGC Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/01/2013 Page 1 of 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 2 CASE NO. 12-CV-21799-MGC 3 4 JERRY ROBIN REYES, 5 vs. Plaintiff,

More information

Case 2:12-cv WCO Document 16-3 Filed 04/06/13 Page 1 of 25. Exhibit C

Case 2:12-cv WCO Document 16-3 Filed 04/06/13 Page 1 of 25. Exhibit C Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 16-3 Filed 04/06/13 Page 1 of 25 Exhibit C Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 16-3 Filed 04/06/13 Page 2 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA

More information

This is one of the Lawyers in Brian Korte`s office, SUSANNA LEHMAN, ESQ. She makes the Plaintiff very confused and argued a very different angle of

This is one of the Lawyers in Brian Korte`s office, SUSANNA LEHMAN, ESQ. She makes the Plaintiff very confused and argued a very different angle of This is one of the Lawyers in Brian Korte`s office, SUSANNA LEHMAN, ESQ. She makes the Plaintiff very confused and argued a very different angle of the Pooling and Servicing agreement and the use of the

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CI-19 UCN: CA015815XXCICI

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CI-19 UCN: CA015815XXCICI 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-015815-CI-19 UCN: 522008CA015815XXCICI INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB, Successor in Interest to INDYMAC BANK,

More information

>> NEXT CASE IS RODRIGUEZ VERSUS MIAMI-DADE COUNTY. YOU MAY BEGIN. >> GOOD MORNING. ERVIN GONZALEZ ON BEHALF OF RODRIGUEZ. I'M HERE WITH BARBARA

>> NEXT CASE IS RODRIGUEZ VERSUS MIAMI-DADE COUNTY. YOU MAY BEGIN. >> GOOD MORNING. ERVIN GONZALEZ ON BEHALF OF RODRIGUEZ. I'M HERE WITH BARBARA >> NEXT CASE IS RODRIGUEZ VERSUS MIAMI-DADE COUNTY. YOU MAY BEGIN. >> GOOD MORNING. ERVIN GONZALEZ ON BEHALF OF RODRIGUEZ. I'M HERE WITH BARBARA SILVERMAN, MY LAW PARTNER. IF IT PLEASE THE COURT. WE'RE

More information

What were the final scores in your scenario for prosecution and defense? What side were you on? What primarily helped your win or lose?

What were the final scores in your scenario for prosecution and defense? What side were you on? What primarily helped your win or lose? Quiz name: Make Your Case Debrief Activity (1-27-2016) Date: 01/27/2016 Question with Most Correct Answers: #0 Total Questions: 8 Question with Fewest Correct Answers: #0 1. What were the final scores

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF YAVAPAI 0 PRESCOTT SPORTSMANS CLUB, by and) through Board of Directors, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) MARK SMITH; TIM MASON; WILLIAM

More information

THE NEXT PHASE IS SHAHLA RABIE VS. PALACE RESORTS. THE PLAINTIFF SELECTION IS ONLY GOING TO BE CHALLENGED WHEN THE DEFENDANT CAN SHOW THAT THE

THE NEXT PHASE IS SHAHLA RABIE VS. PALACE RESORTS. THE PLAINTIFF SELECTION IS ONLY GOING TO BE CHALLENGED WHEN THE DEFENDANT CAN SHOW THAT THE THE NEXT PHASE IS SHAHLA RABIE VS. PALACE RESORTS. THE PLAINTIFF SELECTION IS ONLY GOING TO BE CHALLENGED WHEN THE DEFENDANT CAN SHOW THAT THE PRIVATE INTEREST OF THE DEFENDANT IS INTERESTED IN PROTECTING

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH. Petitioner, ) vs. ) Cause No Defendant.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH. Petitioner, ) vs. ) Cause No Defendant. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH MICHAEL RAETHER AND SAVANNA ) RAETHER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Cause No. --0-0 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST ) COMPANY;

More information

3 IN THE GENERAL DISTRICT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

3 IN THE GENERAL DISTRICT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY 1 4-7-10 Page 1 2 V I R G I N I A 3 IN THE GENERAL DISTRICT COURT OF PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 THIDA WIN, : 7 Plaintiff, : 8 versus, : GV09022748-00 9 NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT

More information

Charles B. Higgins v. State Farm Fire & Casualty

Charles B. Higgins v. State Farm Fire & Casualty The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

English as a Second Language Podcast ESL Podcast Legal Problems

English as a Second Language Podcast   ESL Podcast Legal Problems GLOSSARY to be arrested to be taken to jail, usually by the police, for breaking the law * The police arrested two women for robbing a bank. to be charged to be blamed or held responsible for committing

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. The above-entitled matter came on for oral

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. The above-entitled matter came on for oral UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 0 AMADOR COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, v. Appellant, KENNETH LEE SALAZAR, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL., Appellees.

More information

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 3 * * * 4 NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION. 5 FOR THE HOMELESS, et al.

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 3 * * * 4 NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION. 5 FOR THE HOMELESS, et al. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Page 1 2 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 3 * * * 4 NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION 5 FOR THE HOMELESS, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, 7 vs. CASE NO. C2-06-896 8 JENNIFER BRUNNER,

More information

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY Branch 9

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY Branch 9 STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY Branch FILED 0-0-1 CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY, WI 1CV000 AMY LYNN PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 1 CV CITY OF MADISON, et al., Defendants.

More information

TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEONIE M. BRINKEMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. (Pages 1-15)

TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEONIE M. BRINKEMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. (Pages 1-15) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION SUHAIL NAJIM ABDULLAH Civil Action No :0cv AL SHIMARI, et al, Plaintiffs, vs Alexandria, Virginia June, 0 CACI PREMIER

More information

The Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, et al. v. Brunner, Jennifer, etc.

The Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, et al. v. Brunner, Jennifer, etc. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 3 THE NORTHEAST OHIO ) 4 COALITION FOR THE ) HOMELESS, ET AL., ) 5 ) Plaintiffs, ) 6 ) vs. ) Case No. C2-06-896 7 ) JENNIFER BRUNNER,

More information

KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC

KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION 3 CASE NO. 09-49079CA22 4 5 WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, F.S.D. F/K/A WORLD SAVINGS BANK,

More information

ONTARIO, INC., Appellant, Respondent

ONTARIO, INC., Appellant, Respondent 0 COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------- ONTARIO, INC., -against- Appellant, SAMSUNG C&T CORPORATION, Respondent. ---------------------------------------- Before: No.

More information

DISCRETIONARY PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT

DISCRETIONARY PROCEEDINGS TO REVIEW A DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIFTH DISTRICT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA OCT 9 199.5 MORRIS H. McGHEE, I1 Petitioner, vs. Case No. 85,695 VOLUSIA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, et. al., Respondents. DISCRETIONARY

More information

18 TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DEFENDANT

18 TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DEFENDANT Page: 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT 2 OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 CASE NO.: 2009 CA 033952 4 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS 5 TRUSTEE UNDER POOLING AND

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE:. Case No. 0-.. SHARON DIANE HILL,.. USX Tower - th Floor. 00 Grant Street. Pittsburgh, PA Debtor,.. December 0, 00................

More information

Kenneth Friedman, M.D. v. Heart Institute of Port St. Lucie, Inc.

Kenneth Friedman, M.D. v. Heart Institute of Port St. Lucie, Inc. The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

5 Plaintiff, 6 Vs. 7 WILLIAM DAVISON, 8 Defendant. 9 / 13 * * * * * * * * 14 DEPOSITION OF MARLIN KNAPP 15 TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DEFENDANT

5 Plaintiff, 6 Vs. 7 WILLIAM DAVISON, 8 Defendant. 9 / 13 * * * * * * * * 14 DEPOSITION OF MARLIN KNAPP 15 TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DEFENDANT Page: 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 2 IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 10 CA 002652 (AW) 3 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 4 AS TRUSTEE FOR RALI 06QS2 5 Plaintiff,

More information

5 Plaintiff, 6 Vs. 7 WILLIAM DAVISON, 8 Defendant. 9 / 13 * * * * * * * * 14 DEPOSITION OF MARLIN KNAPP 15 TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DEFENDANT

5 Plaintiff, 6 Vs. 7 WILLIAM DAVISON, 8 Defendant. 9 / 13 * * * * * * * * 14 DEPOSITION OF MARLIN KNAPP 15 TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DEFENDANT Page: 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 2 IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2010 CA 002652 (AW) 3 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 4 AS TRUSTEE FOR RALI 2006QS2 5 Plaintiff,

More information

The Florida Bar v. Bruce Edward Committe

The Florida Bar v. Bruce Edward Committe The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS DIVISION 6. MARVIN L. BROWN, et al., ) Plaintiff,) )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS DIVISION 6. MARVIN L. BROWN, et al., ) Plaintiff,) ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS DIVISION MARVIN L. BROWN, et al., ) Plaintiff,) ) vs. KRIS KOBACK, KANSAS SECRETARY ) OF STATE, ) Defendant.) ) Case No. CV0 ) TRANSCRIPT OF JUDGE'S DECISIONS

More information

>>> THE SECOND CASE IS GRIDINE V. THE STATE OF FLORIDA. YOU MAY PROCEED. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, I'M GAIL ANDERSON REPRESENTING MR.

>>> THE SECOND CASE IS GRIDINE V. THE STATE OF FLORIDA. YOU MAY PROCEED. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, I'M GAIL ANDERSON REPRESENTING MR. >>> THE SECOND CASE IS GRIDINE V. THE STATE OF FLORIDA. YOU MAY PROCEED. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, I'M GAIL ANDERSON REPRESENTING MR. SHIMEEKA GRIDINE. HE WAS 14 YEARS OLD WHEN HE COMMITTED ATTEMPTED

More information

Amendments To Uniform Guidelines For Taxation of Costs

Amendments To Uniform Guidelines For Taxation of Costs The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

FROM THE KORTE WARTMAN LAW FIRM. Page: 1 IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CA (AW)

FROM THE KORTE WARTMAN LAW FIRM. Page: 1 IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CA (AW) FROM THE KORTE WARTMAN LAW FIRM Page: 1 IN THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 2009 CA 025833 (AW) DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) )

More information

>> THE NEXT AND FINAL CASE ON TODAY'S DOCKET IS CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION V. SAN PERDIDO ASSOCIATION, INC. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT,

>> THE NEXT AND FINAL CASE ON TODAY'S DOCKET IS CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION V. SAN PERDIDO ASSOCIATION, INC. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, >> THE NEXT AND FINAL CASE ON TODAY'S DOCKET IS CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION V. SAN PERDIDO ASSOCIATION, INC. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, I'M BARRY RICHARDS, AND I REPRESENT THE CITIZENS. I

More information

Ricardo Gonzalez vs. State of Florida

Ricardo Gonzalez vs. State of Florida The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HONORABLE PERCY ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) Vs. Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HONORABLE PERCY ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) Vs. Defendant. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HONORABLE PERCY ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING 0 TODD KIMSEY, Plaintiff, Vs. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF TEXAS, Defendant. No. CV - PA REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE

More information

Page 1. 10:10 a.m. Veritext Legal Solutions

Page 1. 10:10 a.m. Veritext Legal Solutions 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO 2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., etc. 4 Plaintiff, 5 vs. Case No. CV-12-789401 6 EDGEWATER REALTY, LLC, et al. 7 Defendant. 8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More information

2 JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 3 Respondents, ) ) 4 vs. ) No. SC ) 5 STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 6 Appellants. )

2 JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 3 Respondents, ) ) 4 vs. ) No. SC ) 5 STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 6 Appellants. ) 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 2 JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 3 Respondents, ) ) 4 vs. ) No. SC 88038 ) 5 STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 6 Appellants. ) 7 8 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY,

More information

1 STATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : MANITOWOC COUNTY BRANCH PLAINTIFF, JURY TRIAL TRIAL - DAY 26 5 vs. Case No.

1 STATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : MANITOWOC COUNTY BRANCH PLAINTIFF, JURY TRIAL TRIAL - DAY 26 5 vs. Case No. 1 STATE OF WISCONSIN : CIRCUIT COURT : MANITOWOC COUNTY BRANCH 1 2 3 STATE OF WISCONSIN, 4 PLAINTIFF, JURY TRIAL TRIAL - DAY 26 5 vs. Case No. 05 CF 381 6 STEVEN A. AVERY, 7 DEFENDANT. 8 DATE: MARCH 17,

More information

>> OUR NEXT CASE OF THE DAY IS DEBRA LAFAVE VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA. >> YOU MAY PROCEED. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. I'M JULIUS AULISIO.

>> OUR NEXT CASE OF THE DAY IS DEBRA LAFAVE VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA. >> YOU MAY PROCEED. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. I'M JULIUS AULISIO. >> OUR NEXT CASE OF THE DAY IS DEBRA LAFAVE VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA. >> YOU MAY PROCEED. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. I'M JULIUS AULISIO. I REPRESENT DEBRA LAFAVE THE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE. WE'RE HERE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA MATINNAZ CONSTRUCTION, INC., vs. Petitioner/Appellee, DIAMOND REGAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., Case No.: SC09-4786 L.T. Case No.: 1D07-4786/ 1D07-5580 Respondent/Appellant. / ON REVIEW

More information

Case 3:15-cv HEH-RCY Document Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID# Exhibit D

Case 3:15-cv HEH-RCY Document Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID# Exhibit D Case 3:15-cv-00357-HEH-RCY Document 139-4 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1828 Exhibit D Case 3:15-cv-00357-HEH-RCY Document 139-4 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 1829 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

More information

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) VS. ) June 15, ISHMAEL JONES, ) A pen name ) ) Defendant. ) )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) VS. ) June 15, ISHMAEL JONES, ) A pen name ) ) Defendant. ) ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil No. - ) VS. ) June, ) ISHMAEL JONES, ) A pen name ) ) ) Defendant.

More information

PRESS BRIEFING BY JOHN SCHMIDT, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

PRESS BRIEFING BY JOHN SCHMIDT, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release June 25, 1996 PRESS BRIEFING BY JOHN SCHMIDT, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AILEEN ADAMS, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE

More information

Page 5 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 THE COURT: All we have left is Number 5 and 3 then Mr. Stopa's. Are you ready to proceed? 4 MR. SPANOLIOS: Your Honor

Page 5 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 THE COURT: All we have left is Number 5 and 3 then Mr. Stopa's. Are you ready to proceed? 4 MR. SPANOLIOS: Your Honor Page 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 3 4 5 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, 6 Plaintiff, 7 vs CASE NO: 2009-CA-002668 8 TONY ROBINSON and DEBRA ROBINSON,

More information

>> THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS THE CASE OF CLARKE V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WHAT DID I SAY, CLARKE V. UNITED STATES? >> YEAH.

>> THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS THE CASE OF CLARKE V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WHAT DID I SAY, CLARKE V. UNITED STATES? >> YEAH. >> THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS THE CASE OF CLARKE V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WHAT DID I SAY, CLARKE V. UNITED STATES? >> YEAH. >> YOU MAY PROCEED WHEN YOU'RE READY, COUNSEL. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHIEF

More information

CITY OF TOLLESON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 22, :00 P.M.

CITY OF TOLLESON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 22, :00 P.M. CITY OF TOLLESON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES CALL TO ORDER TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2018 5:00 P.M. Chair Camacho called the Tolleson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting to order at 5:00

More information

Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure

Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/ :04 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/ :04 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2016 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/22/2016 12:04 PM INDEX NO. 159878/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 34 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/22/2016 1 Page 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------X

More information

Eddie Wayne Davis v. State of Florida

Eddie Wayne Davis v. State of Florida The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

21 Proceedings reported by Certified Shorthand. 22 Reporter and Machine Shorthand/Computer-Aided

21 Proceedings reported by Certified Shorthand. 22 Reporter and Machine Shorthand/Computer-Aided 1 1 CAUSE NUMBER 2011-47860 2 IN RE : VU T RAN, IN THE DISTRICT COURT 3 HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 4 PETITIONER 164th JUDICIAL DISTRICT 5 6 7 8 9 ******************************************* * ***** 10 SEPTEMBER

More information

ARROWHEAD CAPITAL FINANCE, LTD., CHEYNE SPECIALTY FINANCE FUND L.P., et al.

ARROWHEAD CAPITAL FINANCE, LTD., CHEYNE SPECIALTY FINANCE FUND L.P., et al. 0 0 COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------- ARROWHEAD CAPITAL FINANCE, LTD., -against- Appellant, CHEYNE SPECIALTY FINANCE FUND L.P., et al. Respondents. ----------------------------------------

More information

Case 5:08-cr DNH Document 24 Filed 07/16/09 Page 1 of 29

Case 5:08-cr DNH Document 24 Filed 07/16/09 Page 1 of 29 Case 5:08-cr-00519-DNH Document 24 Filed 07/16/09 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK *************************************************** UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs.

More information

GLOBAL HUB LOGISTICS, et al., ) VS. ) February 2, ) ) Defendants. ) ) TAMERLANE GLOBAL SERVICES, et al.,) MOTIONS HEARING

GLOBAL HUB LOGISTICS, et al., ) VS. ) February 2, ) ) Defendants. ) ) TAMERLANE GLOBAL SERVICES, et al.,) MOTIONS HEARING Case :-cv-0-gbl-idd Document Filed 0// Page of PageID# IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division GLOBAL HUB LOGISTICS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil

More information

James V. Crosby, Jr. v. Johnny Bolden

James V. Crosby, Jr. v. Johnny Bolden The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON AT EUGENE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON AT EUGENE Michael R. Seidl, OSB No. 833190 mseidl@landye-bennett.com Jennifer L. Gates, OSB No. 050578 jgates@landye-bennett.com Landye Bennett Blumstein, LLP 1300 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 3500 Portland, Oregon 97201

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No r' --5j- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. 06-53273 COMMONWEALTH

More information

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 3 DEPARTMENT 9 HON. DENISE MOTTER, COMMISSIONER 4 5 CHRISTINE SONTAG, )

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 3 DEPARTMENT 9 HON. DENISE MOTTER, COMMISSIONER 4 5 CHRISTINE SONTAG, ) 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 3 DEPARTMENT 9 HON. DENISE MOTTER, COMMISSIONER 4 5 CHRISTINE SONTAG, ) ) 6 PLAINTIFF, ) ) 7 VS. ) NO. 1381216 ) 8 WILLIAM

More information

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 CASE NO.: CACE

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 CASE NO.: CACE Page: 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 CASE NO.: CACE090039 3 4 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR SASCO 05-WF4, 5 Plaintiff(s), 6 vs.

More information

Siemens' Bribery Scandal Peter Solmssen

Siemens' Bribery Scandal Peter Solmssen TRACE International Podcast Siemens' Bribery Scandal Peter Solmssen [00:00:07] On today's podcast, I'm speaking with a lawyer with extraordinary corporate and compliance experience, including as General

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2018 INDEX NO / :15 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 246 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2018

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/17/2018 INDEX NO / :15 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 246 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/17/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - CIVIL TERM - PART: 23 -------------------------------------------------------X YOUSSOUF DEMBELE a/k/a MALAHA SALIK, -against- Plaintiff, ACTION

More information

Ph Fax Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Ph Fax Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Page 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO: 50 2008 CA 028558 XXXX MB DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/ :37 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2017

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/ :37 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2017 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01//17 01:37 PM INDEX NO. 650082/17 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01//17 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL TERM: PART 49 X ART CAPITAL

More information

>> ALL RISE. HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE, THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA, DRAW NEAR. GIVE ATTENTION, YOU

>> ALL RISE. HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE, THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA, DRAW NEAR. GIVE ATTENTION, YOU >> ALL RISE. HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE, THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEA, DRAW NEAR. GIVE ATTENTION, YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES, THE GREAT

More information

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 2 x 3 UTAH, : 4 Petitioner : No v. : 6 EDWARD JOSEPH STRIEFF, JR. : 7 x. 8 Washington, D.C.

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 2 x 3 UTAH, : 4 Petitioner : No v. : 6 EDWARD JOSEPH STRIEFF, JR. : 7 x. 8 Washington, D.C. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 2 x 3 UTAH, : 4 Petitioner : No. 14 1373 5 v. : 6 EDWARD JOSEPH STRIEFF, JR. : 7 x 8 Washington, D.C. 9 Monday, February 22, 2016 10 11 The above entitled

More information

Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. v. Samuel Easton, Jr.

Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc. v. Samuel Easton, Jr. The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL DIV. : PART X RELIABLE ABSTRACT CO.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL DIV. : PART X RELIABLE ABSTRACT CO. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/09/2016 03:20 PM INDEX NO. 653850/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 211 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/09/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL DIV. : PART 61 ----------------------------

More information

State of Florida v. Bennie Demps

State of Florida v. Bennie Demps The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT HANG THU HGUYEN D/B/A MILLENIA DAY SPA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PLAINTIFF,) ) VS. ) NO. SC )

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PLAINTIFF,) ) VS. ) NO. SC ) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT H HON. ALLAN J. GOODMAN, JUDGE BARBRA STREISAND, ) ) PLAINTIFF,) ) VS. ) NO. SC 077257 ) KENNETH ADELMAN, ET AL., ) )

More information

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. -vs- ) FWV ) ) TRAVIS EARL JONES,

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. -vs- ) FWV ) ) TRAVIS EARL JONES, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT R- FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO HONORABLE MICHAEL A. SACHS, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, Case No. -vs- FWV-00 TRAVIS EARL JONES,

More information

Gerald Lynn Bates v. State of Florida

Gerald Lynn Bates v. State of Florida The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

Areeq Chowdhury: Yeah, could you speak a little bit louder? I just didn't hear the last part of that question.

Areeq Chowdhury: Yeah, could you speak a little bit louder? I just didn't hear the last part of that question. So, what do you say to the fact that France dropped the ability to vote online, due to fears of cyber interference, and the 2014 report by Michigan University and Open Rights Group found that Estonia's

More information

Case 1:11-cv LAK Document Filed 02/06/11 Page 1 of 35

Case 1:11-cv LAK Document Filed 02/06/11 Page 1 of 35 Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 31-21 Filed 02/06/11 Page 1 of 35 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 2 ATLANTA DIVISION Page 1 3 In re: Application of ) CHEVRON

More information

Kelly Tormey v. Michael Moore

Kelly Tormey v. Michael Moore The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

James M. Maloney. Attorney at Law Proctor in Admiralty. P.O. Box Bayview Avenue Port Washington, NY April 7, 2014

James M. Maloney. Attorney at Law Proctor in Admiralty. P.O. Box Bayview Avenue Port Washington, NY April 7, 2014 admitted to practice in New York; New Jersey; United States Supreme Court; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Third Circuits; U.S. District Courts for the District of Connecticut, Northern District

More information

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PROPERTY TAX OVERSIGHT PUBLIC WORKSHOP

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PROPERTY TAX OVERSIGHT PUBLIC WORKSHOP FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PROPERTY TAX OVERSIGHT PUBLIC WORKSHOP Rule D-.0, Exchange of Evidence Rule D-.00, Index to Forms DR- and DR-PORT November, :00 p.m. - : p.m. Building, Room 0 Shumard Oak

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 16-cv CMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 16-cv CMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. -cv--cma ANDREA ROSSI, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. THOMAS DARDEN, et al., Defendants. Miami, Florida June, 0 : a.m. to 0:0

More information

Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION BASHE ABDI YOUSUF;. Civil Action No. :0cv0 AZIZ MOHAMED DERIA, in his. capacity as the personal. representative of

More information

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 2 x 3 SPOKEO, INC., : 4 Petitioner : No v. : 6 THOMAS ROBINS. : 7 x. 8 Washington, D.C.

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. 2 x 3 SPOKEO, INC., : 4 Petitioner : No v. : 6 THOMAS ROBINS. : 7 x. 8 Washington, D.C. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 1 2 x 3 SPOKEO, INC., : 4 Petitioner : No. 13 1339 5 v. : 6 THOMAS ROBINS. : 7 x 8 Washington, D.C. 9 Monday, November 2, 2015 10 11 The above entitled matter

More information

1 FRANKLIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING 2 FRANKLIN COUNTY COMMISSION TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS PUBLIC MEETING MAY 28, (Commencing at 11:02 a.m.

1 FRANKLIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING 2 FRANKLIN COUNTY COMMISSION TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS PUBLIC MEETING MAY 28, (Commencing at 11:02 a.m. 1 1 FRANKLIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING 2 FRANKLIN COUNTY COMMISSION 3 4 5 6 7 8 FILE NO. 130050 9 10 11 12 13 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS PUBLIC MEETING MAY 28, 2013 (Commencing at 11:02 a.m.) 14 15 16

More information

13 A P P E A R A N C E S :

13 A P P E A R A N C E S : FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 0/0/ :0 AM INDEX NO. / SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY : CIVIL TERM : PART --------------------------------------------x ACCESS INDUSTRIES I INC. l -

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO.: SC TH DCA CASE NO.: 5D STATE OF FLORIDA,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO.: SC TH DCA CASE NO.: 5D STATE OF FLORIDA, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA SERGIO CORONA, Petitioner, v. CASE NO.: SC06-1054 5TH DCA CASE NO.: 5D02-2850 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

More information

Defense Motion for Mistrial

Defense Motion for Mistrial Defense Motion for Mistrial MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: Your Honor, 11 could we take care of a housekeeping matter? 12 THE COURT: We sure can. Just a 13 moment. 14 All right. Ladies and gentlemen of 15 the jury,

More information

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES x 3 MARCUS ANDREW BURRAGE, : 4 Petitioner : No v.

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES x 3 MARCUS ANDREW BURRAGE, : 4 Petitioner : No v. 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 3 MARCUS ANDREW BURRAGE, : 4 Petitioner : No. 12-7515 5 v. : 6 UNITED STATES : 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 8

More information

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 HONORABLE RICHARD A. KRAMER, JUDGE PRESIDING 4 DEPARTMENT NO.

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 HONORABLE RICHARD A. KRAMER, JUDGE PRESIDING 4 DEPARTMENT NO. 1 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 HONORABLE RICHARD A. KRAMER, JUDGE PRESIDING 4 DEPARTMENT NO. 304 5 ---ooo--- 6 COORDINATION PROCEEDING ) SPECIAL TITLE [Rule 1550(b)] ) 7 )

More information

Lennard Lapoint Jenkins vs State of Florida

Lennard Lapoint Jenkins vs State of Florida The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

Case 2:03-cv DGC Document 141 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 1 of 32

Case 2:03-cv DGC Document 141 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 1 of 32 Exhibit A to the Motion to Exclude Testimony of Phillip Esplin Case 2:03-cv-02343-DGC Document 141 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 1 of 32 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 3 4 Cheryl Allred,

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII. Plaintiff, vs. CIVIL NO Defendant.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII. Plaintiff, vs. CIVIL NO Defendant. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, vs. CIVIL NO. -- ELAINE E. KAWASAKI, et al., Defendant. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before the HONORABLE, GLENN

More information

Case 1:06-cv RDB Document Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:06-cv RDB Document Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 6 Case 1:06-cv-01389-RDB Document 193-2 Filed 10/29/2007 Page 1 of 6 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 2 NORTHERN DIVISION 3 ALBERT SNYDER, Civil No. RDB-06-1389 4 Plaintiff Baltimore,

More information

Arenda Langford (not permitted to testify)

Arenda Langford (not permitted to testify) Arenda Langford (not permitted to testify) THE COURT: All right. Are both sides 19 ready? 20 MR. GREG DAVIS: Yes, sir, the State 21 is ready. 22 MR. RICHARD MOSTY: Yes, your Honor, 23 we are ready. 24

More information

Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 08/08/2016 Page: 1. Re: Supplemental Authority in Fish, et al. v. Kobach, Case No.

Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 08/08/2016 Page: 1. Re: Supplemental Authority in Fish, et al. v. Kobach, Case No. Appellate Case: - Document: 0 Date Filed: 0/0/0 Page: AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION NATIONAL OFFICE BROAD STREET, TH FL. NEW YORK, NY 00-00 T/.. F/-- WWW.ACLU.ORG Elisabeth Shumaker Clerk of

More information

Case 3:11-cv REP Document 132 Filed 01/28/12 Page 1 of 153 PageID# 2426 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Case 3:11-cv REP Document 132 Filed 01/28/12 Page 1 of 153 PageID# 2426 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Case :-cv-00-rep Document Filed 0// Page of PageID# IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION 0 -------------------------------------- : GILBERT JAMES :

More information

ALLEGRA FUNG, ESQUIRE

ALLEGRA FUNG, ESQUIRE ALLEGRA FUNG, ESQUIRE 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 CASE NO.: 50 2010 CA 017058 XXXX MB AW 3 4 CITIMORTGAGE, INC., 5 Plaintiff(s), 6 vs.

More information

0615 Day 7 IN THE ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER 11 OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND UNDER THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES BETWEEN

0615 Day 7 IN THE ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER 11 OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND UNDER THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES BETWEEN 1596 IN THE ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER 11 OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND UNDER THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES BETWEEN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x : METHANEX CORPORATION, : : Claimant/Investor,

More information

5 v. 11 Cv (JSR) 6 SONAR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, et al., 7 Defendants x 9 February 17, :00 p.m.

5 v. 11 Cv (JSR) 6 SONAR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, et al., 7 Defendants x 9 February 17, :00 p.m. Case 1:11-cv-09665-JSR Document 20 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 20 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 ------------------------------x 3 SIDNEY GORDON, 4 Plaintiff, 5 v. 11 Cv.

More information

Page 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE

Page 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE Page 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE 09 001184 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP, Plaintiff, -vs- MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

More information

0001 1 THE CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND 2 FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 CASE NO.: 16-2008-CA-012971 DIVISION: CV:G 4 5 GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC, ) ) 6 Plaintiff, ) ) 7 vs. ) ) 8 CARRIE GASQUE,

More information