Preview
Filing # 87720937 E-Filed 04/09/2019 04:40:31 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN
AND FOR MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPELLATE DIVISION
CASE NO.: 17-430 AP
L.T. CASE NO.: 09-8981 SP 26
Mark J. Feldman, P.A.,
Appellant,
vs.
State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company
and
Apple Medical Center, LLC
a/a/o Joan Perez,
Appellees.
/
APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE STATE FARM'S
MOTION TO STRIKE APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
Pursuant to rule 9.300(a), the appellant, Mark J. Feldman,
P.A., responds as follows to the appellee State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company’s motion to strike the appellant's
latest, 3 notices of supplemental authority:
1. A motion to strike a notice of supplemental authority is
improper. See Sarasota County v. Ex, 645 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
(holding motions to strike a notice of supplemental authority are
“simply unauthorized responses that demonstrate an attorney’s lack
of self-discipline.”).
2. In this case, on April 4, 2019, appellee served a motion to
strike the appellant’s notice of three supplemental authorities.
1
MARK J. FELDMAN, P.A. 2350 CORAL WAY, SUITE 302 MIAMI, FL 33145
FELDMANLAWFIRM@BELLSOUTH .NET PH: (305) 285-2500 FX: (305) 285-25023. Thus, based on Sarasota County, the appellee’s motion to
strike is improper and must be denied.
4. Nevertheless, the appellee forges ahead and first argues
that the appellant did not comply with a notice of supplemental
authority.
5. A review of the notice reveals otherwise. The appellant
fully complied with Fla. R. App. P. 9.225, regarding notice of
supplemental authority, and Fla. R. App. P. 9.900 (j), the form to
be used in supplementing authority.
6. Second, the appellee argues the appellant did not comply
with the section of the committee notes on pinpoint citations.
7. However, neither the rule nor the form require pinpoint
citations.
8. A pinpoint citation, however, may be helpful, because it
“enables the court to identify the issues and argument for which
supplemental authority is offered.”
9. The appellant’s notice provided more than a pinpoint
citation.
10. The appellant cited to the specific pages in the initial
and reply briefs for which the supplemental authority was offered.
The appellant cited 9 separate pages with regard to Wishoff v.
Wishoff, 497 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and Garfield v. Green,
687 So.2d 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and cited 8 separate pages with
regard to Zaldivar v. Okeelanta Corp., 877 So.2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA
2004).
11. The above better enabled “the court to identify the issues
2
MARK J. FELDMAN, P.A. 2350 CORAL WAY, SUITE 302 MIAMI, FL 33145
FELDMANLAWFIRM@BELLSOUTH. NET PH: (305) 285-2500 FX; (305) 285-2502and argument for which supplemental authority is offered.”
12. Also, the supplemental authorities had short opinions,
where a “pinpoint citation” was readily apparent.
13. Third, the appellee argues that the appellant’s notice of
supplemental authority contained argument.
14. The appellee is not only completely incorrect but also
misleads this Court.
15. No argument was in the notice.
16. WHEREFORE, the appellant moves that the appellee’s motion
to strike be denied, because
(A) the motion to strike a notice of supplemental authority is
improper.
(B) the appellant had fully complied with rule 9.225 by using
the appellate form for it, rule 9.900(j).
(C) the appellee’s objections to the notices are without
merit.
(D) the appellee’s motion to strike gives the impression
the appellee wants to keep the Court in the dark about the legal
rules that should be applied to correctly resolve this appeal.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
motion was e-mailed this 9 day of April, 2019 to:
1) Nelson C. Bellido, Esq., Roig Lawyers, counsel for appellee
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 44 W. Flagler
Street #2100, Miami, FL 33130, pleadings@roiglawyers.com;
2) Kenneth B. Schurr, Esq., Law offices of Kenneth B. Schurr,
P.A., counsel for appellee Apple Medical Center, LLC a/a/o Joan
3
MARK J. FELDMAN, P.A. 2350 CORAL WAY, SUITE 302 MIAMI, FL 33145
FELDMANLAWFIRM@BELLSOUTH . NET PH: (305) 285-2500 FX: (305) 285-2502Perez, 2030 S. Douglas Rd., Suite 105, Coral Gables, FL 33134,
kbsservice@schurrlaw.com and counselken@schurrlaw.com.
MARK J. FELDMAN, P.A.
Attorney for Appellant
2350 Coral Way, Suite 302
Miami, Florida 33145
Telephone: (305) 285-2500
feldmanlawfirm@bellsouth.net
By: /s/ Mark J. Feldman, Esq.
Mark J. Feldman, Esq.
FBN: 146670
4
MARK J. FELDMAN, P.A. 2350 CORAL WAY, SUITE 302 MIAMI, FL 33145
FELDMANLAWFIRM@BELLSOUTH .NET PH: (305) 285-2500 FX: (305) 285-2502
Preview
Filing # 87720937 E-Filed 04/09/2019 04:40:31 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION CASE NO.: 17-430 AP L.T. CASE NO.: 09-8981 SP 26 Mark J. Feldman, P.A., Appellant, vs. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Apple Medical Center, LLC a/a/o Joan Perez, Appellees. / APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO APPELLEE STATE FARM'S MOTION TO STRIKE APPELLANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY Pursuant to rule 9.300(a), the appellant, Mark J. Feldman, P.A., responds as follows to the appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s motion to strike the appellant's latest, 3 notices of supplemental authority: 1. A motion to strike a notice of supplemental authority is improper. See Sarasota County v. Ex, 645 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding motions to strike a notice of supplemental authority are “simply unauthorized responses that demonstrate an attorney’s lack of self-discipline.”). 2. In this case, on April 4, 2019, appellee served a motion to strike the appellant’s notice of three supplemental authorities. 1 MARK J. FELDMAN, P.A. 2350 CORAL WAY, SUITE 302 MIAMI, FL 33145 FELDMANLAWFIRM@BELLSOUTH .NET PH: (305) 285-2500 FX: (305) 285-25023. Thus, based on Sarasota County, the appellee’s motion to strike is improper and must be denied. 4. Nevertheless, the appellee forges ahead and first argues that the appellant did not comply with a notice of supplemental authority. 5. A review of the notice reveals otherwise. The appellant fully complied with Fla. R. App. P. 9.225, regarding notice of supplemental authority, and Fla. R. App. P. 9.900 (j), the form to be used in supplementing authority. 6. Second, the appellee argues the appellant did not comply with the section of the committee notes on pinpoint citations. 7. However, neither the rule nor the form require pinpoint citations. 8. A pinpoint citation, however, may be helpful, because it “enables the court to identify the issues and argument for which supplemental authority is offered.” 9. The appellant’s notice provided more than a pinpoint citation. 10. The appellant cited to the specific pages in the initial and reply briefs for which the supplemental authority was offered. The appellant cited 9 separate pages with regard to Wishoff v. Wishoff, 497 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and Garfield v. Green, 687 So.2d 1388 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and cited 8 separate pages with regard to Zaldivar v. Okeelanta Corp., 877 So.2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). 11. The above better enabled “the court to identify the issues 2 MARK J. FELDMAN, P.A. 2350 CORAL WAY, SUITE 302 MIAMI, FL 33145 FELDMANLAWFIRM@BELLSOUTH. NET PH: (305) 285-2500 FX; (305) 285-2502and argument for which supplemental authority is offered.” 12. Also, the supplemental authorities had short opinions, where a “pinpoint citation” was readily apparent. 13. Third, the appellee argues that the appellant’s notice of supplemental authority contained argument. 14. The appellee is not only completely incorrect but also misleads this Court. 15. No argument was in the notice. 16. WHEREFORE, the appellant moves that the appellee’s motion to strike be denied, because (A) the motion to strike a notice of supplemental authority is improper. (B) the appellant had fully complied with rule 9.225 by using the appellate form for it, rule 9.900(j). (C) the appellee’s objections to the notices are without merit. (D) the appellee’s motion to strike gives the impression the appellee wants to keep the Court in the dark about the legal rules that should be applied to correctly resolve this appeal. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was e-mailed this 9 day of April, 2019 to: 1) Nelson C. Bellido, Esq., Roig Lawyers, counsel for appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 44 W. Flagler Street #2100, Miami, FL 33130, pleadings@roiglawyers.com; 2) Kenneth B. Schurr, Esq., Law offices of Kenneth B. Schurr, P.A., counsel for appellee Apple Medical Center, LLC a/a/o Joan 3 MARK J. FELDMAN, P.A. 2350 CORAL WAY, SUITE 302 MIAMI, FL 33145 FELDMANLAWFIRM@BELLSOUTH . NET PH: (305) 285-2500 FX: (305) 285-2502Perez, 2030 S. Douglas Rd., Suite 105, Coral Gables, FL 33134, kbsservice@schurrlaw.com and counselken@schurrlaw.com. MARK J. FELDMAN, P.A. Attorney for Appellant 2350 Coral Way, Suite 302 Miami, Florida 33145 Telephone: (305) 285-2500 feldmanlawfirm@bellsouth.net By: /s/ Mark J. Feldman, Esq. Mark J. Feldman, Esq. FBN: 146670 4 MARK J. FELDMAN, P.A. 2350 CORAL WAY, SUITE 302 MIAMI, FL 33145 FELDMANLAWFIRM@BELLSOUTH .NET PH: (305) 285-2500 FX: (305) 285-2502