Motion to Abate in HUBBARD, LEAH M vs. YATES, E CLAYTON PA| Trellis.Law

On April 20, 2018 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Hubbard, Leah M, Independent Services Of Vero Beach Llc, and E Clayton Yates Pa, Yates, E Clayton Pa, Yates Law Firm, for MALPRACTICE - OTHER PROFESSIONAL in the District Court of Indian River County.

Preview
Filing # 110762646 E-Filed 07/24/2020 02:04:25 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

LEAH M. HUBBARD CASE NO. 312619CA000232
(CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE
NO. 2018CC001057)
Plaintiff

CIVIL DIVISION
vs.

E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A.
Defendant(s).
/

MOTION FOR REHEARING ON E. CLAYTON YATES MOTION TO TAX COSTS,
AND MOTION TO ABATE

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, LEAH M. HUBBARD respectfully moves this Honorable
Court to grant this Motion for Rehearing on E. Clayton Yates Motion to Tax Costs, and Motion
to Abate pursuant to F.R.C.P. §1.540 and F.R.C.P. §1.530, and in support thereof states as
follows: |
LA thotion for rehearing pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530 calls to the court’s attention “any
error, omission, or oversight that may have been committed” in a final order and broadly
provides the trial court an opportunity to reconsider its ruling. Balmoral Condo. Ass'n v.
Grimaldi, 107 So.3d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (quoting Langer v. Aerovias, 8.A., 584
So.2d 175, 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)). A motion for rehearing is timely when filed no later than
15 days after the filing of the judgment in a non-jury action. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(b).
2. On July 2, 2020, the Court erred in the following ways:
a) By overlooking the interlocking common issues of fact and law, ineffective assistance

of counsel, in case numbers number 312018CC001057, 312019CA000232,b)

°)

Ly)

312017CF000922A and 312017CF001265A when making a determination of
entitlement to attorney’s fees and tax costs in the above captioned case.

By overlooking material facts in case number 312018CC001057 which this Court
consolidated with case number 312019CA000232 and by considering the material
facts a separate issue for a separate court to determine. The consolidated cases were
not separated for trial or hearings in the Orders dated July 10, 2019 and Clarified on
July 22, 2019 and was not disposed of by subject of Order in granting the Defendant’s
Final Summary Judgment or by the serving of a Proposal for Settlement in this case.
By overlooking the material facts and prejudice to the Plaintiff in case number
312018CC001057 when determining that the omission of a list of specific causes of
action or release in the Proposal for Settlement was unambiguous.

An oversight was committed when Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire denied the Limited
Notice of Appearance filed by John Lurvey, Esquire and Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire
for representation of E, Clayton Yates, P.A. in case number 312018CC001057.

By stating on court record that the material facts in case number 312018CC001057
were not germane to the present case before the Court and would be sent back to the
county court for the common issues of fact and law together with the remaining
material facts not germane to the current case to be resolved.

In overlooking the violation of the Plaintiff's due process rights in failing to litigate
any material facts in case number 312018CC001057, as consolidated with case
number 312019CA000232, which has prejudiced the Plaintiff.

By entering an Order Granting Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, P.A.’s Motion to Tax

Costs, and, Final Judgment as to Taxable Costs in Favor of the Defendant, E. ClaytonYates, P.A. and an Order Granting Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, P.A.’s Motion to
Determine Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees granting E. Clayton Yates, P.A.’s Motion
which is not ripe because of the common issue of law and fact (ineffective assistance
of counsel) and overlooking case law regarding additional requirements to Section
768.79, Florida Statutes and Rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Procedure which
make the Proposal for Settlement ambiguous and made in bad faith.

FACTS

3. On April 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Statement of Claim for unpaid Invoices for
Freelance Paralegal services provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in 2017. Case number
312018CC001057.

4, On May 23, 2018, the Defendant filed an Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counter-
Claim for attorney’s fees for criminal legal representation of the Plaintiff and asked the Court to
move the case to the county court.

5. On May 29, 2018, the Court ordered the case to be transferred to county court.

6. On December 17, 2018, the Plaintiff amended the Statement of Claim to drop
Independent Services of Vero Beach, LLC as a Plaintiff per Judge Morgan’s orders.

7. February 21, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint to add Count 1 & 2
to include the circumstances regarding criminal case number 2017CF000922A and
2017CF001265A together with reimbursement of criminal attorney’s fees paid by the Plaintiff to
the Defendant which the Defendant did not apply to the billing for the criminal representation as

agreed upon in the quid pro quo agreement.

8. In addition, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim/Complaint

several times for more definitive statements for the Defendant.9. On March 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Malpractice against the Defendant
in civil court, case number 312019CA000232.,

10. On April 4, 2019, John A. Lurvey, Esquire and Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire of the law firm
of Conroy and Simberg filed their Notice of Appearance on behalf of the Defendant for case
number 312019CA000232.

11. On April 22, 2019, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Legal
Maipractice.

12. On May 6, 2019, Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire filed a Motion to Consolidate case number
312018CC001057 with case number 312019CA000232 (Legal Malpractice) stating “when
actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the Court, it may order a
joint hearing or trial of any or all matters in issue in the action; it may order all actions
consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid
unnecessary costs or delay. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.270(a). As provided in Rule 1.270(a), there are two
major conditions that must exist before the trial Judge may enter an order of consolidation: (1)
each of the actions must be pending before the court; and, (2) the actions must involve a common
question of law or fact. Id The purpose of consolidating cases to minimize expense and delay.
See Wagner v. Nova University. Inc, 397 So.2d 375 (Fla. 4° DCA 1981).”

13. On June 17, 2019, Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire of Conroy and Simberg filed a Limited
Notice of Appearance on behalf of E. Clayton Yates, PA for case number 312018CC001057 and
the court Summary reflects that Jefferey K. Rubin, Esquire and John A. Lurvey, Esquire are
representing the Counter-Claim Plaintiff and the Defendant, E. Clayton Yates for case number

312018CC001057. The Limited Notice of Appearance fails to list each aspect of the court casefor which an attorney has appeared and/or the expiration of the time period set forth in the notice
of limited representation.

14. Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire and John Lurvey, Esquire failed to file a Notice of Termination
of Limited Appearance or Representation or by Order of Withdrawal pursuant to Fla. R. Jud.
Admin 2.505.

15. On June 24, 2019, the Court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's
Complaint for Legal Malpractice and proceeded without the Plaintiff's exoneration from case
numbers 312017CF000922A and 312017CFO01265A.

16. On June 25, 2019, the Defendant filed an Answer to Complaint with no request for
attorney’s fees or costs.

17. On July 9, 2019, the Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Consolidate and in the
Order filed on July 10, 2019, states that “this case is consolidated with case number
312018CC001057, Leah Hubbard v. E. Clayton Yates, PA, before the circuit court case referred
above”. Copies were furnished to Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire of Conroy Simberg. Further, the
Order is silent as to the whether any or alf actions consolidated will be heard at a joint trial,
separate trials or hearings or whether the cases were consolidated for judicial economy.

18. On July 22, 2019, the Court filed a Clarified Order on Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, PA’s
Motion to Consolidate and Second Order to Submit Agreed Case Management Plan and Order
which did not clarify whether any or all actions consolidated will be heard at a joint trial,
separate trials or hearings or whether the cases were consolidated for judicial economy.

19. On July 30, 2019, the Defendant filed the Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary
Judgment for the Plaintiff's failure to obtain exoneration in the criminal court prior to filing the

legal malpractice case. There were material facts remaining from the consolidated case number312018CC001057 which were not heard or addressed in the Defendant’s Motion for Final
Summary Judgment.

20. On August 2, 2019, the Defendant filed a Proposal for Settlement Offer which was
ambiguous and not made in good faith. There are material facts which remain in case number
312018CC001057 which was consolidated with 2019CA000232. These material facts are
outstanding Invoices due to the Plaintiff for freelance paralegal work for the Defendant and the
Defendant’s counter-claim for attorney’s fees. These actions are not germane to a common
question of law or fact pending before the Court in case number 312019CA000232. Further, the
Court's Order is silent regarding which material facts are consolidated and/or heard before the
Court or whether there will be separate trials.

21. On October 10, 2019, this Court heard the Defendant's Motion for Summary Final
Judgment with prejudice and entered an Order Granting Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, P.A.’s
Motion for Final Summary Judgment without prejudice and Final Judgment in Favor of
Defendant per the Court’s transcript allowing the Plaintiff to pursue exoneration in case numbers
312017CF000922A and 312017CF001265A and re-file the action.

22. On October 18, 2019, the Defendant filed Defendant’s Motion to Determine Entitlement
to Attorney’s Fees and Motion for Entry of Attorney’s Fees Judgment.

23. On October 21, 2019, the Defendant filed Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs.

24. On October 29, 2019, the Defendant filed a Notice of Hearing, Motion Calendar, for
November 8, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. for Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs and Defendant’s Motion to
Determine Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Motion for Entry of Attorney’s Fees Judgment.

25. On November 8, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s counsel were present

before this Court and both parties made argument regarding the Motion to Tax Costs andDefendant’s Motion to Determine Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees and Motion for Entry of
Attorney’s Fees Judgment. This Court determined that the hearings were not ripe because the
Plaintiff was seeking exoneration in the criminal court Indian River County which has not been
resolved. No Order was entered by this Court to reflect this ruling.

26. On July 2, 2020, the Court heard argument from the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the
Defendant’s Motion for Entitlement to Attorney’s fees and Motion to Tax Costs. The Plaintiff
argued that the Proposal for Settlement was ambiguous and not made in good faith. Further
argument was that the Proposal for Settlement was ambiguous because if failed to list all claims
with specificity on the Proposal for Settlement or attach a release specifically listing the claims
that the Defendant was proposing to release. The Plaintiff continued to argue that the material
facts and facts not germane in case number 312018CC001057 were merged with case number
312019CA000232 that were not specifically addressed in the Proposal for Settlement which
sought to dispose of any and all claims relating to E. Clayton Yates, P.A.

27. On July 10, 2020, this Court entered an Order Granting Defendant, E. Clayton Yates,
P.A.’s Motion to Tax Costs, and, Final Judgment as to Taxable Costs in Favor of the Defendant,
E. Clayton Yates, P.A. and an Order Granting Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, P.A.’s Motion to
Determine Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees granting E. Clayton Yates, P.A.’s Motion and
determining that the Proposal for Settlement was in compliance with the requirements in Section
768.79, Florida Statutes and Rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Procedure.

ARGUMENT
F.R.C.P 1.270 states “(b) Separate Trials. The court in furtherance of convenience or to
avoid prejudice may order a separate trial of any claim, crossclaim, counterclaim, or third-party
claim or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, third-

party claims, or issues.Florida Statute 768.79 7(a) states: “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.” “This

statute was interpreted by Schmidt v. Fortner, 629 So. 2d_1036, 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), to
mean that the legislature has created a mandatory right to attorney's fees, if the statutory
prerequisites have been met. Once the statutory prerequisites have been met, the only
discretion afforded the trial court by section (7)(a) is the authority to disallow the attorney fee
award when an offer is not made in "good faith. The Court opined further in Schmidt to state:
“Tt is under subsection (7) of section 768.79 that Fortner says he finds his support for the trial
judge's denial of fees in this case. He argues that under subsection (7) the court is given
discretion to decline an award of fees. In this he is certainly partially correct. Subsection
(7)(a) provides that:

"(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." This provision does indeed allow
the court in its discretion to disallow an award of attorney's fees, but only if if determines that
a qualifving offer "was not made in good faith." That is the sole basis on which the court can
disallow an entitlement to an award of fees. In that circumstance, however, a "not in good
faith" offeror though prima facie entitled to fees under section 768.79(7) has lost that
entitlement because the offeree has succeeded in persuading the trial judge that the offeror
acted without good faith.!°! His entitlement to fees has thus been disallowed because his

intentions have been shown to be "not in good faith."1. As stated in Paragraph #3 Conditions: Upon acceptance of this Offer/Proposal, Plaintiff,
Leah M. Hubbard, shall enter into a Stipulation dismissing with prejudice all pending claims
against Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, P.A. is ambiguous. The condition does not precisely
delineate what claims are being released, particularly where additional actions or claims are
available to the claimant and including all claims against Defendant, E, Clayton Yates, P.A. in
case number 3018CC001057 which was consolidated with the above captioned case. Further, the
Defendant failed to attach a release form to the Proposal for Settlement.

In Jones v, Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 68 So.3d 422 (Fla. 4" DCA 2011), the Court held
that “We continue to observe that it is the preferred practice to set forth the terms of a
release with particularity, either within the body of the proposal or by attaching the form
of the release. However, based upon the specific facts of this case, we reverse and remand
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Further stated in Jones v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 68 So.3d 422 (Fla. 4" DCA 2011),

“The trial court, while noting that "everybody understands who is being released and who
isn't", concluded that he was constrained by our decision in Papouras _v. Bellsouth
Telecommunications., Inc. 940_So. 24_479_(Fla. 4th DCA 2006), and denied Jones’
motion because the release was neither summarized nor attached to the proposal for
settlement. Our review of this denial is de novo. Papouras, 940 So.2d at 480. In those
cases where the release provisions contained within a proposal for settlement were
deemed to be ambiguous, either there existed additional claims by and between the
parties, or other related parties remained potentially liable and those claims might not be

extinguished by the release.”WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Motion for Rehearing on E. Clayton Yates
Motion to Tax Costs and Motion to Abate and for any other further relief this Court deems just
and proper.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by e-
service to Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esq. and

this 29" day of July, 2020.
3a

\ 5820 33% Street

Vero Beach, FL 32966
407-866-4931
leahhubbard0706@gmail.comFiling # 110081036 E-Filed 07/10/2020 02:57:11 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO. 312019CA00232
(CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 2018 CC 001057)
LEAH M. HUBBARD,

Plaintiff,
v.

E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A.,

Defendant.
/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT, E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A.’S, MOTION TO
TAX COSTS.

AND,
FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO TAXABLE COSTS IN FAVOR OF THE

DEFENDANT, E. CLAYTON YATES. P.A.
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on the Defendant, E. CLAYTON

YATES, P.A.’s, Motion to Tax Costs, with the Court having reviewed the Motion
and its attachments, having heard the argument of counsel on July 7, 2020, and
being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereupon,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Defendant, E. CLAYTON YATES,
P.A.’s, Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED. A court reporter was present for the

hearing on this Motion held on July 7, 2020.CASE NO. 312019CA00232
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT, E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A.’S, MOTION TO TAX COSTS,
AND, TAXABLE COST JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT

IT 1S ADJUDGED that the Defendant, E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A. recover
from the Plaintiff, LEAH M. HUBBARD, taxable costs in the amount of $240.00.
These sums shall bear interest at the statutory rate for which let execution issue.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Vero Beach, Indian River County,

Florida, this day of , 2020.

eSigned by JANET CARNEY CROOM 07/10/2020;14:56:50 neznfBu-

HONORABLE JANET CARNEY CROOM
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire, Conroy Simberg, Defendant’s counsel, 1801 Centrepark Drive
East, Suite 200, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, irubin@conroysimbera.com,
eservicewpb@conroysimberg.com

Leah M. Hubbard, Piaintiff Pro Se, leahhubbard0706@gmail.com, 2046 79th Avenue, Vero
Beach, FL 32966

E. Clayton Yates, Esq., Counsel for Defendant / Counter-Plaintiff in consolidated case,
cyates@iceyaiesiaw.com, Fee, Yates & Fee, PLLC, 426 Avenue A, Fort Pierce, FL 349502019 cA 900232 - HUBBARD, LEAH M NS. YATES, E CLAYTON PA

“SUMMARY
“Judge: CROOM, JANETC” "Case Type: MALPRACTICE - OTHER PROPESSIONAI
Case Number: 2019 CA 000232 Uniferm Case Number: 342019CA000232X000XX
Clerk File Date: 3/19/2019 Status Date: 6/19/2020
SAO Case Number: Total Fees Due: 0.00

Agency Report,

PARTY MAME ATTORNEY

HUBBARD, LEAH

E CLAYTON YATES PA

YATES LA FRA

YATES, E CLAYTON PA
INDEPENDENT SERVICES oF VERO BEACH sc

HUBBARD, LEAH

LOCATION RESULT

Events an Case
| CASE HISTORY
1 NUMBER CHARGE DESCRIPTION CASE S DISPOSITION NEXT EVENT ALERTS |

€
No Additionat Cases

CASEDOCKETS
pare euTRY
7/90/2020 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT, E CLAYTON YATES PA'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS, AND FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO TAXABLE COSTS IN PAVOR OF THE DEPENDANT, £0
CLAYTON YATES PA ~ Recorded (OR.3317.199%. / 3120200039212} :

771672020 ~~ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT, E CLAYTON VATES PA'S MOTION TO DETERMINE ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEYS FEES: - ee —

6725/2020 ORDER SPECIALLY SETTING HEARING

B/1972020 ~~ CASE REOPENED FOR

S/AS7I0I0 MOTION TG STRIKE NOTICE OF HEARING, TELEPHONE $F:
APPOINTMENT-30 MINUTE RESERVED

6/9/2020 ~~ NOTICE OF HEARING VIA TELEPHONE SPECIAL APPOINTMENT - 30 MINUTES RESERVED

‘APBOINTMENT-20 MINUTE RESERVED AND NOTICE OF HEARING, TELEPHONE SPECIAL

6/19 79020 NOTICE OF HEARING VIA TELEPHONE SPECIAL APPOINTMENT = 20 MINUTES RESERVED

2728/2628 NOTICE GF CANCELTATION HEARING SPECIAL APPOINTMENT
“2720/2020 MOTIGN TO STRIKE NOTICE OF REARING, SPECIAL APPOINTMENT-15 MINUTE RESERVED ~

“D972020 NOTICE OF HEARING ~

TA8/0oIs NOTICE OF HEARING

“OFESHIO1T NOTICE OF HEARING MOTION CALENDAR” ~~
“{0/2172019 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO TAX
Wis PRATER RESPONSE 10 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DETERMINE ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ATTORHES' FEE Jap CHERT™

WOBIIT
“ABHIS/2019 ~~ CASE CLOSED
“FO7TSTRTE GROER GN DEFENDANT, E CLAYTON YATES, BAS, MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGHEN

JOFTS/2019 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT, E. CLAYTON YATES, BLAS, MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGIMENT, AND, FINAL JUDGMENT
“ Recorded (OR.3246.749. ¢ 3120190060495) ____. a ns ns smite
1/1/2019 RECEIPT (FOR CD SUBPOENAED BY PLF SENT TO. CERRY
“FOGIGTS ROTICE OF WHTHORAWAL OF LIMITED NOTICE OF
“YOPATIOTS ATTORNEY PRO SE DEACTIVATED ~ ~

“FG7T 01S ~~ PLAINTIEFS MOTION TO STRIKE THE DEFENDANTS SWORN APRIDAVT IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENDANTS FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT”
167772019" DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS ‘REPLY RERIORANDUUR AS TO FLAINTIFES MOTIONS FOR CONTINUANCEoN DATE ENTRY

383 10/1/2019 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE |

ya 9/30/2019” DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO BLAINTIFES MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE a ~
1a) 972772019” NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY — ~~

agg 87/281 “EOF URAVAILABIENTY”

“AMENDED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE —~

77 ARES
“376 BIOS
G95” GAR7RGIS~ ~~ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF HEARING ~
G74 S71R72019 DEFENDANT'S RERORAROON 6 ‘OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION (0 STRIKE DEFENGANTS NOTICE OF FEARING
“yn bAbrz018 ~~ ~~

“yy BF6FOTS

872972019" APEACHMENT

“ 8297209
169

89/2019
168 t
yey B01 ICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 18 SUPPORT MOTION FOR FINAL SOKA |

“yen SFAZ72019 DEFENDANTS RESPONGES 1D PLAINTIFFS THIRD #0 REQUES tS Sch PRODUCTION
465 SA6/RBIS AT TACHNERT ~
eq 672019 APEACHMENT™

“463 BeOS BLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTION TH Liainiia ‘SHAM PLEADING aad MGTION FOR SANCTIONS
en BAT 2019 — ~

PB 6 159 B/ZF2019

Bn se Braraais ATTACHE rns

Eee “RR 2019 “ATTACHMENT ~ ~ ~— ~ ~

iRequest - 8/12/2019 ~~ PLAINTIFFS AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEN COMPLAINT TO ADD A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND PROFFER OF EVIDENCE (SAME PARTIES)

‘(Request “fgg iOS “NOTICE FOR TRIAL —_—_—_—_—_ ~ |

Request]... s/it0ie~ “Rian RESPONSE 70 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOURTH AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIN/COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

553 ITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW, MOTION TO STRIKE SHAM PLEADING AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR PLEADING ABUSES :
wn vias "s . i:
482 49 1
‘ar B/brIOT®

meee

Request] gq 8/6/2019 ~~ ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY”

BIBI ‘ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY ~

i 149

([Regiest] 4, 87572019 PLAINTIFFS SECOND REQUEST FoR PRODUCT ‘BEF APTON VANES PA ee
var “8/2/2019” DEFENDANTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS SECOND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ~~

| SERFS

(Ceaiest) 145
BRAT

(Rawal SS 9

BIT
est} 144

443 87272019 GAAIL SENT 70 HUBBARD,
. _MSUBPOENA DUCES TECUIM FOR GLOBAL. TEL LINK™™
SUBPOENA ISSUED

‘FIAT DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY. ADUGHERT
T1287 PATENT $2.00 RECEIPT B20T9020287° eee ” ee

FPATIAS NOTICE OF HEARING
TAOS NOTICE OF HEARING
FIT

“PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT 10 ADD A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE OAMAGES AND PROFFER OF EVIDENCE AND TO ABD DEFENDANT LAW
FIRM AND NEW CAUSE OF ACTION |

TGat
40

3
133

ou 7

125

~ v

Request} y45

“FERRO” CLARIFIED ORDER OH DEFENDANT, E

45
“4

ig TAIT ~ RESPONSE TO SECOND REQUEST FOR ABMESIONS

FISTS HOTICE OF HERRING
=

—
32

F/STROVS” DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF SERVICE OF RESPONSES AND GEUECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS: FREES FOR ‘ADMISSIONS HTERRORETORES

“TAFT OROER DENTING 0

FAIRS BUAINTIEFS MOTION TG STRIKE AFFIRMATI

Request} 432
30
83 3 2

“Rp an os COURT NOTES

4 23
“6/25/2019” DEFENDANT E CLAYTON YATES BX ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANG DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

2 og BRT

“BAG
BHOPIGTS ~~ DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY OR ABATE DISCOVERY ~~
“Siefoie

“4/23720NS ~~ PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS DAT” —_

FARRIS” DEFENDANT COUNTER -PLAINTIFT'S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFY COUNTER DEFENDANTS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT TITLED AMENDED STATEMENT OF”

41472659

| 16

2 123

Ppa 6
3
Ra
rf
“2

a 20 120

118

BATE ENTRY
FI SERA MOTION TO DISMISS FOURTH AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIAUCOMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTIION WITH MEMORANDUM OF

CCAYTON YATES, BAS HMOTION TH COSOLIDATE AND SECOND ORDER TO SUBMIT AGREED CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND”
____.. ORDER - Recarded ( 3420190043377)
7a NOTIEE OF CANCELLING HEARING ON UNIFORM MOTION CALENDAR ”

TAS/IOA9 DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTEE
THSIRAT ~~ NOTICE OF HEARING UNIFORM MOTION CALENDAR

FiA8/ 2019 DEFERGANT, E CLAYTON YATES, PA'S MOTION TO OEEM DEFENDANTS SECOND REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO PLAINTIFF AS ADMITTED AND MOTION FOR

S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ~

FATTRAS ~~ NOTICE OF PRODUCTION FROM-NON PARTY (8S: 8/2/79) - GLOBAL TEL LINK
T2219” DEFENDANT E CLAYTON YATES PAS SECOND REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO PLAINTIFF LEAH M HUBBARD ~

Ti8/2019 NOTICE OF FILING (TRANSCRIPT OF THE NOVEMBER 6, 2017 AND NOVEMBER 7, 2017 HEARING)

“Ti5PRAS ~~ DEFENDANTS AMENDED RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS 10 PLAINTIFFS FIRS)

FIT ~ SaaS MOTION 7G COMPEL DEFENDANT EC CLAYTON YATES,
TER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADIAISSIONS

RETERROGATORIES AND PROVIBE

FA “FOE AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIA/COMPLAINT (SAME PARTIES) ~~

COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFS E CLAYTON YATES PA MOTION TO STIUKE PCAINTIF® COUNTER-DEFENDANTS THIRD AMENDED
0{E) AND FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMAL PURSUANT TO ER.C.R 1.42008)

CPMPLAINT TITLED AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM/COMPLAINT PURSANT TO E.R.C.P. 1.5

FAT DEFENDANTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST TO PRODUCE

6/28/2019” DEFENDANTS RESPONSE AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS ~

ec BEFEREART™

PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY”
NOTICE OF HEARING UNIFORM MOTION CALENDAR ~~
“DEFENDANTS MOTION TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY ~~
PLAINTIFFS FIRST REQUEST FOR -ADHISSIONS? aD B INTERROGATORIES “TO DEFENDANT E CAVTON ATES BA,
~ROTICE OF HEARING ~

SHOr201F

36/2019”
aT
“S7ZE/2O1S ~~ DEFENOANT, E- CLAYTON YATES BAS FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO PLANTIFR, LEAH M. HUBBARD”

4722019” GEPENDANT. €. CLAYTON YATES, LACS FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE 70 PLAINTIFE, LEAH. HUBBARD ~~

FET NOTICE OF HEARING
422729 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ~
if TO STRIKE AND

AND FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL, PURSUANT TO FRCP 1.420{8)

SLAM COMPL ANT PURSUANT TO FRCP 4 40
‘OF G RESON

S/BSTIONS ~~ APTACHRENT
‘3/25/2019 ~~ AMENDED COMPLAINT OF CLAIM 7COMPLAINT “NO CHANGES IN PARTIES”

NOTICE OF TRIAL AND ORDER FOR CASE MANAGMENT CONFERENCE ~

3725/2019"

“SPISTI019 ~~” ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ON DEFENANTS MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT ~

MGTION 76 BISNIS SECOND ANENDED COMPLAINT FOR FAILDIRE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION WITH MEMORANOUM OF LAW ~

S/AR/20I9 MOTION FOR REFERRAL TO MEDIATIONhuace om pare ENTRY
B3 11 3/21/2019 VERIFIED RETURN OF SERVICE ( E, SLATTOR YATES PA.

(Request ] 1 DETIOS NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING “mmr

TAG /2019 ~~ NOTICE GF HEARING

“TST2IS NOTICE RE MOTION FOR DEFAULT ~
1/9/2019 ~~ ROTION FOR DEFAULT THE YATES LAW
YATES P.A. RESPONSE FILED"

TORT
TaN

isiaiss
‘MEMORANDUM OF LAW
ORDER GRANTING PLAIN

T97IOE

2719/2018 ~ ORDER DENVING PLAINTIFFS /COUNTER-CLAIM DEFENDANTS LEAH M HUBBARD & INDEPENDENT SERVICES OF VERO BEACH LLCS MOTION TO STRIKE RE
_TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION AND Y JUDGMENT

RATE
“ARGS NOTICE OF HEARING ~
TIAZ/2 a RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS

BROS” DEFEND:

(Regest] ~ TOMS7RHE ~~” NOTICE OF SERVICE OF REQUEST FOR ADAISSIONS nner

DEFENDANT COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS NOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF COUNTER DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF HEARING
“PERERA C COUNTES PLANTS RESP .

“"g7 97572018 ROTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS ~
86 5/2618 NOTICE GF FEARING ~
ys AES ic
gq B/E
“a3 e242
RE

go 8/6/2018 ~
6TH

~~ 6/STR018 PAYMENT $295)
DEFENDANT ATOR
~ COPY OF ORDER ON MOTION TO TRANSFER CAUSE 70 COUNTY COL

6/5/2018

~~ 6/4/2018 CASE FILED 06/04/2018 CASE NUMBER 2618 CC COIDEFHAGE DIN DATE ENTRY

Bt 71 5/29/2018 —_ORDER-ON MOTION TO TRANSFER CAUSE TO COUNTY COURT

Gi 70 3f2472018 STIPULATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
6 B/RAT2018 ~~ PFE LEP DEEP JUDGE GRANTS TRAP TO COUNTY ATTY TO PREPARE ORDER™

3/3/2018 ~~ VERIFIED RETURN OF SERVICE (WATES TAW FIRM SVD: 4/24/18) “COPY OF SLINS ATTACHED - ADVISED BLF ORIGINAL NEEDED”

ot 4/23/2018

go 42872018

Pr “yo arsaOIe

i 58

“FACALLED BLFF
an oo APPALEOEH oon .
36 A/aSIROIB

“55 42872018

52 472372018 SUNN
4723/2018 ~~ SUNMAONS ISSUED: YATES LAW FIRM

“40TEFiling # 89024379 E-Filed 05/06/2019 11:53:28 AM

1932201/4

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA

CASE NO. 312019CA000232

LEAH M. HUBBARD,

Plaintiff,
v.

E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A.,

Defendant.
/

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Defendant, E. CLAYTON YATES P.A., by and through its undersigned counsel
and pursuant to Rule 1.270(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, moves this
Honorable Court for the entry of an Order consolidating this circuit civil action with the
case of Leah Hubbard v. E. Clayton Yates, P.A./ E. Clayton Yates, P.E. v. Leah

Hubbard, case number 2018 CC 001057, pending in the County Court of Indian River

County, for the reasons stated below.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND ARGUMENT
When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before
the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the
actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders
concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Fla.

R. Civ. P. 4.270(a). As provided in Rule 4.270(a), there are two major conditions that

must exist before the trial judge may enter an order of consolidation: (1) each of theCASE NO. 312019CA000232
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

actions must be pending before the court; and, (2) the actions must involve a common
question of law or fact. Id.

The purpose of consolidating cases is to minimize expense and delay. See
Wagner v. Nova University, Inc.. 397 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Generally, if
the same issue is presented in two or more cases that are pending before the court,
an order consolidating the cases will conserve judicial resources by avoiding a
duplication of effort. Padovano, 5 Fla. Prac., Civil Practice § 15:7 (2018-2019 ed.).

The Court should consolidate the instant case with the case of Leah Hubbard

v. E, Clayton Yates, P.A./ E. Clayton Yates, P.E. v. Leah Hubbard, case number 2018
CC 001057, pending in the County Court of indian River County as both cases are
pending before the Court. (A copy of the operative Complaint in this action is attached
as Exhibit “A’).

Both cases arise out of the same common nucleus of operative fact and law:
the representation of Ms. Hubbard in two criminal cases by E. Clayton Yates, Esq.
and his professional association. in both cases, Plaintiff alleges that she performed
paralegal services for Mr. Yates’ firm and was not paid. (The operative Complaint in
the County Court case is attached as Exhibit “B”). In turn, Mr. Yates counter-claimed
and alleged that the Plaintiff failed to pay him for those legal services. (The operative
Counter-Claim is attached as Exhibit “C"). In both cases, Plaintiff alleges that Mr.

Yates’ was fully paid and/or that his legal services failed to meet the standard of care.CASE NO. 312019CA000232
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

In other words, the claims and defenses in the two cases appear to be inextricably :
intertwined.

Neither case will be delayed by an Order granting this Motion. Neither case is
currently set for trial. Neither case has had depositions taken fo date. Neither case
involves a procedural posture at variance with the other as motions to strike and/or
dismiss pleadings remain pending in both cases. In both cases, Ms. Hubbard is
representing herself so she will incur no additional attorney’s fees or costs due to a
consolidation.

Consolidation also does not affect the substantive right to attorney fees.
therefore, a fee award in an action in which there is a substantive right to fees cannot
be offset by a recovery in consolidated case in which there is no substantive right to
fees. See Shores Supply Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., inc., 524 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1988). As such, consolidation will not harm the substantive or procedural rights
of any party to this action. The purpose of this motion is not for delay, but out of
necessity and concern for judicial economy.

Accordingly, this Honorable Court should grant the Motion to Consolidate.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, E. CLAYTON YATES P.A., respectfully
requests that this Honorable Court consolidate this action with the case of Leah
Hubbard v. E. Clayton Yates. PA, / E. Clayton Yates, P.E. v. Leah Hubbard, case
number 2018 CC 001057, pending in the County Court of Indian River County, and

for the Court to grant all other relief it deems just and proper.CASE NO. 312019CA000232
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

SERENE SSS

| HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been furnished by service through
the eportal to Leah M. Hubbard, 2046 79th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32966, Pro Se,
Leah Hubbard, leahhubbard0706@gmail.com, on this 6th. day of ___May_, 2019.

CONROY SIMBERG

Attorney for Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, P.A.
4801 Centrepark Drive East, Suite 200

West Paim Beach, FL 33401

Telephone: (561) 697-8088

Facsimile: (561) 697-8664

Primary Email: eservicewpb@conroysimberg.com
Secondary Email: jrubin@conroysimberg.com

By: _/s/ Jeffrey K. Rubin
John A. Lurvey, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 570222
Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 420841932201/4
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
CASE NO. 312019CA00232
(CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 2018 CC 001057)
LEAH M. HUBBARD,
Plaintiff,
Vv.

E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A.,

Defendant.
/

DEFENDANT, E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A.’S, OFFER OF JUDGMENT / PROPOSAL.
FOR SETTLEMENT TO PLAINTIFF, LEAH M. HUBBARD

The Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, P.A., by and through its undersigned counsel,
hereby serves this Proposal for Settlement to Plaintiff, Leah M. Hubbard, pursuant to
Florida Statute §768.79 and Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442, as follows:

1. Name of parties: The Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, P.A., makes this
Offer/Proposal to Plaintiff, Leah M. Hubbard.

2. identify Claims: This Offer/Proposal resolves all damages that would
otherwise be awarded in a final judgment in the above-captioned maiter.

3. Conditions: Upon acceptance of this Offer/Proposal, Plaintiff, Leah M.
Hubbard, shall enter into a Stipulation dismissing with prejudice all pending claims
against Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, P.A.

This offer is exclusive of all other offers.

This Offer of Settlement/Judgment shall remain open for a period of thirty (30) days

or until withdrawn in writing whichever occurs first.CASE NO. 312019CA00232 (CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 2018 CC 001057)

4. Amount: The amount of the Offer/Proposal is the total sum of ONE
THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($1,000.00).

5. Punitive Damages: This Offer/Proposal does not include any sum related
to punitive damages because there are presently no claims for punitive damages in this
case.

6. Attorneys’ fees: This Offer/Proposal does not include attorneys’ fees
which are not a part of the legal claim.

7. Miscellaneous: Failure by the Plaintiff, Leah M. Hubbard, to accept this
offer within thirty (30) days from the date hereof shall constitute a rejection of this Offer of
Settlement/Judgment and may result in appropriate sanctions being imposed by the Court
upon the Plaintiff, Leah M. Hubbard, including costs, expenses and reasonable

attorney's fees.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been furnished to Leah M. Hubbard,

2046 79th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32966, Pro Se, leahhubbard0706@gmail.com, by
electronic mail on this _2nd__ day of __ August_, 2019.

CONROY SIMBERG

Attorney for Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, P.A.
1801 Centrepark Drive East, Suite 200

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Telephone: 561-697-8088

Facsimile: 561-697-8664

Primary Email: eservicewpb@conroysimberg.com
Secondary Email: jrubin@conroysimberg.com

By: _/s/ Jeffrey K. Rubin
Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 42084Filing # 92334698 E-Filed 07/10/2019 02:28:22 PM

1932201
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO. 312019CA00232
LEAH M. HUBBARD,

Plaintiff,
v.

E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A.,

Defendant.
/

ORDER ON DEFENDANT, E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A.’S, MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Defendant, E. CLAYTON YATES,

P.A.’s, Motion to Consolidate this circuit civil action with the case of Leah Hubbard v. E.
Clayton Yates, P.A. / E. Clayton Yates P&. v. Leah Hubbard; case number 2018 CC
001057, pending in the County Court of indian River County, and the Court having heard
argument of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is hereupon,
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that said Motion be, and the same is hereby
penien tive Case 15 Cons elice ted
Trh Case Number 2616 co eblasg.
Leah Ywwhad vf Clavin Votes R.A. befor
Lue Ciecus Coypt Case Fes opved a loove.

%,CASE NO, 312019CA00232
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION_TO-CONSOLIDATE

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida,

this Oy day of = ). A , 2019.

HONORABLE JANET CARNEY CROOM
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE}

Copies furnished to:

Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire, Conroy Simberg, Defendant's counsel, 1801 Centrepark Drive East,
Suite 200, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, jrubin@conroysimberg.com,
eservicewpb@conroysimberg.com

Leah M. Hubbard, Plaintiff Pro Se, Leah Hubbard, leahhubbard0706@gmail.com, 2046 78th
Avenue, Vero Beach, FL. 32966

x
NyPOT ARRUNPARAP RIES BY RRR RAR RR Ae Rg A

K: S PG: 181, 7/23/2019 11:29 AM

Filing # 92926225 E-Filed 07/22/2019 01:40:57 PM

1932201
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO. 312019CA00232
LEAH M. HUBBARD,
Plaintiff,
Vv.

E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A.,

Defendant.
/

CLARIFIED ORDER ON DEFENDANT, E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A’S. MOTION

TO CONSOLIDATE AND SECOND ORDER TO SUBMIT AGREED CASE
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ORDER

THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on Defendant, E. CLAYTON
YATES, P.A.’s, Motion to Consolidate this circuit civil action with the case of Leah
Hubbard v. E. Clayton Yates, P.A./E. Clayton Yates, P.E. v. Leah Hubbard, case
number 2018 CC 001057, pending in the County Court of Indian River County, and
the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise advised in the
premises, it is hereupon,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Consolidate is
GRANTED." The case of Leah Hubbard v. E. Clayton Yates, P.A./ E. Clayton

1 The Court granted this Motion on July 9, 2079 after a hearing on same
and an Order granting the Motion was entered. The Clerk of the Court, has
requested that the Order granting the Motion explicitly state that the
County Court case has been consolidated into this matter in a clearer
manner.Bae Saas Ree Bere

CASE NO. 312019CA00232
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Yates, P.E. v. Leah Hubbard, case number 2018 CC 001057, pending in the

County Court of Indian River County is consolidated into the Circuit Court case of
Leah_M. Hubbard v. E. Clayton Yates, P.A., case number 312019CA00232,
pending before the Honorable Janet Carney Croom, in the Circuit Civil Division of
the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for indian River County. Agreed
Case Management Plan and Order due within 20 days of the date of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Vero Beach, Indian River County,

Florida, this day of , 2019.
10:56 am, Jul 22 2019

OL,

HONORABLE JANET CARNEY CROOM
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire, Conroy Simberg, Defendant's counsel, 1801
Centrepark Drive East, Suite 200, West Palm Beach, FL 33401,
jrabin@conroysimberg.com, eservicewpb@conroysimberg.com

Leah M. Hubbard, Plaintiff Pro Se, Leah Hubbard, leahhubbard0706@amail.com,
2046 79th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32966Filing # 91211890 E-Filed 06/17/2019 03:09:59 PM

1932201

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA

CASE NO. 312018CC001057

LEAH M. HUBBARD,
Plaintiff,
Vv.

THE YATES LAW FIRM
E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A.,

Defendant.
/

LIMITED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the law offices of CONROY SIMBERG hereby files
this Notice of Appearance as counsel on behalf of E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A. and
requests that all future correspondence and pleadings be directed to the undersigned.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

| HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been furnished by service through the
eportal to Leah M. Hubbard, 2046 79th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32966, Pro Se on this
17th day of June _, 2019.

CONROY SIMBERG

Attorney for Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, P.A.
1801 Centrepark Drive East, Suite 200

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Telephone: (561) 697-8088/Fax: (561) 697-8664
Primary Email: eservicewpb@conroysimberg.com
Secondary Email:jrubin@conroysimberg.com

By: _/s/ Jeffrey K. Rubin
Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire

Florida Bar No, 42084Filing # 87502787 E-Filed 04/04/2019 04:37:12 PM

1932201
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA

CASE NO. 2019 CA 000232

LEAH M. HUBBARD,
Plaintiff,

Vv.

E, CLAYTON YATES, P.A.,

Defendant.
/

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the law offices of CONROY SIMBERG hereby files

this Notice of Appearance as counsel on behalf of E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A. and

requests that all future correspondence and pleadings be directed to the undersigned.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

| HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been furnished by service through the
eportal to Leah M. Hubbard, 2046 79th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32966, Pro Se onCASE NO. «MATSUP_COURTNO»

this _4th _ day of _April 2019.

CONROY SIMBERG

Attomey for Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, P.A.
1801 Centrepark Drive East, Suite 200

West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Telephone: (561) 697-8088

Facsimile: (561) 697-8664

Primary Email: eservicewpb@conroysimberg.com
Secondary Email: jlurvey@conroysimberg.com
jrubin@conroysimberg.com

By: _/s/ John A. Lurvey
John A. Lurvey, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 570222
Jeffrey Rubin, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 42084Filing # 97603588 E-Filed 10/21/2019 02:38:24 PM

193220114
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

CASE NO. 312019CA000232

LEAH M. HUBBARD,
Plaintiff,

Vv.

E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A.,

Defendant.
/

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS

Defendant, E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A., pursuant to the provisions of Section
57.041, Florida Statutes, moves this Honorable Court for the entry of a Judgment taxing
costs against the Plaintiff, Leah M. Hubbard, for the reasons stated herein.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND ARGUMENT

This is a legal malpractice case. As established in Exhibit “1°, a Final Judgment
was entered in favor of the Defendant, E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A., on October 10, 2019.
As the prevailing party, Defendant is entitled to taxable litigation costs under Section
57.041, Florida Statutes and the Statewide Uniform Guidelines of Taxable Costs in Civil
Actions in Florida.

As established in the Affidavit of the undersigned, Exhibit “2”, Defendant seeks
taxable costs in the amount of $240.00 for court reporter appearance fees. Said costs are
taxable under the Statewide Uniform Guidelines. The costs sought in this motion are
separate and distinct from the attorney's fees sought in Defendant's separately filed

Motion to Determine Entitlement to, and Amount of, its Attorney's Fees.CASE NO. 312019CA000232

Accordingly, this Honorable Court should enter a taxable cost Judgment in favor
of Defendant in the amount of $240.00.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A., respectfully requests
that this Honorable Court (1) enter a Judgment awarding this Defendant its taxable
litigation costs in the amount of $240.00, and, (2) for the Court to grant all other relief it
deems just and proper.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been furnished by service through the
eportal to Leah M. Hubbard, 2046 79th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32966, Pro Se, Leah
Hubbard, teahhubbard0706@gmail.com, on this _21st day of October _, 2019.

CONROY SIMBERG

Attorney for Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, P.A.
41801 Centrepark Drive East, Suite 200

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ~

Telephone: (561) 697-8088

Facsimile: (561) 697-8664

Primary Email: eservicewpb@conroysimberg.com
Secondary Email: jrubin@conroysimberg.com

By: _/s/ Pelfrey K. Rube
Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire
Florida Bar No. 42084Exhibit “1”Filing # 97319301 E-Filed 10/15/2019 04:01:44 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO. 312019CA00232
(CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE NO. 2018 CC 007 057)
LEAH M. HUBBARD,

Plaintiff,
v.

E, CLAYTON YATES, P.A.,

Defendant.
/

een nner

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT, E, CLAYTON YATES, P.A’S, MOTION

FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
AND.

AND,
FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT
THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard on the Defendant, E. CLAYTON

YATES, P.A’s, Motion for Final Summary Judgment, and the Court having
reviewed the Defendant's Motion, Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law
filed on or about August 19, 2019, the materials filed by Plaintiff, and being
otherwise advised in the premises, itis hereupon,

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Defendant, E, CLAYTON YATES,
PA'S, Motion & Final Summary Judgment is GRANTEDp af the Court $
444 n€ OFF DGED that the Plaintiff, LEAH HUBBARD, shall take nothing by
this action and the Defendant, E. CLAYTON YATES, PA., shail go hence without

day. This Court expressly reserves jurisdiction to determine the Defendant'sCASE NO, 312019CA00232
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT, E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A.’S, MOTION FOR FINAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND, FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT

entitlement to taxable costs and attorney's fees upon proper motion(s) filed by the
Defendant. ,

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Vero Beach, Indian River County,

Florida, this /(@_ day of Ocber , 2019.

TONORASLEDNET CARNEY CROOM

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Jeffray K. Rubin, Esquire, Conroy Simberg, Defendant's counsel, 1801 Centrepark
Drive East, Suite 200, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, jrubin@conroysimberg.com,
eservicewpb@conroysimberg.com

Leah M. Hubbard, Plaintiff Pro Se, leahhubbard0706@amail.com, 2046 79th Avenue,
Vero Beach, FL 32966 .

E. Clayton Yates, Esq., Counsel for Defendant / Counter-Plaintiff fh consolidated case,

cyates@feeyateslaw.com, Fee, Yates & Fee, PLLC, 426 Avenue A, Fort Pierce, Florida
34960

Patrick MacRae, Esq., Counsel for Plaintiff {limited appearance), 1358 Bayshore Drive,
Fort Pierce, FL 34949, att jorneymacras@yahoo.comExhibit “2”IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

CASE NO. 312019CA00232

LEAH HUBBARD,

Plaintiff,

Vv.

E. CLAYTON YATES, P.A.,

Defendant.

AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY K. RUBIN, ESQUIRE IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS

Ere naval! 2S

STATE OF FLORIDA )

COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )

COMES NOW, the undersigned, JEFFREY K. RUBIN, ESQUIRE, who after being

first duly sworn upon oath deposed and stated as follows:

My name is Jeffrey K. Rubin, Esquire.

| am over the age of 18 and competent to testify to the following which is
based on personal knowledge.

Since September 20, 2007, | have been a member in good standing of The
Florida Bar.

Since September 6, 2011, | have practiced law at Conroy Simberg, P.A.

| have served as counsel for Defendant, E. Clayton Yates, P.A., in the

above-referenced action since April 2019.CASE NO. 312019CA00232
AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY K, RUBIN, ESQUIRE

6. Pursuant to the Statewide Uniform Guidelines of Taxation of Costs in Civil
Actions, the Defendant has incurred $240.00 in taxable costs for court
reporter appearance fees from U.S. Legal Support for two hearings in this
matter. Copies of those invoices for court reporter appearance fees are
attached hereto as Composite Exhibit "A’.

7. The taxable costs sought herein were necessary for the defense of this
a

Case Info

Judge

CROOM, JANET C Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

July 24, 2020

Case Filing Date

April 20, 2018

County

Parties

E CLAYTON YATES PA Counter Claim Plaintiff
E CLAYTON YATES PA Defendant
HUBBARD, LEAH M Counter Claim Defendant
HUBBARD, LEAH M Plaintiff
INDEPENDENT SERVICES OF VERO BEACH LLC Plaintiff
MACRAE, PATRICK Attorney
MACRAE, PATRICK Attorney for the Plaintiff
YATES, E CLAYTON PA Defendant
YATES LAW FIRM Defendant
Joseph Mancini Attorney
Jeffrey Rubin Attorneys for Defendants
John Lurvey Attorneys for Defendants
Bobby Guttridge Attorney
Charles Hughes Attorney
Leah MacLaughlan Attorney
Kyle Johnson Attorney
Patrick O'Brien Attorney
Steven Ziskinder Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: HUBBARD, LEAH M vs. YATES, E CLAYTON PA

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties