8/3/2019 Order Granting Plaintiff_s Motion for Reconsideration of Award of Sanctions (11.29.11)

1/3

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THEen rnui-;DE crr FizunCASE NO.: I t-}Bsgz CA 40

PONTE GADEA DUPONT, LLC,derivatively on behalf of DPPROPERTY HOLDIN G, LLC, AFlorida limited tiability cornpany, : , _ _.-Plaintiff

v. .,1UC NORTH DEVELOPMENT, LLC,. . :a Florida limited liabilily company,DUPONT PROPERTY HOLDIN'G, INC.,a Florida corporation, DP PROPERTYHoLDING,LI.C;aFlorida]imitedliability..,..company, EPIC V/EST,CONDO ,LLC, a ,'Florida limited liability company, and CMC :CONSTRUCTION, [NC., a Floridacorporation, . ,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTItr'F'S MOTION F'OR R,ECONSIDERATION- _---OF'AWARD OF SANCTIONSTHIS CAUSE geme before the Court on Plaintiff Ponte Gadea Dupon! LLC, derivatively,'on behalf of DP Properfy Holding, LLC's ("Plaintiff s") Motion for Reconsideration of that part of

the Order Granting Defendant Dupont Property Holding, Inc.'s ('upont's") Motion for protective.Order dated September 27,2011 which awarded sanctions against Plaintiffls counsel. Having

.- l: . ,, :.: ,reviewed the Motion,heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised ofthe premises,the Court hereby

8/3/2019 Order Granting Plaintiff_s Motion for Reconsideration of Award of Sanctions (11.29.11)

2/3

Ponte Gadea Dupont, LLC v. UC North Development, LLC, et al.CASE NO. I t_08592FINDS AND DETERMINES as follows:In this Order, the Court grants the motion for reconsideration and denies the requested

sanctions. Because misinformation about the circumstances of this matter has "gone viral" the Courtundertakes to do more than simply enter the requested relief.

This Court granted the motion for sanctions without first receiving or reviewing a responsefrom Plaintiffls counsel. The response, when f,rled immediately afterthe order was entered, providedexplanations for the disputed schedule that did not appear in the motions for protective order andsalqtions. Had those additional matters been included, the Court would still have required thedepositions to be taken on another day, regardless ofwho caused the scheduling conflict. The Courtwould not, however, havelgranted sanctions as, when all of the agreed facts are considered, evenexcluding those facts the lawyers dispute, there is simply no basis for such an award.

Shortlyafterthis Court's orderawardingsanctions was entered, astoryappearedintwoblogswidely read by practicing attorneys both locally and nationally, interpreting the behavior ofPlaintiff s counsel - and this Court's apparent condemnation of it - in a manner that grossly distortsthe truth and reflects both badly and unfairly on the legal system in general and Plaintiff s counselin particular. PlaintifPs counsel says about the blog postings that it is difficult to say which wasworse, being falsely described as anti-Semitic or being falsely supported for being anti-Semitic. TheCourt is sympathetic to that view.

It is, therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

8/3/2019 Order Granting Plaintiff_s Motion for Reconsideration of Award of Sanctions (11.29.11)

3/3

Ponte Gadea Dupont, LLC v. UC North Development, LLC, et al.CASE NO. I l_08592Plaintif' motion for reconsideration of the Order Granting Defendant Dupont?s Motion fbr

Protective order Postponing Deposition Schedule for Rosh Hashana is GRANTED. The motion forsanctions is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida, on [r]]f}* g.,;{,(,,. I f, 2A

[Fax : Eugene Stearns@ 3A5-7 89-339 4][Fax : Kevi n Kaplan@3 05-35 S-5 26 I ][Fax: Thomas Manick@ 3A5 -57 7 -6199][Fax: Clint on Flagg@3 05-669,89S0][Fax : Thomas Equels@3 05-35 9-9996][Fax: Raoul Cqqtero@30 5 -3 58-57 44]

Confornsd CopyNoy 2 I 20ltGill S. FreernanCircuit Cor"f ,Iudge

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE