Preview
Filing # 125176022 E-Filed 04/19/2021 02:47:31 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 2017-CA-007333-O
SAFEMARK SYSTEMS, L.P.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MOHANVHAI PATEL, as CO-TRUSTEE
OF THE JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST,
d/b/a AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES;
GUNVANTRIA S. PATEL, as CO-TRUSTEE
OF THE JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST,
d/b/a AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES; and
PIYUSH PATEL, a/k/a PETER PATEL,
individually, d/b/a AMBASSADOR
INN & SUITES,
Defendants.
REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS
AND SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE
COMES NOW, Plaintiff, SAFEMARK SYSTEMS, L.P. (hereafter, “Safemark”) by
and
through its undersigned counsel and replies to the Amended Motion to Dismiss of Defendan
ts,
MOHANVHAI PATEL, as CO-TRUSTEE OF THE JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST,
d/b/a
AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES; GUNVANTRIA S. PATEL, as CO-TRUSTEE OF
THE
JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST, d/b/a AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES; and PIYUSH
PATEL, a/k/a PETER PATEL, individually, d/b/a AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES, (hereafte
r
collectively, “Hotel”) as follows:
1 On or about August 11, 2017, Safemark brought suit against Hotel for breach of a
lease agreement for in-room safes,
2 On or about October 18, 2017, service of process was perfected on Defendant,
Piyush
Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel.
3 Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel responded pro se to the complaint indicati
ng
he was not the proper Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel Plaintiff to be suing.
4. Safemark served discovery requests on Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter
Patel to
ascertain the veracity of his representations and the results were inconclusive.
5 On February 15, 2018, Safemark motioned for an extension of time to procure service
on the remaining Defendants and an Order was entered granting the extensi
on on February 22, 2018.
6 Safemark attempted service on the other Defendants and was unsuccessful,
given the
area is a seasonal vacation destination and Defendants were not located,
7 On November 14, 2019, the Court set a status conference for December
3, 2019 to
address the case and the Court was advised of the inability to confirm the identity
of Defendant,
Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel, and the inability to locate the other Defendants
for service of process.
8 The Court granted the Safemark 180 days to perfect service or be subject to dismissal
in its Order on December 3, 2019.
9, Safemark submitted an alias summons for Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a
Peter Patel to
the clerk that was issued on March 30, 2020 but was not e-served.
10. Service of process on Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel was perfected
on June
23, 2020
Il. On July 9, 2020, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of Defendant, Piyush
Patel,
a/k/a Peter Patel and the remaining Defendants voluntarily appeared in this action
by joining in on the
motion to dismiss.
12. On December 2, 2020 Defendants submitted their Amended motion to Dismiss
.
13. Defendants assert two grounds upon which they seek dismissal:
a) Plaintiff's failed to comply with the Court Order of December 3, 2019
affording one hundred eighty days to perfect service of process; and
b) Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cause of action as an alleged
“shotgun” pleading.
14. In Safemark’s reply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the undersigned had been
under the mistaken impression that the constable in Massachusetts was not serving process on
account of the pandemic and governmental shutdowns at that time.
15. However, in preparing this response, it was discovered that understanding was in error
and that was not the reason why the summons was not timely served.
16. Safemark submits the following showing of good cause and excusable neglect in
support of its failure to comply with the Court Order of December 3, 2019. As more fully set forth in
the Affidavit of Janet Lewis appended hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference herein, the
firm has a system in place for the diary of orders and that procedure was mistakenly not followed
through a failure to calendar the one hundred eighty (180) day deadline for service in the December 3,
2019 order. In addition, it has been determined that the clerk of court issued the summons on March
30, 2020 but did not e-serve it on counsel for the Plaintiff, as evidenced by the docket printout
appended to Janet Lewis’ affidavit as Exhibit “B”.
17. “The established caselaw deems that calendaring errors are regarded as excusable
neglect.” Al Hendrickson Toyota. Inc. v. Yampolsky, 695 So.2d 948 (Fla. 4 DCA 1997).
18, Moreover, “a secretarial error in failing to calendar a hearing for an attorney warrants
relief under Rule 1.540(b).” Giron v. Fairways of Sunrise Homeowners Ass |, 903 So.2d 1008 (Fla.
4" DCA 2005), citing to Heller v. Geneco. Inc,, 661 So.2d 950, 951 (Fla. 4° DCA 1995), citing to
Wilson v. Woodward, 602 So.2d 547 (Fla. 2" DCA 1992).
19. Furthermore, the December 3, 2019 order was premised on Rule 1.070 and a Rule
1.070 dismissal in the matter sub judice would be exceptionally harsh, since Safemark has alleged a
default date of September 2015, and a purported dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 1.070
becomes with prejudice when the statute of limitations has run precluding Safemark the opportunity
to refile.
20. However, “Florida has a longstanding policy in favor of resolving civil disputes on the
merits, and rule 1.070()) is to serve as a case management tool and not as a severe sanction.” Green
- Lingle, 166 So.3d 221, 224 (Fla. 1* DCA 2015).
21. In addition, Florida courts have taken the view that when a limitations period has run
and service of process has not been perfected as of the date of the hearing on the motion to dismiss, a
trial court abuses its discretion not extending the time for service instead of dismissing the complaint.
See, Roberts v. Stidham, 19 So.3d 1155 (Fla. 5 DCA 2009); Henderson v. Johnson, 97 So.3d 946
(Fla. 1 DCA 2012); Fernandez v. Cohn, 54 So.3d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 201 1); Miranda v. Young, 19
S$o.3d 1100 (Fla. 2™ DCA 2009).
22. It has further been held that even in the absence of a showing of good cause, a court
still has discretion to extend the time for service when a dismissal precludes the refiling due to the
running of the statute of limitations. Carter v. Winn-Dixie Store. Inc., 889 So.2d 960 (Fla. 1 DCA
2004).
23. Defendants claim that Plaintiff's complaint is a “shotgun” pleading is misplaced.
Safemark has pled that at the time of execution of the lease contract, Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a
Peter Patel signed on behalf of the owner of the hotel, while knowing he was not the owner of the
hotel, the remaining Defendants being the true owners. Safemark has alleged Defendant, Piyush
Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel, executed the agreement as the undisclosed agent of the true owners of the
hotel. Thereafter, the hotel performed on the contract prior to breach resulting in ratification of the
agreement by the true owners; therefore, either Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel is
individually liable on the contract or his acts as an undisclosed agent have bound the remaining
Defendants to the terms of the contract coupled with the contracts ratification.
26. Defendants’ contention the complaint lacks a default date is refuted in the complaint,
specifically, Paragraph 26(a) alleges a default date of September 2015.
27. Defendants’ contention the complaint fails to identify an amount due is also refuted in
the complaint in Paragraph 26; the amounts due on account of Defendants breach — principal balance
of $10,200 for the lease payments due from September 2015 through August 2017; interest on the
principal of $1,201.61; $5,960.00 for the future rental payments due on the lease and either $2,550.00
in removal costs or $10,625.00 for the value of the safes.
28. Based on the foregoing, Safemark requests this court accept its showing of good cause
and excusable neglect as to why the Order of December 3, 2019 was not complied with, deem the
service of process on Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel perfected via personal service on June
23, 2021 and accept the consensual appearances of Co-Defendants, Mohanvhai Patel, as co-trustee of
the Jalaram Vani Realty Trust and Gunvantria S. Patel, as co-trustee of the Jalaram Vani Realty Trust
as their submission to the jurisdiction of this court via appearance through counsel. Alternatively,
Safemark requests this Court use its discretion to grant an extension of time for service of process,
quash the service on Defendant(s) and direct the Clerk to issue renewed alias summonses for service,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Safemark Systems, L.P., respectfully requests this Court find that
good cause exists as to why Defendants’ were not served within 120 days of the December 3, 2019
Order; or alternatively, that additional time for service is warranted since the effect of a Rule 1.070
would be a dismissal with prejudice since the statute of limitations has run on the underlying claim.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THEREBY CERTIF that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via
Electronic Mail to counsel for Defendants, JAMES P. SAWRAN, Esquire; jsawran@mscesg.com
and
IAN P. SINGER, Esquire; isinger@mscesg.com, SEGAL, McCAMBRIDGE, SINGER &
MAHONEY, LTD, this 19" day of April, 2021.
FOSTER & KLINKBBIL, P.A
bie
TOMP
Tfoste: ike OSTER
Fla, Bar No. 30 335
WAYNE E. KLINKBEIL
wayne@flkpa.com
Fla, Bar No. 0040037
Attomeys for Plaintiff
P.O. Box 3108
Orlando, FL 32802-3108
(407) 422-1966
(407) 422-5938 Facsimile
Al Hendrickson Toyota, Inc. v. Yampoisky, 695 So.2d 948 (1997)
22 Fla. L. Weekly D1627
liability is reversed.
695 So.2d 948 (Mem)
District Court of Appeal of Florida, The order was entered based on technical admissions
Fourth District. because appellant had failed to answer requests for
admission. However, appellant filed a motion to allow
AL HENDRICKSON TOYOTA, INC., Appellant, late filing of responses based on excusable neglect. It
attached affidavits from its counsel stating that the
MichaelYAMPOLSKY, Appellee. response date for answering had inadvertently not been
calendared. The trial court denied the motion, but the
No. 97-0078. established case law deems that calendaring errors are
| regarded as excusable neglect. See Wood v. Fortune Ins.
July 2, 1997. Co., 453 So.2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Broward
County v. Perdue, 432 So.2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
The trial court erred in denying the motion to permit late
Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the filing of responses.
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Harry G.
Hinckley, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 95-15171CACE (08). Without the technical admissions, the record has
conflicting evidence as to the issue of liability. For these
Attorneys and Law Firms
reasons, we reverse the order and remand for further
proceedings.
Julie Greenberg Shapiro of Gaebe, Murphy, Mullen &
Antonelli, Coral Gables, for Appellant.
Michael Yampolsky, Coral Springs, pro se.
WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Opinion
All Citations
PER CURIAM. 695 So.2d 948 (Mem), 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1627
The order granting summary judgment as to appellant’s =
End of Document © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim toorignal U.S. Government Works,
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
Giron v. Fairways of Sunrise Homeowners’ Ass'n, Inc., 903 So.2d 1008 (2005)
30 Fla. L. Weekly D1426
result of secretarial scheduling error); Shurgard Storage
Cirs., Inc. v. Parker, 755 S0.2d 695, 696 (Fla, 4th DCA
KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment 1999) (finding that company’s administrative mishandling
Distinguished by $2 Global, Inc. v. Tactical Operational Support and misrouting of complaint between offices was a “clear
Services, LLC, Fla.App. 4 Dist., September 4, 2013
903 So.2d 1008 (Mem) of excusable neglect); Al Hendrickson Toyota, Inc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, v. Yampolsky, 695 So.2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
Fourth District. (‘[T]he established case law deems that calendaring
errors are regarded as excusable neglect.”); Heller v.
Gloria M. GIRON n/k/a Gloria Pauls, Appellant, Geneco, Inc., 661 So.2d 950, 951 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
(commenting that a “secretarial error in failing to calendar
FAIRWAYS OF SUNRISE HOMEOWNERS’ a hearing for an attorney” warrants relief under Rule
ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. 1.540(b)); Hall v. Byington, 421 So.2d 817, 818 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1982) (noting that an attorney’s failure to note the
No. 4D04-3108. date properly on his calendar is recognized as excusable
neglect); Supro Corp. v. Bridwell, 361 So.2d 734, 735
June 8, 2005. (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (concluding that counsel’s failure to
appear at trial because his file had been misplaced
demonstrates excusable neglect); Travelers Ins. Co. v.
Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Bryson, 341 So.2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
Seventeenth Judicial *1009 Circuit, Broward County; (counsel who failed to properly note on calendar the date
Patti Englander Henning, Judge; L.T. Case No. of a hearing demonstrated excusable neglect, as
01-9551(03). “[clounsel’s absence from the hearing was a mistake, or
inadvertent or excusable neglect”); Crystal Lake Golf
Attorneys and Law Firms Course, Inc. v. Kalin, 252 So.2d 379, 380-81 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1971) (concluding that attorney’s failure to attend a
Richard R. Michelson of Richard R. Michelson, P.A.,
pretrial conference which was caused by secretary’s
Plantation, for appellant.
failure to diary the hearing is excusable neglect); Wilson
v. Woodward, 602 So.2d 547, 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
Helene Hvizd Morris, West Palm Beach, and Lawrence
A. Shendell of Shendell & Associates, P.A., Lighthouse
(party demonstrated excusable neglect for failure to attend
Point, for appellee. hearing, where attorney’s secretary did not calendar the
hearing pursuant to a notice of hearing). We note that this
Opinion appeal, and the resulting delay, might have been avoided
had appellee’s trial counsel demonstrated professionalism
by calling his adversary, who failed to attend the calendar
PER CURIAM. call, before the trial.
We reverse the order denying the motion to set aside the
final judgment, entered after appellant failed to attend a
STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
calendar call and non-jury trial set six days after the
calendar call. Appellant had actively litigated the case for All Citations
three years. Appellant demonstrated excusable neglect
and a meritorious defense. See City of Pembroke Pines v. 903 So.2d 1008 (Mem), 30 Fla. L. Weekly D1426
Zitnick, 792 So.2d 677, 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
(reversing denial of motion to set aside order compelling
arbitration where counsel’s failure to attend hearing was
End of Document © 2019 Thomson Reuters, No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, IN THE
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 2017-CA-007333-O
SAFEMARK SYSTEMS, L.P.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MOHANVHAI PATEL, AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE
JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST D/B/A AMBASSADOR
INN & SUITES, GUNVANTRIA S. PATEL, AS CO-TRUSTEE
OF THE JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST D/B/A AMBASSADOR
INN & SUITES, PIYUSH PATEL A/K/A PETER PATEL, INDIVIDUALLY,
D/B/A AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES,
Defendants.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared JANET LEWIS,
who after being duly sworn, deposes, and states:
1 I am over the age of eighteen (18) years of age and the facts stated herein are true
of my own personal knowledge.
2 I am a legal assistant with the firm of Foster & Klinkbeil, P.A. charged with the
duties of implementing the firm system for calendaring hearings and deadlines.
3 The system in place consists of my calendaring deadlines for responsive pleadings,
service of process and all other matters requiring follow up actions, into the firm
calendaring system, at the time such matters are received by the firm.
EXHIBIT "A"
4 A breakdown in this system occurred regarding the order of this Court on December
3, 2019, Order on Status Hearing, I did not calendar the one hundred and eighty (180) day
deadline to perfect service.
5 I did not forward the summons to the Clerk to issue until March on the belief that
we would be unable to serve the defendant during the winter months at the hotel.
6. I submitted the Summons to be issued electronically on March 20, 2020, e-portal,
reference number 105239620 ten days later, on March 30, 2020 we received notification via
email that the filing, 105239620 had been accepted. A copy of these emails are attached
as Composite Exhibit “A”
7 I went to the Orange County Clerk of Courts web site to print the summons and it
was not yet showing issued on the docket.
8 Due to Covid-19 and the executive order requiring non-essential workers to stay at
home during the pandemic, in the months of March, April and May 2020 we were not in
the office on a daily basis, so our routine was changed and therefore I did not notice that
we never received the summons.
9 The file was put away and it wasn’t until June 17, 2020, when I pulled it, for a
reason that I cannot recall, that I noticed that there wasn’t copy of the alias summons in the
file.
10. After searching Mr. Foster’s email for the issued summons, I went onto the Court
Docket and located the issued summons and noticed that it didn’t say that it had been served
electronically, like normal; a copy of the docket is attached as Exhibit “B’. I printed the
alias summons and immediately forwarded it to our process server, Alliance Process to
have served at the hotel, a copy of the email is attached as Exhibit “C”
FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NAUGHT.
LLOLA
JANE LEWIS
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBE i e this f | day of April, 2021 by
JANET LEWIS, who is eitherpersonally known to me, or who produced identification, to
)
hats
wit =
m6
Otary Public
AL
M ly Commission Expires: nti tay Mn,
s a’ OCHO,.
eee 5
. one ZS
=‘
oe
#6G 198307
Gtr,
Condes
ees
wef eneeee, >
=
GN
Aman
Janet Lewis
From: noreply@myflcourtaccess.com
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 4:11 PM
Subject: Filing Received
Dear Tompkins A Foster:
This email verifies the receipt of 1 document submitted by you to Orange Circuit Civil on
03/20/2020 04:11:26 PM.
UCN: 482017CA007333A0010X
Clerk Case #: 2017-CA-007333-O
Case Style: SAFEMARK SYSTEMS LP vs. PATEL, MOHANVHAlet al
Document Title: Proposed Summons to be Issued by Clerk
Matter #:
Memo: 704248
Filing Fee: $0.00
Additional Fee: $10.00
Service Documents Proposed $0.00
Summons to be Issued by Clerk:
Statutory Convenience Fee: $0.35
Total Fee: $10.35
Fee Status: Assessed
Paid By: Pay By Credit/Debit Card
MFC Order #: 27601954
The E-Portal reference number of this filing is: 105239620. Please reference this Filing #
in any correspondence.
You will receive a follow-up email when your filing has been docketed with the Clerk. At that
time, the fee settlement will be transmitted to your banking institution for payment. You, as the
filer are responsible for fee payment. If there are any issues with payment processing, you will
be contacted by the Civitek Banking Department.
Follow us on Twitter @FLCourtsEFiling
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/FLCrtsEFilingPortal
View the Training Manualshttps://www.myficourtaccess.com/authority/trainingmanuals.html
Composite Exhibit “A
a
This is a non-monitored email. Do not reply directly to it. If you have any questions about this
filing please contact the Orange Circuit Civil division.
Thank you,
The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal
Janet Lewis
a ,
From: noreply@myflcourtaccess.com
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 9:37 AM
Subject: Processing Completed for Filing # 105239620
Dear Tompkins A Foster:
This email verifies the processing of your Filing # 105239620 with the Orange County,
Florida Circuit Civil Division.
Status: Accepted
Filing Date/Time: 03/20/2020 04:11:26 PM
UCN: 482017CA007333A0010X
Clerk Case #: 2017-CA-007333-O
Case Style: SAFEMARK SYSTEMS LP vs. PATEL, MOHANVHAIet al.
Matter #:
Memo: 704248
Filing Fee: $0.00
Additional Fee: $10.00
Service Documents Proposed $0.00
Summons to be Issued by Clerk
Statutory Convenience Fee: $0.35
Total Paid: $10.35,
Fee Status: Processing
Paid By: Pay By Credit/Debit Card
MFC Order #: 27601954
Documents
# ‘Document Type ‘Status Filing Date (Rejection Reason
Service Documents Proposed Summons to be Issued
1 \Accepted (03/20/2020
Iby Clerk
Fees
Your filing has been docketed with the Clerk’s office. The fee is in the process of
Processing. At that time, the fee settlement will be transmitted to your banking
institution for payment. You, as the filer are responsible for fee payment. If there are
any issues with payment processing, you will be contacted by the Civitek Banking
Department.
This is a non-monitored email. Do not reply directly to it. If you have any questions
about this filing, please contact the Orange County, Florida Circuit Civil Division.
Thank you.
Many counties no longer require paper follow-up. To see a complete list, click on this
link.
aucune Orange County Clerk - Court Records Search
hx
*|
As
Ks
SRT
2017-CA-007333-0 : SAFEMARK SYSTEMS LP vs. PATEL, MOHANVHAlet
al
Case Type: CA - Breach of Agreement/Contract Date Filed: 8/11/2017
Location: Div 34 UCN: 482017CA007333A0010X
Judge: Paetra Brownlee Status. Pending
Citation Number: CA - Breach of Agreement/Contract Appear By Date:
Parties
Name ou Type Attorney Atty
'SAFEMARK SYSTEMS LP Plaintiff __TOMPKINS FOSTE! 407. 166
MOHANVHAI PATEL Defendant
AS CO TRUSTEE OF THE JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST
AMB, ITE:
GUNVAI Defendant
AS CO TRUSTEE OF THE JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST
AMBASSADO! INN & SUITES Al
PIYUSH PATEL Defendant
PETER PATEL INDIVIDUALLY AKA
AMBASSADOR INN AND SUITES DBA
ss
Charge Details
Offense Date Charge Plea Arrest Disposition Sentence
Docket Events
Date Description Pages
4/23/2021 HEARING- Motion- Brownlee, Paetra
4/23/2021 HEARING - Motion - Brow 2, Paetra
4/16/2021 Notice of Unavailability
see
1/6/2021 Amended Notice of Hearing
ee
12k ing
sen aComments: on April 23, 2021 at 10:30 a. m. tn
12/2/2020 Motion to Dismiss 10
Comments: Defendants, MOHANVHAI PATEL
11/30/2021 - CANCELED-Cancelled Motion Paetra
11/25/2020 Notice Cancellation of Hearing
seen Comments:
a for seNovember 30, 20202 at 10:00 a. m. soe
11/24/2020 Notice
Commer of supplemental authority to plainitffs replyte to defendants motion to dismissoe
Exhibit “B"
Date Description Pages
11/23/2020 Notice of Filing
Comments: SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
91/23/2020 Reply
Comments: TO MOTION TO DISMISS
9/8/2020 Notice of Hearing
Comments: on November 30, 2020 at 10:00 a.m
71912020 Motion to Dismiss
Comment Defts) Pitts Complaint & Memorandum of Law in Support in Support Thereof
(6/30/2020 Summons Returned Served
iment (Alias) Upon Piyush Patel
lias Summons Issued
1/9/2020 Mail Returned - Not Delivered
1/7/2020 Mail Returned - Not Delivered
12/3/2019 Order
Comments: ON STATUS HEARING
12/3/2019 Court Minutes
F)
11/26/2019 Returned Mail
11/26/2019 Returned Mail
11/26/2019 Returned Mail
11/14/2019 Order Setting Hearing
Comments: status 12/03/19 10am
11/1/2018 Affidavit of Service
Comments: Mohanvhai Patel
11/1/2018 Affidavit of Service
Comments: Gunvantria S Patel
6/6/2018 Summons Returned Served
2/22/2018 Order Enlargement and Extension of Time
va
2/22/2018 Court Minutes
2/22/2018 HEARING - Ex Parte - Rodriguez, Jose R (Actual: Rodriguez, Jose R)
2/15/2018 Motion for Enlargement/Exten: n of Time
Comment: Safemark Systems LP
12/15/2017 Answer
Comments: cc judge
8/2017 Request for Adi ions
11/8/2017 of Service of Interrogatories
11/8/2017 Notice of Filing
Comments: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
8/15/2017 Si I ied El
Date Description Pages
8/15/2017 Summons Issued Electronically as to
8/11/2017 Complaint
8/11/2017 Civil Cover Sheet
9/11/2017 Case Ini d
Hearings
Date Hearing Time Location Pages
4/23/2021 Moti Floor
4/23/2021 Motion - Brownlee, Paetra 10.
10:00 AM Hearing Room 1100.02
12/3/2019 Status Hearing -
Ex Parte - Rodriguez, Jose R (Actual: Rodriguez, Jose R) 8:30 AM Hearing Room 20-A
Financial
Date Description Payer Amount
8/11/2017 Transaction Assessment . 430.00
430.00
3/20/2018 Transaction Assessment 10.00
FOSTER, TOMPKINS A -10.00
isaction sessment 10.00
3/20/2020 Payment FOSTER, TOMPKINS A -10.00
Balance Di
Bonds
Description Status Date Bond Status Amount
Warrants
Number Status Description Issue Date Service Date Recall Date Expiration Date Warrant Type
Janet Lewis
ES
From: Janet Lewis
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:42 PM
To: info’
Subject: New service-Old matter 704248 Safemark v Patel et al
Attachments: alias.pdf
Hi Emily;
Please send the process server back to the hotel to have this served
Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call
Janet Lewis
Legal Assistant
Foster & Klinkbeil, P.A.
P.O. Box 3108
Orlando, FL 32802
407-422-1966 Ext. 103
FOSTER.
INKBEILva.
Al CRN YS AL SAW
‘THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS MESSAGE IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS
MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS UNLAWFUL AND STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU
NOTICE:THIS COMMUNICATION IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE
USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR.
Eyinibit C
Preview
Filing # 125176022 E-Filed 04/19/2021 02:47:31 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2017-CA-007333-O SAFEMARK SYSTEMS, L.P., Plaintiff, vs. MOHANVHAI PATEL, as CO-TRUSTEE OF THE JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST, d/b/a AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES; GUNVANTRIA S. PATEL, as CO-TRUSTEE OF THE JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST, d/b/a AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES; and PIYUSH PATEL, a/k/a PETER PATEL, individually, d/b/a AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES, Defendants. REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS AND SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE COMES NOW, Plaintiff, SAFEMARK SYSTEMS, L.P. (hereafter, “Safemark”) by and through its undersigned counsel and replies to the Amended Motion to Dismiss of Defendan ts, MOHANVHAI PATEL, as CO-TRUSTEE OF THE JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST, d/b/a AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES; GUNVANTRIA S. PATEL, as CO-TRUSTEE OF THE JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST, d/b/a AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES; and PIYUSH PATEL, a/k/a PETER PATEL, individually, d/b/a AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES, (hereafte r collectively, “Hotel”) as follows: 1 On or about August 11, 2017, Safemark brought suit against Hotel for breach of a lease agreement for in-room safes, 2 On or about October 18, 2017, service of process was perfected on Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel. 3 Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel responded pro se to the complaint indicati ng he was not the proper Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel Plaintiff to be suing. 4. Safemark served discovery requests on Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel to ascertain the veracity of his representations and the results were inconclusive. 5 On February 15, 2018, Safemark motioned for an extension of time to procure service on the remaining Defendants and an Order was entered granting the extensi on on February 22, 2018. 6 Safemark attempted service on the other Defendants and was unsuccessful, given the area is a seasonal vacation destination and Defendants were not located, 7 On November 14, 2019, the Court set a status conference for December 3, 2019 to address the case and the Court was advised of the inability to confirm the identity of Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel, and the inability to locate the other Defendants for service of process. 8 The Court granted the Safemark 180 days to perfect service or be subject to dismissal in its Order on December 3, 2019. 9, Safemark submitted an alias summons for Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel to the clerk that was issued on March 30, 2020 but was not e-served. 10. Service of process on Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel was perfected on June 23, 2020 Il. On July 9, 2020, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel and the remaining Defendants voluntarily appeared in this action by joining in on the motion to dismiss. 12. On December 2, 2020 Defendants submitted their Amended motion to Dismiss . 13. Defendants assert two grounds upon which they seek dismissal: a) Plaintiff's failed to comply with the Court Order of December 3, 2019 affording one hundred eighty days to perfect service of process; and b) Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cause of action as an alleged “shotgun” pleading. 14. In Safemark’s reply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the undersigned had been under the mistaken impression that the constable in Massachusetts was not serving process on account of the pandemic and governmental shutdowns at that time. 15. However, in preparing this response, it was discovered that understanding was in error and that was not the reason why the summons was not timely served. 16. Safemark submits the following showing of good cause and excusable neglect in support of its failure to comply with the Court Order of December 3, 2019. As more fully set forth in the Affidavit of Janet Lewis appended hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference herein, the firm has a system in place for the diary of orders and that procedure was mistakenly not followed through a failure to calendar the one hundred eighty (180) day deadline for service in the December 3, 2019 order. In addition, it has been determined that the clerk of court issued the summons on March 30, 2020 but did not e-serve it on counsel for the Plaintiff, as evidenced by the docket printout appended to Janet Lewis’ affidavit as Exhibit “B”. 17. “The established caselaw deems that calendaring errors are regarded as excusable neglect.” Al Hendrickson Toyota. Inc. v. Yampolsky, 695 So.2d 948 (Fla. 4 DCA 1997). 18, Moreover, “a secretarial error in failing to calendar a hearing for an attorney warrants relief under Rule 1.540(b).” Giron v. Fairways of Sunrise Homeowners Ass |, 903 So.2d 1008 (Fla. 4" DCA 2005), citing to Heller v. Geneco. Inc,, 661 So.2d 950, 951 (Fla. 4° DCA 1995), citing to Wilson v. Woodward, 602 So.2d 547 (Fla. 2" DCA 1992). 19. Furthermore, the December 3, 2019 order was premised on Rule 1.070 and a Rule 1.070 dismissal in the matter sub judice would be exceptionally harsh, since Safemark has alleged a default date of September 2015, and a purported dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 1.070 becomes with prejudice when the statute of limitations has run precluding Safemark the opportunity to refile. 20. However, “Florida has a longstanding policy in favor of resolving civil disputes on the merits, and rule 1.070()) is to serve as a case management tool and not as a severe sanction.” Green - Lingle, 166 So.3d 221, 224 (Fla. 1* DCA 2015). 21. In addition, Florida courts have taken the view that when a limitations period has run and service of process has not been perfected as of the date of the hearing on the motion to dismiss, a trial court abuses its discretion not extending the time for service instead of dismissing the complaint. See, Roberts v. Stidham, 19 So.3d 1155 (Fla. 5 DCA 2009); Henderson v. Johnson, 97 So.3d 946 (Fla. 1 DCA 2012); Fernandez v. Cohn, 54 So.3d 1040 (Fla. 3d DCA 201 1); Miranda v. Young, 19 S$o.3d 1100 (Fla. 2™ DCA 2009). 22. It has further been held that even in the absence of a showing of good cause, a court still has discretion to extend the time for service when a dismissal precludes the refiling due to the running of the statute of limitations. Carter v. Winn-Dixie Store. Inc., 889 So.2d 960 (Fla. 1 DCA 2004). 23. Defendants claim that Plaintiff's complaint is a “shotgun” pleading is misplaced. Safemark has pled that at the time of execution of the lease contract, Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel signed on behalf of the owner of the hotel, while knowing he was not the owner of the hotel, the remaining Defendants being the true owners. Safemark has alleged Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel, executed the agreement as the undisclosed agent of the true owners of the hotel. Thereafter, the hotel performed on the contract prior to breach resulting in ratification of the agreement by the true owners; therefore, either Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel is individually liable on the contract or his acts as an undisclosed agent have bound the remaining Defendants to the terms of the contract coupled with the contracts ratification. 26. Defendants’ contention the complaint lacks a default date is refuted in the complaint, specifically, Paragraph 26(a) alleges a default date of September 2015. 27. Defendants’ contention the complaint fails to identify an amount due is also refuted in the complaint in Paragraph 26; the amounts due on account of Defendants breach — principal balance of $10,200 for the lease payments due from September 2015 through August 2017; interest on the principal of $1,201.61; $5,960.00 for the future rental payments due on the lease and either $2,550.00 in removal costs or $10,625.00 for the value of the safes. 28. Based on the foregoing, Safemark requests this court accept its showing of good cause and excusable neglect as to why the Order of December 3, 2019 was not complied with, deem the service of process on Defendant, Piyush Patel, a/k/a Peter Patel perfected via personal service on June 23, 2021 and accept the consensual appearances of Co-Defendants, Mohanvhai Patel, as co-trustee of the Jalaram Vani Realty Trust and Gunvantria S. Patel, as co-trustee of the Jalaram Vani Realty Trust as their submission to the jurisdiction of this court via appearance through counsel. Alternatively, Safemark requests this Court use its discretion to grant an extension of time for service of process, quash the service on Defendant(s) and direct the Clerk to issue renewed alias summonses for service, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Safemark Systems, L.P., respectfully requests this Court find that good cause exists as to why Defendants’ were not served within 120 days of the December 3, 2019 Order; or alternatively, that additional time for service is warranted since the effect of a Rule 1.070 would be a dismissal with prejudice since the statute of limitations has run on the underlying claim. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THEREBY CERTIF that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Electronic Mail to counsel for Defendants, JAMES P. SAWRAN, Esquire; jsawran@mscesg.com and IAN P. SINGER, Esquire; isinger@mscesg.com, SEGAL, McCAMBRIDGE, SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD, this 19" day of April, 2021. FOSTER & KLINKBBIL, P.A bie TOMP Tfoste: ike OSTER Fla, Bar No. 30 335 WAYNE E. KLINKBEIL wayne@flkpa.com Fla, Bar No. 0040037 Attomeys for Plaintiff P.O. Box 3108 Orlando, FL 32802-3108 (407) 422-1966 (407) 422-5938 Facsimile Al Hendrickson Toyota, Inc. v. Yampoisky, 695 So.2d 948 (1997) 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1627 liability is reversed. 695 So.2d 948 (Mem) District Court of Appeal of Florida, The order was entered based on technical admissions Fourth District. because appellant had failed to answer requests for admission. However, appellant filed a motion to allow AL HENDRICKSON TOYOTA, INC., Appellant, late filing of responses based on excusable neglect. It attached affidavits from its counsel stating that the MichaelYAMPOLSKY, Appellee. response date for answering had inadvertently not been calendared. The trial court denied the motion, but the No. 97-0078. established case law deems that calendaring errors are | regarded as excusable neglect. See Wood v. Fortune Ins. July 2, 1997. Co., 453 So.2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Broward County v. Perdue, 432 So.2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The trial court erred in denying the motion to permit late Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the filing of responses. Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Harry G. Hinckley, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 95-15171CACE (08). Without the technical admissions, the record has conflicting evidence as to the issue of liability. For these Attorneys and Law Firms reasons, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. Julie Greenberg Shapiro of Gaebe, Murphy, Mullen & Antonelli, Coral Gables, for Appellant. Michael Yampolsky, Coral Springs, pro se. WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur. Opinion All Citations PER CURIAM. 695 So.2d 948 (Mem), 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1627 The order granting summary judgment as to appellant’s = End of Document © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim toorignal U.S. Government Works, WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Giron v. Fairways of Sunrise Homeowners’ Ass'n, Inc., 903 So.2d 1008 (2005) 30 Fla. L. Weekly D1426 result of secretarial scheduling error); Shurgard Storage Cirs., Inc. v. Parker, 755 S0.2d 695, 696 (Fla, 4th DCA KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment 1999) (finding that company’s administrative mishandling Distinguished by $2 Global, Inc. v. Tactical Operational Support and misrouting of complaint between offices was a “clear Services, LLC, Fla.App. 4 Dist., September 4, 2013 903 So.2d 1008 (Mem) of excusable neglect); Al Hendrickson Toyota, Inc. District Court of Appeal of Florida, v. Yampolsky, 695 So.2d 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) Fourth District. (‘[T]he established case law deems that calendaring errors are regarded as excusable neglect.”); Heller v. Gloria M. GIRON n/k/a Gloria Pauls, Appellant, Geneco, Inc., 661 So.2d 950, 951 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (commenting that a “secretarial error in failing to calendar FAIRWAYS OF SUNRISE HOMEOWNERS’ a hearing for an attorney” warrants relief under Rule ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. 1.540(b)); Hall v. Byington, 421 So.2d 817, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (noting that an attorney’s failure to note the No. 4D04-3108. date properly on his calendar is recognized as excusable neglect); Supro Corp. v. Bridwell, 361 So.2d 734, 735 June 8, 2005. (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (concluding that counsel’s failure to appear at trial because his file had been misplaced demonstrates excusable neglect); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Bryson, 341 So.2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) Seventeenth Judicial *1009 Circuit, Broward County; (counsel who failed to properly note on calendar the date Patti Englander Henning, Judge; L.T. Case No. of a hearing demonstrated excusable neglect, as 01-9551(03). “[clounsel’s absence from the hearing was a mistake, or inadvertent or excusable neglect”); Crystal Lake Golf Attorneys and Law Firms Course, Inc. v. Kalin, 252 So.2d 379, 380-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (concluding that attorney’s failure to attend a Richard R. Michelson of Richard R. Michelson, P.A., pretrial conference which was caused by secretary’s Plantation, for appellant. failure to diary the hearing is excusable neglect); Wilson v. Woodward, 602 So.2d 547, 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) Helene Hvizd Morris, West Palm Beach, and Lawrence A. Shendell of Shendell & Associates, P.A., Lighthouse (party demonstrated excusable neglect for failure to attend Point, for appellee. hearing, where attorney’s secretary did not calendar the hearing pursuant to a notice of hearing). We note that this Opinion appeal, and the resulting delay, might have been avoided had appellee’s trial counsel demonstrated professionalism by calling his adversary, who failed to attend the calendar PER CURIAM. call, before the trial. We reverse the order denying the motion to set aside the final judgment, entered after appellant failed to attend a STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur. calendar call and non-jury trial set six days after the calendar call. Appellant had actively litigated the case for All Citations three years. Appellant demonstrated excusable neglect and a meritorious defense. See City of Pembroke Pines v. 903 So.2d 1008 (Mem), 30 Fla. L. Weekly D1426 Zitnick, 792 So.2d 677, 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (reversing denial of motion to set aside order compelling arbitration where counsel’s failure to attend hearing was End of Document © 2019 Thomson Reuters, No claim to original U.S. Government Works. WESTLAW © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, IN THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2017-CA-007333-O SAFEMARK SYSTEMS, L.P., Plaintiff, vs. MOHANVHAI PATEL, AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST D/B/A AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES, GUNVANTRIA S. PATEL, AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST D/B/A AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES, PIYUSH PATEL A/K/A PETER PATEL, INDIVIDUALLY, D/B/A AMBASSADOR INN & SUITES, Defendants. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF ORANGE BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared JANET LEWIS, who after being duly sworn, deposes, and states: 1 I am over the age of eighteen (18) years of age and the facts stated herein are true of my own personal knowledge. 2 I am a legal assistant with the firm of Foster & Klinkbeil, P.A. charged with the duties of implementing the firm system for calendaring hearings and deadlines. 3 The system in place consists of my calendaring deadlines for responsive pleadings, service of process and all other matters requiring follow up actions, into the firm calendaring system, at the time such matters are received by the firm. EXHIBIT "A" 4 A breakdown in this system occurred regarding the order of this Court on December 3, 2019, Order on Status Hearing, I did not calendar the one hundred and eighty (180) day deadline to perfect service. 5 I did not forward the summons to the Clerk to issue until March on the belief that we would be unable to serve the defendant during the winter months at the hotel. 6. I submitted the Summons to be issued electronically on March 20, 2020, e-portal, reference number 105239620 ten days later, on March 30, 2020 we received notification via email that the filing, 105239620 had been accepted. A copy of these emails are attached as Composite Exhibit “A” 7 I went to the Orange County Clerk of Courts web site to print the summons and it was not yet showing issued on the docket. 8 Due to Covid-19 and the executive order requiring non-essential workers to stay at home during the pandemic, in the months of March, April and May 2020 we were not in the office on a daily basis, so our routine was changed and therefore I did not notice that we never received the summons. 9 The file was put away and it wasn’t until June 17, 2020, when I pulled it, for a reason that I cannot recall, that I noticed that there wasn’t copy of the alias summons in the file. 10. After searching Mr. Foster’s email for the issued summons, I went onto the Court Docket and located the issued summons and noticed that it didn’t say that it had been served electronically, like normal; a copy of the docket is attached as Exhibit “B’. I printed the alias summons and immediately forwarded it to our process server, Alliance Process to have served at the hotel, a copy of the email is attached as Exhibit “C” FURTHER AFFIANTS SAYETH NAUGHT. LLOLA JANE LEWIS SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBE i e this f | day of April, 2021 by JANET LEWIS, who is eitherpersonally known to me, or who produced identification, to ) hats wit = m6 Otary Public AL M ly Commission Expires: nti tay Mn, s a’ OCHO,. eee 5 . one ZS =‘ oe #6G 198307 Gtr, Condes ees wef eneeee, > = GN Aman Janet Lewis From: noreply@myflcourtaccess.com Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 4:11 PM Subject: Filing Received Dear Tompkins A Foster: This email verifies the receipt of 1 document submitted by you to Orange Circuit Civil on 03/20/2020 04:11:26 PM. UCN: 482017CA007333A0010X Clerk Case #: 2017-CA-007333-O Case Style: SAFEMARK SYSTEMS LP vs. PATEL, MOHANVHAlet al Document Title: Proposed Summons to be Issued by Clerk Matter #: Memo: 704248 Filing Fee: $0.00 Additional Fee: $10.00 Service Documents Proposed $0.00 Summons to be Issued by Clerk: Statutory Convenience Fee: $0.35 Total Fee: $10.35 Fee Status: Assessed Paid By: Pay By Credit/Debit Card MFC Order #: 27601954 The E-Portal reference number of this filing is: 105239620. Please reference this Filing # in any correspondence. You will receive a follow-up email when your filing has been docketed with the Clerk. At that time, the fee settlement will be transmitted to your banking institution for payment. You, as the filer are responsible for fee payment. If there are any issues with payment processing, you will be contacted by the Civitek Banking Department. Follow us on Twitter @FLCourtsEFiling Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/FLCrtsEFilingPortal View the Training Manualshttps://www.myficourtaccess.com/authority/trainingmanuals.html Composite Exhibit “A a This is a non-monitored email. Do not reply directly to it. If you have any questions about this filing please contact the Orange Circuit Civil division. Thank you, The Florida Courts E-Filing Portal Janet Lewis a , From: noreply@myflcourtaccess.com Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 9:37 AM Subject: Processing Completed for Filing # 105239620 Dear Tompkins A Foster: This email verifies the processing of your Filing # 105239620 with the Orange County, Florida Circuit Civil Division. Status: Accepted Filing Date/Time: 03/20/2020 04:11:26 PM UCN: 482017CA007333A0010X Clerk Case #: 2017-CA-007333-O Case Style: SAFEMARK SYSTEMS LP vs. PATEL, MOHANVHAIet al. Matter #: Memo: 704248 Filing Fee: $0.00 Additional Fee: $10.00 Service Documents Proposed $0.00 Summons to be Issued by Clerk Statutory Convenience Fee: $0.35 Total Paid: $10.35, Fee Status: Processing Paid By: Pay By Credit/Debit Card MFC Order #: 27601954 Documents # ‘Document Type ‘Status Filing Date (Rejection Reason Service Documents Proposed Summons to be Issued 1 \Accepted (03/20/2020 Iby Clerk Fees Your filing has been docketed with the Clerk’s office. The fee is in the process of Processing. At that time, the fee settlement will be transmitted to your banking institution for payment. You, as the filer are responsible for fee payment. If there are any issues with payment processing, you will be contacted by the Civitek Banking Department. This is a non-monitored email. Do not reply directly to it. If you have any questions about this filing, please contact the Orange County, Florida Circuit Civil Division. Thank you. Many counties no longer require paper follow-up. To see a complete list, click on this link. aucune Orange County Clerk - Court Records Search hx *| As Ks SRT 2017-CA-007333-0 : SAFEMARK SYSTEMS LP vs. PATEL, MOHANVHAlet al Case Type: CA - Breach of Agreement/Contract Date Filed: 8/11/2017 Location: Div 34 UCN: 482017CA007333A0010X Judge: Paetra Brownlee Status. Pending Citation Number: CA - Breach of Agreement/Contract Appear By Date: Parties Name ou Type Attorney Atty 'SAFEMARK SYSTEMS LP Plaintiff __TOMPKINS FOSTE! 407. 166 MOHANVHAI PATEL Defendant AS CO TRUSTEE OF THE JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST AMB, ITE: GUNVAI Defendant AS CO TRUSTEE OF THE JALARAM VANI REALTY TRUST AMBASSADO! INN & SUITES Al PIYUSH PATEL Defendant PETER PATEL INDIVIDUALLY AKA AMBASSADOR INN AND SUITES DBA ss Charge Details Offense Date Charge Plea Arrest Disposition Sentence Docket Events Date Description Pages 4/23/2021 HEARING- Motion- Brownlee, Paetra 4/23/2021 HEARING - Motion - Brow 2, Paetra 4/16/2021 Notice of Unavailability see 1/6/2021 Amended Notice of Hearing ee 12k ing sen aComments: on April 23, 2021 at 10:30 a. m. tn 12/2/2020 Motion to Dismiss 10 Comments: Defendants, MOHANVHAI PATEL 11/30/2021 - CANCELED-Cancelled Motion Paetra 11/25/2020 Notice Cancellation of Hearing seen Comments: a for seNovember 30, 20202 at 10:00 a. m. soe 11/24/2020 Notice Commer of supplemental authority to plainitffs replyte to defendants motion to dismissoe Exhibit “B" Date Description Pages 11/23/2020 Notice of Filing Comments: SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 91/23/2020 Reply Comments: TO MOTION TO DISMISS 9/8/2020 Notice of Hearing Comments: on November 30, 2020 at 10:00 a.m 71912020 Motion to Dismiss Comment Defts) Pitts Complaint & Memorandum of Law in Support in Support Thereof (6/30/2020 Summons Returned Served iment (Alias) Upon Piyush Patel lias Summons Issued 1/9/2020 Mail Returned - Not Delivered 1/7/2020 Mail Returned - Not Delivered 12/3/2019 Order Comments: ON STATUS HEARING 12/3/2019 Court Minutes F) 11/26/2019 Returned Mail 11/26/2019 Returned Mail 11/26/2019 Returned Mail 11/14/2019 Order Setting Hearing Comments: status 12/03/19 10am 11/1/2018 Affidavit of Service Comments: Mohanvhai Patel 11/1/2018 Affidavit of Service Comments: Gunvantria S Patel 6/6/2018 Summons Returned Served 2/22/2018 Order Enlargement and Extension of Time va 2/22/2018 Court Minutes 2/22/2018 HEARING - Ex Parte - Rodriguez, Jose R (Actual: Rodriguez, Jose R) 2/15/2018 Motion for Enlargement/Exten: n of Time Comment: Safemark Systems LP 12/15/2017 Answer Comments: cc judge 8/2017 Request for Adi ions 11/8/2017 of Service of Interrogatories 11/8/2017 Notice of Filing Comments: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 8/15/2017 Si I ied El Date Description Pages 8/15/2017 Summons Issued Electronically as to 8/11/2017 Complaint 8/11/2017 Civil Cover Sheet 9/11/2017 Case Ini d Hearings Date Hearing Time Location Pages 4/23/2021 Moti Floor 4/23/2021 Motion - Brownlee, Paetra 10. 10:00 AM Hearing Room 1100.02 12/3/2019 Status Hearing - Ex Parte - Rodriguez, Jose R (Actual: Rodriguez, Jose R) 8:30 AM Hearing Room 20-A Financial Date Description Payer Amount 8/11/2017 Transaction Assessment . 430.00 430.00 3/20/2018 Transaction Assessment 10.00 FOSTER, TOMPKINS A -10.00 isaction sessment 10.00 3/20/2020 Payment FOSTER, TOMPKINS A -10.00 Balance Di Bonds Description Status Date Bond Status Amount Warrants Number Status Description Issue Date Service Date Recall Date Expiration Date Warrant Type Janet Lewis ES From: Janet Lewis Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 3:42 PM To: info’ Subject: New service-Old matter 704248 Safemark v Patel et al Attachments: alias.pdf Hi Emily; Please send the process server back to the hotel to have this served Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call Janet Lewis Legal Assistant Foster & Klinkbeil, P.A. P.O. Box 3108 Orlando, FL 32802 407-422-1966 Ext. 103 FOSTER. INKBEILva. Al CRN YS AL SAW ‘THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS MESSAGE IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS UNLAWFUL AND STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU NOTICE:THIS COMMUNICATION IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT AND ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. THIS COMMUNICATION IS FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR. Eyinibit C