Preview
Filing # 163550430 E-Filed 12/22/2022 11:26:34 AM
CASE NO.: 21-CA-410
Page 1 of 10
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE
COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 21-CA-410
VENISSA DRIGGER, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of David B. Flick,
Deceased,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
MARK — BARCIA, HOOTERS OF PORT
CHARLOTTE, INC., BWR NORTH PORT, LLC
d/b/a BUFFALO WINGS AND _ RINGS,
ATLANTA RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC
d/b/a TGl FRIDAYS, and JACKMONT
HOSPITALITY, INC. d/b/a TGI FRIDAYS,
Defendant(s).
DEFENDANTS, HOOTERS OF PORT CHARLOTTE, INC., BWR NORTH PORT, LLC, ATLANTA
RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, AND JACKMONT HOSPITALITY, INC.’S JOINT
STIPULATION AND MOTION TO VACATE/AMEND ORDER SETTING JURY TRIAL AND
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, AND MOTION TO EXTENDNON-BINDING ARBITRATION
DEADLINE
1 On December 15, 2022, the Court entered its Order Setting Jury Trial and Pretrial
Conference. The subject order sets the initial Pretrial Conference for Monday February 20,
2023 at 1:30 p.m., and designates the trial period to begin on April 10, 2023.
2. The Amended Agreed Case Management Plan and Order, dated January 20, 2022,
contains the following relevant discovery and ADR deadlines:
CASE NO.: 21-CA-410
Page 2 of 10
a Non-Binding Arbitration must be completed by November 20, 2022.
b. The parties have deadlines of July 14, 2022 (Plaintiff), and July 28, 2022 (Defendants),
to compete fact witness discovery.
The parties have deadlines of January 14, 2023 (Plaintiff), and January 28, 2023
(Defendants), to disclose expert opinions.
The parties must compete all expert discovery by January 28, 2023 (Plaintiff), and
February 12, 2023 (Defendants).
On September 1, 2022, the court entered an order extending Non-Binding Arbitration and
Discovery Deadlines as follows:
Discovery Deadline for Fact Witnesses: February 1, 2023
Disclosure of Expert Witnesses: October 1, 2022
Discovery deadline for Expert Witnesses: March 1, 2023
Non-binding Arbitration deadline: February 1, 2023
The estimated date the Case will be prepared to go to trial is extended to July 1, 2023.
On November 23, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Notice of Mediation/Non-Binding
Arbitration for a full day proceeding with Curtright Truitt for January 13, 2023.
Unfortunately, the above mediation/non-binding arbitration date is in conflict with the
extended deadlines contained in the Order Extending Non-Binding Arbitration and
Discovery Deadlines in that non-binding arbitration is currently set to take place prior to
CASE NO.: 21-CA-410
Page 3 of 10
the above-referenced discovery deadlines established in the court’s September 1, 2022
order.
Counsel for the Defendants jointly agree that they cannot complete necessary fact and expert
witness discovery prior to the scheduled mediation/non-binding arbitration date of January 13,
2023, and respectfully request that the non-binding arbitration date be pushed back at least two
months, and that the trial and pre-trial conferences be reset for the estimated July 1, 2023 trial
period.
This multi-party dram shop and automobile negligence wrongful death action has been
designated as complex. The estimated length of the jury trial is 10 - 14 days.
The case has proven to be complex indeed, as the Court record reflects there have been
more than fifty (50) notices filed regarding the deposition of witnesses and parties, as of
the date of this filing, and twenty-two (22) depositions have been conducted. While the
parties collectively agreed to the deadlines back in August, at that time only two
depositions had been conducted, the parties relied on counsels’ good faith estimates in
setting those deadlines. Due to the unpredictable circumstances in the instant case, a
substantial amount of time has been expended over the last few months on fact discovery.
Based on the sheer volume and number of fact witness depositions, including the time
involved in preparation of those depositions, it has become apparent the parties require
additional time to complete discovery.
CASE NO.: 21-CA-410
Page 4 of 10
9. Clearly, under the circumstances the parties cannot obtain necessary record evidence for
non-binding arbitration purposes, in time of the currently scheduled non-binding
arbitration date of January 13, 2023.
10. The record clearly reflects the parties have been earnest and diligent in their collective
efforts to conduct discovery and investigate the facts surrounding the incident and the
issue of liability. For all intents and purposes, liability is the threshold and primary
determination that has to be made, based on the evidence discovered against all four
Defendants separately, which is a fact-intensive endeavor. It has become apparent that the
parties will need additional time to conduct meaningful discovery geared towards the next
critical issue, the Plaintiff's alleged damages.
11.To date, Plaintiff's alleged damages are inconclusive and no demands have been made.
None of the Defendants have been provided with any information regarding the Plaintiff's
alleged damages beyond what has been produced in written discovery and the Defendants
require additional time to further explore the Plaintiff's damage claims.
12 Evidence regarding the Plaintiff's alleged damages is essential for the Defendants to
adequately prepare for mediation/arbitration.
13. Furthermore, liability depositions are still taking place with some key depositions only
recently completed and others still outstanding. In this regard, the lead traffic homicide
investigator was only recently deposed on December 19, 2022 and the deposition of the
CASE NO.: 21-CA-410
Page 5 of 10
other driver involved in the motor vehicle accident is scheduled to take place on March 2,
2023 after having to be moved due to a conflict.
14. Despite its title, non-binding arbitration it is not an innocuous exercise where the parties
discuss their respected positions and exchange offers and demands in an effort to resolve
the issues at bar; rather, it is a hearing governed by both Florida Statute, 44.103, as well as
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.820, conducted by an officer authorized by the Florida Supreme Court, who
will render a written decision at the conclusion of the hearing.
15. It is inappropriate for a party to introduce material evidence for the first time at non-
binding arbitration, just as a party should not be subject to trial by ambush, nor should a
party be subject to arbitration by ambush, where they are presented with evidence for the
very first time with no notice, and no opportunity to prepare a response or rebuttal.
16. Furthermore, Fla. Stat. §44.103(6) provides, either party may file a motion within 30 days
after the entry of a Judgment and the court may assess costs against the party requesting
atrial de novo, including arbitration costs, court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and other
reasonable costs such as investigation expenses and expenses for experts or other
testimony which were incurred after the arbitration hearing and continuing through the
trial of the case in accordance with the guidelines for taxation of costs as adopted by the
Supreme Court. It is important to note that Section 44.103(6), Fla. Stat. provides the trial
court with the discretion to assess costs and attorney fees or not. See Saltzman, M.D. v.
Hadlock, 112 So.3d 772 (SthDCA 2013).
CASE NO.: 21-CA-410
Page 6 of 10
17. Florida Statute 44.103(6) further includes attorney fees and costs assessment guide-
lines. If the plaintiff files for a trial de novo and obtains a Judgment at trial which is at least
25% less than the arbitration award, costs and attorney fees shall be set off against the
award. If the costs and attorney fees awarded total more than the amount of the
Judgment, the court shall enter Judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff for the
amount of the costs and attorney fees, less the amount of the award to the plaintiff.
Alternatively, if the defendant files for a trial de novo and has a Judgment entered against
it which is at least 25% more than the arbitration award, the court may assess costs and
attorney's fees against the defendant.
18. Because of the enforcement mechanism provided in Florida Statute 44.103(6), which
potentially subjects the party appealing the arbitration award to the opposing party's
attorneys’ fees and costs, attending non-binding arbitration prematurely without
information regarding the Plaintiff's alleged damages severely prejudices the Defendants
who will be forced to either speculate without any evidence regarding the Plaintiff's
alleged damages, or they will be blindsided with evidence for the first time at the
arbitration hearing without having any information regarding the Plaintiff's damages
beforehand.
19, In addition, the parties have not had the opportunity to engage in any meaningful
discovery regarding the Plaintiff's alleged damages, and therefore conducting arbitration
as currently scheduled would be futile and a waste of judicial resources. Furthermore, ADR
CASE NO.: 21-CA-410
Page 7 of 10
as currently scheduled is very unlikely to result in resolution of the case. The Twentieth
Judicial Circuit has a requirement making it mandatory for parties to engage in alternative
dispute resolution before trial. Pre-maturely engaging in alternative dispute resolution at
this current juncture, where discovery is ongoing and incomplete decreases the likelihood
that ADR will result in resolution, and would appear to be at odds with the purpose of this
mandatory requirement.
20.A logical and common sense solution would inhibit the parties to avoid engaging in an
unproductive, pre-mature alternative dispute resolution. The alternative dispute resolution
deadline should be extended after the deadline for the parties’ expert disclosures, which is
due March 1, 2023. By extending the deadline to April 15, 2023, the parties will have
concluded both fact and expert discovery, and the parties will have an opportunity to
properly evaluate their respected positions and engage in meaningful and productive
discussions at the arbitration hearing, where they can argue and present the same evidence
that would be used at trial. The April 15, 2023 deadline would not prejudice any party, and
it would afford any party the opportunity to file a trial de novo, in the event they disagree
with the arbitration award.
21 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b) permits the requested enlargement of time. Specifically, said rule
provides that when an act must be done within a specified time, the court in its discretion
may enlarge the time if the request is made before the expiration of the period originally
prescribed. Thus, this Court may grant the extension requested.
CASE NO.: 21-CA-410
Page 8 of 10
22. The parties are hopeful that the arbitration decision can assist in resolution, as well as
keeping expert and trial costs down, which will also assist in that regard.
23. This Motion is not brought for the purposes of delay and the granting of the requested
extension of time will prejudice no party.
24. Prior to filing this motion, the undersigned conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, who, is not
in agreement with the relief requested herein.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Defendants, HOOTERS OF PORT CHARLOTTE, INC.,
BWR NORTH PORT, LLC, ATLANTA RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, AND JACKMONT
HOSPITALITY, INC., hereby respecfully move that this Honorable Court enter an order granting
its Motion to vacate The Order Setting Trial and Pretrial Conference entered on December 15,
2022, or in the alternative amend the dates to reflect the July 1, 2023 estimated trial date.
Defendants respecfully move that this Honorable Court enter an order granting Defendants’
Joint Motion to extend the deadline to complete non-binding arbitration by April 15, 2023, and
that the Court grant any further relief it deems necessary and proper.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via
Electronic Mail, to all counsel of record on the attached Service List, this 22"! day of December,
2022.
CASE NO.: 21-CA-410
Page 9 of 10
Jorge W. Rodriguez-Sierra, Esq. Joshua Brankamp, Esq.
LUKS, SANTANIELLO, PETRILLO, RITTER CHUSID, LLP
COHEN & PETERFRIEND Heron Bay Coporate Center
1422 Hendry Street, 3"? Floor 5850 Coral Ridge Dr., Ste. 201
Fort Myers, FL 33901 Coral Springs, FL 33076
Phone: (239) 561-2828 Phone: (954) 340-2200
Fax: (239) 561-2841 Fax: (954) 340-2210
Florida Bar No. 1004215 Florida Bar No. 0031315
jrodriguezsierra insurancedefense.net Email: jbrankamp@rittershusid.com
sf Jorge W. Rodriquez-Sierra /s/ Joshua Brankamp
December 22, 2022 December 22, 2022
Yasmine Kirollos, Esq
Conroy Simberg
12730 New Brittany Blvd., Ste. 300
Fort Myers, FL 33907
Phone: (239) 337-1101
Fax: (239) 334-3383
Florida Bar No. 110380
Email: Ykirollos@conroysimberg.com
‘s/ Yasmine Kirollos
December 22, 2022
CASE NO.: 21-CA-410
Page 10 of 10
SERVICE LIST
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Randall Spivey, Esq.
Spivey Law Firm
13400 Parker Commons Blvd.
Fort Myers, FL 33912
Randall@spiveylaw.com
Attorney for Defendant, Hooters of Port Charlotte, Inc.
Joshua Brankamp, Esq.
Mitchel Chusid, Esq.
Michael Rubin, Esq.
Ritter Chusid, LLP
5850 Coral Ridge Drive, Suite 201
Coral Springs, FL 33076
mrubin@ritterchusid.com
jbrankamp@ritterchusid.com
Attorneys for Jackmont Hospitality and Atlanta Restaurants Partners, LLC d/b/a TGI Fridays
Cristobal A Casal, Esq.
Yasmine Kirollos, Esq.
12730 New Brittany Boulevard, Suite 300
Fort Myers, FL 33907
ccasal@conroysimberg.com
eserviceftm@conroysimberg.com
Attorney for Defedant, Mark Barcia
T.R. Unice Jr., Esq.
FBN: 358169
UNICE, SALZMAN, JENSEN, P.A.
1815 Little Road
Trinity, FL 34655
service@unicesalzman.com
jjensen@unicesalzman.com
dcantwell@unicesalzman.com
Preview
Filing # 163550430 E-Filed 12/22/2022 11:26:34 AM CASE NO.: 21-CA-410 Page 1 of 10 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 21-CA-410 VENISSA DRIGGER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of David B. Flick, Deceased, Plaintiff(s), vs. MARK — BARCIA, HOOTERS OF PORT CHARLOTTE, INC., BWR NORTH PORT, LLC d/b/a BUFFALO WINGS AND _ RINGS, ATLANTA RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a TGl FRIDAYS, and JACKMONT HOSPITALITY, INC. d/b/a TGI FRIDAYS, Defendant(s). DEFENDANTS, HOOTERS OF PORT CHARLOTTE, INC., BWR NORTH PORT, LLC, ATLANTA RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, AND JACKMONT HOSPITALITY, INC.’S JOINT STIPULATION AND MOTION TO VACATE/AMEND ORDER SETTING JURY TRIAL AND PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, AND MOTION TO EXTENDNON-BINDING ARBITRATION DEADLINE 1 On December 15, 2022, the Court entered its Order Setting Jury Trial and Pretrial Conference. The subject order sets the initial Pretrial Conference for Monday February 20, 2023 at 1:30 p.m., and designates the trial period to begin on April 10, 2023. 2. The Amended Agreed Case Management Plan and Order, dated January 20, 2022, contains the following relevant discovery and ADR deadlines: CASE NO.: 21-CA-410 Page 2 of 10 a Non-Binding Arbitration must be completed by November 20, 2022. b. The parties have deadlines of July 14, 2022 (Plaintiff), and July 28, 2022 (Defendants), to compete fact witness discovery. The parties have deadlines of January 14, 2023 (Plaintiff), and January 28, 2023 (Defendants), to disclose expert opinions. The parties must compete all expert discovery by January 28, 2023 (Plaintiff), and February 12, 2023 (Defendants). On September 1, 2022, the court entered an order extending Non-Binding Arbitration and Discovery Deadlines as follows: Discovery Deadline for Fact Witnesses: February 1, 2023 Disclosure of Expert Witnesses: October 1, 2022 Discovery deadline for Expert Witnesses: March 1, 2023 Non-binding Arbitration deadline: February 1, 2023 The estimated date the Case will be prepared to go to trial is extended to July 1, 2023. On November 23, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Notice of Mediation/Non-Binding Arbitration for a full day proceeding with Curtright Truitt for January 13, 2023. Unfortunately, the above mediation/non-binding arbitration date is in conflict with the extended deadlines contained in the Order Extending Non-Binding Arbitration and Discovery Deadlines in that non-binding arbitration is currently set to take place prior to CASE NO.: 21-CA-410 Page 3 of 10 the above-referenced discovery deadlines established in the court’s September 1, 2022 order. Counsel for the Defendants jointly agree that they cannot complete necessary fact and expert witness discovery prior to the scheduled mediation/non-binding arbitration date of January 13, 2023, and respectfully request that the non-binding arbitration date be pushed back at least two months, and that the trial and pre-trial conferences be reset for the estimated July 1, 2023 trial period. This multi-party dram shop and automobile negligence wrongful death action has been designated as complex. The estimated length of the jury trial is 10 - 14 days. The case has proven to be complex indeed, as the Court record reflects there have been more than fifty (50) notices filed regarding the deposition of witnesses and parties, as of the date of this filing, and twenty-two (22) depositions have been conducted. While the parties collectively agreed to the deadlines back in August, at that time only two depositions had been conducted, the parties relied on counsels’ good faith estimates in setting those deadlines. Due to the unpredictable circumstances in the instant case, a substantial amount of time has been expended over the last few months on fact discovery. Based on the sheer volume and number of fact witness depositions, including the time involved in preparation of those depositions, it has become apparent the parties require additional time to complete discovery. CASE NO.: 21-CA-410 Page 4 of 10 9. Clearly, under the circumstances the parties cannot obtain necessary record evidence for non-binding arbitration purposes, in time of the currently scheduled non-binding arbitration date of January 13, 2023. 10. The record clearly reflects the parties have been earnest and diligent in their collective efforts to conduct discovery and investigate the facts surrounding the incident and the issue of liability. For all intents and purposes, liability is the threshold and primary determination that has to be made, based on the evidence discovered against all four Defendants separately, which is a fact-intensive endeavor. It has become apparent that the parties will need additional time to conduct meaningful discovery geared towards the next critical issue, the Plaintiff's alleged damages. 11.To date, Plaintiff's alleged damages are inconclusive and no demands have been made. None of the Defendants have been provided with any information regarding the Plaintiff's alleged damages beyond what has been produced in written discovery and the Defendants require additional time to further explore the Plaintiff's damage claims. 12 Evidence regarding the Plaintiff's alleged damages is essential for the Defendants to adequately prepare for mediation/arbitration. 13. Furthermore, liability depositions are still taking place with some key depositions only recently completed and others still outstanding. In this regard, the lead traffic homicide investigator was only recently deposed on December 19, 2022 and the deposition of the CASE NO.: 21-CA-410 Page 5 of 10 other driver involved in the motor vehicle accident is scheduled to take place on March 2, 2023 after having to be moved due to a conflict. 14. Despite its title, non-binding arbitration it is not an innocuous exercise where the parties discuss their respected positions and exchange offers and demands in an effort to resolve the issues at bar; rather, it is a hearing governed by both Florida Statute, 44.103, as well as Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.820, conducted by an officer authorized by the Florida Supreme Court, who will render a written decision at the conclusion of the hearing. 15. It is inappropriate for a party to introduce material evidence for the first time at non- binding arbitration, just as a party should not be subject to trial by ambush, nor should a party be subject to arbitration by ambush, where they are presented with evidence for the very first time with no notice, and no opportunity to prepare a response or rebuttal. 16. Furthermore, Fla. Stat. §44.103(6) provides, either party may file a motion within 30 days after the entry of a Judgment and the court may assess costs against the party requesting atrial de novo, including arbitration costs, court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and other reasonable costs such as investigation expenses and expenses for experts or other testimony which were incurred after the arbitration hearing and continuing through the trial of the case in accordance with the guidelines for taxation of costs as adopted by the Supreme Court. It is important to note that Section 44.103(6), Fla. Stat. provides the trial court with the discretion to assess costs and attorney fees or not. See Saltzman, M.D. v. Hadlock, 112 So.3d 772 (SthDCA 2013). CASE NO.: 21-CA-410 Page 6 of 10 17. Florida Statute 44.103(6) further includes attorney fees and costs assessment guide- lines. If the plaintiff files for a trial de novo and obtains a Judgment at trial which is at least 25% less than the arbitration award, costs and attorney fees shall be set off against the award. If the costs and attorney fees awarded total more than the amount of the Judgment, the court shall enter Judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff for the amount of the costs and attorney fees, less the amount of the award to the plaintiff. Alternatively, if the defendant files for a trial de novo and has a Judgment entered against it which is at least 25% more than the arbitration award, the court may assess costs and attorney's fees against the defendant. 18. Because of the enforcement mechanism provided in Florida Statute 44.103(6), which potentially subjects the party appealing the arbitration award to the opposing party's attorneys’ fees and costs, attending non-binding arbitration prematurely without information regarding the Plaintiff's alleged damages severely prejudices the Defendants who will be forced to either speculate without any evidence regarding the Plaintiff's alleged damages, or they will be blindsided with evidence for the first time at the arbitration hearing without having any information regarding the Plaintiff's damages beforehand. 19, In addition, the parties have not had the opportunity to engage in any meaningful discovery regarding the Plaintiff's alleged damages, and therefore conducting arbitration as currently scheduled would be futile and a waste of judicial resources. Furthermore, ADR CASE NO.: 21-CA-410 Page 7 of 10 as currently scheduled is very unlikely to result in resolution of the case. The Twentieth Judicial Circuit has a requirement making it mandatory for parties to engage in alternative dispute resolution before trial. Pre-maturely engaging in alternative dispute resolution at this current juncture, where discovery is ongoing and incomplete decreases the likelihood that ADR will result in resolution, and would appear to be at odds with the purpose of this mandatory requirement. 20.A logical and common sense solution would inhibit the parties to avoid engaging in an unproductive, pre-mature alternative dispute resolution. The alternative dispute resolution deadline should be extended after the deadline for the parties’ expert disclosures, which is due March 1, 2023. By extending the deadline to April 15, 2023, the parties will have concluded both fact and expert discovery, and the parties will have an opportunity to properly evaluate their respected positions and engage in meaningful and productive discussions at the arbitration hearing, where they can argue and present the same evidence that would be used at trial. The April 15, 2023 deadline would not prejudice any party, and it would afford any party the opportunity to file a trial de novo, in the event they disagree with the arbitration award. 21 Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(b) permits the requested enlargement of time. Specifically, said rule provides that when an act must be done within a specified time, the court in its discretion may enlarge the time if the request is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed. Thus, this Court may grant the extension requested. CASE NO.: 21-CA-410 Page 8 of 10 22. The parties are hopeful that the arbitration decision can assist in resolution, as well as keeping expert and trial costs down, which will also assist in that regard. 23. This Motion is not brought for the purposes of delay and the granting of the requested extension of time will prejudice no party. 24. Prior to filing this motion, the undersigned conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, who, is not in agreement with the relief requested herein. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Defendants, HOOTERS OF PORT CHARLOTTE, INC., BWR NORTH PORT, LLC, ATLANTA RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, AND JACKMONT HOSPITALITY, INC., hereby respecfully move that this Honorable Court enter an order granting its Motion to vacate The Order Setting Trial and Pretrial Conference entered on December 15, 2022, or in the alternative amend the dates to reflect the July 1, 2023 estimated trial date. Defendants respecfully move that this Honorable Court enter an order granting Defendants’ Joint Motion to extend the deadline to complete non-binding arbitration by April 15, 2023, and that the Court grant any further relief it deems necessary and proper. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Electronic Mail, to all counsel of record on the attached Service List, this 22"! day of December, 2022. CASE NO.: 21-CA-410 Page 9 of 10 Jorge W. Rodriguez-Sierra, Esq. Joshua Brankamp, Esq. LUKS, SANTANIELLO, PETRILLO, RITTER CHUSID, LLP COHEN & PETERFRIEND Heron Bay Coporate Center 1422 Hendry Street, 3"? Floor 5850 Coral Ridge Dr., Ste. 201 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Coral Springs, FL 33076 Phone: (239) 561-2828 Phone: (954) 340-2200 Fax: (239) 561-2841 Fax: (954) 340-2210 Florida Bar No. 1004215 Florida Bar No. 0031315 jrodriguezsierra insurancedefense.net Email: jbrankamp@rittershusid.com sf Jorge W. Rodriquez-Sierra /s/ Joshua Brankamp December 22, 2022 December 22, 2022 Yasmine Kirollos, Esq Conroy Simberg 12730 New Brittany Blvd., Ste. 300 Fort Myers, FL 33907 Phone: (239) 337-1101 Fax: (239) 334-3383 Florida Bar No. 110380 Email: Ykirollos@conroysimberg.com ‘s/ Yasmine Kirollos December 22, 2022 CASE NO.: 21-CA-410 Page 10 of 10 SERVICE LIST Attorney for Plaintiffs Randall Spivey, Esq. Spivey Law Firm 13400 Parker Commons Blvd. Fort Myers, FL 33912 Randall@spiveylaw.com Attorney for Defendant, Hooters of Port Charlotte, Inc. Joshua Brankamp, Esq. Mitchel Chusid, Esq. Michael Rubin, Esq. Ritter Chusid, LLP 5850 Coral Ridge Drive, Suite 201 Coral Springs, FL 33076 mrubin@ritterchusid.com jbrankamp@ritterchusid.com Attorneys for Jackmont Hospitality and Atlanta Restaurants Partners, LLC d/b/a TGI Fridays Cristobal A Casal, Esq. Yasmine Kirollos, Esq. 12730 New Brittany Boulevard, Suite 300 Fort Myers, FL 33907 ccasal@conroysimberg.com eserviceftm@conroysimberg.com Attorney for Defedant, Mark Barcia T.R. Unice Jr., Esq. FBN: 358169 UNICE, SALZMAN, JENSEN, P.A. 1815 Little Road Trinity, FL 34655 service@unicesalzman.com jjensen@unicesalzman.com dcantwell@unicesalzman.com