On February 06, 2019 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Flicker Construction Inc.,
Hughes, John, Iii,
and
Flicker, Roman,
Mid-Continent Casualty Company,
for Contract & Indebtedness
in the District Court of Miami-Dade County.
Preview
Filing # 129563351 E-Filed 06/25/2021 10:48:50 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
JOHN HUGHES, III, as receiver of Flicker
Construction, Inc., an inactive Florida
corporation, CASE NO. 2019-CA-003916
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROMAN FLICKER and MID-CONTINENT
CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendants.
/
MCC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING
REPRESENTATION OF MANUEL PEREA
Mid-Continent Casualty Company (“MCC”) responds to Plaintiff’s First Motion In
Limine Regarding Swope, Rodante’s Representation of Perea as follows:
Plaintiff seeks to preclude MCC “from presenting any documentary evidence, testimony,
commentary or argument directly or indirectly relating to Swope, Rodante P.A.’s representation
of Manuel Perea.” While MCC does not intend to broach the topic of legal representative
relationships regarding the various individuals and entities forming the basis of this action at
trial, MCC does not concede Plaintiff’s motion. Significantly, the relationships as it respects
various legal positions taken by, or potentially anticipated to be taken by, Plaintiff are important,
and MCC does not waive any arguments itmay have arising from such relationships. In other
words, and as stated by Plaintiff, Mr. Hughes was appointed as receiver for Flicker Construction
at the request of Mr. Perea. Thus, the interests of Mr. Perea and Mr. Hughes are fully aligned,
i.e., they both seek to collect on the underlying judgment against Flicker Construction. With this
“relationship” comes certain biases, and such biases are relevant.
Moreover, MCC does not waive any arguments that it may have regarding set off
amounts collected towards payment of the underlying judgment that are unrelated to this action.
MCC likewise does not waive any arguments it may have regarding set off/non-payment of
insurance proceeds for amounts unrelated to the underlying judgment, i.e., fees and costs
associated with the receivership, fees and costs associated with pursuit, prosecution or collection
of this action, etc.
Finally, MCC disagrees with Plaintiff arguing at trial the amounts and circumstances of
the underlying judgment, and MCC fully incorporates its pending motion in limine
WHEREFORE, MCC requests this Court deny Plaintiff’s First Motion In Limine
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on June 25, 2021, a copy of the foregoing was served via the Florida Courts
e-Filing Portal to all counsel of record.
s/ Edward T. Sylvester
Edward T. Sylvester
Florida Bar No. 0051612
2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
(T): 305-358-7747; (F): 305-577-1063
esylvester@hinshawlaw.com
2
0979020\308455345.v1
Document Filed Date
June 25, 2021
Case Filing Date
February 06, 2019
Category
Contract & Indebtedness
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Filing # 129563351 E-Filed 06/25/2021 10:48:50 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION JOHN HUGHES, III, as receiver of Flicker Construction, Inc., an inactive Florida corporation, CASE NO. 2019-CA-003916 Plaintiff, vs. ROMAN FLICKER and MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants. / MCC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING REPRESENTATION OF MANUEL PEREA Mid-Continent Casualty Company (“MCC”) responds to Plaintiff’s First Motion In Limine Regarding Swope, Rodante’s Representation of Perea as follows: Plaintiff seeks to preclude MCC “from presenting any documentary evidence, testimony, commentary or argument directly or indirectly relating to Swope, Rodante P.A.’s representation of Manuel Perea.” While MCC does not intend to broach the topic of legal representative relationships regarding the various individuals and entities forming the basis of this action at trial, MCC does not concede Plaintiff’s motion. Significantly, the relationships as it respects various legal positions taken by, or potentially anticipated to be taken by, Plaintiff are important, and MCC does not waive any arguments itmay have arising from such relationships. In other words, and as stated by Plaintiff, Mr. Hughes was appointed as receiver for Flicker Construction at the request of Mr. Perea. Thus, the interests of Mr. Perea and Mr. Hughes are fully aligned, i.e., they both seek to collect on the underlying judgment against Flicker Construction. With this “relationship” comes certain biases, and such biases are relevant. Moreover, MCC does not waive any arguments that it may have regarding set off amounts collected towards payment of the underlying judgment that are unrelated to this action. MCC likewise does not waive any arguments it may have regarding set off/non-payment of insurance proceeds for amounts unrelated to the underlying judgment, i.e., fees and costs associated with the receivership, fees and costs associated with pursuit, prosecution or collection of this action, etc. Finally, MCC disagrees with Plaintiff arguing at trial the amounts and circumstances of the underlying judgment, and MCC fully incorporates its pending motion in limine WHEREFORE, MCC requests this Court deny Plaintiff’s First Motion In Limine CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 25, 2021, a copy of the foregoing was served via the Florida Courts e-Filing Portal to all counsel of record. s/ Edward T. Sylvester Edward T. Sylvester Florida Bar No. 0051612 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 4th Floor Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (T): 305-358-7747; (F): 305-577-1063 esylvester@hinshawlaw.com 2 0979020\308455345.v1