Preview
Filing # 142210997 E-Filed 01/19/2022 09:22:40 AM
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
THE RIGHT SPINAL CLINIC, INC.
A/A/O LOIDA HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 2021-009772-CC-21
Division: HI01
v.
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
_______________________________________/
MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES SET BY UNIFORM CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL DEADLINES AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS
Defendant, GEICO General Insurance Company (“GEICO”), moves to extend the
deadlines set in the Court’s Uniform Case Management Order Setting Pretrial Deadlines and
Related Requirements:
1. There is a federal action concerning the issues in this claim that has priority over
this action and which renders discovery in this action improper as set forth in GEICO’s Motion
and Supporting Memorandum of Law to Stay Proceedings (“Motion to Stay”) (COS 1/18/2022)
and Motion for Protective Order and Supporting Memorandum of Law (“Motion for Protective
Order”) (COS 1/18/2022). The federal action is Government Employees Ins. Co., et al. v. Luis
Merced, M.D., et al., 8:20-cv-00802-CEH-AAS, in the United States District Court of the Middle
District of Florida (the “Federal Action”). The Federal Action addresses whether GEICO is
required to make any payments of PIP Benefits to Plaintiff that were not provided in substantial
compliance with all relevant applicable criminal, civil, and administrative requirements of Florida
and federal law related to the provision of the underlying services or treatment.
SGR/36019115.1
2. Due to the Federal Action, it appears the principle of priority will apply to this
action to require that it be stayed pending final disposition of the Federal Action. Such stays also
require that discovery not be conducted in the subsequent state court action due to the prospect of
inconsistent discovery orders and duplicative discovery. See OPKO Health, Inc. v. Lipsius, 279
So.3d 787, 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), rev. denied, 2020 WL 789085, (Fla. Feb. 18, 2020) (staying
a later-filed action in its entirety to prevent unnecessary and duplicative litigation oppressive to
both parties); Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. v. Benihana, Inc., 129 So. 3d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA
2014) (staying a later-filed action, including discovery, given the “prospect for inconsistent
verdicts or other outcomes, if the [later-filed] lawsuit is permitted to proceed before disposition of
the [first-filed] lawsuits.”); New Plan Realty Trust v. Towers Apartments, Inc., 350 So.2d 99 (Fla.
1st DCA 1977) (finding that trial court abused its discretion in excepting discovery proceedings
from a stay of the cause pending in a previously filed suit in New York. “The whole purpose of
the stay is to avoid duplicate proceedings…, and we find no reasonable basis for allowing duplicate
discovery proceedings.”).
3. As set forth in GEICO’s Motions above, the principle of priority requires that this
action be stayed until final disposition of the Federal Action. In particular, the Federal Action
challenges whether Plaintiff’s charges are compensable under Florida law, including raising the
issue of the reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiff’s charges as well as the legality of Plaintiff’s
operations.
4. As also set forth in GEICO’s Motions, discovery in this case is improper while the
Federal Action is being litigated as potentially duplicative and inconsistent and therefore resulting
in irreparable harm. The same principle would apply to disclosure of and attempting discovery
relating to expert testimony.
2
SGR/36019115.1
5. Despite the pending Federal Action, Plaintiff has filed this action and served
discovery before GEICO has had an opportunity to set its Motion to Stay and Motion for Protective
Order for hearing.
6. On December 17, 2021, the Court entered its Uniform Case Management Order
Setting Pretrial Deadlines and Related Requirements setting various deadlines including deadlines
for the parties to submit exhibit lists, witness lists and a pre-trial stipulation. As GEICO is seeking
a stay of this action, any and all trial deadlines should also be stayed accordingly.
7. GEICO respectfully requests an extension of time for the Parties to comply with
the deadlines listed in the Uniform Case Management Order Setting Pretrial Deadlines and Related
Requirements until the Court has adjudicated the pending Motion to Stay and Motion for
Protective Order including any appeal.
8. The requested extension will not prejudice Plaintiff, will protect against irreparable
harm to GEICO that the principle of priority exists to avoid, and will conserve judicial resources.
WHEREFORE, GEICO respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order extending the
time for the Parties to comply with the deadlines established by the Court’s Uniform Case
Management Order Setting Pretrial Deadlines and Related Requirements until such time as the
Court adjudicates GEICO’s Motion to Stay and Motion for Protective Order and for any other
relief.
Dated: January 19, 2022.
[This area intentionally left blank.]
3
SGR/36019115.1
Respectfully submitted,
SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
/s/ E. K. Cottrell
Edward K. Cottrell (FBN 13579)
ecottrell@sgrlaw.com
Drew Krieger (FBN 117800)
dkrieger@sgrlaw.com
50 N. Laura Street, Suite 2600
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Telephone: (904) 598-6100
Facsimile: (904) 598-6300
Primary Service Email: PIPeservice@sgrlaw.com
And
LAW OFFICE OF HAYDEE DE LA ROSA-
TOLGYESI
2600 Douglas Road, Suite 700
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Telephone: (786) 483-1830
Facsimile: (305) 373-3661
Primary Service Email: miamipipgeico@geico.com
Attorneys for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed through the
Florida Court’s E-filing Portal this 19th day of January, 2022, which will send a copy of the filed
document to:
Kelly M Arias, Esq.
THE EVOLUTION LAW GROUP, P.A.
2700 Glades Circle, Suite 145
Weston, Florida 33327
Telephone: (954) 840-6665
Facsimile (954) 840-6997
Service Email: serviceelg@theevolutionlawgroup.com; george@bgelegal.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
/s/ E. K. Cottrell
Attorney
4
SGR/36019115.1
Preview
Filing # 142210997 E-Filed 01/19/2022 09:22:40 AM IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA THE RIGHT SPINAL CLINIC, INC. A/A/O LOIDA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2021-009772-CC-21 Division: HI01 v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. _______________________________________/ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES SET BY UNIFORM CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER SETTING PRETRIAL DEADLINES AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS Defendant, GEICO General Insurance Company (“GEICO”), moves to extend the deadlines set in the Court’s Uniform Case Management Order Setting Pretrial Deadlines and Related Requirements: 1. There is a federal action concerning the issues in this claim that has priority over this action and which renders discovery in this action improper as set forth in GEICO’s Motion and Supporting Memorandum of Law to Stay Proceedings (“Motion to Stay”) (COS 1/18/2022) and Motion for Protective Order and Supporting Memorandum of Law (“Motion for Protective Order”) (COS 1/18/2022). The federal action is Government Employees Ins. Co., et al. v. Luis Merced, M.D., et al., 8:20-cv-00802-CEH-AAS, in the United States District Court of the Middle District of Florida (the “Federal Action”). The Federal Action addresses whether GEICO is required to make any payments of PIP Benefits to Plaintiff that were not provided in substantial compliance with all relevant applicable criminal, civil, and administrative requirements of Florida and federal law related to the provision of the underlying services or treatment. SGR/36019115.1 2. Due to the Federal Action, it appears the principle of priority will apply to this action to require that it be stayed pending final disposition of the Federal Action. Such stays also require that discovery not be conducted in the subsequent state court action due to the prospect of inconsistent discovery orders and duplicative discovery. See OPKO Health, Inc. v. Lipsius, 279 So.3d 787, 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), rev. denied, 2020 WL 789085, (Fla. Feb. 18, 2020) (staying a later-filed action in its entirety to prevent unnecessary and duplicative litigation oppressive to both parties); Benihana of Tokyo, Inc. v. Benihana, Inc., 129 So. 3d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (staying a later-filed action, including discovery, given the “prospect for inconsistent verdicts or other outcomes, if the [later-filed] lawsuit is permitted to proceed before disposition of the [first-filed] lawsuits.”); New Plan Realty Trust v. Towers Apartments, Inc., 350 So.2d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (finding that trial court abused its discretion in excepting discovery proceedings from a stay of the cause pending in a previously filed suit in New York. “The whole purpose of the stay is to avoid duplicate proceedings…, and we find no reasonable basis for allowing duplicate discovery proceedings.”). 3. As set forth in GEICO’s Motions above, the principle of priority requires that this action be stayed until final disposition of the Federal Action. In particular, the Federal Action challenges whether Plaintiff’s charges are compensable under Florida law, including raising the issue of the reasonableness and necessity of Plaintiff’s charges as well as the legality of Plaintiff’s operations. 4. As also set forth in GEICO’s Motions, discovery in this case is improper while the Federal Action is being litigated as potentially duplicative and inconsistent and therefore resulting in irreparable harm. The same principle would apply to disclosure of and attempting discovery relating to expert testimony. 2 SGR/36019115.1 5. Despite the pending Federal Action, Plaintiff has filed this action and served discovery before GEICO has had an opportunity to set its Motion to Stay and Motion for Protective Order for hearing. 6. On December 17, 2021, the Court entered its Uniform Case Management Order Setting Pretrial Deadlines and Related Requirements setting various deadlines including deadlines for the parties to submit exhibit lists, witness lists and a pre-trial stipulation. As GEICO is seeking a stay of this action, any and all trial deadlines should also be stayed accordingly. 7. GEICO respectfully requests an extension of time for the Parties to comply with the deadlines listed in the Uniform Case Management Order Setting Pretrial Deadlines and Related Requirements until the Court has adjudicated the pending Motion to Stay and Motion for Protective Order including any appeal. 8. The requested extension will not prejudice Plaintiff, will protect against irreparable harm to GEICO that the principle of priority exists to avoid, and will conserve judicial resources. WHEREFORE, GEICO respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order extending the time for the Parties to comply with the deadlines established by the Court’s Uniform Case Management Order Setting Pretrial Deadlines and Related Requirements until such time as the Court adjudicates GEICO’s Motion to Stay and Motion for Protective Order and for any other relief. Dated: January 19, 2022. [This area intentionally left blank.] 3 SGR/36019115.1 Respectfully submitted, SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP /s/ E. K. Cottrell Edward K. Cottrell (FBN 13579) ecottrell@sgrlaw.com Drew Krieger (FBN 117800) dkrieger@sgrlaw.com 50 N. Laura Street, Suite 2600 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone: (904) 598-6100 Facsimile: (904) 598-6300 Primary Service Email: PIPeservice@sgrlaw.com And LAW OFFICE OF HAYDEE DE LA ROSA- TOLGYESI 2600 Douglas Road, Suite 700 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Telephone: (786) 483-1830 Facsimile: (305) 373-3661 Primary Service Email: miamipipgeico@geico.com Attorneys for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed through the Florida Court’s E-filing Portal this 19th day of January, 2022, which will send a copy of the filed document to: Kelly M Arias, Esq. THE EVOLUTION LAW GROUP, P.A. 2700 Glades Circle, Suite 145 Weston, Florida 33327 Telephone: (954) 840-6665 Facsimile (954) 840-6997 Service Email: serviceelg@theevolutionlawgroup.com; george@bgelegal.com Attorney for Plaintiff /s/ E. K. Cottrell Attorney 4 SGR/36019115.1