Preview
Filing # 109364817 E-Filed 06/24/2020 05:33:22 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MOBOOKA, LLC., a Florida limited liability CASE NO: 2017-CA-004043
company,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN HANCOCK, individually, FORSA LLC,
a Wyoming limited liability company, and
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., an Ohio
banking corporation,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
RESPONSE TO ANGELINA BERTINO’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES
TECUM
Plaintiff, MOBOOKA, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (hereinafter,
“MOBOOKA”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this response in opposition
to Non-Party Angelina Bertino’s (“Bertino”) “Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.”
1. On October 10, 2019, Final Judgment was entered in this case against Defendant JOHN
HANCOCK (“Hancock”).
2. Thereafter, Plaintiff sought to take the deposition of both Hancock and his spouse,
Bertino and emailed Mr. Hancock stating the same.
3. On April 16, 2020, Hancock responded to Plaintiff’s counsel’s email stating that May
20, 20201 would work for the depositions of himself and his wife. A true and correct
copy of the email chain is attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “A.”
1
Hancock’s deposition did occur on May 20, 2020 as per the Notice.
Page 1 of 5
EPGD ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A.
777 SW 37th Ave., Miami, FL Ste. 510, 33135 • T: (786) 837-6787 F: (305) 718-0687 • www.epgdlaw.com
4. The next day, undersigned counsel inquired if Hancock would accept service of a
Subpoena Duces Tecum on behalf of his wife. See Composite Exhibit “A.”
5. Hancock answered in the affirmative, and a Notice of Deposition was filed that same
day. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit
“B.”
6. On May 4, 2020, eighteen days after accepting serving, Bertino filed a Motion to Quash
the Subpoena Duces Tecum. A true and correct copy of the Motion to Quash the
Subpoena Duces Tecum is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”
7. Nevertheless, Bertino’s Motion to Quash is without merit.
8. Bertino first argues that the Subpoena Duces Tecum for Deposition should be quashed
because she was not named in the lawsuit, nor married to Hancock during the time
period stated in the complaint for this lawsuit. See Exhibit “C.”
9. However, pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.351, a non-party may be
served with a subpoena, and, as such, must produce the subject of the subpoena. (Fla.
R. Civ. P. 1.351).
10. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to the deposition because it may lead to relevant, non-
privileged evidence. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280.
11. The subject deposition does not concern events during the time the events complained
of took place as the deposition is post-judgment, and is seeking financial information.
12. As the wife of Hancock, Bertino has relevant information concerning the finances of
her current husband Hancock.
13. As such, the Subpoena Duces Tecum should not be quashed for this reason.
Page 2 of 5
EPGD ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A.
777 SW 37th Ave., Miami, FL Ste. 510, 33135 • T: (786) 837-6787 F: (305) 718-0687 • www.epgdlaw.com
14. Next, Bertino argues that the subpoena was improperly served because it was sent to
her husband only by email. See Exhibit “C.”
15. However, Hancock, Bertino’s husband, who lives with her at the same address, agreed
to accept service on her behalf. See Exhibit “A.”
16. Moreover, the acceptance took place over email, whereby Hancock was given time to
discuss the matter with his wife, and detemine if the date and time would be acceptable
to her. See Composite Exhibit “A.”
17. As such, it would be inequitable to grant the Motion to Quash after the acceptance of
service.
18. Next, Bertino argues that appearing for the deposition would cause her an undue burden
due to her work schedule. See Exhibit “C.”
19. Nevertheless, after the Motion was filed, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to accommodate
Bertino with scheduling the deposition when she may be able to schedule a suitable
time with respect to her job schedule.
20. The undersigned sent Bertino several emails to attempt to resolve the matter amicably,
and have the deposition at a mutually agreeable date and time. A true and correct copy
of the email chain is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.”
21. Plaintiff sought to resolve the issue without Court action, and in the most mutually
agreeable way with Bertino.
22. Bertino replied to the email requests that she would speak to her new employer and
inform counsel on an available date. See Exhibit “D.”
23. However, after several follow up emails, Bertino never responded. See Exhibit “D.”
Page 3 of 5
EPGD ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A.
777 SW 37th Ave., Miami, FL Ste. 510, 33135 • T: (786) 837-6787 F: (305) 718-0687 • www.epgdlaw.com
24. Moreover, Bertino has not demonstrated how her employment meets the burdensome
threshold as to avoid judicial proceedings.
25. Judicial proceedings interrupt employment every day, whether through jury trials,
deposition, or another manner.
26. Moreover, the deposition is not burdensome because it is not requesting exhaustive
document production and there is no overly oppressive condition that is constraining
her from being present via Zoom.
27. Lastly, when questioned during his deposition on May 20, 2020 Hancock stated that
Bertino was not currently employed.
28. As such, Bertino’s argument regarding her job has become moot.
29. Lastly, Bertino argues that the plaintiff cannot garnish her property to collect on the
Judgment against her spouse because Florida is a Tenancy by the Entirety state.
30. While this may or may not be true, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether
Bertino may be deposed in the instant case.
31. As such, Bertino’s Motion to Quash should be denied.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mobooka respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny
Non-Party Angelina Bertino’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, and award any other
relief that this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
Dated this 24th day of June, 2020
Page 4 of 5
EPGD ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A.
777 SW 37th Ave., Miami, FL Ste. 510, 33135 • T: (786) 837-6787 F: (305) 718-0687 • www.epgdlaw.com
EPGD BUSINESS LAW
Attorneys for Plaintiff
777 SW 37th Ave. Suite 510
Miami, Florida 33134
T: (786) 837-6787
F: (305) 718-0687
sam@epgdlaw.com
BY: /S/ SAMUEL J GITTLE
Samuel J Gittle, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 099778
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished on this 24th day
of June 2020 via Electronic Service and US Mail to John Hancock and Forsa LLC at
hancock.j.g@gmail.com, 5305 Lisa Ave Lakeland, FL 33813 and to Angelina Bertino at
Angelina.hancock87@gmail.com, 5305 Lisa Ave, Lakeland, FL 33813.
BY: /S/ Samuel J. Gittle
Samuel J. Gittle, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 99778
Page 5 of 5
EPGD ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A.
777 SW 37th Ave., Miami, FL Ste. 510, 33135 • T: (786) 837-6787 F: (305) 718-0687 • www.epgdlaw.com
COMPOSITE EXHIBIT “A”
EXHIBIT “B”
Filing # 106411236 E-Filed 04/17/2020 05:09:05 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MOBOOKA, LLC, a Florida limited CIVIL DIVISION
liability company,
Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor, CASE NO: 2017-CA-004043
v.
JOHN HANCOCK, et. al.,
Defendants/Judgment Debtors.
_________________________________/
NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, Mobooka, LLC (“Plaintiff”), through the
undersigned attorney, will take the deposition of the person named below on the date and at the
hour indicated below:
NAME DATE AND TIME ZOOM MEETING ID
Will be provided to counsel of record
ANGELINA BERTINO May 20, 2020, at 10:00 AM one day prior to scheduled deposition.
Upon oral examination before a Notary Public or officer authorized by law to take
depositions in the State of Florida. The oral examination shall continue from day to day until
completed. This deposition is being taken for the purpose of discovery, or for such other purposes
as are permitted under applicable law of the rules of the court.
Date: April 17, 2020.
Respectfully submitted,
EPGD BUSINESS LAW
Counsel for Plaintiff
777 SW 37th Ave., Ste. 510
Miami, FL 33135
T: (786) 837-6787 | F: (305) 718-0687
sam@epgdlaw.com
By: /s/ Samuel J. Gittle
Samuel J Gittle, Esq.
Florida Bar No. : 099778
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished on this 17th day
of April, 2020 via Electronic Service and US Mail to John Hancock and Forsa LLC at
hancock.j.g@gmail.com, 5305 Lisa Ave Lakeland, FL 33813.
EXHIBIT “C”
Filing # 107027569 E-Filed 05/04/2020 03:25:11 PM
EXHIBIT “D”
Preview
Filing # 109364817 E-Filed 06/24/2020 05:33:22 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MOBOOKA, LLC., a Florida limited liability CASE NO: 2017-CA-004043 company, Plaintiff, v. JOHN HANCOCK, individually, FORSA LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., an Ohio banking corporation, Defendants. ______________________________________/ RESPONSE TO ANGELINA BERTINO’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Plaintiff, MOBOOKA, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (hereinafter, “MOBOOKA”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby files this response in opposition to Non-Party Angelina Bertino’s (“Bertino”) “Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.” 1. On October 10, 2019, Final Judgment was entered in this case against Defendant JOHN HANCOCK (“Hancock”). 2. Thereafter, Plaintiff sought to take the deposition of both Hancock and his spouse, Bertino and emailed Mr. Hancock stating the same. 3. On April 16, 2020, Hancock responded to Plaintiff’s counsel’s email stating that May 20, 20201 would work for the depositions of himself and his wife. A true and correct copy of the email chain is attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “A.” 1 Hancock’s deposition did occur on May 20, 2020 as per the Notice. Page 1 of 5 EPGD ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A. 777 SW 37th Ave., Miami, FL Ste. 510, 33135 • T: (786) 837-6787 F: (305) 718-0687 • www.epgdlaw.com 4. The next day, undersigned counsel inquired if Hancock would accept service of a Subpoena Duces Tecum on behalf of his wife. See Composite Exhibit “A.” 5. Hancock answered in the affirmative, and a Notice of Deposition was filed that same day. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” 6. On May 4, 2020, eighteen days after accepting serving, Bertino filed a Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum. A true and correct copy of the Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” 7. Nevertheless, Bertino’s Motion to Quash is without merit. 8. Bertino first argues that the Subpoena Duces Tecum for Deposition should be quashed because she was not named in the lawsuit, nor married to Hancock during the time period stated in the complaint for this lawsuit. See Exhibit “C.” 9. However, pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.351, a non-party may be served with a subpoena, and, as such, must produce the subject of the subpoena. (Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.351). 10. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to the deposition because it may lead to relevant, non- privileged evidence. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. 11. The subject deposition does not concern events during the time the events complained of took place as the deposition is post-judgment, and is seeking financial information. 12. As the wife of Hancock, Bertino has relevant information concerning the finances of her current husband Hancock. 13. As such, the Subpoena Duces Tecum should not be quashed for this reason. Page 2 of 5 EPGD ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A. 777 SW 37th Ave., Miami, FL Ste. 510, 33135 • T: (786) 837-6787 F: (305) 718-0687 • www.epgdlaw.com 14. Next, Bertino argues that the subpoena was improperly served because it was sent to her husband only by email. See Exhibit “C.” 15. However, Hancock, Bertino’s husband, who lives with her at the same address, agreed to accept service on her behalf. See Exhibit “A.” 16. Moreover, the acceptance took place over email, whereby Hancock was given time to discuss the matter with his wife, and detemine if the date and time would be acceptable to her. See Composite Exhibit “A.” 17. As such, it would be inequitable to grant the Motion to Quash after the acceptance of service. 18. Next, Bertino argues that appearing for the deposition would cause her an undue burden due to her work schedule. See Exhibit “C.” 19. Nevertheless, after the Motion was filed, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to accommodate Bertino with scheduling the deposition when she may be able to schedule a suitable time with respect to her job schedule. 20. The undersigned sent Bertino several emails to attempt to resolve the matter amicably, and have the deposition at a mutually agreeable date and time. A true and correct copy of the email chain is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.” 21. Plaintiff sought to resolve the issue without Court action, and in the most mutually agreeable way with Bertino. 22. Bertino replied to the email requests that she would speak to her new employer and inform counsel on an available date. See Exhibit “D.” 23. However, after several follow up emails, Bertino never responded. See Exhibit “D.” Page 3 of 5 EPGD ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A. 777 SW 37th Ave., Miami, FL Ste. 510, 33135 • T: (786) 837-6787 F: (305) 718-0687 • www.epgdlaw.com 24. Moreover, Bertino has not demonstrated how her employment meets the burdensome threshold as to avoid judicial proceedings. 25. Judicial proceedings interrupt employment every day, whether through jury trials, deposition, or another manner. 26. Moreover, the deposition is not burdensome because it is not requesting exhaustive document production and there is no overly oppressive condition that is constraining her from being present via Zoom. 27. Lastly, when questioned during his deposition on May 20, 2020 Hancock stated that Bertino was not currently employed. 28. As such, Bertino’s argument regarding her job has become moot. 29. Lastly, Bertino argues that the plaintiff cannot garnish her property to collect on the Judgment against her spouse because Florida is a Tenancy by the Entirety state. 30. While this may or may not be true, it is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Bertino may be deposed in the instant case. 31. As such, Bertino’s Motion to Quash should be denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mobooka respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Non-Party Angelina Bertino’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, and award any other relief that this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Dated this 24th day of June, 2020 Page 4 of 5 EPGD ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A. 777 SW 37th Ave., Miami, FL Ste. 510, 33135 • T: (786) 837-6787 F: (305) 718-0687 • www.epgdlaw.com EPGD BUSINESS LAW Attorneys for Plaintiff 777 SW 37th Ave. Suite 510 Miami, Florida 33134 T: (786) 837-6787 F: (305) 718-0687 sam@epgdlaw.com BY: /S/ SAMUEL J GITTLE Samuel J Gittle, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 099778 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished on this 24th day of June 2020 via Electronic Service and US Mail to John Hancock and Forsa LLC at hancock.j.g@gmail.com, 5305 Lisa Ave Lakeland, FL 33813 and to Angelina Bertino at Angelina.hancock87@gmail.com, 5305 Lisa Ave, Lakeland, FL 33813. BY: /S/ Samuel J. Gittle Samuel J. Gittle, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 99778 Page 5 of 5 EPGD ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A. 777 SW 37th Ave., Miami, FL Ste. 510, 33135 • T: (786) 837-6787 F: (305) 718-0687 • www.epgdlaw.com COMPOSITE EXHIBIT “A” EXHIBIT “B” Filing # 106411236 E-Filed 04/17/2020 05:09:05 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA MOBOOKA, LLC, a Florida limited CIVIL DIVISION liability company, Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor, CASE NO: 2017-CA-004043 v. JOHN HANCOCK, et. al., Defendants/Judgment Debtors. _________________________________/ NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Plaintiff, Mobooka, LLC (“Plaintiff”), through the undersigned attorney, will take the deposition of the person named below on the date and at the hour indicated below: NAME DATE AND TIME ZOOM MEETING ID Will be provided to counsel of record ANGELINA BERTINO May 20, 2020, at 10:00 AM one day prior to scheduled deposition. Upon oral examination before a Notary Public or officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral examination shall continue from day to day until completed. This deposition is being taken for the purpose of discovery, or for such other purposes as are permitted under applicable law of the rules of the court. Date: April 17, 2020. Respectfully submitted, EPGD BUSINESS LAW Counsel for Plaintiff 777 SW 37th Ave., Ste. 510 Miami, FL 33135 T: (786) 837-6787 | F: (305) 718-0687 sam@epgdlaw.com By: /s/ Samuel J. Gittle Samuel J Gittle, Esq. Florida Bar No. : 099778 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished on this 17th day of April, 2020 via Electronic Service and US Mail to John Hancock and Forsa LLC at hancock.j.g@gmail.com, 5305 Lisa Ave Lakeland, FL 33813. EXHIBIT “C” Filing # 107027569 E-Filed 05/04/2020 03:25:11 PM EXHIBIT “D”