Preview
Filing # 193764519 E-Filed 03/11/2024 04:22:29 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
LUIS ANTONIO DAVILA, OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
Plaintiff, Case No. 2023 CA 001120
v.
RALPH JACQUES AND HOME DEPOT
USA, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/
DEFENDANT, HOME DEPOT USA INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S
PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT TO DEFENDANT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSAL
FOR SETTLEMENT
Defendant HOME DEPOT USA INC., (hereinafter “Defendant”), by and through
its undersigned counsel, pursuant to the applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure,
without waiving jurisdiction or any jurisdictional defenses, including, but not limited to,
lack of jurisdiction over the person, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter,
insufficiency of service of process, insufficiency of process, and failure to state a cause
of action, as well as all defenses, both mandatory and discretionary provided for under
Florida law, hereby requests this Court to strike Plaintiff, LUIS ANTONIO DAVILA’S
(hereinafter “Plaintiff”), Proposal for Settlement served upon the Defendant on March 1,
2024. In support, Defendant would show:
1. This is an action seeking damages for personal injuries alleged to have
been sustained as a result of an alleged motor vehicle accident which occurred on
November 16, 2022.
2. On or about March 20, 2023, the Plaintiff, Luis Antonio Davila,
commenced this action by filing his Complaint in Osceola County, Florida.
3. On April 9, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant Home Depot with a Summons
and Complaint, only.
4. On July 5, 2023, the Defendant, Home Depot, through prior defense
counsel responded to the Plaintiff’s Complaint by filing its Answer and Defenses to the
Plaintiff’s Complaint.
5. On or about August 4, 2023, Plaintiff partially answered written discovery
issued by Defendant Home Depot.
6. On December 13, 2023, the undersigned entered into a Joint Stipulation
with former counsel for the Defendant. An order on the Joint Stipulation was entered on
December 14, 2023.
7. Once retained as counsel of record, the undersigned reviewed Plaintif’’s
Answers to discovery, however, it became clear that the responses were either
incomplete or non-responsive. As such, the Defendants were eventually forced to file a
Motion to Compel Better Responses on January 26, 2024.
8. On January 29, 2022, the deposition of Plaintiff was noticed for March 4,
2024.
9. On March 1, 2024, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant Home Depot with
updated answers to initial discovery.
10. On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff served the Defendant with a Proposal for
Settlement.
11. On March 4, 2024, the parties began the deposition of Luis Antonio
Davila, which had to be continued due to opposing counsel’s time constraints. As such,
the deposition only covered the liability aspect of Mr. Davila’s claims against the
Defendant Home Depot. The parties are in the process of scheduling the second half of
2
Mr. Davila’s deposition.
12. As this Court is aware, a Proposal for Settlement must be made in good
faith and “for an offer or proposal of settlement to be made in good faith the offeror must
have had a reasonable foundation for making the offer and an intent to settle the case.”
Official Cargo Transp. Co. v. Certain Interested Underwriters, 368 F. Supp. 2d 1314,
1317 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citing Wagner v. Brandeberry, 761 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d D.C.A.
2000)).
13. The Defendant would submit that the Plaintiff refers to Florida Statute
768.79, offer of judgment and demand for judgment within Plaintiff’s Proposal for
Settlement and subsection (7)(a) of said Statute provides:
(7)(a) If a party is entitled to costs and fees pursuant to the provisions of
this section, the court may, in its discretion, determine that an offer
was not made in good faith. In such case, the court may disallow an
award of costs and attorney’s fees.
(b) When determining the reasonableness of an award of attorney’s
fees pursuant to this section, the court shall consider, along with all
other relevant criteria, the following additional factors:
1. The then apparent merit or lack of merit in the claim.
2. The number and nature of offers made by the parties.
3. The closeness of questions of fact and law at issue.
4. Whether the person making the offer had unreasonably
refused to furnish information necessary to evaluate the
reasonableness of such offer.
14. The Plaintiff in his Complaint alleges in his Amended Complaint “mental
anguish, loss of capacity for enjoyment of life, and loss of ability to lead and enjoy a
normal life”. However, these are issues that need to be better addressed and evaluated
at his deposition.
15. To date, the Defendant has not had an opportunity to complete the
deposition of the Plaintiff with regards to the issues of his damages and as such, it will
3
need additional time to evaluate this case or at least complete the deposition of Mr.
Davila.
16. The Defendant would further refer this Court to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.140
which provides as follows:
f) Motion to Strike. A party may move to strike or the court may strike
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from any pleading at
any time.
17. Although the Plaintiff, Luis Antonio Davila’s, Proposal for Settlement
technically complies with Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.4429(b), it was only served without the
completion of his deposition.
18. The foregoing events have had the effect of potentially “setting the
Defendant up” for a claim of attorney’s fees which is not the purpose of the applicable
Statute and Rule of Civil Procedure governing said matters. Consequently, the
Defendant submits that the Plaintiff should not be allowed to submit a Proposal for
Settlement to the Defendant without also furnishing the “information necessary to
evaluate the reasonableness of such offer” or attempt to circumvent the extension
already provided to Defendant pertaining to the same. The foregoing actions do not fall
within the spirit of Florida Statute 768.79 or Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.442, and as a result,
Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement to the Defendant should be stricken as a matter of
law.
19. The record establishes that Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement was not
made or served in good faith but rather in bad faith. The record demonstrates that
Plaintiff’s latest action is merely an attempt to set up a claim for attorney’s fees. Clearly,
Plaintiff recognized that it would be impossible for Defendant to evaluate his Proposal
4
without first taking his deposition and obtaining his records. In sum, Plaintiff has
attempted to put Defendant between the proverbial “rock and a hard place.” He has
served a proposal knowing that the Defendant cannot be reasonably expected to make
a thoughtful evaluation of it prior to its expiration.
20. Florida's offer of judgment statute "serves as a sanction for an
unreasonable rejection of a good faith offer of settlement." Segundo v. Reid, 20 So. 3d
933, 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (reversing award of attorneys' fees where the
circumstances at the time of the offer did not indicate that the award of fees was
reasonable). "The spirit of the offer of judgment statute is to encourage litigants to
resolve cases early to avoid incurring substantial amounts of court costs and attorney's
fees." Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So. 2d 946, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
21. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, as well as section 768.79, Florida
Statutes, requires that a party making a proposal for settlement do so in good faith. Fla.
R. Civ. P. 1.442(h)(1); Fla. Stat. § 768.79(7)(a). "A trial judge may reject a claim for
costs and attorney fees based on the refusal to accept a proposal for settlement if the
court determines that the proposal was not made in good faith." Padavano, Florida Civil
Practice, West’s Florida Practice Series § 11.5, p. 383 (2003 Ed.). Simply, an offer not
made in good faith should not serve to bind the non-prevailing party who has acted in
good faith. Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So. 2d at 946, 948.
22. The good faith requirement of both Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442,
and section 768.79, Florida Statutes, is determined by the subjective motivation of the
offeror. Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Weinstein, 747 So. 2d 1019 (Fla.
3d DCA 1999); Wagner v. Brandeberry, 761 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). A
5
proposal of settlement "made merely to lay the predicate for a future award of attorney
fees and costs" should not be considered a good faith offer, and consequently should
not be given effect by the trial court. Eagleman, 673 So. 2d at 948. A party must be
able to satisfy the good faith standard as of the date the offer was made. Gurney v.
State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 889 So. 2d 97, 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). A court must
look to all the known or reasonably believed facts, circumstances, and the law to
determine if an offer was made in good faith. Official Cargo Transport Co., Inc. v.
Certain Interested Underwriters, 368 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2005). The term “bad
faith” may very well mean something different, to reasonable minds, than the term "not
in good faith." Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). However, both
the absence of good faith and the presence of bad faith reasonably include not
intending to settle a case for the offer. Id. "Making an offer without any intent to
conclude a binding agreement seems to us the essence of both 'not in good faith’ and
‘bad faith' Id. at 1040.
23. The Defendant cannot possibly accept or reject the proposal because the
deposition of the Plaintiff has not yet been completed. Prior to the commencement of
this action, the Defendant was provided with minimal information regarding the Plaintiff’s
claimed injuries and damages. As of the date of this Motion, the only information the
Defendant has regarding the Plaintiff’s claimed injuries and damages are his answers to
initial discovery.
24. Plaintiff is well aware of the lack of discovery conducted this far. While
Plaintiff might have produced some of his medical records and bills, those are not the
only documents and/or discovery that must be completed in order to determine whether
6
or not the Proposal for Settlement is reasonable. In fact, the Defendant Home Depot
will not be able to properly evaluate this claim until Mr. Davila’s deposition is completed.
25. In order to properly evaluate the proposal made by the Plaintiff, it is an
absolute necessity that the Defendant be able to complete the deposition of the Plaintiff.
26. As such, it is apparent that the Plaintiff has acted in bad faith and is either
attempting to coerce the Defendant into accepting the Plaintiff’s proposal before the
Defendant is able to meaningfully evaluate the reasonableness of the Plaintiff’s
proposals, or attempting to set the Defendant up for a claim of attorney’s fees.
27. Regardless of the Plaintiff’s motivation, the foregoing actions do not fall
within the spirit of Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.422, and as a result the Plaintiff's Proposal for
Settlement should be stricken as a matter of law.
28. The Defendant would further state, in the alternative, that should Plaintiff’s
Proposal for Settlement to the Defendant be allowed to stand, the Defendant would
request this Court to enter an Order extending the time period within which the
Defendant is allowed to respond to said Proposal for Settlement until such time as the
Plaintiff has provided the Defendant with an opportunity to complete Plaintiff’s
deposition and Defendant has obtained all of the Plaintiff, Luis Antonio Davila’s,
medical, employment and other records; specifically, the Defendants regarding his
alleged injuries and damages that would allow the Defendant to properly and accurately
evaluate the Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement in light of the facts and circumstances
known to the parties in this case.
29. The filing of this motion effectively extends the subject period of time
beyond its prescribed deadline pending a ruling on the motion pursuant to Florida Rule
of Civil Procedure 1.090 (b). Cf., Goldy v. Corbett Cranes Services, Inc., 692 SO.2d
7
225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Timely motion for enlargement of time extends time period for
proposal for settlement pending a ruling on the motion); Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp.,
601 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1992) (requiring motion seeking to extend period within which to
serve adverse party with initial process to only be filed within 120-day period, not ruled
on within that period, in order for suit not be subject to automatic dismissal); Nationwide
Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Holmes, 352 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (same conclusion in
the context of motion to enlarge period for substitution of party following suggestion of
death); and Pinnacle Corp. of Central Florida, Inc. vs. R.L. Jernigan Sandblasting &
Painting, Inc., 718 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1998) (Motion for extension of time prior
to expiration of time for response to complaint).
30. The Defendant would further state that the Defendant, by and through its
undersigned counsel, have contacted or will contact counsel for Plaintiff to make a good
faith effort to resolve this matter without judicial involvement, prior to scheduling this
Motion for a hearing before this Court.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons and based upon the legal authorities
cited above, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order striking the
Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement dated March 1, 2024, or in the alternative, to enter an
Order extending the time period within which said Defendant has to respond (accept or
reject) said Proposal for Settlement, until such time as the Plaintiff has provided the
Defendant with an opportunity to complete Plaintiff’s deposition.
[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the
Court by using the eFiling Portal, and that a copy was served via Electronic Mail on the
11th day of March, 2024 to Counsel for Plaintiff: Manuel Stefan, Esquire, Morgan &
Morgan, P.A., 4495 South Semoran Blvd., Orlando, FL 32822;
MStefan@forthepeople.com and cvictor@forthepeople.com.
/s/ Raisul A. Bhuiyan
JEFFREY M. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 000892
RAISUL A. BHUIYAN, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No.: 1025926
Alvarez, Thompson & Smoak, P.A.
P.O. Box 3511
Orlando, FL 32802-3511
Telephone No.: (407) 210-2796
Facsimile No.: (407) 210-2795
Designated Email Addresses:
jmt@atslawyers.com; rbhuiyan@atslawyers.com;
thill@atslawyers.com; jasenjo@atslawyers.com;
biglesias@atslawyers.com
9
Preview
Filing # 193764519 E-Filed 03/11/2024 04:22:29 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LUIS ANTONIO DAVILA, OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA Plaintiff, Case No. 2023 CA 001120 v. RALPH JACQUES AND HOME DEPOT USA, INC., Defendant. ________________________________/ DEFENDANT, HOME DEPOT USA INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT TO DEFENDANT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT Defendant HOME DEPOT USA INC., (hereinafter “Defendant”), by and through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to the applicable Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, without waiving jurisdiction or any jurisdictional defenses, including, but not limited to, lack of jurisdiction over the person, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, insufficiency of service of process, insufficiency of process, and failure to state a cause of action, as well as all defenses, both mandatory and discretionary provided for under Florida law, hereby requests this Court to strike Plaintiff, LUIS ANTONIO DAVILA’S (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), Proposal for Settlement served upon the Defendant on March 1, 2024. In support, Defendant would show: 1. This is an action seeking damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of an alleged motor vehicle accident which occurred on November 16, 2022. 2. On or about March 20, 2023, the Plaintiff, Luis Antonio Davila, commenced this action by filing his Complaint in Osceola County, Florida. 3. On April 9, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant Home Depot with a Summons and Complaint, only. 4. On July 5, 2023, the Defendant, Home Depot, through prior defense counsel responded to the Plaintiff’s Complaint by filing its Answer and Defenses to the Plaintiff’s Complaint. 5. On or about August 4, 2023, Plaintiff partially answered written discovery issued by Defendant Home Depot. 6. On December 13, 2023, the undersigned entered into a Joint Stipulation with former counsel for the Defendant. An order on the Joint Stipulation was entered on December 14, 2023. 7. Once retained as counsel of record, the undersigned reviewed Plaintif’’s Answers to discovery, however, it became clear that the responses were either incomplete or non-responsive. As such, the Defendants were eventually forced to file a Motion to Compel Better Responses on January 26, 2024. 8. On January 29, 2022, the deposition of Plaintiff was noticed for March 4, 2024. 9. On March 1, 2024, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant Home Depot with updated answers to initial discovery. 10. On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff served the Defendant with a Proposal for Settlement. 11. On March 4, 2024, the parties began the deposition of Luis Antonio Davila, which had to be continued due to opposing counsel’s time constraints. As such, the deposition only covered the liability aspect of Mr. Davila’s claims against the Defendant Home Depot. The parties are in the process of scheduling the second half of 2 Mr. Davila’s deposition. 12. As this Court is aware, a Proposal for Settlement must be made in good faith and “for an offer or proposal of settlement to be made in good faith the offeror must have had a reasonable foundation for making the offer and an intent to settle the case.” Official Cargo Transp. Co. v. Certain Interested Underwriters, 368 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1317 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citing Wagner v. Brandeberry, 761 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2000)). 13. The Defendant would submit that the Plaintiff refers to Florida Statute 768.79, offer of judgment and demand for judgment within Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement and subsection (7)(a) of said Statute provides: (7)(a) If a party is entitled to costs and fees pursuant to the provisions of this section, the court may, in its discretion, determine that an offer was not made in good faith. In such case, the court may disallow an award of costs and attorney’s fees. (b) When determining the reasonableness of an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to this section, the court shall consider, along with all other relevant criteria, the following additional factors: 1. The then apparent merit or lack of merit in the claim. 2. The number and nature of offers made by the parties. 3. The closeness of questions of fact and law at issue. 4. Whether the person making the offer had unreasonably refused to furnish information necessary to evaluate the reasonableness of such offer. 14. The Plaintiff in his Complaint alleges in his Amended Complaint “mental anguish, loss of capacity for enjoyment of life, and loss of ability to lead and enjoy a normal life”. However, these are issues that need to be better addressed and evaluated at his deposition. 15. To date, the Defendant has not had an opportunity to complete the deposition of the Plaintiff with regards to the issues of his damages and as such, it will 3 need additional time to evaluate this case or at least complete the deposition of Mr. Davila. 16. The Defendant would further refer this Court to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.140 which provides as follows: f) Motion to Strike. A party may move to strike or the court may strike redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from any pleading at any time. 17. Although the Plaintiff, Luis Antonio Davila’s, Proposal for Settlement technically complies with Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.4429(b), it was only served without the completion of his deposition. 18. The foregoing events have had the effect of potentially “setting the Defendant up” for a claim of attorney’s fees which is not the purpose of the applicable Statute and Rule of Civil Procedure governing said matters. Consequently, the Defendant submits that the Plaintiff should not be allowed to submit a Proposal for Settlement to the Defendant without also furnishing the “information necessary to evaluate the reasonableness of such offer” or attempt to circumvent the extension already provided to Defendant pertaining to the same. The foregoing actions do not fall within the spirit of Florida Statute 768.79 or Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.442, and as a result, Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement to the Defendant should be stricken as a matter of law. 19. The record establishes that Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement was not made or served in good faith but rather in bad faith. The record demonstrates that Plaintiff’s latest action is merely an attempt to set up a claim for attorney’s fees. Clearly, Plaintiff recognized that it would be impossible for Defendant to evaluate his Proposal 4 without first taking his deposition and obtaining his records. In sum, Plaintiff has attempted to put Defendant between the proverbial “rock and a hard place.” He has served a proposal knowing that the Defendant cannot be reasonably expected to make a thoughtful evaluation of it prior to its expiration. 20. Florida's offer of judgment statute "serves as a sanction for an unreasonable rejection of a good faith offer of settlement." Segundo v. Reid, 20 So. 3d 933, 936 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (reversing award of attorneys' fees where the circumstances at the time of the offer did not indicate that the award of fees was reasonable). "The spirit of the offer of judgment statute is to encourage litigants to resolve cases early to avoid incurring substantial amounts of court costs and attorney's fees." Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So. 2d 946, 947 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). 21. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, as well as section 768.79, Florida Statutes, requires that a party making a proposal for settlement do so in good faith. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(h)(1); Fla. Stat. § 768.79(7)(a). "A trial judge may reject a claim for costs and attorney fees based on the refusal to accept a proposal for settlement if the court determines that the proposal was not made in good faith." Padavano, Florida Civil Practice, West’s Florida Practice Series § 11.5, p. 383 (2003 Ed.). Simply, an offer not made in good faith should not serve to bind the non-prevailing party who has acted in good faith. Eagleman v. Eagleman, 673 So. 2d at 946, 948. 22. The good faith requirement of both Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442, and section 768.79, Florida Statutes, is determined by the subjective motivation of the offeror. Dept. of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Weinstein, 747 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Wagner v. Brandeberry, 761 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). A 5 proposal of settlement "made merely to lay the predicate for a future award of attorney fees and costs" should not be considered a good faith offer, and consequently should not be given effect by the trial court. Eagleman, 673 So. 2d at 948. A party must be able to satisfy the good faith standard as of the date the offer was made. Gurney v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 889 So. 2d 97, 200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). A court must look to all the known or reasonably believed facts, circumstances, and the law to determine if an offer was made in good faith. Official Cargo Transport Co., Inc. v. Certain Interested Underwriters, 368 F. Supp. 2d 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2005). The term “bad faith” may very well mean something different, to reasonable minds, than the term "not in good faith." Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). However, both the absence of good faith and the presence of bad faith reasonably include not intending to settle a case for the offer. Id. "Making an offer without any intent to conclude a binding agreement seems to us the essence of both 'not in good faith’ and ‘bad faith' Id. at 1040. 23. The Defendant cannot possibly accept or reject the proposal because the deposition of the Plaintiff has not yet been completed. Prior to the commencement of this action, the Defendant was provided with minimal information regarding the Plaintiff’s claimed injuries and damages. As of the date of this Motion, the only information the Defendant has regarding the Plaintiff’s claimed injuries and damages are his answers to initial discovery. 24. Plaintiff is well aware of the lack of discovery conducted this far. While Plaintiff might have produced some of his medical records and bills, those are not the only documents and/or discovery that must be completed in order to determine whether 6 or not the Proposal for Settlement is reasonable. In fact, the Defendant Home Depot will not be able to properly evaluate this claim until Mr. Davila’s deposition is completed. 25. In order to properly evaluate the proposal made by the Plaintiff, it is an absolute necessity that the Defendant be able to complete the deposition of the Plaintiff. 26. As such, it is apparent that the Plaintiff has acted in bad faith and is either attempting to coerce the Defendant into accepting the Plaintiff’s proposal before the Defendant is able to meaningfully evaluate the reasonableness of the Plaintiff’s proposals, or attempting to set the Defendant up for a claim of attorney’s fees. 27. Regardless of the Plaintiff’s motivation, the foregoing actions do not fall within the spirit of Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.422, and as a result the Plaintiff's Proposal for Settlement should be stricken as a matter of law. 28. The Defendant would further state, in the alternative, that should Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement to the Defendant be allowed to stand, the Defendant would request this Court to enter an Order extending the time period within which the Defendant is allowed to respond to said Proposal for Settlement until such time as the Plaintiff has provided the Defendant with an opportunity to complete Plaintiff’s deposition and Defendant has obtained all of the Plaintiff, Luis Antonio Davila’s, medical, employment and other records; specifically, the Defendants regarding his alleged injuries and damages that would allow the Defendant to properly and accurately evaluate the Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement in light of the facts and circumstances known to the parties in this case. 29. The filing of this motion effectively extends the subject period of time beyond its prescribed deadline pending a ruling on the motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090 (b). Cf., Goldy v. Corbett Cranes Services, Inc., 692 SO.2d 7 225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (Timely motion for enlargement of time extends time period for proposal for settlement pending a ruling on the motion); Morales v. Sperry Rand Corp., 601 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1992) (requiring motion seeking to extend period within which to serve adverse party with initial process to only be filed within 120-day period, not ruled on within that period, in order for suit not be subject to automatic dismissal); Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Holmes, 352 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (same conclusion in the context of motion to enlarge period for substitution of party following suggestion of death); and Pinnacle Corp. of Central Florida, Inc. vs. R.L. Jernigan Sandblasting & Painting, Inc., 718 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1998) (Motion for extension of time prior to expiration of time for response to complaint). 30. The Defendant would further state that the Defendant, by and through its undersigned counsel, have contacted or will contact counsel for Plaintiff to make a good faith effort to resolve this matter without judicial involvement, prior to scheduling this Motion for a hearing before this Court. WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons and based upon the legal authorities cited above, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order striking the Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement dated March 1, 2024, or in the alternative, to enter an Order extending the time period within which said Defendant has to respond (accept or reject) said Proposal for Settlement, until such time as the Plaintiff has provided the Defendant with an opportunity to complete Plaintiff’s deposition. [CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the eFiling Portal, and that a copy was served via Electronic Mail on the 11th day of March, 2024 to Counsel for Plaintiff: Manuel Stefan, Esquire, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., 4495 South Semoran Blvd., Orlando, FL 32822; MStefan@forthepeople.com and cvictor@forthepeople.com. /s/ Raisul A. Bhuiyan JEFFREY M. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 000892 RAISUL A. BHUIYAN, ESQUIRE Florida Bar No.: 1025926 Alvarez, Thompson & Smoak, P.A. P.O. Box 3511 Orlando, FL 32802-3511 Telephone No.: (407) 210-2796 Facsimile No.: (407) 210-2795 Designated Email Addresses: jmt@atslawyers.com; rbhuiyan@atslawyers.com; thill@atslawyers.com; jasenjo@atslawyers.com; biglesias@atslawyers.com 9