Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Order Granting Plaintiff_s Motion for Reconsideration of Award of Sanctions (11.29.11)

Order Granting Plaintiff_s Motion for Reconsideration of Award of Sanctions (11.29.11)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 50 |Likes:
Published by southfllawyers

More info:

Published by: southfllawyers on Dec 01, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/01/2011

pdf

text

original

 
IN
THE
CIRCUITCOURT
OF
THE
eõn
rnÀui-;ÃDE
cõñrr
Fiõzuön
CASE
NO.:
I t-}BsgzCA
40
PONTE
GADEA
DUPONT,
LLC,
derivatively
on
behalf
of
DP
PROPERTYHOLDIN
G,
LLC,
A
Florida
limited
tiability
cornpany,:
,
_
_.-
Plaintiff
v.
.,1
UC
NORTHDEVELOPMENT,
LLC,.
.
:
a
Florida
limited
liabilily
company,
DUPONT
PROPERTYHOLDIN'G,
INC.,
a
Floridacorporation,
DP
PROPERTY
HoLDING,LI.C;aFlorida]imitedliability..,..
company,
EPICV/EST,CONDO
,LLC,
a
,'
Florida
limited
liability
company,and
CMC
:
CONSTRUCTION,[NC.,
a
Florida
corporation,
.
,
Defendants.
ORDERGRANTINGPLAINTItr'F'S
MOTION
F'OR
R,ECONSIDERATION
 
-
_---
OF'AWARD
OFSANCTIONS
THIS
CAUSE
geme
beforethe
Court
on
Plaintiff
Ponte
Gadea
Dupon!LLC,
derivatively
,'
on behalf
of
DP Properfy
Holding,
LLC's("Plaintiff
s")
Motionfor
Reconsideration
of
that
part
of
theOrderGranting Defendant
Dupont
Property
Holding,Inc.'s
('Ðupont's")Motion
forprotective
.
Orderdated
September
27,2011which
awarded
sanctionsagainst
Plaintifflscounsel.
Having
.-
l
:.
,,
:.:
,
reviewed
the
Motion,heard
argument
of
counsel,
and
being
otherwise
fully
advised
ofthe
premises,
the
Court
hereby
 
PonteGadea
Dupont,
LLCv.
UC
North
Development,
LLC,
et
al.CASE
NO.
I
t_08592
FINDS
ANDDETERMINES
as
follows:
In
this
Order,
theCourt
grants
the
motion
for
reconsiderationand
deniesthe
requested
sanctions.
Because
misinformation
about
the
circumstances
ofthis matter
has
"gone
viral"
the
Court
undertakes
to
do morethan
simply
enterthe requested
relief.This
Courtgranted
the
motionfor
sanctions
without
first
receiving
or
reviewing
a
response
from
Plaintiffls
counsel.
The response,when
f,rled
immediately
afterthe
order
wasentered,
providedexplanations
for
the
disputed
schedulethat
did
not
appear
in
the
motions
for
protectiveorder
and
salqtions.
Had those
additional
matters
been
included,
the Courtwould
still
haverequiredthedepositions
to
be
taken
on another
day,
regardless
ofwho
causedthe
scheduling
conflict.
The
Court
would
not,
however,havelgranted
sanctions
as,
when
all
of
the
agreed
facts
areconsidered,even
excluding
those facts
the
lawyersdispute,
there
is
simply
no basis
for
such
anaward.
Shortlyafterthis
Court's
orderawardingsanctions
was
entered,
astoryappearedintwoblogs
widely
read
by
practicing
attorneys
both
locally
and
nationally,
interpretingthe
behavior
of
Plaintiff
s
counsel
-
and
thisCourt's
apparent
condemnation
of
it
-
in
a
mannerthatgrossly
distortsthe
truth
and
reflects
both
badly
and
unfairly
on
the legal
system
in
general
and
Plaintiff
s
counsel
in
particular.
PlaintifPs
counsel
says
aboutthe blogpostings
that
it
is
difficult
to
say
which
was
worse,being
falselydescribed
as
anti-Semitic
or
being
falselysupportedfor
being
anti-Semitic.
The
Court
is sympathetic
to
that
view.
It
is,
therefore,
ORDERED
ANDADJUDGED
as
follows:

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->