On February 06, 2019 a
Motion-Secondary
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 # 118226558 E-Filed 12/15/2020 12:27:24 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 CASE NO. 2019-CA-003916 CA 01 (27)
corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROMAN FLICKER and MID-CONTINENT
CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendants.
/
DEFENDANT MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISPENSE WITH PRE-TRIAL
MEDIATION REQUIREMENT
Comes now Mid-Continent Casualty company (“MCC”), by and through the undersigned
counsel, and hereby files this response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dispense with Pre-
Trial Mediation Requirement (“Motion”), and in support thereof, states as follows:
1. On October 5, 2020, more than six months before the currently set trial period for
this matter, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Dispense with Pre-Trial Mediation Requirement.
2. This cause is currently set for jury trial for the three-week trial period
commencing July 6, 2020.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion does not cite any reasons to dispense with the pre-trial
mediation requirement, other than referencing unsuccessful past mediations. See Plaintiff’s
Motion, ¶¶ 2-3.
4. Plaintiff’s motion suggests that this case cannot be resolved except by trial, which
is, at best, presumptuous.
0979020\307160025.v1
CASE NO. 2019-CA-003916 CA 01 (27)
5. Given that there is still ongoing discovery and approximately six months left
before the currently set trial period, the assumption that a future mediation will be unsuccessful
is an unfounded and conclusory position – and a position not shared by MCC.
6. While the Parties have mediated in the past, the Parties continue to engage in
motion practice and discovery – from which additional information has been learned and is
expected to be learned – that is expected to impact trial positioning.
7. MCC believes it is premature for this Court to foreclose the pre-trial mediation
requirement more than six months ahead of the currently set trial docket.
8. No Party will be prejudiced by this Court denying Plaintiff’s Motion.
WHEREFORE, MCC respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Plaintiff’s
Motion to Dispense with Pre-Trial Mediation Requirement and grant any further relief this Court
deems just and necessary.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 15, 2020, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing has been filed via the E-Filing System and served on all counsel of record.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
/s Alina N. Yaniz
Alina N. Yaniz
Florida Bar No. 1003560
ayaniz@hinshawlaw.com
2525 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
(T) 305-358-7747; (F) 305-577-1063
Counsel for MCC
Page 2 of 2
0979020\307160025.v1
Document Filed Date
December 15, 2020
Case Filing Date
February 06, 2019
Category
Contract & Indebtedness
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Filing # 118226558 E-Filed 12/15/2020 12:27:24 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 CASE NO. 2019-CA-003916 CA 01 (27) corporation, Plaintiff, vs. ROMAN FLICKER and MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendants. / DEFENDANT MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISPENSE WITH PRE-TRIAL MEDIATION REQUIREMENT Comes now Mid-Continent Casualty company (“MCC”), by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby files this response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dispense with Pre- Trial Mediation Requirement (“Motion”), and in support thereof, states as follows: 1. On October 5, 2020, more than six months before the currently set trial period for this matter, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Dispense with Pre-Trial Mediation Requirement. 2. This cause is currently set for jury trial for the three-week trial period commencing July 6, 2020. 3. Plaintiff’s Motion does not cite any reasons to dispense with the pre-trial mediation requirement, other than referencing unsuccessful past mediations. See Plaintiff’s Motion, ¶¶ 2-3. 4. Plaintiff’s motion suggests that this case cannot be resolved except by trial, which is, at best, presumptuous. 0979020\307160025.v1 CASE NO. 2019-CA-003916 CA 01 (27) 5. Given that there is still ongoing discovery and approximately six months left before the currently set trial period, the assumption that a future mediation will be unsuccessful is an unfounded and conclusory position – and a position not shared by MCC. 6. While the Parties have mediated in the past, the Parties continue to engage in motion practice and discovery – from which additional information has been learned and is expected to be learned – that is expected to impact trial positioning. 7. MCC believes it is premature for this Court to foreclose the pre-trial mediation requirement more than six months ahead of the currently set trial docket. 8. No Party will be prejudiced by this Court denying Plaintiff’s Motion. WHEREFORE, MCC respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Dispense with Pre-Trial Mediation Requirement and grant any further relief this Court deems just and necessary. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 15, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed via the E-Filing System and served on all counsel of record. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP /s Alina N. Yaniz Alina N. Yaniz Florida Bar No. 1003560 ayaniz@hinshawlaw.com 2525 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, 4th Floor Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (T) 305-358-7747; (F) 305-577-1063 Counsel for MCC Page 2 of 2 0979020\307160025.v1