IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

en rnui-;DE

crr

Fizun

CASE NO.: I t-}Bsgz CA 40

PONTE GADEA DUPONT, LLC, derivatively on behalf of DP PROPERTY HOLDIN G, LLC, A Florida limited tiability

cornpany,

,
_ _.-

Plaintiff
v. UC NORTH DEVELOPMENT, LLC,. limited liabilily company, DUPONT PROPERTY HOLDIN'G, INC., a Florida corporation, DP PROPERTY
a Florida

.
:

.,1

HoLDING,LI.C;aFlorida]imitedliability..,.. ,' a CMC corporation, .

company, EPIC V/EST,CONDO ,LLC, Florida limited liability company, and CONSTRUCTION, [NC., a Florida
:
,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTItr'F'S MOTION F'OR R,ECONSIDERATION - - _--OF'AWARD OF SANCTIONS THIS 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
reviewed the Motion,heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised ofthe premises, the Court hereby

: .

.-

,,

:.:

l
,

Ponte Gadea Dupont, LLC v. UC North Development, LLC, et al.

CASE NO. I t_08592

FINDS 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 Court
undertakes to do more than simply enter the requested relief.

This Court granted the motion for sanctions without first receiving or reviewing a response from Plaintiffls counsel. The response, when f,rled immediately afterthe order was entered, provided
explanations for the disputed schedule that did not appear in the motions for protective order and

salqtions. Had those additional matters been included, the Court would still have required the
depositions to be taken on another day, regardless ofwho caused the scheduling conflict. The Court

would not, however, havelgranted sanctions as, when all of the agreed facts are considered, even
excluding those facts the lawyers dispute, there is simply no basis for such an award.

Shortlyafterthis Court's orderawardingsanctions was entered, astoryappearedintwoblogs

widely read by practicing attorneys both locally and nationally, interpreting the behavior of Plaintiff
s counsel

and this Court's apparent condemnation of it

- in a manner that grossly distorts

the truth and reflects both badly and unfairly on the legal system in general and Plaintiff s counsel

in particular. PlaintifPs counsel says about the blog postings that it is difficult to say which was
worse, being falsely described as anti-Semitic or being falsely supported for being anti-Semitic. The

Court is sympathetic to that view.

It

is, therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

Ponte Gadea Dupont, LLC v. UC North Development, LLC, et al. CASE NO. I l_08592

Plaintif' motion for reconsideration of the Order Granting Defendant Dupont?s Motion fbr
Protective order Postponing Deposition Schedule for Rosh Hashana is GRANTED. The motion for sanctions is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida,

on [r]]f}* g.,;{,(,,. I f, 2A ,

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

[Fax : Eugene Stearns@ 3A5-7 89-339 4] [Fax : Kevi n Kaplan@3 05-35 S-5 26 I ]

Confornsd Copy
Noy 2

[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]

I 20lt

Gill

S. Freernan

Circuit Cor"f ,Iudge