Preview
Filing # 92848429 E-Filed 07/19/2019 02:07:42 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
WENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN
AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NUMBER: 2019-CA-002174
Firewater Restoration, LLC
a/a/o Michael McClure
Plaintiff,
vs.
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company
Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO
DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Firewater Restoration, LLC a/a/o Michael McClure,
pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedures, hereby files its Reply to Defendant’s
Affirmative Defenses and states as follows:
REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the
Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. As pled the
Defendant has failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements are required under the
law. Defendant has entirely failed to assert or allege new factual matters that if proven
would absolve the Defendant of liability, nor does Defendant state a fact that it is relying
on to support the defense it purportedly relies on for its first affirmative defense.
Defendant's first affirmative defense is not a true affirmative defense. As such this
defense should be stricken.
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the
Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The
defense lack merit or any basis in fact or law as it applies to the facts known or otherwise
alleged by Defendant.
FAILURE TO PLEAD WITH PARTICULARITY: Defendant has failed to assert a claim
or defense with any particularity as required by the rules of civil procedure and operative
case law. There are nothing more than conclusory statements regarding Defendant’s
inspection, policy terms and adjustment of the loss. As such, this defense fails as a
1
FILED: COLLIER COUNTY, CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK, 07/19/2019 02:07:42 PMmatter of law.
FAILURE TO PROPERLY PLEAD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: As plead the
Defendant has failed to properly assert an affirmative defense. Specifically, the
Defendant has failed to plead new matter or identify any facts that it intends to plead or
that it would please to establish the basis of its otherwise conclusory statements.
REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S SECOND AND THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the
Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. As pled the
Defendant has failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements are required under the
law. Defendant has entirely failed to assert or allege new factual matters that if proven
would absolve the Defendant of liability, nor does Defendant state a fact that it is relying
on to support these defenses it purportedly relies on for its second and third affirmative
defenses. Defendant's second and third affirmative defenses are not true affirmative
defenses. As such these defenses should be stricken.
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the
Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The
defense lack merit or any basis in fact or law as it applies to the facts known or otherwise
alleged by Defendant.
FAILURE TO PLEAD WITH PARTICULARITY PURSUANT TO FLA.R.CIV.PRO.
1.120(c): As plead the Defendant has failed to plead a condition precedent defense with
the requisite particularity required by the rules of civil procedure and interpretive case
law. As a result the Defendant has failed to properly plead its second and third
affirmative defenses.
FAILURE TO PLEAD WITH PARTICULARITY: Defendant has failed to assert a claim
or defense with any particularity as required by the rules of civil procedure and operative
case law. There are nothing more than conclusory statements regarding Defendant’s
inspection, policy terms and adjustment of the loss. As such, these defenses fail as a
matter of law.
FAILURE TO PROPERLY PLEAD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: As plead the
Defendant has failed to properly assert an affirmative defense. Specifically, the
Defendant has failed to plead new matter or identify any facts that it intends to plead or
that it would please to establish the basis of its otherwise conclusory statements.
REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the
Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. As pled the
Defendant has failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements are required under the
law. Defendant has entirely failed to assert or allege new factual matters that if provenwould absolve the Defendant of liability, nor does Defendant state a fact that it is relying
on to support the defense it purportedly relies on for its fourth affirmative defense.
Defendant's fourth affirmative defense is not a true affirmative defense. As such this
defense should be stricken.
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the
Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The
defense lack merit or any basis in fact or law as it applies to the facts known or otherwise
alleged by Defendant.
FAILURE TO PLEAD WITH PARTICULARITY: Defendant has failed to assert a claim
or defense with any particularity as required by the rules of civil procedure and operative
case law. There are nothing more than conclusory statements regarding Defendant’s
inspection, policy terms and adjustment of the loss. As such, this defense fails as a
matter of law.
FAILURE TO PROPERLY PLEAD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: As plead the
Defendant has failed to properly assert an affirmative defense. Specifically, the
Defendant has failed to plead new matter or identify any facts that it intends to plead or
that it would please to establish the basis of its otherwise conclusory statements.
REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the
Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. As pled the
Defendant has failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements are required under the
law. Defendant has entirely failed to assert or allege new factual matters that if proven
would absolve the Defendant of liability, nor does Defendant state a fact that it is relying
on to support the defense it purportedly relies on for its fifth affirmative defense.
Defendant's fifth affirmative defense is not a true affirmative defense. As such this
defense should be stricken.
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the
Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The
defense lack merit or any basis in fact or law as it applies to the facts known or otherwise
alleged by Defendant.
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION: The fifth affirmative defense does not
properly assert an affirmative defense. This statement fails to assert any specific fact or
new matter with specificity that if proven, would absolve the Defendant of liability.
Specifically, Plaintiff has asserted standing to enforce the right to receive payment of and
otherwise enforce the right to payment of benefits for the services provided by Plaintiff.
See Accident Cleaners, Inc. a/a/o Joseph Gerena v. Universal Insurance Company, 40
Fla. L. Weekly D 862 (Fla. Sth DCA 2015). As such this defense is not premised on law
or fact as it applies to the law and should be stricken as this defense as it is not adequately
or otherwise properly pled.FAILURE TO PLEAD WITH PARTICULARITY: Defendant has failed to assert a claim
or defense with any particularity as required by the rules of civil procedure and operative
case law. There are nothing more than conclusory statements regarding Defendant’s
inspection, policy terms and adjustment of the loss. As such, this defense fails as a
matter of law.
FAILURE TO PROPERLY PLEAD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: As plead the
Defendant has failed to properly assert an affirmative defense. Specifically, the
Defendant has failed to plead new matter or identify any facts that it intends to plead or
that it would please to establish the basis of its otherwise conclusory statements.
REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH AND NINTH
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the
Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. As pled the
Defendant has failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements are required under the
law. Defendant has entirely failed to assert or allege new factual matters that if proven
would absolve the Defendant of liability, nor does Defendant state a fact that it is relying
on to support the defenses it purportedly relies on for its sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth
affirmative defenses. Defendant's sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth affirmative defenses
are not true affirmative defenses. As such these defenses should be stricken.
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the
Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The
defenses lack merit or any basis in fact or law as it applies to the facts known or
otherwise alleged by Defendant.
FAILURE TO PLEAD WITH PARTICULARITY: Defendant has failed to assert a claim
or defenses with any particularity as required by the rules of civil procedure and operative
case law. There are nothing more than conclusory statements regarding Defendant’s
inspection, policy terms and adjustment of the loss. As such, these defenses fail as a
matter of law.
FAILURE TO PROPERLY PLEAD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: As plead the
Defendant has failed to properly assert affirmative defenses. Specifically, the Defendant
has failed to plead new matter or identify any facts that it intends to plead or that it would
please to establish the basis of its otherwise conclusory statements.
REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the
Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The
defense lack merit or any basis in fact or law as it applies to the facts known or otherwise
alleged by Defendant.FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION: The tenth affirmative defense does not
properly assert an affirmative defense. This statement fails to assert any specific fact or
new matter with specificity that if proven, would absolve the Defendant of liability.
Specifically, Plaintiff has asserted standing to enforce the right to receive payment of and
otherwise enforce the right to payment of benefits for the services provided by Plaintiff.
See Accident Cleaners, Inc. a/a/o Joseph Gerena v. Universal Insurance Company, 40
Fla. L. Weekly D 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). As such this defense is not premised on law
or fact as it applies to the law and should be stricken as this defense as it is not adequately
or otherwise properly pled.
REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the
Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. As pled the
Defendant has failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements are required under the
law. Defendant has entirely failed to assert or allege new factual matters that if proven
would absolve the Defendant of liability, nor does Defendant state a fact that it is relying
on to support the defense it purportedly relies on for its eleventh affirmative defense.
Defendant's eleventh affirmative defense is not a true affirmative defense. As such this
defense should be stricken.
FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the
Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The
defense lack merit or any basis in fact or law as it applies to the facts known or otherwise
alleged by Defendant.
FAILURE TO PROPERLY PLEAD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: As plead the
Defendant has failed to properly assert an affirmative defense. Specifically, the
Defendant has failed to plead new matter or identify any facts that it intends to plead or
that it would please to establish the basis of its otherwise conclusory statements.
FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140(h) state that “a party waives all defenses and objections that the
party does not present either by motion under subdivisions (b), (e), or (f) of this rule or, if
the party has made no motion, in a responsive pleading except as provided in subdivision
(h)(2). As such, amendment of the pleadings is not a right, it is a privilege that cannot be
granted unless Defendant is able to make the requisite showing that its affirmative
defenses are premised on newly discovered evidence not currently in the possession of
the Defendant. Any affirmative defense premised upon information within the
Defendant’s possession have been waived as a result of Defendant or its attorney’s failure
to assert Defenses that it knows or should know as of the date of the filing of Defendant’s
Answer and Affirmative Defenses on July 1, 2019.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via
Florida E-Portal to Defense Counsel this 19" day of July, 2019.
‘s/ Natisha N. Quijano
Natisha N. Quijano, Esquire
Florida Bar Number: 096485
Cohen Law Group
Attorney for Plaintiff
350 North Lake Destiny Road, Suite 300
Maitland, Florida 32751
Phone: (407) 478-4878
Fax: (407) 478-0204
Primary: nquijano@itsaboutjustice.law
Secondary: ashley@itsaboutjustice.law
Preview
Filing # 92848429 E-Filed 07/19/2019 02:07:42 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE WENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NUMBER: 2019-CA-002174 Firewater Restoration, LLC a/a/o Michael McClure Plaintiff, vs. Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company Defendant. / PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Firewater Restoration, LLC a/a/o Michael McClure, pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedures, hereby files its Reply to Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses and states as follows: REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. As pled the Defendant has failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements are required under the law. Defendant has entirely failed to assert or allege new factual matters that if proven would absolve the Defendant of liability, nor does Defendant state a fact that it is relying on to support the defense it purportedly relies on for its first affirmative defense. Defendant's first affirmative defense is not a true affirmative defense. As such this defense should be stricken. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The defense lack merit or any basis in fact or law as it applies to the facts known or otherwise alleged by Defendant. FAILURE TO PLEAD WITH PARTICULARITY: Defendant has failed to assert a claim or defense with any particularity as required by the rules of civil procedure and operative case law. There are nothing more than conclusory statements regarding Defendant’s inspection, policy terms and adjustment of the loss. As such, this defense fails as a 1 FILED: COLLIER COUNTY, CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK, 07/19/2019 02:07:42 PMmatter of law. FAILURE TO PROPERLY PLEAD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: As plead the Defendant has failed to properly assert an affirmative defense. Specifically, the Defendant has failed to plead new matter or identify any facts that it intends to plead or that it would please to establish the basis of its otherwise conclusory statements. REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S SECOND AND THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. As pled the Defendant has failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements are required under the law. Defendant has entirely failed to assert or allege new factual matters that if proven would absolve the Defendant of liability, nor does Defendant state a fact that it is relying on to support these defenses it purportedly relies on for its second and third affirmative defenses. Defendant's second and third affirmative defenses are not true affirmative defenses. As such these defenses should be stricken. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The defense lack merit or any basis in fact or law as it applies to the facts known or otherwise alleged by Defendant. FAILURE TO PLEAD WITH PARTICULARITY PURSUANT TO FLA.R.CIV.PRO. 1.120(c): As plead the Defendant has failed to plead a condition precedent defense with the requisite particularity required by the rules of civil procedure and interpretive case law. As a result the Defendant has failed to properly plead its second and third affirmative defenses. FAILURE TO PLEAD WITH PARTICULARITY: Defendant has failed to assert a claim or defense with any particularity as required by the rules of civil procedure and operative case law. There are nothing more than conclusory statements regarding Defendant’s inspection, policy terms and adjustment of the loss. As such, these defenses fail as a matter of law. FAILURE TO PROPERLY PLEAD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: As plead the Defendant has failed to properly assert an affirmative defense. Specifically, the Defendant has failed to plead new matter or identify any facts that it intends to plead or that it would please to establish the basis of its otherwise conclusory statements. REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. As pled the Defendant has failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements are required under the law. Defendant has entirely failed to assert or allege new factual matters that if provenwould absolve the Defendant of liability, nor does Defendant state a fact that it is relying on to support the defense it purportedly relies on for its fourth affirmative defense. Defendant's fourth affirmative defense is not a true affirmative defense. As such this defense should be stricken. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The defense lack merit or any basis in fact or law as it applies to the facts known or otherwise alleged by Defendant. FAILURE TO PLEAD WITH PARTICULARITY: Defendant has failed to assert a claim or defense with any particularity as required by the rules of civil procedure and operative case law. There are nothing more than conclusory statements regarding Defendant’s inspection, policy terms and adjustment of the loss. As such, this defense fails as a matter of law. FAILURE TO PROPERLY PLEAD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: As plead the Defendant has failed to properly assert an affirmative defense. Specifically, the Defendant has failed to plead new matter or identify any facts that it intends to plead or that it would please to establish the basis of its otherwise conclusory statements. REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. As pled the Defendant has failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements are required under the law. Defendant has entirely failed to assert or allege new factual matters that if proven would absolve the Defendant of liability, nor does Defendant state a fact that it is relying on to support the defense it purportedly relies on for its fifth affirmative defense. Defendant's fifth affirmative defense is not a true affirmative defense. As such this defense should be stricken. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The defense lack merit or any basis in fact or law as it applies to the facts known or otherwise alleged by Defendant. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION: The fifth affirmative defense does not properly assert an affirmative defense. This statement fails to assert any specific fact or new matter with specificity that if proven, would absolve the Defendant of liability. Specifically, Plaintiff has asserted standing to enforce the right to receive payment of and otherwise enforce the right to payment of benefits for the services provided by Plaintiff. See Accident Cleaners, Inc. a/a/o Joseph Gerena v. Universal Insurance Company, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D 862 (Fla. Sth DCA 2015). As such this defense is not premised on law or fact as it applies to the law and should be stricken as this defense as it is not adequately or otherwise properly pled.FAILURE TO PLEAD WITH PARTICULARITY: Defendant has failed to assert a claim or defense with any particularity as required by the rules of civil procedure and operative case law. There are nothing more than conclusory statements regarding Defendant’s inspection, policy terms and adjustment of the loss. As such, this defense fails as a matter of law. FAILURE TO PROPERLY PLEAD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: As plead the Defendant has failed to properly assert an affirmative defense. Specifically, the Defendant has failed to plead new matter or identify any facts that it intends to plead or that it would please to establish the basis of its otherwise conclusory statements. REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH AND NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. As pled the Defendant has failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements are required under the law. Defendant has entirely failed to assert or allege new factual matters that if proven would absolve the Defendant of liability, nor does Defendant state a fact that it is relying on to support the defenses it purportedly relies on for its sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth affirmative defenses. Defendant's sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth affirmative defenses are not true affirmative defenses. As such these defenses should be stricken. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The defenses lack merit or any basis in fact or law as it applies to the facts known or otherwise alleged by Defendant. FAILURE TO PLEAD WITH PARTICULARITY: Defendant has failed to assert a claim or defenses with any particularity as required by the rules of civil procedure and operative case law. There are nothing more than conclusory statements regarding Defendant’s inspection, policy terms and adjustment of the loss. As such, these defenses fail as a matter of law. FAILURE TO PROPERLY PLEAD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: As plead the Defendant has failed to properly assert affirmative defenses. Specifically, the Defendant has failed to plead new matter or identify any facts that it intends to plead or that it would please to establish the basis of its otherwise conclusory statements. REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The defense lack merit or any basis in fact or law as it applies to the facts known or otherwise alleged by Defendant.FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION: The tenth affirmative defense does not properly assert an affirmative defense. This statement fails to assert any specific fact or new matter with specificity that if proven, would absolve the Defendant of liability. Specifically, Plaintiff has asserted standing to enforce the right to receive payment of and otherwise enforce the right to payment of benefits for the services provided by Plaintiff. See Accident Cleaners, Inc. a/a/o Joseph Gerena v. Universal Insurance Company, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). As such this defense is not premised on law or fact as it applies to the law and should be stricken as this defense as it is not adequately or otherwise properly pled. REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. As pled the Defendant has failed to meet the minimum pleading requirements are required under the law. Defendant has entirely failed to assert or allege new factual matters that if proven would absolve the Defendant of liability, nor does Defendant state a fact that it is relying on to support the defense it purportedly relies on for its eleventh affirmative defense. Defendant's eleventh affirmative defense is not a true affirmative defense. As such this defense should be stricken. FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140: As plead the Defendant has failed to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted. The defense lack merit or any basis in fact or law as it applies to the facts known or otherwise alleged by Defendant. FAILURE TO PROPERLY PLEAD AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: As plead the Defendant has failed to properly assert an affirmative defense. Specifically, the Defendant has failed to plead new matter or identify any facts that it intends to plead or that it would please to establish the basis of its otherwise conclusory statements. FLA.R.CIV.PRO 1.140(h) state that “a party waives all defenses and objections that the party does not present either by motion under subdivisions (b), (e), or (f) of this rule or, if the party has made no motion, in a responsive pleading except as provided in subdivision (h)(2). As such, amendment of the pleadings is not a right, it is a privilege that cannot be granted unless Defendant is able to make the requisite showing that its affirmative defenses are premised on newly discovered evidence not currently in the possession of the Defendant. Any affirmative defense premised upon information within the Defendant’s possession have been waived as a result of Defendant or its attorney’s failure to assert Defenses that it knows or should know as of the date of the filing of Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses on July 1, 2019.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Florida E-Portal to Defense Counsel this 19" day of July, 2019. ‘s/ Natisha N. Quijano Natisha N. Quijano, Esquire Florida Bar Number: 096485 Cohen Law Group Attorney for Plaintiff 350 North Lake Destiny Road, Suite 300 Maitland, Florida 32751 Phone: (407) 478-4878 Fax: (407) 478-0204 Primary: nquijano@itsaboutjustice.law Secondary: ashley@itsaboutjustice.law