Plaintiff Evan [EJ]’ complaint is subject to a pending motion for sanctions under Section 57.105, the purpose of which "is to discourage baseless claims, stonewall defenses and sham appeals in civil litigation by placing a price tag through attorney’s fees awards on losing parties who engage in these activities.” Whitten v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 410 So.2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1982).

Plaintiff’s latest filing only lends further support to that pending motion. After repeatedly asking this Court’s Judicial Assistant Ms. Dube to delay these proceedings (and having all of those requests rejected), Mr. [EJ] has now filed a “Motion to Continue” the hearing date on Mr. [epah]’s pleadings motion, styling that motion as an “Emergency filing” (per the Notice of Service issued by myflcourtaccess.com). Mr. [EJ]’ motion should be denied for at least three reasons.

First, [EJ]’ and his counsel’s desire to string out these proceedings and drive up Mr. [epah]’s costs is not an “emergency.” As set out in this Court’s standing Case Management Order:

EMERGENCY MOTIONS: An emergency motion is based on an immediate threat to life, limb or property. The Court will set aside all other pending matters to address bona fide emergencies. Scheduling conflicts between counsel, last minute attempts to modify deadlines, and similar issues are not “emergencies” and may not be styled as such to obtain expedited relief from the Court. Counsel are directed to meet and confer regarding such issues and either submit a stipulation and agreed order, or to schedule such matters for hearing on the Court's regular motion calendar.

Agreed Civil Case Management/Scheduling Order § 5.h. Mr. [EJ] does not attempt to explain how his motion meets any of those standards. While Hurricane Ian is certainly an emergency, [EJ] nowhere explains why a hurricane that is projected to make landfall on September 28 necessitates continuance of a Zoom hearing scheduled to take place nine days later, on the other side of the state.

Second, none of [EJ]’ “outstanding discovery issues” is valid grounds for continuing a hearing on the pleadings. He leads with the complaint that Mr. [epah] served objections to certain of [EJ]’ ninety-one discovery requests, “instead of complying with the discovery code [sic].” Mot. at 2. He neglects to tell the Court, however, that Mr. [epah] gave full responses to those among the requests that pertain to personal jurisdiction, while invoking Florida Supreme Court precedent that where a defendant contests personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff is entitled only to “[l]imited discovery on jurisdictional issues.” Gleneagle Ship Mgmt. Co. v. Leondakos, 602 So. 2d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 1992). Mr. [epah]’s discovery responses are on file, should the Court deem it useful to verify that Mr. [epah] responded to those that concern personal jurisdiction. See Responses filed Sept. 21, 2022 (RFP Nos. 26, 29-32, RFA Nos. 15-20, 23, 26-27).

Third, [EJ] argues that two men to whom he issued subpoenas on September 22 (the day after the hearing was noticed) cannot be compelled to attend on October 7 because one of them is in federal prison, and the other lives in Texas. Jowers laments that it has recently “come to [Mr. [ZZZ]’s] attention” that one must obtain leave of court prior to serving out-of-state subpoenas. Even if [EJ]’ delay in issuing these subpoenas (and his counsel’s unfamiliarity with the process) were cognizable grounds for a continuance, [EJ] nowhere explains how either of these subpoenaed individuals is likely to have information or documents that are even relevant to the issues to be decided at the October 7 hearing. See Mot. at 3-7.

CONCLUSION

[EJ]’ motion does not present any emergency, and should be denied.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5200720&forum_id=2#45240375)

'if plaintiff identified reasonably credible threat under CMO i'd cut him some slack. but instaed includes ostensible discovery disputes. mischaracterizes good faith responses. in light of repeated efforts to delay, appeal to potential disaster on the opposite coast of the state appears cynical.'

maybe list a few of the most bogus discovery requests. hit day after hearing harder. hit 91 discovery requests harder.

actually fuck it it looks good. you forgot to number your paragraphs tho. i might take the quotes off emergency. let the judge get there without stooping.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5200720&forum_id=2#45240537)

That's probably getting into a deeper level of detail than necessary.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5200720&forum_id=2#45240413)

Agreed Civil Case Management/Scheduling Order § 5.h. Mr. [EJ] does not attempt to explain how his motion meets any of those standards. While Hurricane Ian is certainly an emergency, [EJ] nowhere explains why a hurricane that is projected to make landfall [[[[WHERE]]] on September 28 necessitates continuance of a Zoom hearing scheduled to take place nine days later, on the other side of the state.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5200720&forum_id=2#45240412)

get a real ass job you worthless mormon weirdo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5200720&forum_id=2#45240421)

See, e.g., https://editorsmanual.com/articles/none-is-or-are/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5200720&forum_id=2#45240586)

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/01/word-court/303688/

When should none be singular, then? Bryan A. Garner presents the contemporary majority opinion in the grammar-and-usage chapter of The Chicago Manual of Style: "If it is followed by a singular noun, treat it as a singular {none of the building was painted}; if by a plural noun, treat it as a plural {none of the guests were here when I arrived}." And what if you really do mean not one? Both The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage and Patricia T. O'Conner's Woe Is I advise you to say that instead of none.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5200720&forum_id=2#45240600)

Nah, no way. Sounds smarter to say "none of them is valid," particularly if you're gonna then address them seriatim. "Not one of them is valid" is pretty good though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5200720&forum_id=2#45240684)

Also, don't use emojis.

Also, it's "nothing" not "nuttin" or "nuffin."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5200720&forum_id=2#45240497)

This is a blatant misrepresentation, EPAH. Obviously your felonious client IN MIAMI has information relevant to your connections to the Sunshine State.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5200720&forum_id=2#45240738)

Are we otherwise good to file?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5200720&forum_id=2#45241142)

NOOO. The first part of your legal theory should not be an attack (even if valid).

consider something more bland in this part:

First, EJ and his Counsel's Motion clearly falls outside the bounds of an "Emergency" as clearly set out in this Court's standing Case Management Order.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5200720&forum_id=2#45241205)

consider changing to:

"While Hurricane Ian is certainly an emergency in the literal sense, it is projected to make landfall on September 28, and thus any potential impact on a hearing scheduled to take place on October X is theoretical at best, particularly in light of the fact that the hearing is scheduled to be remote."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5200720&forum_id=2#45241229)