Preview
Filing # 59028883 E-Filed 07/14/2017 12:33:03 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
PHILIP VON KAHLE, CURATOR, on
behalf of THE GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA,
for the use and benefit of the ESTATE OF
VICTOR POSNER, and for All Other
Interested Parties,
COMPLEX BUSINESS LITIGATION
CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40
Plaintiff,
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF
MARYLAND, a Maryland Corporation,
Defendant,
Vv.
BRENDA D. NESTOR,
Third-Party Defendant
THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT’S, BRENDA D. NESTOR, REPLY TO PLAINTIFE’S
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NESTOR’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO MODIFY
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND TO
EXTEND PRETRIAL DEADLINES AND TRIAL WITH INCORPORATED
MEMORANDUM OF LAW, NESTOR’S MOTION TO STRIKE ANY NEW CLAIMS
CONTAINED IN PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT REPORT AND/OR REFERRED TO IN
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE, AND NESTOR’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Third-Party Defendant, Brenda D. Nestor (“Nestor”), files her reply to Plaintiffs, Philip
von Kahle (“Curator”), Response in Opposition to Nestor’s Emergency Motion to Modify Case
Management Order and Case Management Schedule and to Extend Pretrial Deadlines and Trial
with Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and moves the Court for entry of an Order striking any
new claims contained in the Curator’s Expert Report and/or referred to in its Response, as
follows
1, On June 21, 2017, the undersigned filed her Notice of Appearance and
10f8CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40
Designation of E-mail Addresses and took immediate action and responded to % of the Curator’s
outstanding discovery at the time and has made immediate and great efforts to continue to
respond and otherwise begin to familiarize herself with the case.
2. On July 11, 2017, Nestor filed her Emergency Motion to Modify Case
Management Order and Case Management Schedule and to Extend Pretrial Deadlines and Trial
with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (“Motion to Extend”), in light of deadlines “past
already” as the undersigned appeared, “passing” and “about to pass” (the most impending
deadline being for designation and reports of expert witnesses on July 15, 2017), as a result of
being brought into the case late six (6) months after its inception, and after having retained
former counsel David M. Goldstein, Esq. and David M. Goldstein, P.A. (collectively,
“Goldstein”) who at no fault of Nestor was plagued with severe illnesses and as a result of same
unintentionally provided to Nestor ineffective assistance as counsel in the defense of this matter,
among other reasons. Goldstein’s severe illnesses necessitated his withdrawal, which fact this
Court is aware of.
3. On July 12, 2017, the Curator filed his Response in Opposition to Nestor’s
Motion to Extend (“Response”). In his Response, the Curator requests this Honorable Court
deny Nestor’s request for a six (6) month enlargement of time on all the dates set forth in the
Case Management Order', the same amount of time that Nestor was not even named as a party.
The Curator’s position is unwavering, uncooperative and very unreasonable. The Curator goes
to great lengths and discusses for pages upon pages what he thinks should be the “super human”
strengths of counsel. Since this Honorable Court understands well that no reasonable attorney
has these “super human” powers, and this Honorable Court understands a reasonable attorney
! The Curator also requests this Honorable Court deny Nestor’s request to amend her pleadings and bring a
counterclaim, which may be the one item that requires more than a six (6) month enlargement of time.
20f8CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40
coming in a case of great magnitude like the instant action, even if moving at full speed, would at
this juncture require a certain amount of time to digest the issues, have meetings with the client,
formulate a litigation strategy, and correct matters that an ineffective counsel neglected.
4. Setting that aside, the undersigned turns to the Curators’ other argument, to wit:
the thrust of the Curator’s argument in his Response is that since he served reports of his expert
witnesses, any extension will serve to unduly prejudice the Curator. The Curator claims that the
prejudice lies in that Nestor would be afforded the opportunity to attack the factual bases for the
Curator’s expert witness opinions, which information may be shared with Defendant/Third-Party
Plaintiff, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (“Fidelity”). The Curator further claims
that an extension will cost the Curator “tens of thousands of dollars”? in additional fees for his
experts to update their reports.> The Curator’s arguments are without merit and are otherwise
moot.
5. According to the undersigned’s conversation with counsel for Fidelity, William
H. Strop, Esq., of last evening and of even date herewith, Mr. Strop informed the undersigned
that the Curator’s Expert Witness Reports of Gary Rudolf, Esq. (‘Rudolf’) and Barry Mukamal
(“Mukamal”) contain new material and argument that was not raised anywhere in the Curator’s
Complaint or Amended Complaint, and therefore it is the undersigned position that any new
claims should be stricken from the Expert Witness Reports of Rudolf and Mukamal, and from
the proceedings entirely. Therefore, it seems clear that Curator will be spending “tens of
thousands of dollars” either amending its expert reports or pleadings. It is also abundantly clear
that if Mr. Strop is right then the Curator is trying to back-pedal now via an expert report brought
? Interesting that the Curator also rounded the damages in the Complaint to “tens of millions of dollars” without
providing the requisite certainty required under Florida law.
3 In light of the fact that the Curator is bringing a claim for “tens of millions of dollars” in damages, the fact that the
Curator might incur “tens of thousand of dollars” in fees for his experts to update their reports in order to obtain a
fair adjudication on the good faith merits should be of little to no consequence after the Court balances the equities.
30f8CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40
on gorilla style which introduces a new claim entirely, supporting the position the underlying
complaint is/was a sham and contained no support for the “tens of millions of dollars” in
damages.
6. The undersigned conferred with Mr. Strop, and while Mr. Strop is presently
unavailable as he is preparing Fidelity’s expert witness reports and has been in the case long
enough to do so, Mr. Strop who has been litigating this case since its inception has requested the
undersigned bring to the Court’s attention that the Curator’s Expert Reports raise a $10 million
SMC damage claim never raised - anywhere - in the Complaint or Amended Complaint or
otherwise tried by consent and therefore Mr. Strop is of the opinion that same should be stricken
and removed from the proceedings or the Curator’s operative complaint should be amended
This request would be favorable to all of the parties and eliminate any prejudice argument raised
in the Curator’s Response, and would further benefit Curator.
7. As such, the Curator should be required to either update his expert reports and/or
move the Court to amend his pleadings to add the newly raised SMC damage claim, undoubtedly
incurring additional expenses anyway, through no fault but his own. Certainly not the fault of
Nestor. The Curator’s failure to include the SMC damage claim in its Complaint and/or
Amended Complaint further evidences the repair he needs to do one way or another. Clearly, the
Curator’s pleadings may be in part sham because they do not support the Curator’s claim for
“tens of millions of dollars” in damages, allegations that cannot be supported without
amendment. The SMC claim should be stricken, or the Curator should be required to amend his
complaint
8 The undersigned has been working diligently in this matter, including, but not
limited to, obtaining and reviewing demands that the office the Curator’s counsel has sent her
40f8CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40
during the first week of her appearance, which included several outstanding discovery requests
that Goldstein had missed responding to entirely. A review of the docket before this Court and
in the Magistrate’s office demonstrates there have been other pressing demands that necessitated
the immediate attention of the undersigned that were set for hearing on July 11, 2017, which
hearing included seven (7) separate matters to prepare for, five (5) of which pertained directly to
Nestor, three (3) of which were resolved immediately prior to and/or at the July 11, 2017
hearing, and one (1) matter that is currently being resolved by among and between the parties.
The undersigned has been unable to obtain Nestor’s case file from Goldstein. The undersigned
has also been working diligently to review the documents filed in this matter that are in her
receipt, reviewing and responding to three (3) sets of the Curator’s document requests,
corresponding with counsel for the Curator and Fidelity in addition to Nestor’s former counsel
with regard to the status of the proceedings and any pending matters, and resolving the issues
raised in the Fleisher MPO, among other things. The Court is aware the undersigned has moved
immediately and expeditiously.
9. This being Nestor’s first and only request at any time to modify the Case
Management Order, Nestor is clearly not engaging in any delay tactic that would warrant the
denial of her request for enlargement of time equal to the amount of time (i.e. 6 months)* the
Curator and Fidelity engaged in discovery in all alleged claims stemming from the operative
Complaint filed by Curator who never named, or served Nestor. Nestor would be severely
prejudiced should the Court deny her request. As stated above, the Curator shoehorned in newly
raised material and would also benefit from an opportunity to amend his claim. Nestor
respectfully requests this Court exercise its discretion and permit the requested extension of time
4 Tn addition to an enlarged period within which to file any counter or third-party claims and amendments to the
pleadings.
5o0f8CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40
for the good cause shown and modify its Case Management Order accordingly.
WHEREFORE, Third-Party Defendant, Brenda D. Nestor, respectfully requests this
Honorable Court grant its Motion and modify the Case Management Order so that Nestor may
amend the pleadings and file any counter or third-party claims and have at least six (6) months
within which to complete her discovery, with the remainder of the pretrial deadlines modified
accordingly, strike any new materials contained in the Curator’s Expert Witness Reports not
contained in the underlying Complaint and/or Amended Complaint, order the Curator to go back
and amend anew addressing the matters he wants improperly attempts to raise in his expert
witness reports, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper
including attorneys fees if the Court has to strike portions of the Expert Reports not contained in
any operative complaint.
RE
FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Nestor requests oral argument on all the matters raised in her Emergency Motion to
Modify Case Management Order and Case Management Schedule and to Extend Pretrial
Deadlines and Trial with Incorporated Memorandum of Law, the Curator’s Response thereto
(where he asserts prejudice), Nestor’s Reply eliminating the prejudice, if any, Nestor’s Motion to
Strike and request for attorneys’ fees. Oral argument will allow this Court to benefit from the
parties’ respective arguments on the issues raised and provide the parties an opportunity to
address any questions this Court may have regarding all of the issues presented in the original
Motion, Response, and Reply, including but not limited to re-calendaring any dates.
CERTIFICE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE
Thereby certify that Heather A. Rutecki, Esq., counsel for Nestor, and Brett Amron, Esq.,
counsel for the Curator, conferred via telephone, and made a good faith effort to resolve the
60f8CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40
issues contained in this Motion without Court intervention, but have been unable to do so. The
undersigned had a conversation with Mr. Amron regarding the lack of prejudice and benefit to
the Curator by amending the pleadings. The undersigned notified Mr. Amron of the newly
raised material contained in the Expert Reports, and was left with no other alternative but to file
a Reply and move to strike same after being referenced in the Curator’s Response
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th day of July, 2017, that a true and correct copy
of the foregoing was filed with the Court through the use of the Florida Courts eFiling Portal,
and has been served upon all parties on the attached Service List via the Florida Courts eFiling
Portal eService, in accordance with rule 2.516, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration
RUTECKI & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Main Office:
100 Southeast 2nd Street, Floor 44
Miami, Florida 33131
Mailing Address:
2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite # 3760
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 423-4999
Facsimile: (305) 428-4998
hrutecki@ruteckiandassociates.com
By: /S/
Heather A. Rutecki, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 49190
Tof8Via E-Mail:
Brett M. Amron, Esq
Jeremy S. Korch, Esq,
Hayley G. Harrison, Esq.
Bast Amron LLP
SunTrust International Center
One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 1400
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 379-7904
Facsimile: (305) 379-7905
Email: bamron@bastamron.com
Email: jkorch@bastamron.com
Email: hharrison@bastamron.com
Co-Special Counsel for the Curator
William H. Strop, Esq.
Ryan F. Carpenter, Esq.
Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40
SERVICE LIST
Scott W. Leeds, Esq.
The Cochran Firm — South Florida
657 South Drive, Suite 304
Miami Springs, Florida 33166
Telephone: (305) 567-1200
Facsimile: (305) 856-7747
Email: swleeds@cochranfirm.com
Co-Special Counsel for the Curator
One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Telephone: (954) 987-7550
Facsimile: (954) 985-4176
Email: wstrop@bplegal.com
Email: rcarpenter@bplegal.com.com
Email: sgill@bplegal.com
Counsel for Fidelity
8of8
Preview
Filing # 59028883 E-Filed 07/14/2017 12:33:03 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA PHILIP VON KAHLE, CURATOR, on behalf of THE GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, for the use and benefit of the ESTATE OF VICTOR POSNER, and for All Other Interested Parties, COMPLEX BUSINESS LITIGATION CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40 Plaintiff, FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, a Maryland Corporation, Defendant, Vv. BRENDA D. NESTOR, Third-Party Defendant THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT’S, BRENDA D. NESTOR, REPLY TO PLAINTIFE’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO NESTOR’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO MODIFY CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE AND TO EXTEND PRETRIAL DEADLINES AND TRIAL WITH INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW, NESTOR’S MOTION TO STRIKE ANY NEW CLAIMS CONTAINED IN PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT REPORT AND/OR REFERRED TO IN PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE, AND NESTOR’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Third-Party Defendant, Brenda D. Nestor (“Nestor”), files her reply to Plaintiffs, Philip von Kahle (“Curator”), Response in Opposition to Nestor’s Emergency Motion to Modify Case Management Order and Case Management Schedule and to Extend Pretrial Deadlines and Trial with Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and moves the Court for entry of an Order striking any new claims contained in the Curator’s Expert Report and/or referred to in its Response, as follows 1, On June 21, 2017, the undersigned filed her Notice of Appearance and 10f8CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40 Designation of E-mail Addresses and took immediate action and responded to % of the Curator’s outstanding discovery at the time and has made immediate and great efforts to continue to respond and otherwise begin to familiarize herself with the case. 2. On July 11, 2017, Nestor filed her Emergency Motion to Modify Case Management Order and Case Management Schedule and to Extend Pretrial Deadlines and Trial with Incorporated Memorandum of Law (“Motion to Extend”), in light of deadlines “past already” as the undersigned appeared, “passing” and “about to pass” (the most impending deadline being for designation and reports of expert witnesses on July 15, 2017), as a result of being brought into the case late six (6) months after its inception, and after having retained former counsel David M. Goldstein, Esq. and David M. Goldstein, P.A. (collectively, “Goldstein”) who at no fault of Nestor was plagued with severe illnesses and as a result of same unintentionally provided to Nestor ineffective assistance as counsel in the defense of this matter, among other reasons. Goldstein’s severe illnesses necessitated his withdrawal, which fact this Court is aware of. 3. On July 12, 2017, the Curator filed his Response in Opposition to Nestor’s Motion to Extend (“Response”). In his Response, the Curator requests this Honorable Court deny Nestor’s request for a six (6) month enlargement of time on all the dates set forth in the Case Management Order', the same amount of time that Nestor was not even named as a party. The Curator’s position is unwavering, uncooperative and very unreasonable. The Curator goes to great lengths and discusses for pages upon pages what he thinks should be the “super human” strengths of counsel. Since this Honorable Court understands well that no reasonable attorney has these “super human” powers, and this Honorable Court understands a reasonable attorney ! The Curator also requests this Honorable Court deny Nestor’s request to amend her pleadings and bring a counterclaim, which may be the one item that requires more than a six (6) month enlargement of time. 20f8CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40 coming in a case of great magnitude like the instant action, even if moving at full speed, would at this juncture require a certain amount of time to digest the issues, have meetings with the client, formulate a litigation strategy, and correct matters that an ineffective counsel neglected. 4. Setting that aside, the undersigned turns to the Curators’ other argument, to wit: the thrust of the Curator’s argument in his Response is that since he served reports of his expert witnesses, any extension will serve to unduly prejudice the Curator. The Curator claims that the prejudice lies in that Nestor would be afforded the opportunity to attack the factual bases for the Curator’s expert witness opinions, which information may be shared with Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (“Fidelity”). The Curator further claims that an extension will cost the Curator “tens of thousands of dollars”? in additional fees for his experts to update their reports.> The Curator’s arguments are without merit and are otherwise moot. 5. According to the undersigned’s conversation with counsel for Fidelity, William H. Strop, Esq., of last evening and of even date herewith, Mr. Strop informed the undersigned that the Curator’s Expert Witness Reports of Gary Rudolf, Esq. (‘Rudolf’) and Barry Mukamal (“Mukamal”) contain new material and argument that was not raised anywhere in the Curator’s Complaint or Amended Complaint, and therefore it is the undersigned position that any new claims should be stricken from the Expert Witness Reports of Rudolf and Mukamal, and from the proceedings entirely. Therefore, it seems clear that Curator will be spending “tens of thousands of dollars” either amending its expert reports or pleadings. It is also abundantly clear that if Mr. Strop is right then the Curator is trying to back-pedal now via an expert report brought ? Interesting that the Curator also rounded the damages in the Complaint to “tens of millions of dollars” without providing the requisite certainty required under Florida law. 3 In light of the fact that the Curator is bringing a claim for “tens of millions of dollars” in damages, the fact that the Curator might incur “tens of thousand of dollars” in fees for his experts to update their reports in order to obtain a fair adjudication on the good faith merits should be of little to no consequence after the Court balances the equities. 30f8CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40 on gorilla style which introduces a new claim entirely, supporting the position the underlying complaint is/was a sham and contained no support for the “tens of millions of dollars” in damages. 6. The undersigned conferred with Mr. Strop, and while Mr. Strop is presently unavailable as he is preparing Fidelity’s expert witness reports and has been in the case long enough to do so, Mr. Strop who has been litigating this case since its inception has requested the undersigned bring to the Court’s attention that the Curator’s Expert Reports raise a $10 million SMC damage claim never raised - anywhere - in the Complaint or Amended Complaint or otherwise tried by consent and therefore Mr. Strop is of the opinion that same should be stricken and removed from the proceedings or the Curator’s operative complaint should be amended This request would be favorable to all of the parties and eliminate any prejudice argument raised in the Curator’s Response, and would further benefit Curator. 7. As such, the Curator should be required to either update his expert reports and/or move the Court to amend his pleadings to add the newly raised SMC damage claim, undoubtedly incurring additional expenses anyway, through no fault but his own. Certainly not the fault of Nestor. The Curator’s failure to include the SMC damage claim in its Complaint and/or Amended Complaint further evidences the repair he needs to do one way or another. Clearly, the Curator’s pleadings may be in part sham because they do not support the Curator’s claim for “tens of millions of dollars” in damages, allegations that cannot be supported without amendment. The SMC claim should be stricken, or the Curator should be required to amend his complaint 8 The undersigned has been working diligently in this matter, including, but not limited to, obtaining and reviewing demands that the office the Curator’s counsel has sent her 40f8CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40 during the first week of her appearance, which included several outstanding discovery requests that Goldstein had missed responding to entirely. A review of the docket before this Court and in the Magistrate’s office demonstrates there have been other pressing demands that necessitated the immediate attention of the undersigned that were set for hearing on July 11, 2017, which hearing included seven (7) separate matters to prepare for, five (5) of which pertained directly to Nestor, three (3) of which were resolved immediately prior to and/or at the July 11, 2017 hearing, and one (1) matter that is currently being resolved by among and between the parties. The undersigned has been unable to obtain Nestor’s case file from Goldstein. The undersigned has also been working diligently to review the documents filed in this matter that are in her receipt, reviewing and responding to three (3) sets of the Curator’s document requests, corresponding with counsel for the Curator and Fidelity in addition to Nestor’s former counsel with regard to the status of the proceedings and any pending matters, and resolving the issues raised in the Fleisher MPO, among other things. The Court is aware the undersigned has moved immediately and expeditiously. 9. This being Nestor’s first and only request at any time to modify the Case Management Order, Nestor is clearly not engaging in any delay tactic that would warrant the denial of her request for enlargement of time equal to the amount of time (i.e. 6 months)* the Curator and Fidelity engaged in discovery in all alleged claims stemming from the operative Complaint filed by Curator who never named, or served Nestor. Nestor would be severely prejudiced should the Court deny her request. As stated above, the Curator shoehorned in newly raised material and would also benefit from an opportunity to amend his claim. Nestor respectfully requests this Court exercise its discretion and permit the requested extension of time 4 Tn addition to an enlarged period within which to file any counter or third-party claims and amendments to the pleadings. 5o0f8CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40 for the good cause shown and modify its Case Management Order accordingly. WHEREFORE, Third-Party Defendant, Brenda D. Nestor, respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant its Motion and modify the Case Management Order so that Nestor may amend the pleadings and file any counter or third-party claims and have at least six (6) months within which to complete her discovery, with the remainder of the pretrial deadlines modified accordingly, strike any new materials contained in the Curator’s Expert Witness Reports not contained in the underlying Complaint and/or Amended Complaint, order the Curator to go back and amend anew addressing the matters he wants improperly attempts to raise in his expert witness reports, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper including attorneys fees if the Court has to strike portions of the Expert Reports not contained in any operative complaint. RE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Nestor requests oral argument on all the matters raised in her Emergency Motion to Modify Case Management Order and Case Management Schedule and to Extend Pretrial Deadlines and Trial with Incorporated Memorandum of Law, the Curator’s Response thereto (where he asserts prejudice), Nestor’s Reply eliminating the prejudice, if any, Nestor’s Motion to Strike and request for attorneys’ fees. Oral argument will allow this Court to benefit from the parties’ respective arguments on the issues raised and provide the parties an opportunity to address any questions this Court may have regarding all of the issues presented in the original Motion, Response, and Reply, including but not limited to re-calendaring any dates. CERTIFICE OF GOOD FAITH CONFERENCE Thereby certify that Heather A. Rutecki, Esq., counsel for Nestor, and Brett Amron, Esq., counsel for the Curator, conferred via telephone, and made a good faith effort to resolve the 60f8CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40 issues contained in this Motion without Court intervention, but have been unable to do so. The undersigned had a conversation with Mr. Amron regarding the lack of prejudice and benefit to the Curator by amending the pleadings. The undersigned notified Mr. Amron of the newly raised material contained in the Expert Reports, and was left with no other alternative but to file a Reply and move to strike same after being referenced in the Curator’s Response CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th day of July, 2017, that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed with the Court through the use of the Florida Courts eFiling Portal, and has been served upon all parties on the attached Service List via the Florida Courts eFiling Portal eService, in accordance with rule 2.516, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration RUTECKI & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Main Office: 100 Southeast 2nd Street, Floor 44 Miami, Florida 33131 Mailing Address: 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite # 3760 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 423-4999 Facsimile: (305) 428-4998 hrutecki@ruteckiandassociates.com By: /S/ Heather A. Rutecki, Esq. Florida Bar No. 49190 Tof8Via E-Mail: Brett M. Amron, Esq Jeremy S. Korch, Esq, Hayley G. Harrison, Esq. Bast Amron LLP SunTrust International Center One Southeast Third Ave., Suite 1400 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 379-7904 Facsimile: (305) 379-7905 Email: bamron@bastamron.com Email: jkorch@bastamron.com Email: hharrison@bastamron.com Co-Special Counsel for the Curator William H. Strop, Esq. Ryan F. Carpenter, Esq. Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. CASE NO.: 2016-21099-CA-40 SERVICE LIST Scott W. Leeds, Esq. The Cochran Firm — South Florida 657 South Drive, Suite 304 Miami Springs, Florida 33166 Telephone: (305) 567-1200 Facsimile: (305) 856-7747 Email: swleeds@cochranfirm.com Co-Special Counsel for the Curator One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800 Fort Lauderdale, Florida Telephone: (954) 987-7550 Facsimile: (954) 985-4176 Email: wstrop@bplegal.com Email: rcarpenter@bplegal.com.com Email: sgill@bplegal.com Counsel for Fidelity 8of8