Filing # 120706475 E-Filed 02/02/2021 08:05:44 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO: CACE-17-005915

SANDRA STEWART, AS PERSONAL

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE
OF ROBERT STEWART,

Plaintiff,

v.

HORIZON DIVE ADVENTURES, INC.,

PETER SOTIS, ADD HELIUM, LLC, et al.

Defendants.
/
REVO BVBA’S OPPOSITION TO THIRD-PARTY
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

rEvo BVBA, dba rEvo Rebreathers (“REVO”), by and through its undersigned counsel,

hereby files its Memorandum in Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss REVO’s Third-Party

Complaint filed by Third-Party Defendants DAN DAWSON, KELL LEVENDORF, ROB

BLESER and CRAIG JENNI. DAWSON, LEVENDORF, BLESER and JENNI seek dismissal

of REVO’s claims against them for spoliation of evidence and conspiracy to spoil evidence.

REVO also provides further evidence in support of its Motion to Dismiss PLAINTIFF’s Third

Amended Complaint for failure to join BROCK CAHILL and SHARKWATER

PRODUCTIONS, INC. as indispensable parties.

I. FACTS RELATED TO REVO’S SPOLIATION AND CONSPIRACY CLAIMS

In December 2016, BROCK CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS’ employee

Karen Shaw organized the charter of Defendant HORIZON DIVE ADVENTURES, INC.’s

(“HORIZON”) vessel, M/V Pisces, to the Queen of Nassau wreck site, off the coast of

1
Islamorada, Florida. See HORIZON Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Defendant/Cross

Plaintiff/Third Party Plaintiff REVO’s Crossclaim (“HORIZON Answer”), at ¶ 32(f)

(“Defendant Horizon admits that the charter of the M/V Pisces to the Queen of Nassau wreck site

was arranged by Brock Cahill and Karen Shaw [of SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS] in

December 2016.”) The purpose of the charter was to procure footage of Smalltooth Sawfish for

inclusion in the Canadian documentary film, Sharkwater: Extinction. See REVO’s Third-Party

Complaint against ROB BLESER, CRAIG JENNI, KELL LEVENDORF, DAN DAWSON,

JEFFREY KNAPP, BROCK CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS, INC. (“REVO’s

Third-Party Compl.”), at ¶ 12. HORIZON agreed to provide Stewart and his production team

with a vessel and crew to take them to the Queen of Nassau shipwreck – where Stewart and his

team had never been – for three days of diving, to guide them on the site, and assist the

filmmakers in their efforts to film the critically endangered Smalltooth Sawfish.

At the time this agreement was made, HORIZON never asked Stewart’s production

company, SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS, Stewart or his producing partner, BROCK

CAHILL, if they were qualified or certified to safely dive to the Queen of Nassau shipwreck.

Nevertheless, HORIZON originally agreed that its owner, DAN DAWSON, and another

employee, JEFFREY KNAPP, would act as safety divers for Stewart and CAHILL. This plan

changed at the last minute, when Defendant PETER SOTIS and his wife, CLAUDIA, were

suddenly able to travel to Islamorada and act as safety divers for the first two days of the charter,

January 30 and 31, 2017; with KNAPP and DAWSON acting as safety divers on the third day of

the charter, February 1, 2017.

Pursuant to the charter, on January 30 and 31, 2017, HORIZON furnished its vessel and

crew to Rob Stewart, BROCK CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS, and transported

2
the film crew to the Queen of Nassau wreck site. Id. See also DAVID WILKERSON’s Answer

and Affirmative Defenses to REVO’s Crossclaim (“WILKERSON Answer”), at ¶¶ 5(h) and

32(h). The divers completed two extensive filmmaking dives to a depth of approximately 230

feet on January 30, 2017, and two more extensive filmmaking dives to a depth of approximately

230 feet on January 31, 2017, with HORIZON refilling the diver’s gas cylinders with “trimix”

breathing gas overnight between the two dive days. See PLAINTIFF’s Response in Opposition

to Defendant REVO’s Motion to Dismiss PLAINTIFF’s Third Amended Complaint

(“PLAINTIFF’s Opposition”), at 1-2; WILKERSON’s Answer, at ¶¶ 5(h), 5(j)-(m), 22, 32(h),

32(j)-(m).

After the second dive on January 31, 2017, Stewart elected to cancel the third day of

the charter on February 1, 2017. See WILKERSON’s Answer, at ¶ 32(j). Thereafter, Stewart

was directed to accompany SOTIS down to the wreck for a third high-risk dive to dislodge a

grappling hook owned by HORIZON that was tied to the wreck the day before and attached by a

rope to a mooring ball at the surface of the water for navigational purposes. PLAINTIFF’s

Opposition at 1-2. Both Stewart and SOTIS surfaced after the third dive at approximately the

same time. Id. SOTIS and Stewart both signaled that they were “OK” after surfacing.

WILKERSON’s Answer, at ¶¶ 5(h), 5(j)-(m), 22, 32(h), 32(j)-(m). However, SOTIS collapsed

after boarding the vessel and, although Stewart signaled a second time that he was “OK,” he

became disoriented and he was unable to follow WILKERSON’s commands. Id. Rather than

send a crew member or able-bodied passenger into the water to assist Stewart, who was just 10

feet behind the M/V Pisces, WILKERSON started the vessel and drove it away from Stewart.

See REVO Crossclaim against Defendant DAVID WILKERSON, at ¶¶ 12, 23 and 40.

3
 According to the dive computer data retrieved from Stewart’s rebreather during the U.S.

Coast Guard’s investigation into this fatality, Stewart remained on the surface for a little less

than three minutes before he submerged and vanished. Therefore, the crux of this case is

answering the question, what caused Stewart to submerge and vanish after spending nearly three

minutes on the surface?1

After the loss of Plaintiff’s Decedent on January 31, 2017, HORIZON and/or its

insurance carrier immediately retained the services of Donna E. Albert, Esquire and CRAIG

JENNI, Esquire to represent HORIZON and its employees and agents in connection with the

death of Rob Stewart. REVO’s Third-Party Compl. at ¶ 15. JENNI holds himself out as an

investigator of scuba diving accidents through his company, Dive and Marine Consultants

International, Inc., but, in fact, JENNI is not a licensed private investigator. Id. at ¶ 16. Instead,

he operates under an exception to Florida’s private investigator licensing requirements for “Any

attorney in the regular practice of her or his profession.” See § 493.6102(6), Fla. Stat. (2014).

HORIZON, its owner DAN DAWSON, and its employees DAVID WILKERSON,

ROBERT STEELE and JEFFERY KNAPP, along with BROCK CAHILL, returned to the Queen

of Nassau wreck site on February 1, 2 and 3, 2017 to search for Rob Stewart underwater.

REVO’s Third-Party Compl. at ¶ 17. Meanwhile, the U.S. Coast Guard, Stewart’s family and

hundreds of volunteers, in dozens of volunteer vessels and aircraft, searched an area the size of

Connecticut in the false hope that Stewart would be found alive, floating on the ocean’s surface.

1
Without ever examining this dive computer data, the Monroe County Medical Examiner
speculated that Rob Stewart may have experienced hypoxia, or lack of oxygen, on the surface. However,
the dive computer data unequivocally rules out hypoxia as a potential cause of Stewart’s loss of
consciousness. In fact, the data shows that Stewart was breathing 100% oxygen just below the surface,
the rebreather’s gas mix was 70% oxygen on the surface, and, if Stewart was breathing air on the surface,
he would have been breathing 21% oxygen. Thus, Stewart was always breathing between double and ten
times the percentage of oxygen necessary to cause unconsciousness from hypoxia. Nevertheless, the
breathing gas supplied by HORIZON was a central consideration in Medical Examiner’s investigation.

4
Id. See also “Canadian filmmaker Rob Stewart found dead ‘peacefully in the ocean,’” The

Canadian Press, Feb 04, 2017 (available at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadian-

filmmaker-rob-stewart-confirmed-dead-1.3967284) (last accessed Jan. 29, 2021); “Search

Campaign for Rob Stewart,” GoFundMe.com (available at https://www.gofundme.com/f/search-

rescue-for-rob-stewart) (last accessed Jan. 29, 2021).2

By February 2, 2017, HORIZON was joined by CRAIG JENNI and his associate, KELL

LEVENDORF; as well as the owner of a Key Largo dive shop, ROB BLESER; and one of ROB

BLESER’s dive shop employees, Joe O’Keefe. REVO’s Third-Party Compl. at ¶ 18.

HORIZON, its legal counsel and friends searched underwater at the wreck site for a full day

using a borrowed remotely operated vehicle (“ROV”), but again they found nothing. Id.

At all material times, HORIZON, DAWSON, BLESER, JENNI, LEVENDORF,

CAHILL, KNAPP, WILKERSON and O’Keefe had the intent and means to recover Rob

Stewart’s body and scuba diving equipment if they found them at the Queen of Nassau wreck

site, with or without the permission of the permission and authority of the Monroe County,

Florida Medical Examiner, which they never sought. Id. at ¶ 19. DAWSON, JENNNI, KNAPP

and O’Keefe brought scuba gear and breathing gasses, some of which was supplied by

HORIZON, sufficient to allow them to dive to the bottom at 220 feet of sea water (“fsw”) to

recover Rob Stewart if and when he was found. Id.

Moreover, DAWSON, BLESER, JENNI and LEVENDORF had sufficient training and

experience to know that a drowning victim wearing a rebreather would likely be found in close

proximity to the last known point at which the diver was seen on the surface. Id. at ¶ 20.

2
REVO believes it was particularly cruel to mislead the Stewart family, hundreds of volunteers,
and thousands of donors who raised over $219,000 to search for Rob Stewart, particularly after REVO’s
counsel was consulted by the U.S. Coast Guard on the morning after Stewart went missing and he advised
them that Stewart’s body would be found directly under the marked coordinates of the M/V Pisces when
Stewart was last seen.

5
 Ordinarily, a diver who loses consciousness on the surface while wearing a rebreather

will sink rapidly to the bottom. Id. at ¶ 21. This is because the diver’s jaw will relax, the

mouthpiece will come out, causing the rebreather’s “breathing loop” to flood and add

considerable excess weight to the diver, thereby causing the diver to sink rapidly, nearly straight

down, moved only during the descent by the direction of the current. Id. Due to the increased

weight added by the flooded rebreather, the diver’s body normally will not move in mild

currents. Id. Accordingly, the body of a drowned diver like Rob Stewart, who was last seen

with his mouthpiece out of his mouth, could be expected to be found within a 350-foot radius of

the last known point at which Stewart was seen on the surface, for a period of at least several

days after the loss of the diver. Id.

These facts would have been known to DAWSON, BLESER, JENNI and LEVENDORF.

Id. at ¶ 22. CRAIG JENNI has been an active diver since 1976 and a professional dive instructor

since 1982. Id. at ¶ 23. He is an instructor or instructor trainer for a number of diver

certification agencies, and he is qualified to teach entry-level divers to the highest levels of

technical diving. Id. During his career as a professional diver, Craig has been a commercial

diver, taught commercial diving, public safety diver, scientific diving safety officer, and a

certified rebreather diver. Id. Importantly, JENNI claims to have been involved in conducting

more than 4,400 forensic dive accident investigations around the world. Id.

DAN DAWSON is a professional diving instructor and a rebreather diving instructor. Id.

at ¶ 24. Importantly, DAWSON is a certified Underwater Crime Scene Investigator Instructor.

Id.

ROB BLESER is a scuba diving instructor in Key Largo, Florida, a licensed vessel

Captain, and a volunteer who has assisted the Monroe County, Florida authorities in a handful of

6
search and recovery operations over the past several years. Id. at ¶ 25. Oddly, when he assists

the authorities, BLESER refers to himself by the title “Captain 25,” and the leader of the “WET

team.”

KELL LEVENDORF is a certified scuba instructor with experience as a technical diving

instructor. Id. at ¶ 26. At the time of this incident, LEVENDORF worked as a Forensic

Casualty Investigator for JENNI’s company, Dive and Marine Consultants International, Inc.,

although LEVENDORF was not, and has never been, a licensed private investigator. Id.

On February 3, 2017, the HORIZON search team included Rob Stewart’s filmmaking

partner, BROCK CAHILL, and another dive boat captain, Tuck Hall. Id. at ¶ 27. CAHILL was

acting on behalf of himself, individually, and as an agent, contractor or employee of

SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS; and he was regularly in communication with PLAINNTIFF

SANDRA STEWART and Brian Stewart, principals of SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS. Id.

By this time, DAWSON, BLESER, JENNI and LEVENDORF were masquerading as a

dive team from the Key Largo Volunteer Fire Department (“KLVFD”). But there were problems

with maintaining this charade:

(a) At all material times, the KLVFD did not have a dive team;

(b) In 2017, no other fire department in Monroe County, Florida had a dive team;

(c) None of the individuals that were part of the HORIZON search and recovery team
has ever held a current or valid Volunteer Firefighter Certificate of Completion
issued by the Division of State Fire Marshal, Bureau of Fire Standards and
Training, as required by F.S. § 633.408;

(d) None of the individuals that were part of the HORIZON search and recovery team
met the requirements to qualify as public safety divers in accordance with the
applicable codes and standards of the National Fire Protection Association
(“NFPA”), including NFPA 1006 and NFPA 1670; and

(e) HORIZON itself has admitted that its search for, and recovery of, Rob Stewart
was undertaken at the direction of its legal counsel in anticipation of litigation,
and it has sought to shield the photographs and other material gathered by JENNI

7
 and LEVENDORF from February 1-3, 2017 under the attorney-client privilege
and attorney work product doctrine.

See REVO’s Third-Party Compl. at ¶ 28.

Despite having experience in underwater search and recovery, and knowledge of the law

pertaining thereto, the HORIZON team and its legal counsel, JENNI, never sought permission to

conduct their activities from the Monroe County, Florida Medical Examiner, the only person in

the United States with the legal authority to authorize their activities. Id. at ¶ 29. See also F.S. §

406.12.

In fact, e-mails exchanged between the Thomas Beaver, M.D., the Monroe County,

Florida Medical Examiner and Chief Don Bock of the Key Largo Volunteer Fire Department

beginning on February 1, 2017 (which were forwarded to ROB BLESER), reveal that Dr. Beaver

did not want HORIZON involved in the search and possible recovery of Rob Stewart’s body

because HORIZON was involved in the loss of Stewart, HORIZON had provided the breathing

gasses Stewart was using on his final dive, and HORIZON and the gasses would be part of the

Medical Examiner’s investigation into the death of Rob Stewart. See REVO’s Third-Party

Compl. at ¶ 30. Dr. Beaver made several attempts to contact ROB BLESER to express his

reservations about involving HORIZON in the search for and possible recovery of Rob Stewart,

but BLESER never returned Dr. Beaver’s phone calls or otherwise sought to communicate with

him. Id. at ¶ 31. Indeed, BLESER never advised any of the authorities involved in the search for

Rob Stewart that he was working with HORIZON and its attorney, CRAIG JENNI, to find and

recover Rob Stewart. Id. at ¶ 32.

On February 2, 2017, BLESER, identifying himself as “Captain 25,” requested assistance

from the Monroe County Sheriff and U.S. Coast Guard in maintaining a security perimeter

around the Queen of Nassau wreck site, falsely stating that he was searching with side scan

8
sonar, which would have posed a danger to divers underwater. Id. at ¶ 33. Upon information

and belief, this was because a qualified team of actual public safety divers had arrived in

Islamorada and they were prepared to take over the search for Rob Stewart at the Queen of

Nassau wreck site. The presence of this qualified and independent team jeopardized the

HORIZON team’s exclusive control of the accident scene and first access to Rob Stewart’s body

and equipment when they were found.

At approximately 5:00 p.m. on February 3, 2017, BLESER, again identifying himself as

“Captain 25,” called the Monroe County Sheriff to advise that he had located Rob Stewart at the

Queen of Nassau wreck site and he was “putting divers in the water” to recover Stewart’s body.

Id. at ¶ 34. Neither BLESER, nor the HORIZON team and its attorney, ever notified the Monroe

County, Florida Medical Examiner of their discovery, as required by F.S. § 406.12, nor did they

ask the Medical Examiner for permission to recover Rob Stewart’s body. Id. at ¶ 35.

BLESER had found Rob Stewart’s body using a ROV equipped with a video camera. Id.

at ¶ 36. Significantly, however, BLESER did not record the condition of Stewart’s body and

scuba equipment photographically, as required by NFPA 1006 18.2.5 and NFPA 1670

18.4.8(15).3 Id. Instead, as soon as Stewart’s body was viewed in the distance, BLESER

immediately nose-dived the ROV and its camera into the bottom, where the ROV’s camera

filmed nothing but mud. Id.

Thereafter, CRAIG JENNI, HORIZON’s lawyer; HORIZON’s owner, DAN DAWSON,

and HORIZON employee JEFFREY KNAPP; donned scuba diving equipment and descended to

the bottom to investigate the site of Stewart’s body and recover Rob Stewart. Id. at ¶ 37. The

video recorded by the ROV shows the divers’ lights flashing across the bottom, indicating that

3
NFPA 1006 18.2.5 and NFPA 1670 18.4.8(15) are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B,
respectively.

9
they were performing some activity on Stewart’s body and equipment, for a full five minutes

before the divers flip the body over, hitting the ROV, and causing the ROV to rise just enough to

show the divers performing some task on Stewart’s body or equipment. See Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 – JEFFREY KNAPP, CRAIG JENNI and DAN DAWSON violating the law

The applicable standards governing public safety diving and the recovery of bodies

underwater, which JENNI and DAWSON supposedly teach to others, require that the site of a

body found underwater be secured and investigated as a crime scene. Id. at ¶ 38 (citing NFPA

1006 18.2.5 and NFPA 1670 18.4.8(15)). See also Exs. A and B. Additionally, Florida law

prohibits any person from willfully touching, removing, or disturbing a body, clothing, or any

article upon or near the body, “without an order from the office of the district medical examiner.”

Id. (citing F.S. § 406.12). Despite these legal duties, which JENNI, DAWSON, BLESER and

10
LEVENDORF knew or should have known, BLESER and the HORIZON team failed to follow

or employ any legitimately recognized standards for the preservation of evidence, documenting

the scene of an accident, or conducting an underwater crime scene investigation. Among other

things, BLESER and the HORIZON team:

(a) failed to photographically document the scene, Rob Stewart’s body or scuba
equipment. Indeed, none of the members of the dive team carried or sought to use
an underwater camera during their recovery dive, despite having at least three
days to acquire the proper equipment, the presence of CAHILL (an underwater
cameraman) and having access to the SHARWATER PRODUCTIONS’ cameras
and equipment.

(b) failed to document the status of Rob Stewart’s body or scuba equipment through
the use of underwater writing utensils, drawings or graphs;

(c) moved Stewart’s body and altered the configuration of his diving equipment;

(d) tampered with evidence by using Rob Stewart’s breathing gas (provided by
HORIZON) in an attempt to inflate his scuba gear and the lift bags used to float
the body to the surface; and

(e) failed to ensure that all of the members of the dive team were properly certified
and prepared to engage in an underwater crime scene investigation at 220 fsw;

(f) hit Rob Stewart’s body with the ROV, and then later struck the ROV with
Stewart’s body, potentially causing damage to the body;

(g) reactivated the rEVO III’s electronic controllers, which risked overwriting the
critical data from Stewart’s last dives, which was stored in the controllers’
electronic memory; and

(h) washed Stewart’s breathing gas – critical evidence of HORIZON’s potential

negligence – through Rob Stewart’s now open rebreather and into the water.

See REVO’s Third-Party Compl. at ¶ 39.

After Rob Stewart’s body was recovered from the water and onto the M/V Pisces, ROB

BLESER informed the Monroe County Sheriff that the HORIZON team would turn over Rob

Stewart’s body and equipment to the U.S. Coast Guard “after they do some forensics.” Id. at ¶

40.

11
 Upon information, after Rob Stewart’s body and equipment were recovered to the

surface, but before they were turned over to the Coast Guard, KELL LEVENDORF downloaded

the data stored on the rebreather’s electronic controllers via a Bluetooth connection to a laptop.

Id. at ¶ 41. One of the data files, depicting the information obtained from one of Stewart’s final

dives on January 31, 2017, may have been deleted before the body and equipment were turned

over to the Coast Guard. Id. at ¶ 42. In addition, nearly all the gasses provided by HORIZON to

Stewart were drained from the tanks affixed to Stewart’s body by the time the body, rebreather

and scuba equipment were turned over to the Coast Guard. Id. at ¶ 43.

Significantly, when Rob Stewart’s body, rebreather and scuba equipment were turned

over to the Coast Guard, the hose connecting Stewart’s BCD to his scuba tank was disconnected.

Id. at ¶ 44. This is important because, if Stewart failed to connect the inflator hose to his BCD

(something that should have been checked before the dive by HORIZON, Stewart and

SHARWATER PRODUCTIONS), Stewart would not have been able to maintain his buoyancy

on the surface after the dive. Id. However, KNAPP has since testified under oath that the hose

connecting Stewart’s BCD to his scuba tank appeared to be connected when he observed it

underwater. Id. at ¶ 45. It is not clear whether KNAPP is mistaken or if he even saw the BCD

hose underwater. It is clear, however, that REVO is materially prejudiced by the loss,

destruction or alteration of such critical evidence, and its defense of Plaintiff’s claims has been

severely hampered. Id.

HORIZON and its employees and attorney violated several laws during their search for

and recovery of Rob Stewart, including F.S. § 633.122 (2016) (impersonating a volunteer

firefighter); F.S. § 633.408 (2013) (requirements for firefighter and volunteer firefighter training

and certification); F.S. § 406.12 (2016) (duty to report a dead body; prohibited acts); F.S. §

12
777.04(3) (2016) (conspiracy); F.S. § 843.08 (2016) (false personation); F.S. § 837.05 (2016)

(false reports to law enforcement); 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (tampering with a witness, victim, or an

informant); 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements of material fact); and 18 U.S.C. § 1505

(obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies and committees). Id. at ¶ 46. Each of

these laws created a legal duty on HORIZON, its employees, agents and attorney, to refrain from

tampering with Rob Stewart’s body and scuba equipment, and to preserve evidence. Id.

Critically, HORIZON and its employees and attorney had a legal duty to refrain from

touching, removing, or disturbing a body, clothing, or any article upon or near the body, without

an order from the office of the Medical Examiner of Monroe County, Florida, which they never

sought and did not have. See F.S. § 406.12. When Dr. Beaver learned about the unauthorized

and illegal recovery of Rob Stewart’s body after the fact, allegedly under the auspices of the

KLVFD, he wrote to KLVFD Chief Bock to inform him that he was never contacted, and no

approval was requested or given to the HORIZON team. REVO’s Third-Party Compl. at ¶ 48.

Furthermore, Dr. Beaver advised Chief Bock that the HORIZON team’s conduct was a flagrant

violation of F.S. § 406.01, a complete disregard for the sole authority of the Medical Examiner to

recover human remains, and an obstruction of the Medical Examiner’s investigation into Rob

Stewart’s death. Id.

REVO asserts that CRAIG JENNNI, KELL LEVENDORF, DAN DAWSON, JEFFREY

KNAPP, BROCK CAHILL and ROB BLESER intentionally spoiled, altered and/or destroyed

critical evidence by, among other things:

(a) failing to document and/or preserve the body of Rob Stewart and his scuba diving
equipment as found, precluding REVO and others from accurately assessing the
configuration of such equipment prior to its disturbance by the recovery team;

(b) releasing the gasses in Rob Stewart’s bailout tanks and rebreather subsequent to
the body location, precluding REVO and others from accessing and evaluating the
gas mixture in said tanks;
13
 (c) altering the body and scuba diving equipment of Rob Stewart such that they were
not in the same condition after their recovery as they were upon their discovery;

(d) failing to immediately report the discovery of Rob Stewart’s body to the Monroe
County, Florida Medical Examiner, as required by Florida law; and

(e) failing to seek authorization to move, examine, touch or recover Rob Stewart’s
body from the Monroe County, Florida Medical Examiner, as required by Florida
law.

Id. at ¶ 50. REVO further asserts that, as a direct and proximate result of the spoliation of this

critical and highly relevant evidence necessary for REVO to defend against PLAINTIFF’s claims

by JENNNI, LEVENDORF, DAWSON, KNAPP, CAHILL, BLESER and SHARKWATER

PRODUCTIONS, despite them knowing that they had a legal duty under Florida and federal law

to preserve this evidence, REVO is materially prejudiced by the destruction of such critical

evidence and it has suffered damages.

I. ARGUMENT

A
. Standard of Review

“Whether a complaint is sufficient to state a cause of action is an issue of law.” W.R.

Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Construction, Inc., 728 So. 2d 297, 300 (Fla. 4th DCA

1999). “To state a cause of action, a complaint must allege sufficient ultimate facts to show that

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. at 300 (quoting Perry v. Cosgrove, 464 So. 2d 664, 665 (Fla.

2d DCA 1985)); Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(b) (requiring “a short and plain statement of the ultimate

facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”). While “courts must liberally construe, and

accept as true, factual allegations in a complaint and reasonably deductible inferences

therefrom,” they “need not accept … conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions, or mere

legal conclusions made by a party.” Id. (citing Response Oncology, Inc. v. Metrahealth Ins. Co.,

978 F. Supp. 1052, 1058 (S.D. Fla. 1997). Thus, the question for this court to decide is whether,

14
assuming the well-pleaded factual allegations in the Third-Party Complaint are true, REVO

would be entitled to the relief requested.

B
. The Court Should Deny the Third-Party Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss

Third-Party Defendants DAN DAWSON, KELL LEVENDORF, ROB BLESER and

CRAIG JENNI have moved to dismiss REVO’s Third-Party Complaint against them pursuant to

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(b)(6). They each claim that REVO’s claims against them

must be dismissed because they had no legal duty to preserve evidence. In essence, the Third-

Party Defendants argue that, although various crimes are committed when someone misleads

state and federal authorities by impersonating a firefighter and disturbing a dead body and its

surroundings, there is no civil duty imposed upon a person who commits such crimes and

permanently destroys evidence important to determining how the victim died. The Third-Party

Defendants’ arguments are completely without merit. Moreover, the Third-Party Defendants are

asking the Court to set a precedent that would violate all of the public policy reasons for making

it a crime to destroy evidence and interfere with the authorities’ investigation of a victim’s death.

1. The Third-Party Defendants had a Duty to Preserve Evidence

DAWSON, LEVENDORF, BLESER and JENNI argue that REVO’s third-party

spoliation claims should be dismissed because they were under no duty to preserve evidence.

See DAWSON Mtn. to Dismiss REVO’s Third-Party Compl. at ¶¶ 13-19; BLESSER Mtn. to

Dismiss REVO’s Third-Party Compl. at ¶¶ 7-14; JENNI Mtn. to Dismiss REVO’s Third-Party

Compl. at 3-4. However, Third-Party Defendants ignore the fact that, when they voluntarily

undertook their action(s) to search for and recover the body of Robert Stewart, they had and/or

assumed a duty to refrain from tampering with Rob Stewart’s body and scuba equipment, and to

preserve evidence. All four men had told the authorities they were acting under the auspices of

15
the Key Largo Volunteer Fire Department, which was not true. See REVO’s Third-Party Compl.

at ¶¶ 28-35. All four men held themselves out to be professional accident investigators or

emergency service personnel. Id. at ¶¶ 15-27. They were not innocent bystanders or Good

Samaritans who came to the aid of Rob Stewart while he was drowning; they were interested

parties who undertook an effort for their own benefit, three days after the emergency had passed.

Id. at ¶¶ 30-32. Critically, the Third-Party Defendants’ duty specifically included refraining

from touching, removing, or disturbing a body, clothing, or any article upon or near the body,

without an order from the office of the Medical Examiner of Monroe County, Florida, which

they never sought and did not have. Id. See also F.S. § 406.12.

The Florida Supreme Court has recognized the existence of a tort cause of action for

negligent failure to preserve evidence for civil litigation. Bondu v. Gurvich, 473 So.2d 1307,

1313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 484 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1986). In Bondu, the Court held that a

wife, whose husband died during surgery, was entitled to bring an action for negligent failure to

preserve evidence against a hospital and its physicians where the hospital misplaced records

which were indispensable to the plaintiff's medical malpractice action. Id. The Fourth District,

in St. Mary’s Hosp. v. Brinson, 685 So. 2d 33, 35 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996), expressly

recognized a cause of action for the spoliation of evidence and adopted the Third District’s

characterization of this tort’s necessary elements in Continental Ins. Co. v. Herman, 576 So. 2d

313, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 598 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1991). The elements for a

spoliation claim are as follows:

(1) existence of a potential civil action, (2) a legal or contractual duty to preserve
evidence which is relevant to the potential civil action, (3) destruction of that
evidence, (4) significant impairment in the ability to prove the lawsuit, (5) a
causal relationship between the evidence destruction and the ability to prove the
lawsuit, and (6) damages.

16
Herman, 576 So. 2d at 315. Such claims are justified on the grounds that “a prospective civil

action . . . is a valuable ‘probable expectancy’ that the court must protect from interference.”

Brinson, 685 So. 2d at 35.

The Third District in DeLong v. A-Top Air Conditioning Co. reiterated the principle that

the party’s intent was not critical for spoliation of evidence, as it expressly observed that the

plaintiff had “inadvertently lost or misplaced” the critical evidence. 710 So. 2d 706, 707 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1998); see also Torres v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 762 So. 2d 1014, 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA

2000).

a. The Third-Party Defendants had Statutory and Administrative

Duties to Preserve Evidence

A statutory tort cause of action consists of four elements: (1) a duty, (2) a breach of the

duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages. See, e.g., Luckie v. McCall Mfg. Co., 153 So. 2d 311, 314

(Fla. 1st DCA 1963); Fla. Ry. Co. v. Dorsey, 52 So. 963, 966 (Fla. 1910). The threshold question

in determining the existence of a statutorily created duty to retain evidence is whether such a

duty arises only where the statute in question creates a private cause of action for its breach.

The guidelines for determining whether a statute gives rise to a private cause of action

are found in Murthy v. N. Sinha Corp., 644 So. 2d 983, 985-86 (Fla. 1994). Whether a statutory

cause of action should be judicially implied is a question of legislative intent. Id. The primary

guide to the analysis of whether the legislature intended to impose civil liability is, as in all cases

of statutory construction, the “actual language used in the statute.” Borden v. East-European Ins.

Co., 921 So. 2d 587, 595 (Fla. 2006). In determining the meaning of the language used, we look

not only to the words themselves but also to “the context in which the language lies.” Miele v.

Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 656 So. 2d 470, 472 (Fla. 1995). “[L]egislative intent, as used in

Murthy and its progeny, is a ‘shorthand reference to the ordinary tools for discerning statutory

17
meaning: text, context, and purpose.’” Horowitz v. Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltd. P’ship, 959 So.

2d 176, 182 (Fla. 2007) (citing Plantation Gen. Hosp. Ltd. P’ship v. Horowitz, 895 So. 2d 484,

486 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)).

Statutory and administrative duties for spoliation claims were thoroughly discussed in

Robert D. Peltz, The Necessity of Redefining Spoliation of Evidence Remedies in Florida, 29 Fla.

St. U. L. Rev. 1289 (2002):

From a logical standpoint, the critical issue in the spoliation analysis should
therefore not focus on whether the statute creates a private cause of action but
whether it creates a duty to preserve evidence. In fact, where the statutory
violation gives rise to a specific cause of action, arguably no additional remedy is
necessary. Reference to statutes to determine the existence or scope of a duty,
even where the statute’s violation does not give rise to private causes of action, is
typical in many other analogous contexts in the law.

For example, violations of traffic regulations generally constitute evidence of

negligence in the operation of motor vehicles. [See FLA. STD. JURY INSTR.
(CIV) 4.11.] Likewise, violations of administrative rules often are found to
constitute evidence of negligence in products liability cases. [See, e.g., Grove
Fresh Distribs., Inc. v. Flavor Fresh Foods, Inc., 720 F. Supp 714 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
(involving FDA regulations); Keil v. Eli Lilly & Co., 490 F. Supp. 479 (E.D.
Mich. 1980).] Similarly, violation of a bar rule will be considered evidence of
legal malpractice in a civil action, [Pressley v. Farley, 579 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1991)] even though the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar expressly provide
that such a violation will not give rise to a civil cause of action. [PREAMBLE, R.
REGULATING FLA. BAR.] For such statutes or administrative regulations to
give rise to a duty in the spoliation context, however, they must expressly require
the preservation of the evidence in question. As pointed out in the previous
discussion of Brinson, [685 So. 2d at 35] neither the federal [21 U.S.C. § 360i(b)
(2000)] nor state statutes [FLA. STAT. § 395.0197 (2001)] relied upon by the
plaintiff created any express duty upon the hospital to save the purportedly
defective anesthesia equipment. At most, these statutes merely required the
hospital to report the incident in question to the appropriate authorities. Even in
the less demanding context of considering nonbinding statutes as evidence of
negligence, the statutory provisions must at least be relevant and directly
applicable to the conduct in question.

Id. at 1323 (emphasis supplied).

18
 The applicable standards governing public safety diving and the recovery of bodies

underwater, which BLESER supposedly works under and JENNI and DAWSON supposedly

teach to others, require that the site of a body found underwater be secured and investigated as a

crime scene. REVO’s Third-Party Compl. at ¶ 38 (citing NFPA 1006 18.2.5 and NFPA 1670

18.4.8(15)). See also Exs. A and B. Here, as alleged in REVO’s Third-Party Complaint, the

Third-Party Defendants violated these professional standards and several state and federal laws

in their search for, and recovery of, Rob Stewart including: F.S. § 633.122 (impersonating a

volunteer firefighter); F.S. § 633.408 (requirements for firefighter and volunteer firefighter

training and certification); F.S. § 406.12 (duty to report a dead body; prohibited acts); F.S. §

777.04(3) (conspiracy); F.S. § 843.08 (false personation); F.S. § 837.05 (false reports to law

enforcement); 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant); 18

U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements of material fact); and 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (obstruction of

proceedings before departments, agencies and committees). REVO’s Third-Party Compl. at ¶¶

46-47. Each of these laws created a legal duty on HORIZON, its employees, agents and

attorney, to truthfully reveal who they were and what they were doing, to refrain from tampering

with Rob Stewart’s body and scuba equipment, and to preserve evidence.

In United States v. Ignasiak, 667 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2012), the Eleventh Circuit

described the statutory duties of medical examiners in Florida:

Under Florida law, the Medical Examiners Commission was created and exists
within the Department of Law Enforcement. Fla. Stat. § 406.02. Further, the
Medical Examiners [] The medical examiner for each district “shall determine the
cause of death” in a variety of circumstances and “shall, for that purpose, make or
have performed such examinations, investigations, and autopsies as he or she
shall deem necessary or as shall be requested by the state attorney.” Fla. Stat. §
406.11(1). Further, any person who becomes aware of a person dying under
circumstances described in section § 406.11 has a duty to report the death to the
medical examiner. Id. at § 406.12. Failure to do so is a first-degree
misdemeanor. Id.

19
 “Upon receipt of such notification . . . the district medical examiner . . . shall
examine or otherwise take charge of the dead body and shall notify the
appropriate law enforcement agency.” Fla. Stat. § 406.13. Then, after the cause
of death is determined, the medical examiner is required to “report or make
available to the state attorney, in writing, her . . . determination as to the cause of
death.” Id. The medical examiner may retain “[a]ny evidence or specimen
coming into the possession of said medical examiner in connection with any
investigation or autopsy,” or deliver it to law enforcement. Id. Likewise, law
enforcement has a duty to make “[a]ny evidence material to the . . . cause of
death” in the possession of law enforcement available to the medical examiner.
Fla. Stat. at § 406.14.

Ignasiak, 667 F.3d at 1231-32.

Section 406.12 of the Florida Statutes states:

Duty to report; prohibited acts.

It is the duty of any person in the district where a death occurs, including all
municipalities and unincorporated and federal areas, who becomes aware of the
death of any person occurring under the circumstances described in s. 406.11 to
report such death and circumstances forthwith to the district medical examiner.
Any person who knowingly fails or refuses to report such death and
circumstances, who refuses to make available prior medical or other information
pertinent to the death investigation, or who, without an order from the office of
the district medical examiner, willfully touches, removes, or disturbs the body,
clothing, or any article upon or near the body, with the intent to alter the evidence
or circumstances surrounding the death, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the
first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Id.

The plain language of this statute creates a legal duty not to touch, remove or disturb a

body without written permission from the Medical Examiner, which the Third-Party Defendants

expressly did not have. The legislative purpose of F.S. § 406.12, Fla. Stat., and the

accompanying statutes, is to ensure the district Medical Examiner can examine the evidence and

circumstances surrounding a death free from unauthorized interference to make an accurate

determination as to cause of death. See Murthy, 644 So. 2d at 985-86. It stands to reason that a

20
party injured by the unlawful touching, removal or disturbance of a body could maintain a cause

of action for any and all harm proximately caused by such disturbance.

Moreover, F.S. § 406.12 is contained within Title XXIX - Public Health, the Medical

Examiners Act, §§ 406.01-406.17. It is not part of the Florida criminal code, Title XLVI, §§

775-896. Simply because F.S. § 406.12 provides a criminal penalty does not remove any of the

Third-Party Defendants’ duty to refrain from disturbing Rob Stewart’s “body, clothing, or any

article upon or near the body” and other evidence surrounding his death, as prohibited by F.S. §

406.12.

Similarly, F.S. § 633.122 (2016) (impersonating a volunteer firefighter), F.S. § 837.05

(2016) (false reports to law enforcement), 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) (tampering with a witness, victim,

or an informant), 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements of material fact), and 18 U.S.C. § 1505

(obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies and committees), create legal duties

with the purpose of ensuring law enforcement investigations are not interfered with. Each of

these statutes is designed to maintain the integrity of official government investigations, and to

ensure that citizens deal honestly with investigative authorities and do not interfere with official

investigations.

In this wrongful death action, determining exactly what caused Rob Stewart’s death, and

maintaining the integrity of the evidence surrounding his death, is critically important. In other

words, the facts in this case are one of the most serious circumstances in which a statutory duty

to preserve evidence could arise. PLAINTIFF and her family deserve to know exactly how Rob

Stewart died, and REVO deserves to know exactly how Rob Stewart died. The Third-Party

Defendants’ unauthorized disturbance of Rob Stewart’s body and dive equipment was a breach

21
of trust, in addition to a legal duty to preserve evidence and truthfully communicate with the

authorities.

As alleged in REVO’s Third-Party Complaint, JENNI, DAWSON, BLESER and

LEVENDORF breached these legal duties, which they absolutely knew or should have known

about, by failing to follow or employ any legitimately recognized standards for the preservation

of evidence, documenting the scene of an accident, or conducting an underwater crime scene

investigation. Among other things, they:

(a) failed to photographically document the scene, Rob Stewart’s body or scuba
equipment. Indeed, none of the members of the dive team carried or sought to use
an underwater camera during their recovery dive, despite having at least three
days to acquire the proper equipment, the presence of CAHILL (an underwater
cameraman) and having access to the SHARWATER PRODUCTIONS’ cameras
and equipment.

(b) failed to document the status of Rob Stewart’s body or scuba equipment through
the use of underwater writing utensils, drawings or graphs;

(c) moved Stewart’s body and altered the configuration of his diving equipment;

(d) tampered with evidence by using Rob Stewart’s breathing gas (provided by
HORIZON) in an attempt to inflate his scuba gear and the lift bags used to float
the body to the surface; and

(e) failed to ensure that all of the members of the dive team were properly certified
and prepared to engage in an underwater crime scene investigation at 220 fsw;

(f) hit Rob Stewart’s body with the ROV, and then later struck the ROV with
Stewart’s body;

(g) reactivated the rEVO III’s electronic controllers, which risked overwriting the
critical data from Stewart’s last dives, which was stored in the controllers’
electronic memory; and

(h) washed Stewart’s breathing gas – critical evidence of HORIZON’s potential

negligence – through Rob Stewart’s now open rebreather and into the water.

See REVO’s Third-Party Compl. at ¶ 39.

After Rob Stewart’s body was recovered from the water and onto the M/V Pisces, ROB

BLESER informed the Monroe County Sheriff that the HORIZON team would turn over Rob

22
Stewart’s body and equipment to the U.S. Coast Guard “after they do some forensics.” Id. at ¶

40. Upon information, after Rob Stewart’s body and equipment were recovered to the surface,

but before they were turned over to the Coast Guard, KELL LEVENDORF downloaded the data

stored on the rebreather’s electronic controllers via a Bluetooth connection to a laptop. Id. at ¶

41. One of the data files, depicting the information obtained from one of Stewart’s final dives on

January 31, 2017, may have been deleted before the body and equipment were turned over to the

Coast Guard. Id. at ¶ 42. In addition, nearly all the gasses provided by HORIZON to Stewart

were drained from the tanks affixed to Stewart’s body by the time the body, rebreather and scuba

equipment were turned over to the Coast Guard. Id. at ¶ 43.

Significantly, when Rob Stewart’s body, rebreather and scuba equipment were turned

over to the Coast Guard, the hose connecting Stewart’s BCD to his scuba tank was disconnected.

Id. at ¶ 44. This is important because, if Stewart failed to connect the inflator hose to his BCD

(something that should have been checked before the dive by HORIZON, Stewart and

SHARWATER PRODUCTIONS), Stewart would not have been able to maintain his buoyancy

on the surface after the dive. Id. However, KNAPP has since testified under oath that the hose

connecting Stewart’s BCD to his scuba tank appeared to be connected when he observed it

underwater. Id. at ¶ 45. It is not clear whether KNAPP is mistaken or if he even saw the BCD

hose underwater. It is clear, however, that REVO is materially prejudiced by the loss,

destruction or alteration of such critical evidence, and its defense of Plaintiff’s claims has been

severely hampered. Id.

When Thomas Beaver, M.D., the Monroe County, Florida Medical Examiner learned

about the unauthorized and illegal recovery of Rob Stewart’s body after the fact, allegedly under

the auspices of the KLVFD, he wrote to KLVFD Chief Bock to inform him that he was never

23
contacted, and no approval was requested or given to the HORIZON team. See REVO’s Third-

Party Compl. at ¶ 48. Furthermore, Dr. Beaver advised Chief Bock that the HORIZON team’s

conduct was a flagrant violation of F.S. § 406.01, a complete disregard for the sole authority of

the Medical Examiner to recover human remains, and an obstruction of the Medical Examiner’s

investigation into Rob Stewart’s death. Id.

The Third-Party Defendants’ tortious acts were not inadvertent or made in the heat of the

moment while they were rescuing a diver in distress. They occurred over three days, during

which time the Third-Party Defendants had every opportunity to contemplate their actions,

conduct themselves honestly and professionally, equip themselves properly, and to the job they

voluntarily set out to do correctly. The fact that they failed to do any of these things, when they

knew exactly how to do all of them correctly, leads to the inescapable conclusion that they

intentionally set out to destroy and obscure the evidence from which the authorities and future

parties to this imminently foreseeable litigation could accurately determine how Rob Stewart

died, without conjecture or unfounded allegations. As set forth herein and detailed in REVO’s

Third-Party Complaint, JENNNI, LEVENDORF, DAWSON and BLESER knew they had a

legal duty under Florida and federal law to preserve this critical evidence and breached that duty

by spoiling such evidence and materially prejudicing REVO’s defense to PLAINTIFF’s claims.

Accordingly, the Court should deny the Third-Party Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss REVO’s

Third-Party Complaint.

b. The Third-Party Defendants Assumed the Duty to Act with

Reasonable Care

Further, even absent a statutory duty to preserve evidence, when the Third-Party

Defendants engaged in the unauthorized recovery of Mr. Stewart’s body, they assumed the

obligation to act with reasonable care. Under Florida law, it is clearly established that one who

24
undertakes to act, even when under no obligation to do so, thereby becomes obligated to act with

reasonable care. See Banfield v. Addington, 140 So. 893, 896 (Fla. 1932) (holding that one who

undertakes to act is under an implied legal duty to act with reasonable care to ensure that the

person or property of others will not be injured as a result of the undertaking); Slemp v. City of

North Miami, 545 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1989) (holding that even if city had no general duty to protect

property owners from flooding due to natural causes, once city has undertaken to provide such

protection, it assumes the responsibility to do so with reasonable care); see also Fidelity & Cas.

Co. of N.Y. v. L. F. E. Corp., 382 So. 2d 363, 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (reversing dismissal of

third-party complaint for negligence where consulting engineer voluntarily undertook to design

lightening protection for revenue control system but did so negligently); Garrison Ret. Home

Corp. v. Hancock, 484 So. 2d 1257, 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (retirement home voluntarily

supervised resident’s activities but did so negligently). As discussed in the concurring opinion

Royal & Sunalliance v. Lauderdale Marine Ctr., 877 So. 2d 843, 847 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004):

A duty could also have arisen in Hagopian [v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 788 So.
2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)] under the principle that one who has no duty in the
first place, but voluntarily undertakes a duty, can be liable for negligence.
Banfield v. Addington, 104 Fla. 661, 140 So. 893 (Fla. 1932); Fidelity & Cas. Co.
of N.Y. v. L. F. E. Corp., 382 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Assuming Publix
had no duty in Hagopian to preserve the evidence at the time of the accident, and
I agree it did not, it did preserve it. Having done so, it could be held liable for
negligently discarding it.

Id. (Klien, J., concurring) at 847.

Accordingly, even if the Third-Party Defendants were not under a statutory duty to

preserve evidence or to refrain from disturbing Rob Stewart’s body without the express

permission of the medical examiner, as soon as they engaged in the recovery of Rob Stewart’s

body, they assumed the duty to act with reasonable care which would include preserving critical

25
evidence related to Rob Stewart’s cause of death and may be held liable for spoiling such

evidence. Banfield, 140 S. at 896; Hancock, 484 So. 2d at 1261.

2. REVO’s Third-Party Spoliation Claims are Not Premature

The Third-Party Defendants argue that REVO’s spoliation clams are premature and

should be dismissed or alternatively stayed. See DAWSON Mtn. to Dismiss REVO’s Third-

Party Compl., at ¶¶ 9-12; BLESER Mtn. to Dismiss REVO’s Third-Party Compl., at ¶¶ 17-19;

JENNI Mtn. to Dismiss REVO’s Third-Party Compl., at 3. However, the Fourth District in

Brinson held, “There is little reason to wait for final judgment in the underlying lawsuit before

bringing an action for the spoliation of evidence.” Brinson, 685 So. 2d at 35 (holding that the

trial court’s consolidation of spoliation and negligence actions was not an abuse of discretion).

“[W]here a viable means exists to pursue the underlying products liability claim, that cause of

action must be pursued prior to, or together with, the spoliation of evidence claim.” Miller v.

Allstate Ins. Co., 573 So. 2d 24, 28 n.7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So. 2d 1307 (Fla.

1991); Yoder v. Kuvin, 785 So. 2d 679, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (products liability claims and

third-party spoliation claims concerning the allegedly defective product could be consolidated

and tried together which “serves to preserve judicial economy and to prevent piecemeal

litigation”). The Third District in Miller held:

Bondu suggest that the plaintiff must first initiate the underlying lawsuit, and
receive an adverse final judgment due to the inability to prove the case, before
filing an action for spoliation of evidence. For reasons of judicial economy, and
to prevent piecemeal litigation, we see no reason to wait for a final judgment in
the underlying lawsuit before bringing an action for the destruction claim. We
agree with the reasoning in Smith v. Superior Court, [151 Cal.App.3d 491, 498,
198 Cal.Rptr. 829, 834 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)], that a jury trying the concurrent
claims in a single proceeding may be in the best position to determine issues of
causation and damages. See J. Gorelich, S. Marzen, L. Solum, § 4.20, at 163.

Miller, 573 So. 2d at 28 n.7.

26
 As argued by the Third-Party Defendants, Fourth DCA cases after Brinson have taken a

different direction, finding that a third-party cause of action for spoliation of evidence “does not

arise until the underlying action is completed.” See Shaw v. Cambridge Integrated Servs. Grp.,

Inc., 888 So. 2d 58, 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citing Townsend v. Conshor, Inc., 832 So. 2d 166,

167-68 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Jimenez v. Cmty. Asphalt Corp., 968 So.2nd 668, 672 (Fla. 4th DCA

2007) (“Until the underlying claim is decided, the appellants will be unable to show how they

were damaged by the alleged lost evidence. Thus, the spoliation claims … are premature

because the last element, damages, inter alia, cannot be shown until the underlying claim is

complete.”). However, both Shaw and Jimenez involved an employer’s statutory duty to

cooperate with an employee to bring claims against third-parties in Worker’s Compensation

cases, not the facts alleged here, where the third-parties intentionally acted to deceive the

authorities and assist a defendant in destroying evidence that the plaintiff and another defendant

needed to prove their claims and defenses. The facts in this case are closer to Miller and Yoder,

which the Third DCA has not overruled. Accordingly, this Court should adopt the reasoning in

Miller and Yoder and deny the Third-Party Defendants’ motions to dismiss. In the interest of

judicial economy and to prevent piecemeal litigation, REVO’s spoliation claims should be

litigated in this matter as concurrent claims because this court is in the best position to determine

the issues of causation and damages. Id. Further, it is more efficient to try the spoliation and

product liability claims together because the jury will only proceed to the spoliation claims if

REVO’s defenses to PLAINTIFF’s claims are significantly impaired. Yoder, 785 So. 2d at 681.

Finally, the Third-Party Defendants ignore the holding in Jimenez that the proper remedy

for dealing with premature spoliation claims is not dismissal, but rather the entry of an order of

abatement:

27
 The question is whether dismissal of the claims is the proper remedy. Two courts
have held that the proper remedy for bringing claims prematurely is abatement
rather than dismissal. Shuck v. Bank of America, N.A., 862 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2003) (holding that the proper remedy for bringing an action prematurely is
not dismissal with prejudice, but abatement or stay of the claim); see
also Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins., 790 So. 2d 1061 (Fla.2001). Consequently, we
reverse the dismissal with prejudice of the affected counts and remand to the trial
court to issue an order of abatement of those counts. At such time as these claims
have properly matured, all other related issues concerning the essential elements
of claims and timeliness can be addressed.

Jimenez, 968 So.2nd at 672-73.

Therefore, if this Court accepts the Third-Party Defendants’ arguments that REVO’s

spoliation claims against them are premature, the Court should enter an Order denying Third-

Party Defendants’ motions to dismiss REVO’s claims against them and, instead, staying REVO’s

claims against the Third-Party Defendants until the conclusion of the PLAINTIFF’s underlying

action.

3. REVO’s Claims for Conspiracy to Spoil Evidence are Supported by

Actionable Third-Party Spoliation Claims

The Third-Party Defendants argue that REVO’s conspiracy claims brought against them

should be dismissed because the underlying third-party spoliation claims against them should be

dismissed. See, e.g. DAWSON Mtn. to Dismiss REVO’s Third-Party Compl. at ¶¶ 20-22. “[A]n

actionable conspiracy requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong.” Weisman v. Southern

Wine & Spirits of Am. Inc., 297 So 3d. 646, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) quoting Walters v.

Blankenship, 931 So. 2d 137, 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

For the reasons set forth above, REVO’s underlying spoliation claims are valid and,

therefore, REVO’s conspiracy claims are valid. Accordingly, the Third-Party Defendants’

Motions to Dismiss REVO’s claims for Conspiracy to Spoil Evidence should be denied. If,

however, the Court determines that the underlying spoliation claims are premature, then the

28
proper remedy is to enter an order of abatement and stay both the spoliation claims and the

conspiracy to commit spoliation claims. See Jimenez, 968 So.2nd at 672-73.

C
. TThe Court Should Grant REVO’s Motion to Dismiss PLAINTIFF’s Third
AAmended Complaint for Failure to Join Indispensable Parties

As the Court is aware, PLAINTIFF has failed to join two indispensable parties, CAHILL

and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS as defendants, and to allege any facts concerning their

role in this tragedy. The Court has deferred ruling on REVO’s motions to dismiss PLAINTIFF’s

Second and Third Amended Complaints because the Court’s consideration of the role played by

these two indispensable parties was handicapped by PLAINTIFF’s artful drafting of her

pleadings to avoid any mention of CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS. Now,

however, new facts have been pled concerning Rob Stewart’s scuba diving experience and lack

of medical fitness for diving – facts that should have been known to CAHILL and

SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS and incorporated into the safety planning and operation of

the HORIZON charter – and HORIZON has admitted the role played by CAHILL and

SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS in setting up and operating the commercial filming charter

that cost Rob Stewart his life. REVO brings these new facts to the Court’s attention so it may

consider them in support of REVO’s motion to dismiss PLAINTIFF’s Third Amended

Complaint for failure to join indispensable parties.

1. Facts Already Pled

The Court is already aware of several facts that require the inclusion of CAHILL and

SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS for a complete determination of the PLAINTIFF’s claims

and REVO’s defenses, including:

(a) CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS purchased two REVO closed

circuit rebreathers from REVO in Belgium seven months prior to the January
2017 charter.

29
 (b) CAHILL, on behalf of SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS, solicited REVO for
sponsorship to reduce the production expenses for Sharkwater:Extinction.

(c) Stewart signed an acknowledgement when he registered his rebreather with

REVO in September 2016 confirming he had received proper and thorough
training in the safe use of the rebreather.

(d) REVO had no involvement in planning the January 2017 charter or any other
aspect of the plans for filming Sharkwater: Extinction.

(e) The product registration Stewart submitted to REVO was the only communication
REVO ever had with Stewart, and the communications between REVO and
CAHILL dropped off around September 2016.

(f) Whatever representations Stewart relied upon beyond REVO’s urging to get
proper training were provided by CAHILL and SHARKWATER
PRODUCTIONS.

(g) Defendants PETER SOTIS and CLAUDIA SOTIS were added to the HORIZON
charter two days before it began by CAHILL and SHARKWATER
PRODUCTIONS, not REVO.

2. New Facts Recently Pled

At the time of his death on January 31, 2017, Stewart was engaged in filming

Sharkwater: Extinction, the follow up to his award-winning 2007 film, Sharkwater, on a

commercial charter arranged by his production company, SHARWATER PRODUCTIONS, and

BROCK CAHILL, with HORIZON. See HORIZON Answer at ¶ 32(f) (“Defendant Horizon

admits that the charter of the M/V Pisces to the Queen of Nassau wreck site was arranged by

Brock Cahill and Karen Shaw [of SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS] in December 2016.”).

Since the time this case was filed almost four years ago, in press conferences, pleadings

and even in the film Sharkwater: Extinction, PLAINTIFF SANDRA STEWART and her

attorneys have always promoted the narrative that Rob Stewart was a neophyte diver led to his

death by a Svengali-like scuba instructor, Defendant PETER SOTIS; and, more recently, that

REVO is vicariously liable for the conduct of SOTIS through an extremely tenuous failure to

30
warn theory. Now, since the last hearing before this Court in August 2020, two significant facts

have been revealed that further call into question the validity of PLAINTIFF’s claims.

First, contrary to PLAINTIFF’s assertion that Rob Stewart was a neophyte diver, Stewart

held at least eleven instructor-level technical scuba diving certifications, including Rebreather

Instructor, Trimix Instructor, Advanced Trimix Instructor, Advanced Wreck Instructor and

Decompression Procedures Instructor, for at least 17 years before he died. See REVO’s Third-

Party Complaint against BROCK CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS, at ¶¶ 5-8. In

other words, Rob Stewart was at least as qualified as SOTIS for the type of diving they were

doing, and he was certified to teach less-experienced divers the very same concepts PLAINTIFF

alleges SOTIS, and by extension REVO, failed to warn Stewart about.

Second, despite his extensive recreational and technical diving experience, Stewart’s

medical suitability for scuba diving, particularly deep technical diving on a commercial film

shoot, was highly suspect. In his 2012 book Save the Humans, Stewart admitted: “I have a lot of

experience fainting. I have low blood pressure and often ride the line between being here, and

fainting.” See Rob Stewart, Save the Humans, Random House of Canada (2012) at 183.

A history of fainting, or episodic loss of consciousness, is a potential disqualifier of a

candidate for even simple recreational scuba diving. See Bove, A.A., ed. 1998, Medical

Examination of Sport Scuba Divers, San Antonio, TX: Medical Seminars, Inc., at 1, 26, 27.

More importantly, episodic loss of consciousness and circulatory issues could be absolute

disqualifiers for commercial diving under the applicable OSHA Regulations for Commercial

Diving, the Canadian Occupational Safety Code for Diving Operations (which specifically cover

filmmaking), and industry standards, including 29 CFR Part 1910, Subpart T, CSA Z275.4-12

and CSA Z275.2:20.4 Indeed, under the Canadian regulations, the Toronto-based Stewart would

31
not be considered medically fit to dive unless and until he received a medical certification from a

Canadian physician trained in hyperbaric medicine. See CSA Z275.2:20, Sec. 4.1.1.1 (“A diver

shall not be permitted to dive unless a signed statement issued by a Level 1 physician is

presented, stating that the diver has received a comprehensive examination once every 2 years up

to age 39 and annually thereafter, or more frequently as determined by the examining

physician.”). Currently, there is no evidence that Stewart sought or received such a certification.

Stewart did not disclose his history of fainting and low blood pressure on the Medical

Questionnaire he filled out, signed and submitted to Defendants SOTIS and ADD HELIUM on

July 30, 2016, prior to taking the REVO user certification course. See REVO’s Third-Party

Complaint against BROCK CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS, at ¶ 23. Instead,

Stewart answered “No” to questions about whether he had ever experienced black outs or

circulatory issues. Id. Stewart’s Medical Questionnaire was witnessed by his co-producer and

close friend of at least 10 years, BROCK CAHILL. Id. According to SOTIS, neither he nor

Defendant CLAUDIA SOTIS (a medical doctor) were informed of Stewart’s pre-existing

medical conditions and, if they had been disclosed, these conditions would have precluded

Stewart from obtaining training and/or certification on rebreather equipment from SOTIS and/or

ADD HELIUM. See SOTIS Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Crossclaim and Third-Party

Complaint in response to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, at 12th, 36th and 38th through 42nd

Affirmative Defenses; SOTIS Third-Party Complaint against BROCK CAHILL and

SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS, INC., at ¶¶ 1-42.

In addition, neither CAHILL nor SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS exercised

reasonable care for Rob Stewart, nor followed any of the legal requirements mandated by OSHA

Regulations for Commercial Diving or the Canadian Occupational Safety Code for Diving
4
CSA Z275.4-12 and CSA Z275.2:20 are attached hereto as Exhibits C and D, respectively.

32
Operations, when they organized the filmmaking charter with HORIZON. Id.; see also

HORIZON Answer at ¶ 32(f). Among other things, the film’s producer never advised

HORIZON or the two safety divers, PETER SOTIS and CLAUDIA SOTIS, that Stewart was

prone to fainting and he had low blood pressure, and they violated a myriad of safety regulations

designed to ensure that an accident like the one that occurred here either never took place or was

survivable if it did. Id. See also REVO’s Third-Party Complaint against BROCK CAHILL and

SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS, at ¶¶ 1-14, 27-58, 59-100; REVO’s 33rd, 35th and 37th

Affirmative Defenses to PLAINTIFF’s Third Amended Complaint.

In Save the Humans, Rob Stewart describes himself at length as being an extreme risk

taker, willing to risk suffering from decompression sickness or death by drowning “to get some

unbelievable footage” or perform some task underwater. See R. Stewart, Save the Humans, at

196.5 Indeed, in the film Sharkwater: Extinction, STEWART describes how he had “cheated

death” numerous times, and that his parents, Brian Stewart and PLAINTIFF SANDRA

STEWART, were “always worried” about his safety. Sadly, this worry did not translate into

action as the PLAINTIFF; the production company she leads, SHARKWATER

PRODUCTIONS; its employees and field producer, BROCK CAHILL; organized the

Sharkwater: Extinction charter with HORIZON. Given all the facts asserted in all the pleadings,

this case cannot proceed without CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS being joined

as indispensable parties.

3. Argument

The four parties most responsible for ensuring the safe planning and operation of the

charter to film Sharkwater: Extinction at the Queen of Nassau were Rob Stewart, HORIZON,

CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS. One party is dead, another party has done its
5
The copyright for Save the Humans is owned by SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS.

33
best to obscure the evidence and now cooperate with PLAINTIFF, and two indispensable parties

have not been joined.

CAHILL and Karen Shaw SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS arranged the private

charter of the M/V Pisces with HORIZON. See HORIZON Answer at ¶ 32(f). Whatever

deficiencies or failure to take safety precautions that existed in the commercial charter were the

responsibility of CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS. Compliance with the

applicable OSHA Regulations for Commercial Diving, the Canadian Occupational Safety Code

for Diving Operations (which specifically apply to underwater filmmaking),6 and industry

standards, including 29 CFR Part 1910, Subpart T; CSA Z275.4-12 and CSA Z275.2:20; and

U.S. Coast Guard regulations, was the responsibility of CAHILL, SHARKWATER

PRODUCTIONS and HORIZON.

The OSHA Regulations and Canadian Occupational Safety Code for Diving Operations

apply to commercial enterprises whenever employees are diving beyond recreational scuba

diving limits, on closed circuit scuba diving equipment, where decompression is required, have

strict requirements for, among other things: verifying dive team members’ credentials and

medical fitness to dive (29 CFR 1910.410; CSA Z275.4-12, Stds. 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2, 5.4-5.9, 5.6,

6.4-6.9, and 29.1, 29.3-29.9, Annex E; CSA Z275.2:20, Stds. 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2 and Annex E and

F); distribution and adherence to a safe diving practices manual (29 CFR 1910.420; CSA

Z275.4-12, Std. 4.3, 5.8.3, 6.8.3, 29.8.3; CSA Z275.2:20, Stds. 4 and 5); pre-dive briefing,

planning and assessment (29 CFR 1910.421; CSA Z275.4-12, Stds. 4.3, 4.5; CSA Z275.2:20,

Stds. 4.3, 4.5, 4.4, 4.5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 7); procedures during a dive (29 CFR 1910.422, CSA

6
While the OSHA Regulations for Commercial Diving generally apply to all diving for work that
is not recreational or scientific, the Canadian Occupational Safety Code for Diving Operations
specifically apply to a number of enumerated categories, including underwater film production. See Ex.
C, CSA Z275.4-12, Stds. 5.2(f), 6.2(f) and 29.2(f).

34
Z275.4-12, Stds. 4.3, 4.5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 12, 29.1-29.9; CSA Z275.2:20,

Stds. 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 5, 7 and 9); procedures after a dive (29 CFR 1910.423; CSA Z275.2:20, Stds.

5.4, 9.4.10 and 12); and even more stringent procedures for employees engaged in deep scuba

diving (29 CFR 1910.424; CSA Z275.4-12, Std. 5, 6, 7 and 29; CSA Z275.2:20, Stds. 5.4, 9 and

12). See Exs. C and D.

Stewart, CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS should have been aware of

these OSHA Regulations and Canadian Standards and adhered to them to ensure the safety of the

participants in the commercial charter to film wildlife for a major motion picture. For example,

the Canadian standard for the use of mixed gases like trimix, CSA Z275.2-20, Std. 4.6.5.1,

states:

When mixed gases in other than the normal proportions of respirable air are used,
the diver’s employer shall ensure that the procedures and schedules of
decompression are appropriate for the mixture in use, and also that the partial
pressure of nitrogen in a breathing mixture never exceeds 4.8 atmospheres
absolute (ATA).

See Ex. D at 39 (emphasis supplied). Thus, when organizing the HORIZON charter to

film marine life at a depth of 220 fsw, with divers using mixed gas and rebreathers,

CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS had a legal duty to pre-plan the dives to

ensure that the procedures and schedules of decompression were appropriate for the

breathing mixture in use. Moreover, they had a legal duty to ensure that Rob Stewart was

suitably trained and medically fit to dive on this charter by verifying his diving

credentials and evidence of his current successful medical examination and doctor signoff

that Stewart was fit to dive. See 29 CFR 1910.410; CSA Z275.4-12, Stds. 4.1.1, 4.1.2,

4.2, 5.4-5.9, 5.6, 6.4-6.9, and 29.1, 29.3-29.9, Annex E; CSA Z275.2:20, Stds. 4.1.1,

4.1.2, 4.2 and Annex E and F.

35
 Similarly, to be considered competent and qualified to dive, the Canadian Standards

require individual divers to have both a complete knowledge of risk assessment for the type of

diving they are engaged in and “a complete knowledge of the relevant safety regulations and

other diving legislation, and of the relevant CSA Standards.” See Ex. C, CSA Z275.4-12, Stds.

5.9.3, 6.9.3 and 29.9.3. CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS had a duty to verify

this information and, if Stewart could not (or would not) demonstrate his complete knowledge of

risk assessment for the type of diving he was about to engage in, they should have canceled the

charter.

“Florida law defines ‘indispensable parties’ to a lawsuit as [p]ersons who have not only

an interest in the controversy, but an interest of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made

without either affecting that interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final

termination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.” Glancy v. First W.

Bank, 802 So.2d 498, 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citations omitted); Haire v. Overseas Holdings

Ltd. P’ship, 908 So.2d 580, 583 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). In addition, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210 also

provides for the inclusion of all parties whose presence is proper for a complete determination of

the cause.

CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS are necessary and indispensable parties.

They each have an interest in this controversy to the extent that a final judgment cannot be made

without affecting their interests, and their absence would leave “the controversy in such a

condition that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.”

See Glancy, 801 So.2d at 499. As the parties’ additional pleadings have shown, CAHILL and

SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS were responsible for chartering HORIZON’s vessel and crew

to film at the Queen of Nassau. The applicable law places the responsibility to ensure that this

36
charter was conducted safely, with competent and qualified crew and divers, squarely upon Rob

Stewart, CAHILL, SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS and HORIZON, not REVO, the seller of

a piece of diving equipment to CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS seven months

earlier. REVO will be severely prejudiced if the PLAINTIFF’s claims against it are allowed to

go forward because REVO will be unable to show that CAHILL and SHARKWATER

PRODUCTIONS were ultimately responsible for ensuring Stewart’s safety, and they failed to

fulfill their legal duties. Conversely, the PLAINTIFF will be able to make one-sided claims

about what warnings REVO provided to Stewart, through CAHILL, without the fairness of

REVO being able to show these warnings were given and CAHILL had a duty to ensure they

were heeded.

The determination of fault in this case will come down to examining what happened to

Rob Stewart during the three minutes he was on the surface, what was done to prevent an

accident of this nature from happening, and what happened once Stewart was in distress and

needed assistance. This makes CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS indispensable

parties, because they were the conduit through which REVO’s warnings passed, they arranged

for Stewart’s training, they arranged for the charter with HORIZON, they selected the personnel

on board, they were responsible for the safety of their film crew, and they were present when

Stewart needed assistance. Without these indispensable parties, a full and fair adjudication of the

PLAINTIFF’s claims against REVO, and REVO’s defenses, will be impossible. Indeed, it

would be misleading and confusing to the jury to have this case go forward with CAHILL and

SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS as Fabre defendants, without giving REVO the opportunity

to obtain discovery from, and question, these parties. Since PLAINTIFF has failed to join these

37
indispensable parties, her negligence and failure to warn claims against REVO must be

dismissed with prejudice.

IV. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, REVO respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter

an Order denying Third-Party Defendants DAN DAWSON, KELL LEVENDORF, ROB

BLESER and CRAIG JENNI’s Motion to Dismiss REVO’s claims against them. For reasons of

judicial economy, the Court should permit the same jury to try the concurrent claims against the

Third-Party Defendants in a single proceeding, because the jury in this case will already be

considering identical evidence in evaluating the validity of PLAINTIFF’s claims, HORIZON’s

conduct and REVO’s defenses; and this jury will be in the best position to determine issues of

causation and damages. Alternatively, this Honorable Court could enter an Order denying Third-

Party Defendants’ motion and staying REVO’s claims against them until the conclusion of the

PLAINTIFF’s underlying action.

Finally, this Honorable Court should enter an Order dismissing the claims asserted

against REVO in PLAINTIFF’S Third Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to join

indispensable parties, BROCK CAHILL and SHARKWATER PRODUCTIONS. The Court

could then deny Third-Party Defendants’ motion as moot.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: February 2, 2021 By: s/ Christopher F. Lanza

CHRISTOPHER F. LANZA, ESQUIRE
CHRISTOPHER F. LANZA, P.A.
290 NW 165th Street, Suite P-600, CitiCentre
Miami, FL 33169
Tel: (305) 956-9040
Fax: (305) 945-2905
cfl@lanzalaw.com

DAVID G. CONCANNON, ESQUIRE

38
 CONCANNON & CHARLES
100 Sun Valley Road, No. 329
Sun Valley, Idaho 83353
Tel: (610) 293-8084
Fax: (877) 736-2434
david@davidconcannon.com

Counsel for rEvo BVBA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this the 2nd day of February 2021, a true and correct

copy of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of the Court using the Florida Courts e-Filing

Portal, which will send an automatic email message to counsel of record listed on the attached

Service List.

By s/ Christopher F. Lanza
CHRISTOPHER F. LANZA, ESQUIRE
CHRISTOPHER F. LANZA, P.A.
290 NW 165th Street,
Suite P-600, CitiCentre
Miami, FL 33169
Tel: (305) 956-9040
Fax: (305) 945-2905
cfl@lanzalaw.com

Counsel for rEvo BVBA

39
 SERVICE LIST

LAW OFFICES OF DONNA E. ALBERT, P.A.

Attorney for Defendant Horizon
7899 North Federal Highway
Suite 320
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (561) 994-9904

Donna Ellen Albert DEA@donnaalbert.com

FERTIG & GRAMLING

Attorneys for Defendant Horizon and Crossclaim Defendants Dan Dawson and
David Wilkerson
Fertig & Gramling
200 SE 13th Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 763-5020

Christopher Rogers Fertig chris.fertig@fertig.com

Darlene M. Lidondici dml@fertig.com
Kristen M. Susik kms@firtig.com

CAMPBELL JOHNSTON CLARK

Attorneys for Defendants Peter Sotis
Douglas Centre
2600 Douglas Road, Suite 508
Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Neil Bayer, Esquire Neil@CJCLaw.com

Chase Jansson, Esquire Chase@CJCLaw.com

The HAGGARD FIRM

Attorneys for Plaintiff Sandra Stewart
330 Alhambra Circle, First Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone (305) 446-5700
Fax (305) 446-1154

Pedro Echarte III, Esquire ppe@haggardfirm.com

Michael Haggard, Esquire mah@haggardfirm.com
Douglas McCarron, Esquire djm@haggardfirm.com
kvizcaino@haggardfirm.com

40
 PHILIP D. PARRISH, P.A.
Attorneys for Plaintiff Sandra Stewart
7301 SW 57th Avenue
Miami, FL 33143
Tel: (305) 670-5550

Philip D. Parish, Esquire phil@parrishappeals.com

betty@parrishappeals.com

JOHN D. KALLEN, P.A.

Attorneys for Third-Party Defendants Craig Jenni & Kell Levendorf
17071 West Dixie Highway
North Miami Beach, Florida 33160
Tel: 305-956-5775/Fax: 305-944-8780
John D. Kallen, Esq. jdklaw1@aol.com
julie@jdk-law.com

BLANCK & COOPER, P.A.

Attorney for Rob Bleser
5730 S.W. 74th Street, Suite #700
Miami, Florida 33143
Phone: (305) 663-0177
Robert W. Blanck, Esquire rblanck@shiplawusa.com

41