IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TIDRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR IDLLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION
NEIL J. GILLESPIE,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No.: 05CA7205
Division: C
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A.,
a Florida corporation,
Defendant.
_____________--:1
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER DETERMINING PLAINTIFF'S
ENTITLEMENT TO REASONABLE MODIFICATIONS UNDER TITLE II
OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
Defendant Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., moves the Court for an Order scheduling an
evidentiary hearing to determine PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie's entitlement, under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), to reasonable modifications to the rules or procedures for litigating
this action, and as grounds therefor would state:
1. On December 29,2009, Plaintiff sent a letter to the presiding Judge's Judicial
Assistant complaining that Defendant's counsel had not cleared the hearing date on January 19,
2010 with him. In the December 29, 2009 letter, Plaintiff requested that the Court cancel the
hearing on January 19,2010, and also stated:
Please be advised there are five important outstanding motions that need a hearing ... In
the interest of economy please schedule my five motions together with anything Mr.
Rodems wishes to set. I will need two hours for my five motions.
(Exhibit "1")(Emphasis added). Subsequently, the Court entered an Order canceling the January
19,2010 hearing and scheduled all pending motions for a one hour hearing on January 26, 2010.
2. At the January 26, 2010 hearing, however, Plaintiff delivered a letter to Judge
Barton in open court, which stated in pertinent part he had disabilities and required
"accommodations." In direct contrast to his prior request that the Court schedule all five ofhis
pending motions for hearing on the same date over a period of two hours, Plaintiff stated:
Some ofthe accommodations requested are a limit on the number of motions considered
in a single hearing. This Courts December 30, 2009 Order setting "all pending motion"
[sic] is not acceptable. First a determination should be made of the pending motions, then
a reasonable schedule must be set to hear them.
(Exhibit "2").
3. At the hearing on January 26, 2010, after hearing the Plaintiffs assertions that he
was disabled, the Court began an inquiry into this matter, but Plaintiff requested additional time
to submit information to the Court. The Court granted the request and did not hear any oftIle
motions. On February 4, 2010, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court stating "Regarding the ADA
accommodation information requested by the Court at the hearing January 26, 2010, I plan to
submit the information to the Court by Tuesday, February 9, 2010." (Exhibit "3"). On February
9, 2010, he sent another letter to the Court stating "The ADA accommodation information
requested by the Court at the hearing January 26,2010 is taking longer to prepare than originally
planned. I am sorry to report that it is not ready today as promised. It will be a couple more days,
hopefully by Friday, February 12." (Exhibit "4").
4. To bring this issue to resolution, Defendant requests that the Court schedule an
evidentiary hearing on Plaintiffs claim that he requires "accommodations" under Title II ofthe
ADA.
1
1 Under Title II ofthe ADA, "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of
such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits ofthe services,
programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."
42 U.S.C. 12132. "A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices,
2
5. To be covered under Title II of the ADA, Plaintiff must have a "disability,"2 and
even then, Plaintiffis entitled to "reasonable modifications
3
" only if he is a "qualified individual
with a disability." 42 U.S.C. 12132. Stated in plainer terms, ifPlaintiff is not a "qualified
individual with a disability," then he is not protected by Title II of the ADA.
6. Plaintiff bears the burden of proof (a) that he has a "disability"; and (b) that his
"disability" requires "reasonable modifications." Compare Weinreich v. Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transp. Authority, 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9
th
Cir. 1997)("To prove a public program or
service violates Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) he is a "qualified individual with a
disability"; (2) he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public
or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of
disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would
fundamentally alter the nature ofthe service, program, or activity." 28 C.F.R. 35.130(7).
"Public entity" includes "any State or local government" and "any department, agency, special
purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government ...." 42 U.S.C.
12131(1).
2 Under Title II ofthe ADA, "[d]isability means, with respect to an individual, a physical
or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more ofthe major life activities of such
individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment." 28
C.F.R. 35.104. "The phrase physical or mental impairment" includes "[a]ny mental or
psychological disorder such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental
illness, and specific learning disabilities." 28 C.F.R. 35.104. "The phrase major life activities
means functions such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing,
speaking, breathing, learning, and working." 28 C.F.R. 35.104. A "qualified individual with a
disability" is "an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to
rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation
barriers, or the provision ofauxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility
requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by
a public entity." 42 U.S.C. 12131(2).
3 IfPlaintiff has a "disability," then the "reasonable modifications" he may request are
those necessary for him to meet "the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services
or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity." 42 U.S.C. 12131(2).
3

entity's services, programs or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public
entity; and (3) such exclusion. denial of benefits. or discrimination was by reason of his
disability. See 42 U.S.C. 12132 (emphasis added).").
7. As for the specific factual and legal issues to be resolved at the evidentiary
hearing, Defendants request that the Court schedule an evidentiary hearing to determine:
a. Whether Plaintiff has a "disability," as defmed by Title II of the ADA;
b. If Plaintiff has such a "disability," then what specific "modifications" he is
requesting to the Court's "rules, policies, or practices ... for the receipt of services or the
participation in programs or activities provided by" the Court. 42 U.S.C. 12131(2); and,
c. whether the requested "modifications would fundamentally alter the nature
of the service, program, or activity." 28 C.F.R. 35.130(7).
8. Additionally, because Plaintiff is pro se, the Defendants request that the Court
advise Plaintiff that the Florida Evidence Code shall govern the evidentiary hearing.
WHEREFORE, Defendant moves the Court to schedule an evidentiary hearing to
determine PlaintiffNeil J. Gillespie's entitlement to reasonable modifications under the ADA.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12
th
day of February, 2010.
Florida Bar No. 947652
Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: 813/489-1001
Facsimile: 813/489-1008
Attorneys fur Defundant
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by
u.s. Mail to Mr. Neil J. Gillespie, 8092 SW 115
th
Loop, Ocala, Florida 34481, this 12th day
February, 2010.
5
12-30-2009 03:34 NEIL GILLESPIE
PAGE2
Neil .J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
1h
Loop
Ocala. l<'Iorida 34481
Telephone: (352) 854-7807
December 29,2009
VIA FAX: (813) 276 2725
Ms. Linda Greno, Judicial Assistant
The James M. Barton, II
Circuit Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Circuit Court., Division C
800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 512
Tampa. Florida 33602
RE: Gillespie Vo Rarker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and Willjam J. Cook,
case no.: 05CA 7205, Division C
Dcar Ms. Greno:
This faxed letter is a follow-up to my voice message to you earlier today.
I am requesting the court cancel a hearing set for Tuesday, January 19, 2009, at 4:00 PM
set by attorney Ryan Christopher Rodems because Mr. Rodems set the hearing without
consulting with me about the date and time of the hearing.
Please be advised there are five important outstanding motions that need a hearing, one
dating to 2006: (in order, oldest to newest, by date)
1. December 14,2006, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery
2. February 1,2007, Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel Defendants' Discovery
3. July 16,2008. Plaintiff's Motion for Rehearing. This motion is Mr. Bauer's, and
js necessitated beealL'ie Mr. Rodems misrepresented to Judge Barton that there was a
signed written fee llbTfeement between plaintiff Neil Gillespie and defendant Barker,
Rodems & Cook, PA. For the record, let me state that there is NO signed written fee
agreement between myself and Barker, Rodems & Cook. No sueh agreement signed,
none exists, and Mr. Rodems has not produced one. The lack of a signed written fee
agreement between the parties is also a violation of Bar Rule 4-1.5(f)(2).
12-30-2009 03:34 NEIL GILLESPIE PAGE3
Ms. Linda Greno, Judicial Assistant Page- 2
The Honorable James M. Barton, Jl December 29, 2009
4. August 14,2008. Plaintiffs Claimof Exemption and Request for Hearing. This
motion was also filed by Mr. Bauer and be held to detennine plaintiff's exemptions.
5. December 15,2009, Plaintiff's Motion hold Mr. Rodems in Contempt for
violating Judge Rarton'5 ruling of October 1, 2009. Judge Barton ruled that the case was
stayed and the parties were prohibited from doing anything ofrecord for 60 days.
Nonetheless on October 13, 2009 Mr. Rodems filed ofrecord an amended notice of duces
.tecum during the stay period.
Please advise the undersigned when the above motions can he set for hearing. In the
interest of please cancel Mr. Rodems' improperly scheduled motion set for
January 19,2009. In the interest ofeconomy please schedule my five motions together
with anything Mr. Rodems wishes to set. 1win need two hours for my five motions.
Thank you fllr your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
enclosure: Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing, July 16, 2008
AU calls on my home l\ffice telephone extension are recorded for quality Jlurpor.e.'l pUNlUllnt to the
business usc exemption or Florida Statllres chapter 934, specifically section 934.02(4)(a)( 1) and the holding of Rc>yal
Health Care Servs. JfIe. \I. Jefferson-Pi/ol Lift Ins. Cf)., 924 fo.2d 215 (11th elr. 1991).
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW IIS
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
January 26, 20I0
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honomble James M. Barton, II
Circuit Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Circuit Court, Division C
800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 512
Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and William J. Cook,
case no.: 05-CA-7205, Division C
Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution claims to provide access to the courts to
every person for redress of any injury, but for an ordinary citizen justice is often not
administered fairfy and is frequently denied or delayed - Neil Gillespie
Dear Judge Barton:
I apologize for the late timing ofthis letter, but yesterday I became aware ofRule 2.540
Florida Rules ofJudicial Administration, Notices to Persons with Disabilities:
All notices ofcourt proceedings to be held in a public facility, and all process compelling
appearance at such proceedings, shall include the following:
"Ifyou are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to
participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of
certain assistance. Please contact [identifY applicable court personnel by name, address,
and telephone number] within 2 working days ofyour receipt ofthis [describe notice]; if
you are hearing or voice impaired, call 71 I."
Yesterday I tried to clarifY this issue with Court Administrator Mr. Bridenback and left a
message for his assistant Tracy at (813) 272-5368, but no one called back. In addition to
the Rule 2.540 notice, I have a question about how and where to submit my ADA
Assessment and Report. I retained author and health professional Ms. Karin Huffer, MS,
MFT as my Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodations Designer and
Advocate. Some ofthe accommodations requested are a limit on the number ofmotions
considered in a single hearing. This Courts December 30, 2009 Order setting "all pending
The Honorable James M. Barton, IT Page-2
January 26,2010
motion" is not acceptable. First a determination should be made ofthe pending motions,
then a reasonable schedule must be set to hear them.
The Court's Order setting today's hearing does not comply with Rule 2.540. Because the
George E. Edgecomb Courthouse, 800 East Twiggs Street, Tampa is apublic facility, I
believe any notice for a hearing there is subject to Rule 2.540. Also, none ofMr. Rodems'
notices for hearings in the courthouse have contained a Rule 2.540 disclosures throughout
this litigation. In all fairness, neither did any ofmy notices, but I amjust an ordinary
citizen and pro se litigant. (Note: the Court's web site cites Rule 2.065).
More importantly, while reading Rule 2.540, I noticed Rule 2.545, Case Management.
For whatever reason none ofthe judges assigned to this case have iinplemented any case
management in over four years. In addition, Rule 1.200 provides for Pretrial Procedure
and a Case Management Conference. In the past I asked Court Counsel about this and did
not receive a response. One ofmy letters to Court Counsel is enclosed. The problem is so
bad in this case that I believe it should have been designated Complex Litigation under
Rule 1.201, Fla.R.Civ.P because A "complex action" is one that is likely to involve
complicated legal or case management issues and that may require extensivejudicial
management to expedite the action, keep costs reasonable, or promote judicial efficiency.
But the conclusive evidence ofofficial wrongdoing in this case is from a lawreviewby
The Honorable Claudia Rickert Isom titled Professionalism and Litigation Ethics, 28
STETSON L. REv. 323,324 (1998). In it, Judge Rickert described the issue ofadversarial
parties and discovery problems, which she calls "cutting up". This is what Judge Isom
wrote: "When this litigious attitude begins to restrict the trial court's ability to effectively
bring cases to resolution, the judge must get involved to assist the process." So apparently
extreme measures such as $11,550 sanctions are not the next step in the process. It is
outrageous that Judge 180mwould ignore her own lawreviewin my case that was before
her Court on February 5, 2007. Clearly the 13
th
Judicial Circuit is prejudiced against me
as either a pro se litigant or a person with disabilities, or both.
Because of this newly discovered evidence I believe a motion for reliefunder Rule 1.540,
Fla.R.Civ.P is appropriate to overturn this Court's Order Determining Amount of
Sanctions, and Final Judgment ofMarch 21, 2008. This sanction ofattorney's fees is even
more outnlgeous given the fact that plaintiff's motion to compel defendants discovery
has not been heard and is pending since December 14, 2006. How can this Court award
$11,550 against me when defendants are guilty ofthe same offense?
I commenced two lawsuits pro se in August 2005 (one being the instant case) because I
could not find or afford counsel to represent him. One lawsuit in federal court involved a
credit card dispute, Gillespie v. HSBC Bank et ai, case no. 5:05-cv-362-0c-WTH-GRJ,
US District Court, Middle District ofFlorida, Ocala Division. The HSBC lawsuit was
resolved a year later with a good result for the parties. Plaintiffwas able to work amicably
with the counsel for HSBC Bank, Traci H. Rollins and David J. D'Agata, counsel with
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, LLP and the entire case was concluded in 15 months.
The Honorable James M. Barton, n Page-3
January 26,2010
August 17 2005, Complaint filed, Gillespie v HSBC Bank, et al
September 25, 2006, Order establishing a cause ofaction (US District Judge William
Terrell Hodges)
October 23, 2006, Settlement Agreement and Release
November 17, 2006, civil judgment entered dismissing case
Apart from these proceedings I am a law abiding, engaged citizen. I am a former business
owner and graduate ofThe Wharton School (Evening Division), University of
and The Evergreen State College. Since 1994 I have been disabled, a
condition that affects me ability to represent himselfwhen confronted by a hostile lawyer
like Mr. Rodems who knows ofmy disability from his firm's prior representation. In
addition, Mr. Rodems sued plaintifffor libel over a letter about a closed bar complaint.
Tobkin v. Jarboe, 710 So.2d 975, recognizes the inequitable balance ofpower that may
exist between an attomey who brings a defamation action and the client who must defend
against it Attorneys schooled in the law have the ability to pursue litigation through their
own means and with minimal expense when compared with their fonner clients.
And there is more newly discovered evidence. Mr. application to the 13
th
Circuit JNC lists two other clients who complained to the Florida Bar that he charged an
inappropriate fee in a contingency case, Rita Pesci and Roslyn Vazquez. This shows that
Mr. Rodems and his law firm utilize a cormpt business model that works as follows:.
A. Usurp the clientts fiduciary interest.
B. Procure a signed agreement from the client by any means, including fraud.
c. Rely upon the parol evidence rule to enforce the settlement
Because Mr. Rodems failed to provide this infonnation in discovery, it was not available
for my defense on March 20, 2008 for the sanction hearing to determine attorneys fees..
And the discovery that Mr. Rodems was actively seeking appointment to the bench on
March 20, 2008 was a conflict and explains' his obsession with the status ofjudges both at
the hearing and during the course ofthis litigation. The Commentary to Judicial Canon 2A
states a judge must expect to be the subject ofconstant public scmtiny. Ajudge must
therefore accept restrictions on the judge's conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by
the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.
In addition to relief from judgment it is time for Plaintiff's FirSt Amended Complaint,
which will include a count ofBreach o"fFiduciary which is appropriate given the
facts and can be added under Rule 1.190(c), FIa.R.Civ.P and the relation back doctrine.
BreachofFiduciary Duty was first argued in this case in 2005, October 7,.2005, see
Plaintiff's Rebuttal To Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Strike.
Mr. Rodems testified at the March 20, 2008 hearing on the attomey's fees that "I am
board-certified in civil trial law and I've been practicing law since 1992.." (transcript, page
14, line 23). Mr. Rodems also testified that "rve been trying cases for the last 16 years."
(transcript, page 15, line 4). On cross examination, Mr. Bauer asked: "How 57.105
,
The Honorable James M. Barton, n Page-4
January 26, 2010
actions have you been involved in?" (transcript, page 15, line 18). Mr. Rodems testified:
"I filed I believe two inthis case and I may have filed one or two other ones in my career
but I couldn't be sure exactly.n (transcript, page 15, line 20).
Since the March 20,2008 hearing, Mr. Rodems has filed two additional section 57.105
motions in this lawsuit. On July 31, 2008, Mr. Rodems submitted his third section 57.105
motion in this lawsuit, because I did not withdrawn my Complaint For Breach ofContract
and Fraud. Mr. Rodems submitted his fourth section 57.105 motion in this case; also on
July 31, 2008, because I did not withdrawal my motion for rehearing, which was
necessitated when Mr. Rodems lied to the Court at the October 31, 2007 hearing about
the existence ofa signed contingent fee agreement - there is no signed contract with
Barker, Rodems & Cook, PA and Mr. Rodems falsely told the court otherwise.
Furthermore, Mr. Rodems threatened to file another section 5'7.105 motion against Mr.
Bauer in April, 2007, and again in May, 2007, regarding appellant's. reinstatement ofhis
claims voluntarily dismissed, which the 2DCA upheld in 2D07-4530.
So far in this lawsuit Mr. Rodems has filed four (4) section 57. lOS motions and
threatened another - while in the balance ofhis sixteen (16) year career Mr. Rodems
testified that he may have filed one or two other ones but he couldn't be sure exactly. It
is clear that Mr. Rodems is misusing the section 57.105 motion as a weapon in his
"foll Duelear blast approaeh" because he has a conDitt of interest in this l a ~ s u i t and
should have been disqualified as counsel upon apoeUant's motion, Plaintiffs Motio"
to Disqlltl.lifv Counsel, submitted February 4, 2006.
As for Judge Nielsen's Order ofMay 12,2006, the Order states "The motion to disqualifY
is denied with prejudice, except as to the basis that counsel may be a witness, and. on that
basis, the motion is denied without prejudice." As for Mr. Rodems being a witness, the
nature ofthis case is that he is essentially a perpetual witness. The transcripts show that
his representation is essentially ongoing testimony about factual matters. Mr. Rodems
should be disqualified, it is long overdue.
Finally a letter written by Mr. Rodems surfaced relative to a lawsuit disclosed on his JNC
application, Wrest/eReunion. LLC v. Live NatioT4 Television Holdings, Inc.,. United States
District Court, Middle District ofFlorida, Case No. 8:07-cv-2093-T-27, trial August 31
September 10, 2009. Mr. Rodems lost the case and then wrote a letter attacking the
.credibility of Eric BischotI: .a witnesses. The letter is enclosed and may also be found
online at: www.declarationofindependents.netldoilpageslcorrente91O.html
Mr. Rodems' letter calls into question his mental well-being. After the jUlY spoke and the
case was over Mr. Rodems wrote the following; "It is odd that Eric Bischoff: whose well
documented incompetence caused the demise ofWCW, should have any comment on the
outcome ofthe WrestIeReunion, LLC lawsuit.. The expert report Bischoffsubmitted in
this case bordered on illiteracy, and Bischoffwas not even called to testify by Clear
ChannellLive Nation because Bischoffperjured himself in a deposition in late-July 2009
The Honorable James M. Barton, n Page - 5
January 26,2010
before running out and refusing to answer any more questions regarding his serious
problems with alcohol and sexual deviancy at the Gold Club while the head ofWCW.."
Mr.. Rodems also wrote, ' ~ T o even sit in the room and question him. was one ofthe most
distasteful ~ g s I've ever had to do in 17 years ofpracticing law. In fact, we understand
that Bischoffwas afraid to even come to Tampa and testify because he would have to
answer questions under oath for a third time about his embarrassing past"
Mr. Rodems continued his attack on the witness writing, "The sad state ofprofessional
wrestling today is directly attributable to this snake oil salesman, whose previous career
highlights include selling.meat out ofthe back of a truck, before he filed bankruptcy and
had his car repossessed. Today, after running WCW into the ground, Bischoff.peddles
schlock like ftGirls Gone Wild
tt
and reality shows featuring B-listers."
In conclusion, my fonner lawyer, the congenial Robert W. Bauer, complained about Mr.
Rodems in open court: " ...M r ~ Rodems has, you know, decided to take a full nuclear blast
approach instead of us trying to work this out in a professional manner. It is my mistake
for sitting back and giving him the opportunity to take this full blast attack. (transcript,
Aug-14-08 hearing before Judge Crenshaw, p. 16, line 24).
Thank you for your kind consideration.
cc: Mr. David A. Rowland, Court Counsel (letter only)
Mr. Mike Bridenback, Court Administrator in the 13th Judicial Circuit (letter only)
Mr. Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator for the 13
th
Judicial Circuit (letter only)
Mr.. Ryan Christopher Rodems
NEIL GILLESPIE
~ - 0 S - 2 0 1 e e5:3e
PAGE1
Neil J. Gillespie
8092 SW l1S
lh
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
February 4, 2010
VIA FAX: (813) 276- 2725
The Honorable James M. Rarton, II
Circuit Court Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Circuit Court, Division C
800 E. 'l'wiggs Street, Room 512
Tampa, Florida 33602
RE: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.) and Wi1liam J. Cook,
casc no.: 05-CA-7205. Division C
Dear Judge Barton:
Regarding the ADA accommodation infonnation requested by the Court at the hearing
January 26,2010,1 plan to submit the information to the Court by Tuesday, February 9,
2010. Thank you.
cc: Mr. Ryan Christopher Rodems
-....;
02-10-2010 04:39 NEIL GILLESPIE
PAGE2
Neil .J. Gillespie
8092 SW 115
th
Loop
Ocala, Florida 34481
February 9,2010
VIA FAX: (813) 276- 2725
lbe Honorable James M. Barton, IT
Circuit Cowt Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Circuit Court. Division C
800 He Twiggs Street, Room 512
Tampa, Florida 33602
R.E: Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A., and William J. Cook,
case no.: 05-CA-7205, Division C
Dear Judge Barton:
The ADA accommodation information requested by the Court at the hearing January 26,
20lOis taking longer to prepare tban originally planned. I am sony to report tbat it is not
ready today a.q promised. It will be a couple more days, hopefully by Friday, February 12.
"Ibis is still a question about wbere to submit my ADA assessment and report. Enclosed is
a copy of my email to Mr. Gonzalo B. Casares, ADA Coordinator for the 13
th
Judicial
Circuit. Some of the confusion stems from the fragmented cowt system. Apparently there
is an ADA Coordinator for Hillsborough County, Ms. Sandra Sroka, and an ADA
Coordinator tor the Clerk ofthe Circuit Court, Ms. Lynn Ryder. My previous calls to
Court Administrator Mr. Bridenback, his assistant Tracy WelJs at (813) 272-5368, have
not been returned.
.!bank you for the Court's patience and understanding.
BARKER, RODEMS & COOK
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CHRIS A. BARKER
Telephone 813/489-1001
400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2100
RYAN CHRISTOPHER RODEMS
Facsimile 813/489-1008
WILLIAM ]. COOK Tampa, Florida 33602
February 12,2010
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable James M. Barton, II
Circuit Court Judge
Circuit Civil, Division "C"
800 E. Twiggs Street, Room 512
Tampa, Florida 33602
Re: Neil J. Gillespie v. Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A.,
a Florida Corporation; and William J. Cook
Case No.: 05-CA-7205; Division "C"
Dear Judge Barton:
As you will recall, a hearing was scheduled on all pending motions on January 26, 2010, and during that hearing
Plaintiff claimed he was disabled and entitled to "accommodations" under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He
asserted that he would provide certain information to the Court, but has yet to do so.
The motions scheduled for hearing included motions to compel Plaintiff's attendance at a deposition in aid of
execution and to compel complete responses to discovery, as my clients obtained a Final Judgment on March 27, 2008
against Plaintiff due to his violation of section 57.105, Florida Statutes and various discovery violations.
Clearly, Plaintiff's claim of disability has delayed my clients from moving forward and collecting on the Final
Judgment protecting their rights.
Therefore, I have filed "Defendant's Motion for an Order Determining Plaintiffs Entitlement to Reasonable
Modifications under Title II ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act." In it, I have requested that the Court schedule an
evidentiary hearing on this matter.
Pursuant to your direction at the hearing on January 26, 2010, I am requesting that this motion be set for an evidentiary
hearing as soon as possible.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Re, ectfullY'uhmi
W
Christopher Rodems
RCR/so
Enclosure
cc: Neil 1. Gillespie (wi encl)