IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA€¦ · 30/9/2014 · Order Granting Amended Motion to Modify...

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. SC14-1730

IN RE: STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW'S PROPOSED ADVISORY OPINION #2014-3, SCHARRER V.

FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

APPENDIX TO OBJECTIONS AND SUPPORTING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

COMMITTEE PROPOSED FORMAL ADVISORY OPINION #2014-3 VOLUME 6 of 6

KATHERINE E. GIDDINGS, B.C.S. (949396) KRISTEN M. FIORE (25766) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Akerman LLP 106 East College Avenue, Suite 1200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (850) 224-9634 Telecopier: (850) 222-0103

JOSEPH A. CORSMEIER (492582) [email protected] Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier PA 2454 N. McMullen Booth Road Suite 431 Clearwater, FL 33759-1339 Telephone: (727) 799-1688 Telecopier: (727) 799-1670

GERALD B. COPE, JR. (251364) [email protected] [email protected] Akerman LLP One SE Third Avenue, Suite 2500 Miami, Florida 33131-1714 Telephone: (305) 374-5600 Telecopier: (305) 374-5095

CHRISTOPHER B. HOPKINS (116122) [email protected] [email protected] Akerman LLP 777 S. Flagler Dr., 11th Floor, West Tower West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 671-3668 Telecopier: (561) 659-6313

Attorneys for Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC

(29641890;1)

Filing # 18836375 Electronically Filed 09/30/2014 03:30:03 PM

RECEIVED, 9/30/2014 15:34:59, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court

PETER A. CONTRERAS (55556) [email protected] Brunner Quinn 35 N. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Columbus, Ohio 43215-3641 Telephone: (614) 241-5550 Telecopier: (614) 241-5551

Attorney for Christine Zack

(29641890;1)

INDEX TO APPENDIX TO OBJECTIONS AND SUPPORTING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW COMMITTEE

PROPOSED FORMAL ADVISORY OPINION #2014-3

Affidavit of Timothy P. Chinaris Tab 1

Federal District Court Order Dismissing UPL Civil Action Tab 2

Proposed Advisory Opinion Tab 3

Transcript of UPL Standing Committee Public Hearing Held on 5/2/14 (Volumes 1 and 2) Tab 4

List of Pending Cases Between the Parties Tab 5

All Writs Petition Tab 6

Florida Supreme Court Order Dismissing All Writs Petition Tab 7

Complaint filed in the Second Malpractice Action Tab 8

Affidavit of Alan Grochal Tab 9

Affidavit of Maria Ellena Chavez-Ruark Tab 10

Declaration of Christine Zack Tab 11

Order Appointing Receiver Tab 12

Quintairos Firm's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney Tab 13

Order Granting Quintairos Firm's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney Tab 14

Trustee's and THMI's Petition for Formal Advisory Opinion Concerning the Unauthorized Practice of Law Tab 15

Letter from Trustee and THMI with Questions Presented to the UPL Committee dated 11/20/13 Tab 16

{29641890;1}

Letter from Trustee and THMI with Amended Petition for Formal Advisory Opinion Concerning the Unauthorized Practice of law dated 12/5/13 Tab 17

Florida Bar Letter Setting January 24, 2014 Hearing Tab 18

Transcript of January 24, 2014 Hearing Tab 19

Order Dismissing First Malpractice Action With Prejudice Tab 20

Amended Motion to Modify Retention Terms With Respect to the Trustee's Special Counsel, Steven M. Berman, Esq. and Shumaker Loop and Kendrick, LLP Tab 21

Order Granting Amended Motion to Modify Retention Terms With Respect to the Trustee's Special Counsel, Steven M. Berman, Esq. and Shumaker Loop and Kendrick, LLP Tab 22

FAS's Response to Petition for Formal Advisory Opinion Concerning the Unauthorized Practice of Law Tab 23

{29641890;1}

45

that this court has ruled that the specified conduct

at issue constitutes the unauthorized practice of

law. Stated another way, the claimant must allege as

an essential element of any cause of action premised

on the unauthorized practice of law that this court

has ruled the activities are the unauthorized

practice of law."

so in other words, you have to have an

allegation that this specific activity was the

unauthorized practice of law. In Goldberg, it was

the preparation of these specific mortgage documents

was the unlicensed practice of law.

The court goes on to kind of talk about, well,

how are you going to -- how is this going to come

about? And I'm reading now on Page at the bottom

of 100 of your agenda: "We recognize that

Rule 10-9.1 of the rules regulating the Florida Bar

states that no opinion shall be rendered with respect

to any case or controversy pending in any court or

Tribunal in this jurisdiction which prohibits the

Florida Bar standing committee on UPL from proceeding

in the event the action is stayed pending a

determination by this court."

So in other words, the court is saying that you

have to have a determination that the case is UPL --

1

2

3

4

S

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

1

that, you know, this activity is UPS in order to

2

bring your underlying lawsuit. And in order to have

3

that determination, how are you going to do it?

4

Because the rule says you can't if there is a pending

5

case. so you can never get your determination

6

because your case is pending and you can't have an

7

advisory opinion because you have a pending case.

8

so the Court said that, "We hereby suspend the

9

rule and the circumstances described herein," which

10

would mean you need to get that ruling from the

11

Court, "and direct the Florida Bar to propose rule

12

changes according to this opinion."

13

so that's where the 10-9.1 rule change came from

14

was because the Court directed us to do it. so in

15

other words, under Goldberg, you can have a pending

16

case and you can have an advisory opinion if there is

17

a pending case because there is no other way to get

18

the question to the Court.

19

so they kind of recognize that under certain

20

circumstances you can suspend it, the case can be

21

stayed or voluntarily or dismissed without -- the

22

court said dismissed without prejudice, they talk

23

about stayed -- that the case can still be ongoing

24

and you can have your determination. You can have

25

your advisory opinion.

47

1

so that's what Goldberg says. so the question

2

is, does this -- does this request for advisory

3

opinion fall under Goldberg? Is it something where

4 -- I mean, Judge Moody obviously felt there was an A

5

case. And I think if you look in the materials that

6

were provided that the petitioner cited several cases

7

and you tie them all together and, in the

8

petitioner's opinion, they showed unlicensed

9

practice. And Judge Moody said, well, you need to

10

have the one case, so let's go ahead and dismiss this

11

so you can now get that determination.

12

Anybody have any questions?

13

Now, here you do have the other pending cases.

14

Nobody is arguing that you don't. It is the same

15

facts, it's the same -- to an extent, the same

16

parties to an extent, but totally different legal

17

theory.

18

And I understand that to prove malpractice you

19

have to prove the practice of law. To show

20

unlicensed practice, that's really a different issue.

21

It's whether that activity was authorized or not.

22

You know, you kind of can -- whether it's the

23

practice of law and whether that activity is

24

authorized. so it's really a two-part determination,

25

not just a one-part determination.

48

1

MR. DICKERSON: Lori, Dwayne Dickerson. I'm

2

from Ft. Lauderdale, attorney. So am I correct in

3

that the only case that raised UPL issues is now

4

dismissed?

5

MS. HOLCOMB: Without prejudice.

6

MR. DICKERSON: Without prejudice?

7

MS. HOLCOMB: Correct.

8

MR. DICKERSON: And there are other pending

9

cases, but they do not raise UPL issues specifically.

10

of course, the defendants would argue that they do in

11

theory by using the same arguments. But the only one

12

that does deal specifically with UPL is now dismissed

13

without prejudice?

14

MS. HOLCOMB: Correct. And I believe that is

15

what Mr. Berman said as well, correct.

16

MR. DICKERSON: Okay.

17

MS. BUIE: Any other questions? Anything that

18

needs to be clarified?

19

MR. LEBIO: Yes.

20

MS. BUIE: Okay.

21

MR. LEBIO: Concisely as possible, what is the

22

challenge here for this committee?

23

MS. HOLCOMB: The committee needs to decide

24

whether -- how did you write the question?

25

MS. BUIE: Whether the committee can proceed

49

1

with an advisory opinion with the other pending

2

cases.

3

Ms. HOLCOMB: In other words, whether this is a

4

Goldberg question. Normally, as I said in the

5

beginning, when this committee is faced with a

6

request for formal advisory opinion, the first

7

determination we make is whether we want to have a

8

hearing.

9

For example, if we get a question, is it the

10

unlicensed practice of law to use the title

11

"attorney" when you're not licensed? you would go

12

through a debate as to whether you want to have a

13

public hearing and issue an opinion.

14

If it's a Goldberg case, that discretion is

15

taken away. The court says we shall do that. so if,

16

in fact, this does fall within Goldberg, then we have

17

to have the public hearing and we have to issue the

18

opinion.

19

If it doesn't fall within Goldberg, then

20

somebody else has to -- you know, it's out of this

21

committee's hands at this point. It goes away. And

22

whether it comes back or not is a question for

23

another day.

24

ms. BUIE: But I think the main issue is

25

regarding the pending cases and whether or not the

50

pending cases would prevent it from falling under

Goldberg as far as to have a formal advisory

opinion -- I mean a public hearing.

MR. ABBOTT: I guess my concern is that if this

was, say, a party that had a foreclosure or something

else, that's not a case or controversy because really

it's a separate set of facts. It might be the same

parties involved.

oh, again, colin Abbott, attorney.

But when you've got the same fact pattern, you

know, I guess I'm old school, but I'm sort of saying

that this -- you know, I'm already showing my cards

which way I feel it is. But to me, you know, there

is nothing that prevents the parties from bringing

this forward later if there's no cases left that

involved the same fact pattern.

And, you know, they can either bring another

Goldberg request or they can do a direct request and

have our investigators go in, question them, and find

out. And the local committee will take the power to

do the evidence review and come back with a decision,

and then that would come up to us.

But, you know, my idea is that, you know, I

believe that there is cases and controversy. I know

we're not at the vote and haven't even called the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

question yet, but that's where I'm leaning.

MS. BUIE: But we're not determining the facts

of the case, though.

MR. ABBOTT: No, no. But I don't think that --

the facts are irrelevant at this stage. It's more is

it ripe or not? And I don't think it's ripe.

MS. BUIE: Okay. Martin?

MR. SPERRY: What I don't know -- I guess, Lori,

you're the best person to answer this. When

reference is made to a pending case, an ongoing case,

does the ongoing case have to raise issues of UPL or

can other cases where they're talking about the

malpractice, do they meet the requirement of a

pending case?

In this situation, it sounds as though there is

only one case that raised UPL. And I haven't formed

any opinion. I'm just curious whether or not the

Goldberg threshold is met if other cases have similar

facts but don't raise the issue of UPL. Is that

enough to prevent us from saying this falls under

Goldberg?

MS. HOLCOMB: That's the ultimate question.

That's what this committee needs to decide. Let's

say that there was only the one case, the UPL case,

and then FAS files a liable action against the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

1

bankruptcy trustee alleging the same facts because

2

they brought a UPL case against them. Is that -- you

3

know, so can they do that to then take it away from

4

Goldberg? I mean, that's the -- your question is the

5

ultimate question.

6

MR. SYGER: Exactly. How are you going to

7

construe this rule? Because if we read it literally,

8

it suggests that because there is a pending case,

9

that we're outside of the ambit of Goldberg. And

10

then the rule doesn't say the case that's pending has

11

to be on UPL only.

12

MS. HOLCOMB: But there is "however." There is

13

"however" in the rule. It says "A, however, B."

14

There is "however." There is that one little word,

15

"however."

16

David?

17

MR. NORRIS: David Norris. I was going to ask

18

that question. so 10-9.1(c) is basically what we

19

have to review and use to determine. so you have the

20

first part, first sentence, "No opinion shall be

21

rendered with respect to any case or controversy

22

pending."

23

So I guess arguably that could mean any type of

24

case. so it gets you into the other cases

25

potentially, although you could argue that we're only

53

1

talking about a pending case dealing with UPL.

2

But giving that argument away, going with what

3

Lori just said, the next sentence says "however." So

4

to me, that's saying, however, we can do it and we

5

shall do it in the Goldberg situation. so to me, it

6

sounds like that second sentence is saying we have to

7

do it.

8

MS. HOLCOMB: To give a little background, the

9

reason that that first sentence is there is because

10

they didn't want people who were in litigation to

11

jump over and skip the trial, skip the lower

12

Appellate Court and go straight to the Supremes.

13

And actually, the first case that we had for a

14

formal advisory opinion, which, believe it or not,

15

started before my time, was a case that was pending

16

in court. And they had to dismiss that case in order

17

to proceed with the formal advisory opinion process,

18

because you don't want to say, okay, we're not going

19

to have a trial, we're not going to have an appeal,

20

we're just going to go straight to the supreme. And

21

then there is the Goldberg language.

22

MS. BUIE: We're going to take a five-minute

23

break. The president of the Florida Bar would like

24

to address the committee.

25

(A recess was had.)

54

1

MS. BUIE: I believe we're back on the record to

2

continue our deliberation.

3

MS. HOLCOMB: Yes, David?

4

MR. NORRIS: David Norris. I have a question.

5

Like I said before, I think the second sentence is

6

the key part of the rule, but there are two parts to

7

that sentence, reading it over and over again as I'm

8

doing. The second part is, "The suit has been stayed

9

or voluntarily dismissed without prejudice."

10

Is that a question we have to answer, whether

11

that's happened? or is that determined or agreed to?

12

MS. HOLCOMB: It depends on who you talk to.

13

The case was dismissed without prejudice. It wasn't

14

voluntarily dismissed. I think that that's poor

15

wording in the rule, frankly, because what we were

16

trying to do was follow Goldberg. And I think that

17

the rule is incorrect. I think that that's too much

18

of a technical reason.

19

I think ultimately you probably need to decide

20

based on the other issue, because I think that if you

21

say, well, it wasn't voluntarily dismissed, then they

22

just voluntarily dismiss it and we're back here again

23

in a couple of months. I just think that's a

24

technicality, and I think the rule is incorrect the

25

way it's written.

55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. NORRIS: so we don't need to bother with

that?

MS. HOLCOMB: That's up to you. Ultimately,

it's the committee's decision. But I think the other

issue is the real -- is the harder issue.

MS. BUIE: Just pending cases.

Yes?

MR. ATHAVALE: I think what we --

MS. BUIE: And your name? State your name for

us.

MR. ATHAVALE: Manny Athavale. I think what we

non-attorneys are struggling with is, is malpractice

suit the same as UPL suit?

MS. HOLCOMB: No. You know, I mean, in order to

commit malpractice, legal malpractice, you have to

have practiced law. But that's -- but what

malpractice is is to say that you did it and you did

it poorly, and the question really is whether this

individual practiced law poorly in a malpractice

matter.

In unlicensed practice, it's whether they've

practiced law in a way that they were not authorized

to practice. So the practice-of-law component is the

same, but the ultimate issue, whether it's unlicensed

practice or whether it was done bad, are different.

56

1

MR. ATHAVALE: So there are pieces that are

2

different in the proving of UPL versus proving of

3

malpractice?

4

MS. HOLCOMB: Correct.

5

MR. ATHAVALE: So it is unique. It is only a

6

single case in that sense.

7

MS. HOLCOMB: That's the question. From a UPL

8

standpoint, it doesn't matter if they did it right,

9

frankly. You know, in a malpractice, the question is

10

did you do it in a -- I don't want to get too legal

11

or too technical, but did you do it in a negligent or

12

a poor or bad manner?

13

Unlicensed practice, technically, you could get

14

someone a million dollar verdict if you're not a

15

lawyer and you still have an unlicensed-practice

16

issue. so they're kind of two different things.

17

MS. BUIE: Joel?

18

MR. FRITTON: Joel, attorney. I think you're

19

absolutely right. You don't get to the second part

20

of this rule because I.think it stops at the first

21

part. UPL and malpractice are two different things.

22

Just because you have malpractice doesn't mean you

23

have unlicensed practice. I think that's what you

24

were asking. They're two different causes of action.

25

And while there's other cases these same parties

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57

are involved, I think it's more semantics. The

titles and all that that were brought up, it really

doesn't matter because none of those cases involve

the unlicensed practice of law. The only one that

did has been dismissed. I think that's where the

analysis stops.

MS. BUIE: I'm sorry. Rosanna?

MS. SCHACHTELE: I have a question. Rosanna

schachtele. Would they be able to utilize an opinion

that we gave here in the other cases? Like if we did

do a formal advisory, would they be able to utilize

that?

MS. HOLCOMB: It depends on what it says. And

again, because it's not -- this committee won't be

determining facts. It would be if A, then -- you

know, if FAS did A, would that be UPL? If FAS did B,

would that be UPL?

So really, we're not determining the facts. And

without knowing what the opinion would say, it's kind

of difficult. Again, it's ultimately the supreme

Court. It doesn't really matter -- I hate to say it

that way, it doesn't matter what you say, but

ultimately, it doesn't really matter what you say

because the Court -- this is a vehicle -- this is a

procedure to get it before the supreme Court of

58

1

Florida. So this is how you can get it there.

2

Ultimately, that Court will decide.

3

MS. BUIE: Any other discussions or can I get a

4

motion?

5

MS. HOLCOMB: somebody has got to move

6

something.

7

MR. NORRIS: What's the question?

8

MS. BUIE: The question is whether or not we

9

should -- if it falls under Goldberg. Well, whether

10

or not we should issue a formal advisory opinion --

11

hold a public hearing to issue a formal advisory

12

opinion.

13

MR. SPERRY: I move that we hold a public

14

hearing to determine the advisory opinion.

15

MR. FRITTON: I second.

16

MR. NORRIS: I'll second.

17

MS. BUIE: so the motion has been moved and

18

seconded. Now, do we have any further discussion

19

regarding whether or not to hold the public hearing?

20

With no further --

21

MS. HOLCOMB: Do we want to do hands?

22

Ms. BUIE: Yeah, we're going to do hands.

23

By a show of hands, can I get how many are in

24

favor of the motion, all those in favor of holding a

25

public hearing on the issue?

59

1

MS. HOLCOMB: Raise your hand. Raise your hand

2

high because I can't see that well.

3

(Those in favor raised their hands.)

4

MS. HOLCOMB: I got 15. Did you get 15?

5

MS. BUIE: All those opposed?

6

(Those opposed raised their hands.)

7

MS. BUIE: Any abstentions?

8

Motion carries. so we will be holding a public

9

hearing. And then the next question is, when will we

10

hold the public hearing?

11

MS. HOLCOMB: Right.

12

MS. BUIE: My suggestion for the public

13

hearing -- our next meeting is scheduled for June,

14

the end of June, which is also the time that we have

15

members going off the committee.

16

My suggestion would be to hold the public

17

hearing on a separate meeting date and time sometime

18

in March or April so that by June we can have the

19

opinion so it can be reviewed by all those who are

20

able to hear and make a decision whether or not we

21

should hold a public hearing.

22

MS. HOLCOMB: Now, it's my understanding that

23

Ms. tack is going to be having some surgery, so

24

she'll be unavailable. our main concern is that we

25

have to publish 30 days ° notice. So we can work on

60

1

the date, but -- so it will be sometime before June,

2

but at least 45 days from now because we have to give

3

notice in the Bar News. So I can talk to you

4

about --

5

MR. CORSMEIER: Or if there is no objection, the

6

June meeting would be great because you get a good

7

crowd, like you have here, as opposed to having a

8

special meeting. But that's just my thought.

9

So if you could do June, I think we're still

10

going to run into problems with Ms. Zack. And there

11

is actually another individual that's going to appear

12

that is going to have -- has a medical condition that

13

they're going to have a procedure as well. I just

14

found out about that yesterday.

15

So it's up to you all as to what you want to do,

16

but I would ask on behalf of the respondent that we

17

have it at the June meeting.

18

MS. HOLCOMB: And I think the concern is that --

19

MS. BUIE: The members who are leaving.

20

MS. HOLCOMB: Right. Because June will be the

21

last meeting for this committee. And so then it

22

would be -- the next meeting will be in September,

23

and it would be a new committee that hadn't heard the

24

testimony that would be looking at the opinion.

25

MR. CORSMEIER: So the June is a transition

61

1

meeting, obviously.

2

MS. HOLCOMB: It's the --

3

MR. CORSMEIER: It would be the same committee.

4

MS. HOLCOMB: It's the last meeting of this

5

of this committee. Some members -- most members I

6

hope are going to stay, that you put in your

7

preference form to stay if you're eligible. But some

8

members will be leaving.

9

MR. CORSMEIER: That would be good fun in the

10

June meeting to have it at that hearing if you decide

11

to do that.

12

MS. HOLCOMB: Yeah, that's kind of up to the

13

Chair.

14

MS. BUIE: only because they would not have been

15

involved in this hearing, so...

16

MR. CORSMEIER: But it would be the last meeting

17

for everybody here.

18

MS. BUIE: Right.

19

MS. HOLCOMB: June would be the last meeting.

20

MR. CORSMEIER: Plus new ones coming on.

21

MS. HOLCOMB: Would be coming on in September.

22

MR. CORSMEIER: So that would be the last full

23

meeting of this committee.

24

MS. BUIE: So the people making the decision

25

regarding the formal advisory opinion would not be

62

1

the same ones who heard the testimony. So that would

2

be a little difficult, so that's why I suggested that

3

we have a mid meeting.

4

Ms. HOLCOMB: What happens is the committee will

5

hold a hearing. And then at that hearing the

6

committee will direct what the opinion should say.

7

Then the opinion will be drafted and be reviewed by

8

the committee at the next hearing -- at the next

9

meeting. So I think what the concern is that if we

10

hear it in June, that people who would be deciding on

11

the opinion wouldn't have been involved.

12

MR. CORSMEIER: I was on the Professional Ethics

13

Committee until I termed off. And that's unwieldy.

14

MS. HOLCOMB: Yeah.

15

MR. CORSMEIER: You all do a great job.

16

MS. HOLCOMB: So you understand.

17

MR. CORSMEIER: But what we would do is actually

18

have those members be eligible to participate in the

19

vote because of their prior service. But you all can

20

decide.

21

MS. HOLCOMB: No, that's not -- that's not

22

how -- because we have a certain number. It's a

23

different setup.

24

MR. CORSMEIER: I got it. Okay. Thank you.

25

MR. HOPKINS: If I could just briefly be heard

63

1

to give some specifics. Ms. zack has two herniations

2

to her lower back. They're looking at scheduling it

3

in the last week of March. If they have that

4

procedure, because it's the low back, it's one of

5

those things she can't even ride in a car.

6

The other issue I have -- and I don't know why

7

broken bones are all over the place, but her counsel,

8

Mr. Brunner, living outside of Florida, slipped and

9

fell on the ice. He has a broken leg.

10

one other thing and then I will sit down. The

11

issue we obviously presented was this two months of

12

depositions occurring between now and March. if

13

those get done and then we can do it at some later

14

point, everyone will have the evidence, everyone will

15

be healthy. Thank you.

16

MR. CORSMEIER: May I ask a question?

17

MS. BUIE: so we'll --

18

MR. CORSMEIER: I was just going to ask, this

19

was a preliminary matter. so this same committee

20

doesn't necessarily need to vote on the advisory

21

opinion, unless you think differently, Lori.

22

so maybe we could pass it -- because of the

23

issues with Ms. zack and Mr. Brunner, push pass it

24

because the committee that will be constituted will

25

be hearing the evidence and those of you that stay on

64

1

will hear it, but it's a different issue, it's not a

2

threshold issue. I'm just putting that out to you

3

for thought.

4

MS. HOLCOMB: I think it was the hearing, who

5

was at the hearing, versus who was here today.

6

MS. BUIE: That's my concern. Yeah, it's not

7

today. It's the hearing, the actual hearing. so

8

those who will hear it in June will not be the ones

9

to do the advisory.

10

MR. CORSMEIER: Or maybe in September. I'm just

11

throwing that out to you.

12

MS. BUIE: So we'll get back with you regarding

13

the public hearing. And we can take a five-minute

14

break and then we'll come back.

15

(The proceedings concluded at 11:25 a.m.)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

LIS M CORMACK RMR

65

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA:

COUNTY OF ORANGE:

I, LISA MCCORMACK, RMR, certify that I was

authorized to and did stenographically report the

foregoing proceedings, and that the transcript is a

true and accurate record.

Dated this 27th day of January 2014.

TAB 20

Case 8:12-cv-01854-MSS-MAP Document 112 Filed 08/27/14 Page 1 of 3 PagelD 2395

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

BETH ANN SCHARRER, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc. and TRANS HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 8:12-cv-1854-T-35MAP

FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, CHRISTINE ZACK, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, LLP, MARIA ELLENA CHAVEZ-RUARK, ALAN M. GROCHAL, individually and not as Receiver, QUINTAIROS PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, PA, THOMAS A. VALDEZ, KEVIN W. RICHARDSON, and ALBERT J. FERRERA,

Defendants.

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for

Stay as to Defendant Christine Zack, or, Alternatively, for Extension of Time to File

Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 110) On September 10, 2013, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs'

claims against Ms. Zack for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. 85) The Court gave

Plaintiffs three weeks from the date of that order to file an Amended Complaint as related

to any allegation that Ms. Zack served as legal counsel to Plaintiffs and owed them any

fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs were admonished that if they did not file an amended complaint

by the deadline, the claims against Ms. Zack would be dismissed. (See id.)


Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint. Instead, they filed a Motion for

Reconsideration of the Order dismissing the claims against Ms. Zack and sought a 90

day extension of time to file an amended complaint while discovery proceeded in the

Bankruptcy Court. (Dkt. 95) On April 9. 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for

extension of time, due to the fact that the 90 days had long since run by that point. The

Court directed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by April 16, 2014. (Dkt. 107) The

Court put the Plaintiffs on notice that the claims against Ms. Zack would be dismissed

without prejudice if they failed to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. 109) The Court also

entered an Order staying all proceedings in the case, pending resolution of related

matters by the Bankruptcy Court. (Dkt. 108) The Court expressly stated "The single

exception to the stay is that part of the action related to Defendant Christine Zack. By

separate Order the Court has directed certain action by undertaken related to her." (Id.)

On April 16, 2014, in lieu of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiffs filed the instant

motion, requesting that the Stay entered as to all the proceedings in this matter be applied

to the deadline within which to file any amended pleading against Ms. Zack, or, in the

alternative, that they be granted an extension of time to file an amended complaint until

such time as discovery has been completed in the Bankruptcy case.

Nearly a year has passed since this Court's Order dismissing the claims against

Ms. Zack, and it is clear that Plaintiffs still cannot state any basis for a cause of action

against her. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Stay as to Defendant Christine Zack, or,

Alternatively, for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint (Dkt. 110) is DENIED.

2


Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Christine Zack are DISMISSED with prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 27th day of August, 2014.

PA._ t&

UNIm KfcGA:T EN

ES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Person

3

TAB 21

Case 8:11-bk-22258-MGW Doc 1362 Filed 02/26/14 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

In re: Case No: 8:11-bk-22258-MGW

Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc. Chapter 7

Debtor.

AMENDED MOTION TO MODIFY RETENTION TERMS WITH RESPECT TO THE TRUSTEE'S SPECIAL COUNSEL, STEVEN M. BERMAN, ESQ.

AND SHUMAKER LOOP AND KENDRICK, LLP'

Beth Ann Scharrer, as Chapter 7 Trustee (the "Trustee"), pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §

327, 328(a), 330 and Rule 2014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, moves the

Court to modify the terms of her retention of Steven M. Berman, Esq. and the law firm of

Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP as special counsel, and states:

1. On June 1, 2012, the Trustee filed her Application for Authority to

Employ Steven M. Berman, Esq. and Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP (collectively,

the "Firm") as special counsel, with the Firm being compensated at its hourly rates and

reimbursed for costs incurred (the "Application") (Doc. 158). The Application was

approved on June 5, 2012 (Doc. 165).

2. The Trustee selected the Firm because it has considerable experience in

bankruptcy-related matters and the Trustee believes the Firm is well qualified to represent

the Trustee in this case. Mr. Berman is Board Certified by the American Board of

Certification in both Business Bankruptcy Law and Creditors' Rights Law.

I This motion is amended to include the identification of a long since concluded representation of General Electric Capital Company and General Electric Supply Company, as set forth in paragraph 4, which was inadvertently omitted from the prior version of the Motion that was filed.


3. As Special Counsel, the Firm has represented and continues to represent

the Trustee in matters related to the administration of the bankruptcy estate, including but

not limited to, identification, prosecution and recovery of assets; representation in

appellate matters, including briefing and oral argument, and in state administrative

proceedings; filing and prosecution of adversary proceedings; defense of state court

litigation; drafting and responding to motions; preparing subpoenas; review of discovery

documents; scheduling and attending depositions and Rule 2004 examinations; reviewing

and outlining work to be performed in preparation for hearings, including evidentiary

hearings; preparation and attendance at a number of official mediations and unofficial

settlement conferences; legal research; and communications with opposing counsel.

4. As more fully set forth in the Amended Declaration of Steven M. Berman

in Support of this Motion, attached as Exhibit A, and to the best of the Trustee's

knowledge, the Firm has no connection with either the Debtor or its wholly owned

subsidiary, Trans Health Management, Inc. ("THMI"), any creditor of the Debtor or

THMI, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, or the

United States Trustee, other than a long since concluded prior representation of General

Electric Company and General Electric Supply Company on completely unrelated

matters. The Firm represents no interest adverse to the Trustee.

5. The representation sub judice has been, and continues to be, tremendously

gratifying. The Firm undertook the representation at the request of the Trustee amid some

contention in obtaining the Debtor and THMI's books and records and control over

litigation, and those issues continue to pervade the representation.

SLK_TAM:#1719620v1


6. At the onset of the representation, the Firm was willing to handle the

representation solely on an hourly fee basis along with reimbursement of its costs. The

natural expectation was, however, that assets sufficient to compensate the Firm along

with other administrative expenses would become available before now.

7. To date, the Firm has incurred more than $2,250,000.00 in attorney and

other professional fees, and more than $200,000.00 in actual out-of-pocket expenses.

8. That said, the Firm is committed to fully prosecuting what it now knows to

be substantial assets arising from a massive fraud involving a multitude of entities,

individuals, and law firms. The accrual of fees and costs has not altered the Firm's

resolve or commitment to the Trustee.

9. However, the prospect of earning only an hourly fee, if and when assets

are recovered, fails to adequately compensate the Firm for its risk of nonpayment in the

event of no Estate recovery.

10. After consultation between the Trustee and the Firm, and with the consent

of the holders of Claim Nos. 1 through 6,2 the Trustee has agreed to alter the Firm's

agreed compensation to an arrangement where the Firm's fee entitlement is the sum of (i)

compensation for the Firm's services on an hourly basis; (ii) a contingency of seven

percent (7%) of all Estate recoveries; and (iii) reimbursement of all costs incurred (the

"Modified Fee Arrangement").

11. The purpose of the Modified Fee Arrangement is to compensate the Firm

consistent with its assumption of risk in carrying the fee receivable balance and the

2 The undersigned counsel has also attempted to obtain the consent of the holder of Claim No. 7 (the Estate of Alice Elizabeth Greene Darson) to determine if that creditor also supports the Modified Fee Arrangement.

SLK_TAM:#1719620v1


prospect of no recovery by the Estate given the changing realities of this case and its

related proceedings and robust appellate activity.

12. The Trustee respectfully submits that the Modified Fee Arrangement is

fair, reasonable, and well within the normal range for services rendered in cases of

similar complexity and magnitude in the Middle District of Florida.

WHEREFORE, Beth Ann Scharrer, as Chapter 7 Trustee, respectfully requests

this Court enter an Order granting this Motion, approving the Modified Fee Arrangement,

and granting any such other and further relief as is just and appropriate.

SHUMAKER LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP

By: /s/ Steven M Berman Steven M. Berman, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 856290 Seth P. Traub, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 058100 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2800 Tampa, Florida 33602 Phone (813) 229-7600 Facsimile (813) 229-1660 Counsel for the Trustee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 26, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by CM/ECF Electronic Notice or U.S. Mail to All Creditors, all parties who have filed a notice of appearance, and to:

United States Trustee - TPA7, 7 Timberlake Annex, Suite 1200 501 E Polk Street Tampa, FL 33602

/s/Steven M. Berman Attorney

SLK_TAM:#1719620v1


EXHIBIT A

Case 8:11-bk-22258-MGW Doc 1362-1 Filed 02/26/14 Page 2 of 4


TAMPA DIVISION

In re:

Case No: 8:11-bk-22258-MGW

Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc. Chapter 7

Debtor.

AMENDED DECLARATION OF DISINTERESTEDNESS OF STEVEN M. BERMAN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF THE TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO MODIFY RETENTION TERMS AS RELATED TO SPECIAL COUNSEL,

SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP

Under the pains and penalties of perjury, STEVEN M. BERMAN, ESQ., swears to the

following:

1. My name is Steven M. Berman, and I am 'a partner at Shumaker, Loop &.

Kendrick, LLP (the "Firm").

2. I am a member of both the Florida and California Bars, as well as the United

States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and I am over 18 years of age.

3. Unless otherwise stated, this declaration is based upon facts of which I have

personal knowledge.

4. The Firm does not have any connection to or any interest materially adverse to the

Debtor, any of the Debtor's affiliated businesses, any business or entity which may be

considered an insider of the Debtor, including Trans Health Management, Inc. ("THMI"), the

Trustee, the Debtor's creditors, any party in interest, their respective attorneys or accountants,

the United States Trustee, or the employees of the Office of the United States Trustee, other

SLK_TAM:#1719621v1


than a long since concluded prior representation of General Electric Company and General

Electric Supply Company on completely unrelated matters.

5. No member of the Firm holds a direct or indirect interest in the Debtor or THMI,

any of their affiliated entities or businesses, or any entity or business which is or may be an

insider of the Debtor or THMI.

6. No member of the Firm is or has ever served as an officer, director, manager,

member or employee of the Debtor or THMI.

7. No member of the Firm is in control of the Debtor, THMI or any of their

affiliated entities or businesses or is a relative of any officer, director, manager, member or

employee of the Debtor or any of its affiliated entities or businesses.

8. No member of the Firm is a general or limited partner of a partnership in which

the Debtor or THMI is also a general or limited partner.

9. No member of the Firm is or ever has served as an officer, director, or employee

of a financial advisor that has been engaged by the Debtor, THMI or any of their affiliated

entities or businesses in connection with the offer, sale, or issuance of a security of the Debtor

or any of its affiliated entities or businesses.

10. No member of the Firm presently represents or otherwise works for any creditor,

general partner, lessor, lessee, party to an executory contract of the Debtor, THMI or any of their

affiliated entities or businesses, or person otherwise adverse or potentially adverse to the Debtor,

THMI on any matter, whether such representation is related or unrelated to the Debtor, THMI or

the estate.

11. No member of the Firm presently performs any work for the Debtor, THMI or

any of their affiliated entities or businesses.

SLK_TAM:1117196210


12. There are no agreements of any nature as to the sharing of the compensation to

be paid to the Firm.

13. I am not aware of any conflicts of interest that would prevent the Firm from

providing services to the Trustee as requested in the Trustee's Application to Employ the Firm

as Special Counsel.

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY PURSUANT TO THE

PROVISIONS OF 28 U.S.C. § 1746 THAT THE FOREGOING STATEMENTS ARE

TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY INFORMATION, KNOWLEDGE AND

BELIEF.

Dated this 26th day of February, 2014.

Steven M. Berman, Esq. Florida Bar No.: 856290 [email protected] 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2800 Tampa, Florida 33602 Phone (813) 229-7600 Facsimile (813) 229-1660

SLK JAM:#1719621v1

TAB 22



TAMPA DIVISION

In re:

Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.

Debtor.

Case No. 8:11-bk-22258-MGW Chapter 7 case

ORDER GRANTING AMENDED MOTION TO MODIFY RETENTION TERMS WITH RESPECT TO THE TRUSTEE'S SPECIAL COUNSEL, STEVEN M.

BERMAN, ESQ. AND SHUMAKER LOOP AND KENDRICK, LLP (DOC. 1362)

THIS CASE came on for hearing on April 3, 2014, on the Trustee's Amended

Motion to Modify Retention Terms with Respect to the Trustee's Special Counsel,

Steven M. Berman, Esq. and Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP ("Motion") (Doc. 1362),

brought pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 328(a). This Court reviewed the Motion, the objections by

the Office of the United States Trustee (Doc. 1365), by General Electric Capital

Corporation ("GECC") (Doc. 1387), and by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC

("FAS") (Doc. 1408), and heard argument of counsel for the Trustee, the Office of the

United States Trustee, GECC, FAS, and the Estates of Jackson, Nunziata, Webb,

Townsend, Sasser, Jones, and Darson. Being otherwise fully advised in the premises, and

for the reasons stated in open Court, which shall constitute the decision of this Court, the

Court finds and concludes the

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

1


Motion should be granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion is hereby

GRANTED without prejudice to any party in interest interposing any otherwise

appropriate objections to any application for compensation by the Trustee's counsel.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this April 21, 2014

Michael G. Williamson United States Bankruptcy Judge

Attorney Steven M. Berman is directed to serve a copy of this order on interest parties and file a proof of service within 3 days of entry of the order.

2

TAB 23

Christopher Hopkins

Akerman Senterfitt 222 Lakeview Avenue

Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Tel: 561.653,5000 Fax: 561.659.6313

Dir: 561.671.3668 [email protected]

October 21, 2013

VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY VIA EMAIL & FEDEX DELIVERY lholcomb@flabar,oro. Lori Holcomb, Esq, UPL Committee Staff Contact The Florida Bar 651 E. Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300

The UPL Department The Florida Bar 651 E. Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300

VIA EMAIL & US MAIL DELIVERY edbuielaw(iigniail.com Carsandra D. Buie, Esq, Standing Committee— Unlicensed Practice of Law, Chair P.O. Box 2920 Sanford, FL 3277-2290

RE: Beth Ann Schaffer, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.; and Trans Health Management, Inc. adv. Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC and Christine Zack, ESQ,

Dear To Whom It May Concern at the UPL Department; Ms. Holcomb; and Ms. Buie:

This letter follows my October 4, 2013 correspondence and, under a special appearance, serves as a Response to the Petition for Formal Advisory Opinion Concerning the Unlicensed Practice of Law ("Petition") on behalf of Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC ("FAS").

Preliminary Statement — Special Appearance to Preserve FAS' Jurisdictional Position

As a preliminary statement, and out of an abundance of caution due to the ongoing litigation between Petitioners and FAS, this Response and any submissions or appearances by

akemian.eorn

BOCA RATON DALLAS DENVER FORT LAUDERDALE JACKSONVILLE LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES MADISON MIAMI NAPLES NEW YORK ORLANDO PALM BEACH SALT LAKE CITY TALLAHASSEE TAMPA TYSONS CORNER WASHINGTON, D.C.

WEST PALM BEACH

(27320508; I )

The UPL Department Lori Holcomb, Esq. Carsandra D. Buie, Esq, RE: Beth Ann Scharrer, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy October 21, 2013 Page 2

FAS or its agents and employees is a "special appearance" to preserve FAS' jurisdictional defenses. FAS is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Maryland. FAS does not have a place of business in Florida, and has not performed any acts which subject it to jurisdiction in Florida with respect to the matters described in the Petition. Ms. Christine Zack is a Maryland-licensed, in-house attorney employed by FAS who resides in Nevada and who has been dismissed from two different lawsuits filed by Mr. Berman and his clients ("Petitioners") on the basis that she is not subject to personal jurisdiction in this State. FAS does not waive its jurisdictional defenses to any claims or other relief that may be sought against it in a Florida state or federal court. Nor does FAS waive the requirement of service of process, as may be appropriate to the forum. See Public Gas Co. v. Weatherhead Co., 409 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1982).

Without waiving its jurisdictional position, and in a good faith effort to assist the UPL Committee, FAS provides this Response.

Background

As you are aware from Exhibit A to the Petition, Petitioners filed suit claiming that FAS and two employees allegedly practiced law in Florida without a license, See Beth Ann Scharrer, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc. and Trans Health Management, Inc. v. Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC et al., Case 8:12-cv-01855-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla.) ("UPL Action"). A copy of the UPL Action is attached as Exhibit A. The allegations against FAS in the UPL Action were dismissed twice.

At the same time they filed the UPL Action, Petitioners filed another suit alleging that FAS, and its current and former employees, committed legal malpractice and/or a breach of a fiduciary duty. See Beth Ann Scharrer, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc. and Trans Health Management, Inc. v. Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC et al., Case 8:12-cv-01854-JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla.) ("Malpractice Action"). A copy of the Malpractice Action is attached as Exhibit B.

It is important for the UPL Committee to understand that the UPL and Malpractice Actions were filed simultaneously by the Petitioners; both cases arise from the same allegations; and the Malpractice Action is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

To put the Petition, UPL Action, and the on-going Malpractice Action into context, the Petitioners filed both suits in July 2012 (a little over a year ago) against Respondent FAS; its Chief Risk Officer, in-house counsel, and Senior Vice-President, Christine Zack; and former General Counsel, Kristi Anderson. In the UPL Action, it was alleged that FAS through its employees, Anderson and Zack, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by purportedly

{27320508;1)

The UPL Department Lori Holcomb, Esq. Carsandra D. Buie, Esq. RE: Beth Ann Scharrer, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy October 21, 2013 Page 3

directing and controlling the defense of Trans Health Management, Inc. ("THMI"), which was represented by Florida counsel of record, in five personal injury lawsuits in Florida, In the Malpractice case, it likewise was alleged that FAS through its employees, Anderson and Zack, committed legal malpractice and/or breached fiduciary duties by, again, purportedly directing and controlling the defense of THMI, which was represented by Florida counsel of record, in the same five personal injury actions, While FAS disputes the allegations, such "alternative" pleading should have been brought in one action.

After the UPL Action was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, FAS and its employees successfully moved to dismiss Petitioners' original and amended complaints. Twice the District Court dismissed the complaints for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. After reaching an agreement with Petitioners which including offering certain testimony, FAS' former employee, Ms. Anderson, was dismissed (noticeably, her name is not mentioned in the Petition). In a July 30, 2013 Order, the District Court dismissed Petitioners' amended complaint without prejudice to allow Petitioners sixty days within which to initiate the process for requesting an advisory opinion regarding whether FAS's and Ms. Zack's purported conduct constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.

The Malpractice Action also was removed to the U.S. District Court and, thereafter, motions to dismiss were filed by FAS, Anderson, and Zack. Here too, Ms. Anderson made an agreement with the Petitioners and she was dismissed. The District Court denied FAS' motion but granted Ms. Zack's motion. However, at the same time that Mr. Berman submitted the Petition to this Committee, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order granting Ms. Zack's motion to dismiss and a motion for an extension of time, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C. In short, the Malpractice Action, which is virtually a carbon-copy of the UPL Action, is still ongoing in the U.S. District Court.

Summary of Argument

As indicated in my prior letter to this Committee, there are a number of issues to be considered if and when the merits of the Petition are addressed. However, upon subsequent review of the Petition and Rule 10-9,1, it is evident that a public hearing is not appropriate due to the pending suits. As such, this Response will not enter into a lengthy discussion of the allegations at this time but, instead, explains the application of Rule 10.9-1 to this Petition.

The UPL Committee should dismiss the Petition or stay any consideration of it because:

(1) According to Rule 10-9.1(c), the UPL Committee shall not render an opinion with respect to any case or controversy pending in any court or tribunal in this jurisdiction unless the that suit has been stayed or voluntarily dismissed without

(27320508;1)

The UPL Department Lori Holcomb, Esq, Carsandra D. Buie, Esq, RE: Beth Ann Scharrer, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy October 21, 2013 Page 4

prejudice. The Petition is procedurally barred because Petitioners did not "stay" or "voluntarily dismiss" the UPL Action before requesting an advisory opinion; and

(2) Petitioners have not "stayed" or "voluntarily dismissed" the Malpractice Action and other related suits in this jurisdiction which are integral to the Petition. Accordingly, the advisory opinion that Petitioners request is procedurally barred by Rule 10-9.1(c) because it would be "with respect" to the Malpractice Action and other ongoing litigation proceedings.

We appreciate your courtesy in permitting us time to provide our submission,

Response to Petition

At this juncture, Rule 10-9,1(b) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar requires the UPL Staff Counsel to make an initial determination of whether the Trustee's Petition "complies with the requirements of" Rule 10-9.1. To avoid wasting the limited time and resources of UPL Staff Counsel, this Committee, and the parties involved in this proceeding, FAS respectfully submits this Response to demonstrate that the Petition fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 10-9.1 and is defective in other significant respects,

T. Petitioners Did Not Comply With Rule 10-9.1(c)'s "Voluntarily Dismissed" Requirement

The Petition should be dismissed because Petitioners did not comply with Rule 10-9.1(c). Subsection (c) provides a limited exception to the general rule that "[n]o opinion shall be rendered with respect to any case or controversy pending in any court or tribunal in this jurisdiction" that is conditioned upon a petitioner's compliance with subsection (c)'s requirements. Specifically, subsection (c) provides that "the committee shall issue a formal advisory opinion under circumstances described by the court in Harold Goldberg v. Merrill Lynch Credit Corp., 35 So. 3d 905 (Fla. 2010), when the petitioner is a party to a lawsuit and that lawsuit has been stayed or voluntarily dismissed without prejudice." Rule 10-9.1,(c) (emp, added); see also In re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar-10-9.1, 82 So, 3d 66, 67-68 (Fla, 2012) (per curium) (adopting an amendment to include this highlighted text (among other changes) in Rule 10-9.1)(emp, added).

The Petition is procedurally barred by Rule 10-9,1(c) because Petitioners neither moved to "stay" nor "voluntarily dismissed" the UPL Action. Instead, after Petitioners filed their complaint in the UPL Action, they were confronted with motions to dismiss in which the defendants argued that their alleged conduct previously had not been determined by the Florida Supreme Court to be the unauthorized practice of law. Rather than seek to stay or voluntarily dismiss the UPL Action without prejudice to request an advisory opinion in compliance with

(27320508;1}

The UPL Department Lori Holcomb, Esq, Carsandra D. Buie, Esq. RE; Beth Ann Scharrer, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy October 21, 2013 Page 5

Rule 10-9.1(c), Petitioners decided to litigate their case on the merits, and lost. And Petitioners followed this same approach in response to FAS' (and other defendants') motions to dismiss Petitioners' amended complaint as well. In short, Petitioners' complaints were not "voluntarily dismissed" as Rule 10-9.1(c) requires.

The purpose of Rule 10-9.1(c)'s requirement that a pending case be "stayed or voluntarily dismissed" is to allow a litigant to obtain an advisory opinion before the case is decided on the merits. The Rule was not intended to allow a non-prevailing party to use the advisory opinion procedure, as Petitioners seek to use it here, as a vehicle to pursue a de facto appeal of an adverse judicial decision, thereby depriving the prevailing party of the benefits of full participation to which it otherwise would be entitled in a direct judicial appeal. Having chosen not to avail themselves of the advisory opinion procedure in advance of a dispositive ruling by the District Court dismissing their UPL Action, Rule 10-9.1(c) precludes Petitioners from invoking that process now to obtain a third bite at the apple.

II. No Opinion Shall Be Rendered With Respect to Any Pending Case in This Jurisdiction

A. Petitioners Maintain a Nearly Identical Pending Malpractice Suit Which Bars the Rendition of an Advisory Opinion

The day before Petitioners filed the UPL Action, they filed a complaint in the Malpractice Action in which, like the UPL Action, Petitioners are the plaintiffs and the defendants include FAS; its current employee, Ms. Zack; and a former employee, Ms. Kristi Anderson. A copy of the Malpractice Case complaint is attached as Exhibit B.

As you can see, the facts asserted in the UPL and Malpractice Actions arise from the same operative allegations except that, in the Malpractice Action, Petitioners have alternatively alleged legal malpractice rather than UPL. The similarity of the allegations is immediately apparent; in the Malpractice Action, Petitioners make allegations about "the FAS Defendants' ongoing efforts to direct and substantially control the defense of THMI„." (see paragraph 11, Malpractice Action complaint), Likewise, Counts V and VI allege that FAS' employees committed legal malpractice and FAS committed a breach of fiduciary duty based upon the same allegations presented to this Committee. Even Petitioners had to acknowledge to the federal court that the Malpractice and UPL Actions were inextricably related. See Petitioners' Notices of Pendency of Related Cases, composite Exhibit D.

Currently, Petitioners are continuing to pursue their Malpractice Action. A copy of the docket is attached as Exhibit E. In fact, at the same time that Mr. Berman submitted the Petition to this Committee, he filed in the Malpractice Action a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order

{27320508;1)

The UPL Department Lori Holcomb, Esq, Carsandra D. Buie, Esq. RE: Beth Ann Scharrer, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy October 21, 2013 Page 6

on Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Extension of Time, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C.

FAS was required to raise its jurisdictional defenses first in the Malpractice Action before it could seek to have the Malpractice and UPL Actions consolidated, as they should have been from the start. Here, however, there should be no question that an advisory opinion based on Petitioners' UPL allegations would improperly touch and concern Petitioners' ongoing Malpractice Action, which Petitioners have not stayed or voluntarily dismissed. In short, the Petition improvidently seeks an advisory opinion on a core issue that goes to the very heart of Petitioners' gngolgi Malpractice Action, This is especially true given that, in the Malpractice Action, Petitioners are required to prove that FAS actually engaged in the practice of law—the very issue which the Petition asks this Committee to decide—in the context of an attorney-client relationship with respect to the acts or omissions upon which Petitioners' malpractice claim is based, See Kates v. Robinson, 786 So, 2d 61, 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Accordingly, the Petition does not comply with the requirements of Rule 10-9,1(c) and therefore should not be considered,

B, The Petition Identifies Ongoing Cases/Controversies in which Petitioners Are Parties Which Bars the Rendition of an Advisory Opinion

As mentioned in our October 4, 2013 letter, it is important for the UPL Committee to understand that this Petition was preceded by a bitter history of still-ongoing litigation brought by Petitioners and entities working with them, In fact, the Petition itself refers to ongoing actions to which Petitioners are parties that involve allegations arising from and relating to the subject of Petitioners' requested advisory opinion, Because Petitioners have failed to stay or voluntarily dismiss those matters, Rule 10-9.1(c) bars the issuance of an advisory opinion,

The Petition references the following pending Florida cases or controversies where Petitioners (and FAS) are parties:

(i) In Re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., Case No, 8:11-bk-22258-MGW (Petition, page 2);

(ii) Estate of Juanita Amelia Jackson v. THI and THMI, Case No. 2004-CA-3229 (Circuit Court, Polk County, Florida)(Petition, page 3, 5-12)(see Notice of Appearance of Mr. Berman's firm as counsel for Petitioners, February 11, 2013, Exhibit F).

(iii) Estate of Elvira Nunziata v. Pinellas Park Nursing Home et al., Case No, 2005-CA-8540 and Case Nos, 2D-12-0764, 2D-12-0809, 2d-12-0810 & 2D-12-2102 (2d DCA). (Petition, pages 5-12);

Petitioners allege, relative to Jackson, Nunziata, and other matters, that FAS' actions amounted to the unauthorized practice of law. Petitioners attach as exhibits to the Petition

{27320508; I )

The UPL Department Lori Holcomb, Esq, Carsandra D. Buie, Esq. RE: Beth Ann Scharrer, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy October 21, 2013 Page 7

pleadings from Nunziata and discuss these proceedings at length in pages 5-12 of the Petition (see note 10 ("FAS has a pattern of ostensibly directing the defense of THMI through local counsel when it is in fact FAS that is directing the litigation")).

By Petitioners' own reference, these are related cases or controversies pending in Florida (state) circuit, appellate, and federal (bankruptcy) courts to which Petitioners are parties. To issue the advisory opinion that Petitioners request, the Committee would have refer and involve itself in disputes in these pending matters, in violation of Rule 10-9.1(c). Accordingly, the Petition should not be considered,

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this response to the Trustee's Petition. If you have any questions or requests for additional information, please let us know.

AKERMAN SENTERFITT

By: /s/ Christopher B, Hopkins Christopher B. Hopkins

CBH/bat Enc, Described above CC: Steven M. Berman, Esq. (via email only, w/enc.)

{27320508;1)

EXHIBIT "A"

Case 8:12-cv-01855-JSM-MAP Document 2 Filed 08/15/12 Page 1 of 9 PagelD 17

IN TIME CIRCUIT COURT OF' THE TENTH RIDICIAL CIRC IN AND FOR POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIVIL DIVISION

BETH ANN SCHARRRR, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptoy Estate of Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.; and TRANS HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC,

Plaintiffs,

V. Case, No,

FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; CHRISTINE ZACK; and KRISTI ANDERSON;

Defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ON ALL ISSUES TRIABLE 1W Amy

OMPLAINT

1110 Plaintiffs, Beth Ann &harm., as Chapter 7 Trustee (the "Trustee") of the estate of

Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc, ("FLTC"), and Trans Health Management, In°, ("TliN11"),

the wholly owned subsidiary of PLTC, hereby sues Defendants, Fundamental Administrative

Services, LLC, Christine Zook, and Kristi Anderson, and alleges as follows

411.1RICTION A141) VliNUE

1. This Court has subject matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. SW, § 26,012(2)(a)

because the amount In controversy exceeds $15,000.00, exclusive of Interest, costs, and attorney

fees,

2. Venue Is proper in Polk County, Florida, under Flo, Stat, §§ 47.011 and 47,051

boons() the cause of notion accrued in Polk County as certain of the conduct alleged herein

occurred in Polk County.

1 of

53-20 /?:CA-00111,C0000-00 VW,. ft


Tarr PARTI RS

3, On December 5, 2011 ("Petition Date"), the Estate of Juanita Amelia Jackson (the

"Jackson Bstate") filed an Involuntary petition against Pundatnental Long Term Care, Inc.

("FLTC") for relief under Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code in the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida ("Bankruptcy Court").

4. On January 12, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order for Relief as a result

of FLTC's failure to file a motion or responsive pleading as required by Rule 1011 of the Federal

Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure,

5, Thereafter, the Trustee was appointed as Chapter 7 Trustee, 'As such, the Trustee

Is the duly appointed and acting Trustee of the Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate of FLTC.

6. TI-IMI is a wholly owned subsidiary of FLTC,

7, Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC ("FAS") is a Delaware limited

liability company with its principal place of business in Sparks, Maryland, FAS provides

administrative back office support services to long-term care companies, providers, skilled

nursing facilities, long-tern acute care hospitals, outpatient therapy care clinics, and hospices,

8, Christine Zack ("Zack") is an attorney employed by FAS, Upon information and

belief, Ms. Zack is a resident of Maryland, Ms, Zack is not a member of the Florida Bar and is

not licensed to practice law in Florida.

9, Kr' sti Anderson ("Anderson") is an attorney employed.by FAS, Upon Information

and belief, Ms, Anderson is a resident of Maryland and is a member of the Maryland State Bar,

Ms. Anderson is not a member of the Florida Bar and is not licensed to practice law in Florida,

2 of 9


10. This Court has personal Jurisdiction over FAS, Ms, Zack and Ms, Anderson

(collectively, the "FAS Defendants") pursuant to Fla, Stat. §48,193(1)(a), (b), and (2), The FAS

Defendants' ongoing efforts to direct and substantially control the defense of THMI, FLTC and

others in litigation pending in the state and federal worts of this state constitute a substantial and

not isolated activity within this state, In addition, the FAS Defendants are operating, conducting,

engaging in, 'and carrying on business in this state.

11 . At all materiel times, Zack and Anderson were acting within the scope of their

actual or apparent authority on behalf of Ti.AS,

GJMERAT, ALLEGATION$

Legal Representation in State Courts

12, THMI is a defendant in five separate wrongtbi death oases pending in this Court,

as well as the Circuit Courts in Pinellas and Alachua County, Florida, as follows:

a) Estate of Juanita Jackson v. Briar Hill, Mai at al„ Polk County, Case No, 2004-CA-03229 (the "Jackson Litigation");

b) Estate of Opal Lee Sasser v, Briar Hill, Inc„ et al., Polk County, Case No, 2006-CA-3511;

c) Estate of Arlene Anne Townsend v, Briar HlU, Inc., Polk County, Case No. 09-CA-1025;

d) Estate of Matra lklunzlata v. Pinellas Park Nursing Home, et al„ Pinellas County, Case No, 2005-CA-8540;

e) Estate of Joseph Webb v. Trans Healthcare, Inc., et al., Alachua County, Case No, 2006-CA-2418;

(colleotively, the "Wrongfni Death Cases"),

3 of 9


13, Each of the above lawsuits are based on claims of negligence and/or wrongful

death against THMI and Trans Healthcare, Inc, ("TH1"), which operated, managed, and/or

owned the _nursing homes whore the respective plaintiffs were injured,

14, In this Court, the Estate of Juanita Amelia Jackson filed a Cotnplaint on July 30,

2004, As of the date of the filing of the Jackson Litigation, THI was the owner of all of the

issued and outstanding capital stock of THMI, On or about February 28, 2006, THI sold all of

the stock in TINT to FLTC, the Chapter 7 Debtor in Bankruptcy,

15. FAS is not a law firm, Nevertheless, at all material times hereto, as part of the

"back office" services it provided to THMI and FLTC, FAS controlled and directed the legal

defense of THMI and FLTC in litigation in this Court and other courts in Florida, and performed

other management and legal services for THMI and FLTC,

I 6, The PAS Defendants have directed and controlled the defense of THMI and Till

against the claims in each of the above Wrongful Death Cases,

17, Zack and Anderson advised, counseled, provided legal advice, and directed local

defense counsel In connection with the Wrongful Death Cases, among other legal proceedings in

Florida,

18, Zack and Anderson made strategic decisions regarding the defense strategy, as

well as the strategy to withdraw all defenses, on behalf of THMI and FLTC in the Wrongful

Death Cases and acted as legal representatives of THMI and FLTC in each of the Wrongful

Death Cases,

19, Providing legal services was a means of producing income for FAS,

4 of 9

,xt


20, in this Court, on April 28, 2010, the FAS Defendants directed counsel for THMI

and THI—Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P,A, (the "Quintairos Firm")--to withdraw as

counsel for both THMI and T1-11, and cease any defense against the Jackson Estate's claim,

21. In each of the Wrongful Death Cases, on behalf of FAS, Zack and/or Anderson

directed Florida counsel defending the oases to withdraw as counsel for THMI and/or TH1, and

cease any defense of the respective claims.

22, On June 4, 2010, this Court entered a written Order granting a Motion to

Withdraw filed by the Quintairos Firm (the "Withdrawal Order"), which stated that Ms,

Anderson "shall be the contact person for purposes of servicing of pleadings and proceedings

regarding the defense of this lawsuit , „"

23. The strategic decisions and defense strategy implemented by FAS, Zack and

Anderson, as counsel for THMT and THI, was to cease all defense of Jackson Litigation.

24. On Juno 25, 2010, the Jackson Estate moved for a default against THMI and TM

as a result of their failure to attend a June 22, 2010 pretrial conference and failure to secure new

counsel (the "Motion for Default"), The Motion for Default was served on Ms, Anderson.

25, On July 7, 2010, In the Jackson Litigation, this Court entered a Default against

THMI and TI-H "for failure to plead or otherwise defend as provided by FRCP 1.500(b)" (the

"Default"), The Default was served on Ms. Anderson

26, The Court proceeded to a trial on the Jackson Estate's claim, which resulted in a

jury finding TNT and THMI Jointly liable for negligence and wrongful death in the amounts of

$10 Million in compensatory damages and $100 Million in punitive damages. No counsel

appeared at trial on behalf of THMI or TM,

5 of 9


27, On July 22, 2010, the Court entered a Final Judgment against THMI in the

amount of $55 Million and against TM in the amount of $55 Million (the "Final Judgment").

Ms, Anderson was served with a copy of the Final Judgment,

28. On or about May 16, 2011, the Jackson Estate filed a Motion to Implead New

Defendants in Prooeedings Supplemental to Execution and for an Order to Show Cause (the

"Motion to Implead") pursuant to Fla, Stat. § 56.29 to Implead various third parties, including

FLTC, FAS, and twelve other third parties alleged to have orchestrated to delay and hinder

satisfaction of the Final Judgment,

29. On May 23, 2011, this Court entered an Amended Order Granting Plaintiff's

Motion to Implead New Defendants in Proceedings Supplemental and Directing New

Defendants to Show Cause as to Why They Should Not Be Held Liable for Payment of the Final

Judgment (the "Order to Show Cause"),

30. While FAS responded to the Order to Show Cause on its own behalf, FAS, Zack

and Anderson failed to do so, or arrange for a response, on behalf of their client, FLTC,

31. On July 11, 2011, as a result of FLTC's failure to make an appearance, file any

papers, or otherwise respond to the Order to Show Cause, the Court entered an Order Granting

Default Against Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc, (the "FLTC Default").

32, On September 13, 2011, this Court entered an Amended Final Judgment, which

imposed liability upon FLTC in the amount of $110 Million.

ActIon$ Related to Bankruptcy of FLTC

33 In response to the Trustee's need for information to administer the Bankruptcy

Estate, on February 23, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order on Order to Show Cause,

6 of 9

Case 8:12-cv-01855-JSM-MAP Document 2 Filed 0845/12 Page 7 of 9 PagelD 23

which provided that all "parties in possession of any books and records of [FLTC], including but

not limited to legal files, who receive a copy of thiS Order, including former or current attorneys

for or noting on behalf of [FI,TC)" must produce copies of such records to the Trustee,

34, Counsel for the Trustee requested such documents from the Quintairos Firm,

35. Upon information and belief, FAS, Zack and/or Anderson threatened a lawsuit

against the Quintairos Firm for any damages that may arise from disclosure of documents held

by the Quintairos Finn that FAS alleged to be attomoy-client privileged.

36. The Trustee will know once FAS, Zack and Anderson truthfully comply with the

Bankniptcy Court's Orders,

COUNT,I

37. The Trustee and THMI re-allege the foregoing paragraphs one (1) through thirty-

six (36) as if Mily set forth herein.

38, This is an action for restitution, damages, and unjust enrichment based upon

Defendants' unauthorized practice of law.

39. The FAS Defendants unlawfbily controlled and/or directed THMI's defense and

represented themselves as counsel for THMI and FLTC counsel,

40, The FAS Defendants directed the withdrawal of defense for THMI in the

Wrongful Death Cases, doing so without seeking actual authority of THMI and without making

reasonably sure that their withdrawal would not result in prejudice to THMI, or ultimately to

FLTC,

41. As part of its fees to its clients, FAS, Zack and Anderson provide legal services,

Such fees are paid to PAS, not to any lawyer,

7 of 9

Case 8:12-cv-01855-JSM-MAP Document 2 Filed 08/15/12 Page 8 of 9 PageiD 24

42, FAS profited from the legal representation of THMI and FLTC by Colleoting fees

for the legal services provided by its employees.

43, The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that FAS' conduct of providing legal

services as a means of producing income for the non-law firm corporation constitutes the

unauthorized practice of law, Florida Bar v, Consolidated Business and Legal Foam, .lee,, 386

So,2d 797 (Fla, 1980),

44, The unauthorized practice of law by PAS, through employees it controls and

directs, has resulted in injury to or inadequate representation of THIVIT and FLTC,

45, Zook Is note member of the Florida Bar and is not licensed to practice law in

Florida.

46, Anderson is not a member of the Florida Bar and is not licensed to practice law in

Florida,

47. Zack and Anderson advised, counseled, provided legal advice, and directed local

defense counsel in connection with legal proceedings in Florida, including the Wrongful Death

Cases,

48, The FAS Defendants made strategic decisions regarding the defense strategy on

behalf of TI-M41 in Florida litigation and acted as legal representatives of THMI and MTG.

49, Defendants' conduct constitutes the unauthorized practice of law, The Florida

Bar v, Dale, 496 So,2d 813 (Fla, 1986),

50. Additionally, FAS, Zack and/or Anderson made threats to file suit against Florida

local counsel, the QuIntaires Firm, for any damages that may arise from the disclosure of

documents alleged to be attorney-client privileged,

8 of 9


51, The Florida Supreme Court has held that threats to file suit with or on behalf of a

client by an individual who is not an attorney licensed to practice law in Florida constitutes the

unauthorized practice of law, The Florida Bar v, York) 689 So,2d 1037 (Fla, 1996),

WHEREFORE, Beth Ann Scheirer, as Chapter 7 Trustee of the estate of Fundamental

Long Term Care, Inc., and Trans Health Management, Inc., demands judgment against

Defendants, Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC, Christine Zack, and Kristi Anderson,

for restitution of legal fees paid, and for compensatory and consequential damages based on

Defendants' unlicensed practice of law, and for such other relief this Court deems appropriate,

DEMAND SAAR JURY yRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury of all issues so friable.

Datedt July 20, 2012 SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP

Steven M, Berman, Esq, Florida Bar No, 856290 101 B, Kennedy Blvd., Ste, 2800 Tampa, Florida 33602 ' Phone; (813) 229-7600; Fax: (813) 2291660 Counsel for Beth Ann Schaffer, as Chapter I Trustee, artafor Trans Health Management, Inc

9 of9

By:

EXHIBIT "B"


IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THC TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR POO< COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIVIL DIVISION

BETH ANN SCHARRBR, as Chaptor 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Bstato of Fundamontal Long Tonn Caro, Ino,; and TRANS HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.

Plaintiffs, 53,20 CA.O19944006:06 c'? cri

v, Ono. No,

FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; CHRISTINE ZACK; JURY TRIAL DUMANDRD ON

ALL ISSUES TRIABLR I3Y JURY KRISTI ANDERSON; TYDINGS &ROSENBERG LLP; MARIA ELLENA CHAVE&RUARK;

C) ALAN M. OROCHAL, individually and not as Reoolvor,; r- 0 QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A,; THOMAS A, VALDEZ; KEVIN W. RICHARDSON; and ALBERT J. PERRERA;

/

Defondants,

1 COMPLAINT

Tho Plaintiffs, Both Ann Schauer, as Chapter 7 Trustee (tho "Tnmtoo") of the estate of

Fundamontal Long Term Caro, Mo., and Trans Health Managornont, Inc, ("THMI"), tho wholly

owned subsidiary of the Debtor, hereby suns Defondants, Fundamental Administrative Services,

LLC, avisiino Zack, Kristi Anderson, Tydings & Rosonberg LLP, Marla Dillon Chavoz.Ruark,

Alan Oroohal, individually and not ns Receiver, Qui»tairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A„

Thomas A. Valdez, Kevin W, Richardson, and Albert J, Perron, and alleges as follows;

<:1€ :S

d

bi i

lf Z

IR

1 022

Case 8:12-cv-01854-MSS-MAP Document 2 Filed 08/15/12 Page 2 of 37 Pagel D 43

PIUS MOTION 011) VEr,ru

I, This is an notion for damage in exoe,ss o f $15,000.00 exclusive of interest,

attorney fees, and costs,

2, This Court has subject matter Jurisdiction pursurmt to Pla, Stat. § 26.012(2)(a)

because the amount in controversy weeds $15,000,00, exclusive of Interest, costs, and attorney

fees,

3, Venue Is proper in Polk County, Florida, under Pla, Stal, §§ 47,011 and 47,051

because the cause of action accrued In Polk County,

Tflg PAMIRS,

4. On December 5, 2011 ("Petition Date"), the Estate ofJuanita Amelia Jackson (the

"Jackson Estate") filed an Involuntary petition against Fundamental Long Term Core, Inc.

("PUN") for roller under Chapter 7 of Title I 1 of the United States Code In tho United States

8ankruptey Court for the Middle District of Florida ("13ankruptoy Court"),

5, On January 12, 2012, the Bankniptey Court entered an Order for Relief as a result

ot'PLTC's failure to file a motion or responsive pleading as required by Rule 101 l of the Mimi

Rules of Bankruptcy procedure,

6, Thereafter, the Trustee was appointed us Chapter 7 Trustee, As such, the Trustee

is the duly appointed and acting Trustee of the Chapter 7 bankruptoy estate of FLTC,

7, Tf11\41 is a wholly owned subsidiary of FLTC,

8, Fundamental Administrative Services, LW ("FAS") is a Delaware limited

liability corporation with its principal place of business in Sparks, Maryland, At all material

times hereto, PAS controlled and directed the legal defense of THI, TM and FLTC in

2 of 22


litigation in this Court rind other Courts In Florida, and performed other monogomont and legal

services for '11.1M1 and TUC.

9, Christina Znok ("Zook") is an attorney employed by FAS, Upon information and

Imhof, Ms, Zook Is a rosidont of Maryland and is a member of the Maryland State Bar, Ms. Zook

is not a member of the Florida Bar and is not licensed to practice low in Florida.

10, Krist I Anderson ("Anderson") is on attorney employed by FAS, Upon information

and belle, Ms, Anderson Is a resident of Maryland. Ms. Anderson is not a member of the. Plorldn

Bar and is not licensed to proolicso low in Florida,

I I, This Court has personal Jurisdiction over PAS, Ms, Zook and Ms, Anderson

(collectively, the "PAS Defendants") pursuant to Flo, Slot, §18.193(1)(o), (b), and (2), The PAS

Defendants' ongoing efforts to direct and substantially control rho dofonse of THM1 and others in

litigation pending in the state and federal courts of this state is .substantial and not isolated

activity within this state, In addition, the FAS Defendants are operating, conducting, engaging

in, and (Allying on business in this state, and have committed a tOrti011a net within this state.

12, Tydings & Rosenberg W' (the "Tydings Fim") is a Maryland-bosod law firm

with on office at 100 Bast Pratt Street, 26th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21202,

13, Maria BOON Chovoz-Roark ("Chavoz-Ruark") was an attorney with the Tydings

Finn during the time the (tots relevant to this Complaint 000twred, Upon Information and boiler',

Ma, Chavez-Ruork is a resident of Maryland, Ms, Chavez-Ruork is not a member of the Florida

Bar and is not licensed to practice law in Florida,

14, Alan Oroohol ("Grochot") is an attorney with rho Tydings Firm, Upon information

end bona, Mr, Groohol is a resident of Maryland, On or about July 27, 2010, ()robot was

appointed as successor Reoolvor in the receivership of Tons Boolthooro, Ina, In Maryland,

3 of 22


However, during the time the acts relevant to this Complaint occurred, Mr, °rootlet was yet to be

appointed Receiver, and therefore Mr. Oroohal is being sued herein solely in his capooity as a

lawyer and not in his capacity as Resolver

15, This Court has personal Jurisdiotion over Ms. ChaVez-Ruark, Mr, Oroehal, and

the Tydings Firm (collectively, the "Tydings Defendants") pursuant to Fla, Stat, §48,193(1)(a),

(b), and (2). The Tydings Defendants' efforts to direct and substantially control the defense of

THMT and others in litigation pending in the state and federal courts of this state is substantial

and not Isolated activity within this state, In addition, the Tydings Defendants have committed a

tortious act within this state,

16, Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P,A, (the "Quintairos Firm") is a Florida

professional assoolation with Its principal address in Miami, Florida, and an office at 4905 West

Laurel Street, Suite 200, Tampa, FL 33607,

17, Albert Ferrero ("Ferrara") was an attorney at the Quintairos Firm during the time

the acts relevant to this ComplaInt occurred, Upon information and belief, Mr, Ferrero Is a

resident of Florida,

18, Thomas A. Valdez ("Valdez") Is on attorney and partner at the Quintairos Firm

during the time the cots relevant to this Complaint oeourred, Upon information and belief, Mr.

Valdez is a resident of Florida,

19, Kevin W, Richardson ("Richardson") is an attorney and partner at the Quintairos

Firm during the time the acts relevant to this Complaint occurred, Upon information and belief,

Mr. Richardson Is a resident of Florida.

4 of 22


20, At all material times, Zack, Anderson, Chavez-Rork, Oroehal, Valdez,

Richardson, and Fermat were acting within the scope of their noh►nl or apparent authority on

behalf of their respective employers, principals, and/0r partners,

GENIMAL4LVGATIONS

kiiigallOtt Ly thy Jackson Estate Against TRW and Till

21, On July 30, 2004, the Jackson Estate filed a Complaint in this Court based on

claims of negligence and wrongthl death against THMI and Trans HeeIthoare, Inc, ("THI"),

which owned and managed the nursing home where Juanita A, Jackson was fatally Injured (the

"Jackson Litigation"),

2'2, As of the date of the filing of the Jackson Litigation, Till was the owner of all of

the issued and outstanding capital stook of WWI.

25, The PAS Defendants directed and controlled the defense of THMI and THI

against the Jackson aStOto)S claims In this Court,

24, Similarly, in coordination with the FAS Defendants, the Tydings Defendants

directed and controlled the defense of THMI and THI against the Jackson Violate's claims In this

Court,

25, During the course of the Jackson Litigation, THI fraudulently transferred all of its

substantial assets, divesting itself of any means ofsatisfaction of its tort liability, Following these

purported transfers, THI was placed into an ex patio receivership in Maryland,

26, O or about February 28, 2006, THI sold all of the stook in THMI to PLTC,

27. 'Beginning In or about January 2007, at the direction of the MS Defendants, the

Quintairos Firm, Ferraro, Valdez, and Richardson (collectively, the "Quintairos Defendants"),

5 of 22


appeared on behalf of and noted as Plorlda counsel for THMI and THI in the Jackson Litigation

to defend the Jackson Eistoty's claims, I

28, After four and a half years of the Defendants Iltlgoti»g on behalf of their clients,

on December 3, 2009, the Circuit Court sohoduled the trial of the Jnokson Palate's claims for

Juno 7, 2010 and the pro4lol contereneo for Moy 18, 2010.

WIlhdratml of Counsellor THM7 and THI

29, On April 29, 2010, without having the consent or direction of Tumi, the

Quintniros Defendants filed n Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (the "Motion to Withdraw"),

requesting the Court's permission to withdrew as counsel for both THMI And TM and slating

that "roln April 28, 2010, Defendants [THMI and THI]disoharged Quintairos, Prieto, Wood

How, P,A as counsel duo to profossionol considerations that require tormination of the

reprosentotion," A into and correct copy of the Motion to Withdraw is attached as Exhibit 1,

30, Shockingly, the Quintoros Defendants did not even servo THMI or Till with the

Motion to Withdraw, much less communicate with them about the Quintalros Defendants being

directed to withdraw as counsel by entitles who were not their allots, The Motion to Withdraw

was served only on counsel for the Jackson Bstato and Ms, Anderson at PAS, See WIN! 1,

31, In foot, It was Anderson, Znok, Chavoz.Ruark and/or Croohal who directed the

Quintairos Defendants to cease defending the Jackson Litigation and otherwise withdraw as

counsel for THMI—not TRW,

On January 25, 2007, the Oiroult Court ontorad an Order granting Joint Stipulation for Substitution or ammo! (imilltinto lbs Quintairos Defendants as counsel of record for'lliMf and THI, Previously, rnilnp Y, Montt so, P,srl, and Daniel B. Dias, and the law ann of Manottso &Dios, represented THMI and 'an (also at (ha direotion of FAS).

6 of 22


32, Interestingly, Zack, Anderson and Chavez‘awark, having had four and a half

years to divest THMI and THI of their assets, directed all counsel defending similar claims in

other litigation in Florida to immediately stop defending claims against at THMI and THI,

33. On May 18, 2010, In lieu of the scheduled pre-trial conference, the Court

conducted a hearing on the Motion to Withdraw,

34. Despite opposition from the Jackson Estate, the Court permitted the withdrawal,

and continued the trial date for thirty (30) days to give THMI and TI-11 additional time to secure

now counsel, At the hearing on the Motion to Withdraw, Mr, Richardson represented to the

Court that he had boon fired, and that the contact person going forward for THMI and TIT was

"an attorney in Maryland,"

35. On June 4, 2010, the Court entered its written Order granting the Motion to

Withdraw (the "Withdrawal Order"), which identified the "attorney in Maryland" as Ms,

Anderson, who "shall be the contact person for purposes of servioing of pleadings and

proceedings regarding the defense of this lawsuit , , ," A true and correct copy of the

Withdrawal Order is attached as Exhibit 2.

36, Ms. Anderson was served with both the Withdrawal Order and an Amended

Order on Pre-alai and July Trial Conference continuing the trial and pre-trial conferenee, which

continued the trial to a two-week docket beginning on July 12, 2010, with a pre-trial conference

on June 22, 2010,

7 of 22


Default and Judgment is &Wed /iga(mst TRW and Till

37, Despite having control of the defense of TI-IMI and THI, and despite direct

knowledge of the pro-trial conference and trial date, neither the FAS Defendants nor the Tydings

Defendants obtained new counsel for THMI and TM to appear at the pre-trial conference,

38, On Juno 25, 2010, the Jackson Estate moved for a default against THMI and THI

as a result of their failure to attend the Juno 22, 2010 pre-trial conference and failure to some

now counsel. The Motion for Default was served on Ms. Anderson,

39, On July 7, 2010, this Court entered a Default against MI and THT "for failure

to plead or otherwise dofond as provided by FRCP 1.500(b)" (the "Default"), A true and correct

copy of the Default is attached as Exhibit 3, The Default was served on Ms, Anderson

40, The Court proceeded to a trial on the Jackson Estate's claim, which resulted In a

jury finding THI and THMI jointly liable for negligence and wrongful death in the amounts of

$10 Million In compensatory damages and $100 Million in punitive damages. Notwithstanding

the unbelievable reality that ()Hoot consent was never obtained flom THMI and no notice of the

withdrawal given to T1-1M1 , no counsel appeared at trial on behalf of THIVIT or TR

41, On July 22, 2010, the Court entered a Final Judgment against THMI in the

amount ot'$55 Million and against TM in the amount of $55 MilllUll (the "Final Judgment"), A

true and correct copy of the Final Judgment is nttnehed as Exhibit 4. Ms, Anderson was served

with a copy of the Final Judgment,

42, The Defendants neither appealed nor moved for reconsideration on behalfof

TRW' or Thi, Similarly, none of the Defendants sought remittitor of the Final Judgment, and

now the Final Judgment Is final and nonappealable to the detriment of TIIMI and PVC, who

have been damaged to the extent of at least $110 Millton,

8 of 22

Case 8: 12-cv-018 54-MSS-MAP Document 2 Filed 08/15/12 Page 9 of 37 PagelD 50

Proceedings Supplementary and Default Against PIM'

43, On or about May 16, 2011, the Jackson Estate filed a Motion to impload Now

Defendants in Proceedings Supplemental to Execution and for an Order to Show Cause (the

"Motion to upload") pursuant to Pin, Stat, § 56.29 to Implead various third parties, including

PLTC, PAS, and twelve other third parties alleged to have orchestrated to delay and hinder

satisfaction of the Pine) Judgment,

44, On May 23, 2011, this Court entered an Amended Order Granting Plaintiff's

Motion to upload Now Defendants in Proceedings Supplemental and Directing New

Defendants to Show Cause as to Why They Should Not 13e Held Liable for Payment of the Final

Judgment (the "Order to Show Cause"),

45. The Motion to Implead and the Order to Show Cause was served on FLTC's

registered agent, the Corporation 'Ng Company, at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, D13,

46, The Corporation '!'rust Company thereafter forwarded the Motion to hplead and

the Order to Show Canso to PLTCs designated agent for proem, Larry Levinson, 13sq, nt

Troutman Sanders, LLP ("Troutman Firm"), The TromMum Firm Itself was also a named

defendant in the Motion to umplead, and was served with the Motion to upload and the Order to

Show Cause,

47, MS was also a named defendant in the Mellon to utnplead, and was served with

the Motion to upload and the Order to Show Cause,

48. , Despite their asserted representation of PLTC and actual knowledge of the

Motion to lmplead and the Order to Show Cause, neither the PAS Defendants nor the Tydings

Defendants responded to the Order to Show Cause on behalf of PLTC or otherwise retained

counsel on behalf of PLTC to respond to the Order to Show CaIlse.

9 of 22


49. As e result, only FL,TC failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause,' The other

Impled parties, including FM end the Troutman Firm, responded to (end continue to this day to

defend against) the proceedings supplementary In the Jackson Litlgetion, Yet, PM allowed Its

client to suffer a substantial Judgment.

50. On July 11, 2011, as a result of FLTC's failure to make an appearance, filo any

papers, or otherwise respond to tho Order to Show Cause, the court entered an Order Granting

Default Against Fundamental Long Term Caro, the, (the "Pura Default"), A true and correct

copy of the FI,TO Default Is attached as Exhibit 5,

51, On September 13, 2011, the Ciroult Court entered an Amended Final Judgment,

which Imposed liability upon PLTC In the amount °1$t 10 Million, A true end correct copy of

the Amended Flnol Judgment is initialled as Exhibit 6,

COUNT uuoAL K6Liquiencr, (Qui/Warns Firm, Ferrero, Valdez, ond Richardson)

52. THMI re,alleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) to flfly,•one (51) as it Ntly

set forth herein.

53, In or about January 2007, the Q111114111'08 Defendants agreed to, and did in feet,

become counsel to THMI in the Jackson Litigation,

54. An attornoy.cliont relationship existed between THMI and the Quintairos

Defendants with respect to the acts end omissions described herein.

55. The Quintalros Defendants neglected a reasonable duty owed to THMI when they

withdrew their representation of THMI in the Jackson Litigation without seeking any actual

authority of THMI to do so,

10 of 22


56, The Quintairos Defendants further neglected n reasonable duty owed to THMI

when they withdrew their representation of THMI In the Inekson Litigation without making

reasonably sure that their withdrawal would not result in prejudice to their olient, THMI,

57, Instead of obtaining consent for withdrawnl from their client, THMI, the

Quintalros Defendants took direction from non-olient third-partios—the PAS Defendants and the

Tydings Defendants—in otter derogation of the duties owed to THMI, in violation of the Florida

Rules of Professional Conduct, and unquestionably in confliot with their obligations to THMI,

58, The Quintoiros Defendants' conduct constituted n broach of their duty to exorcise

reasonable taro, skill, and diligence on THIVII's behalf W11011, without making sufficient efforts to

inibrm THMI or to secure any authority, thoy withdrew or caused to be withdrawn nil defense of

TkIMI on the eve of trial lit the Jaokson Litigation, failed to secure new counsel and effectively

resume any defense, allowed judgments to be entered against THMI, And then took absolutely no

nation to request rehenring, take on appeal, or request romittltur.

59, The Quintairos Defendants' negligence in withdrawing their representation

without any actual authority and without proper Attention to their client's rights constituted a

direct and proximate enlist) of loss to THMI,

60, TIM suffered damages in the amount of at least $55 Million,

WHERBFORB, Tams Health Management, Inc, demands judgment against Quintairos,

Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P,A, Thomas A, Valdez, Kevin W, Richardson, and Albert .1. Ferrero,

jointly and sevorolly, for compensatory damages, consequential damages, and special damages,

including, but not limited to, increased liabilities of THMI, the decreased value of the assets of

THMI, the loss of enterprise value of THMI, out.of-pooket fees, costs, and expenses attributable

and inouned or paid by THMI and the Trustee, all attributable fines, penalties, attorneys' fees,

II of 22


costs, damages due to the delay resulting from the cover-up• of the reasons for the withdrawal of

the defense of THMI, and expenses paid or incurred by THM1 pro-petition and for the value of

all of THMI's claims ogainst third parties that were not properly or timely pursued by TM,

along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and snob other relief this Court

deems just and proper,

COUNT BlqACP Air PrOINIAWY (Qtantalros Firm, Femora, Valdez, and flIchardson)

61. THMI ro,011w,9 and incorporates paragraphs one (1) to flfty,one (51) as If fully

set forth herein,

62,, The Quintairos Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to TIM to net as a reasonably

rodent person would not under the circumstances, including properly noting on THMf's behalf

with respect to the Jnokson Litigation,

63, The Quintairos Defendants neglected a reasonable duty owed to THMI when they

withdrew their representation of THMI In the Jnokson Litigation without seeking any actual

authority of TINT to do so,

64, The Quintairos Defendants further neglected a reasonable duty owed to THMI

when they withdrew their representation of THMI in the Jackson Litigation without making

reasonably sure Ihnt their withdrawal would not result In prejudice to THMI.

65. Instead of obtaining consent for withdrawal from THMI, the Quintairos

Defendants took direction from non•ollent third-parties, Including the FAS Defendants and the

Tydings Defentinnts,

66. The Quintairos Defendants' conduct constituted a breach of their fidueinry duties

to THMI when, without making sufficient efforts to inform THMI or to secure any authority,

they withdrew or caused to be withdrawn, all defense of T1dM1 on the eve of trial In the Jnokson

12 of 22

Case 8:12-cv-01854-MSS-MAP Document 2 Filed 08/15/12 Page 13 of 37 Page I D 54

Litigation, felled to swore new counsel and effeetively resume any dofonso, allowed judgments

to be entered against THMI end then took absolutely no notion to request rehearing, (eke en

appeal or request romiltihm

67, Tho Quinteiros Defendants' negligence in withdrawing their representation

without any natural tiothority and without proper attention to their ollont's rights was e direct and

proximate cease of loss to THMI,

68, THMI suffered &amps in the mount of at !oast $55 Million,

WHERBFORB, Beth Ann Schemer, es Cheptor 7 Trustee of the estate of Fundamental

Long Term Care, Inc., and Trans Health Management, Inc,, dernand Judgment against

Quinteiros, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P,A, Thomas A. Veldez, Kevin W, Richerdson, end Albert J,

Ferrara, jointly end severally, for compensatory dameges, consequential deranges, end speoltil

demeges, including, but not limited to, increased 'Minks of TIIMI, the docreesed value of the

assets of TNMI, the loss of enterprise value of THMI, out-of-pooket fees, costs, and expenses

attributable and incurred or peld by TI-IMI end the Trustee, ell Attributable Ones, penalties,

attorneys' foes, costs, chimps due to the delay resulting from the coveroup of the reasons for tho

withdrawal of the defense of 'anvil', and expenses peld or incurred by THMI proTetition end for

the value of all of TH1VII's dohs egal»st third miles that were not properly or timely pursued

by THMI, along with pro Judgment end post Judgment interest, costs, end such other relief this

Coon deems Just and proper.

COUNT III maimicTicp (Chapez.nuark, (,'recital and the Tydings Firm)

69. Tho Trustee and THMire,allogo end incorporeto paragraphs one (1) to flfty'one

(51) es If fhtly set forth heroin,

13 of22


70, The Tydings Defendants have represented to multiple courts and litigants that

they represent THMI and FLTC, and act as counsel for THMI and FLTC,

71. Additionally, the Tydings Defendants expressly directed and controlled the legal

representation of THMI and FLTC,

72. An attorney,,olient relationship existed between THMI and the Tydings

Defendants, and between PLTC and the Tydings Defendants,

73. The Tydings Defendants neglected a reasonable duty owed lo THMI when they

(Wooled the Quintairos Defendants to withdraw any defense ofTHMT in the 7ftekson Litigation

without seeking any authority ofTHMI to do so.

74. The Tydings Defendants further neglected a reasonable duty owed to THMI when

they directed the Quintalros Defendants to withdraw any defense of THMI in the Jackson

Litigation without making reasonably sure that such withdrawal would not result in prejudice to

their client, THMI,

75, Tho Tydings Defendants neglected a reasonable duty to FLTC when they failed to

respond to the Order to Show Cause on behalf of PLTC or otherwise direct a response be filed on

FLTC's behalf,

76. The Tydings Defendants' conduct constituted a breach of their duty to (=else

reasonable care, skill, and diligence On their clients' behalf when, without making suffielent

efforts to Inform THMI or to secure any authority, they withdrew or caused to be withdrawn, all

defense (wawa on the eve of trial in the Jackson Litigation, failed to secure new counsel and

effectively resume any defense of the Jackson Litigation, allowed a JO(1801011( to be entered

against THMI, look absolutely no action to request rehearing, take an appeal or request

14 of 22


reminitur, felled to respond to the Order to Show Cause, and allowed a judgment to be entered

Against FLTC,

77, The negligence of the Tydings Defendants in directing the withdrew& of the

representation of THMI without any actual authority end without proper attention to their clients'

rights was a direct end proximate cause of loss to THMI.

78. The negligence of the Tydings Defendants in failing to respond to the Order to

Show Came on behalf of FLTC or otherwise directing a response be flied on FLTC's behalf was

II direet end proximate cause of loss to FLTC,

79. TINE suffered damages of at least $55 Million.

80, FLTC suffered damages of at least $110 Million,

WHBREFORE, Beth Ann Schauer, as Chapter 7 Tnistee of the estate of Fundamental

Long Term Care, Inc., and Trans Health Management, Ine, demands judgment against Tydings

& Rosenberg LLP, Mario Ilona Chavez.-Ruerk, end Alan Oroohal, jointly and severally, for

compensatory chimps, consequential damages, and special damages, including, but not limited

to, 'mused liabilities of THMI, the decreased value of the assets of THMI, the loss of

enterprise value of THMI, out,of-pooket fees, costs, and expenses attributable end incurred or

paid by THMI and the Trustee, all attributable fines, penalties, attorneys' fees, costs, damages

due to the delay resulting from the cover-up of the reasons for the withdrawal of the defense of

TI-IM!, and expenses paid or incurred by THMI pro.potition end for the value of alt of THMI's

olAin18 against third parties that wore not properly or timely pursued by THMI, along with pre-

judgment end post-judgment interest, costs, end such other relief this Court deems just and

proper.

15 of 22


couNT ly- VIDIJcleM DSITY (Chavez-Miork Groohat, find the Tydings Firm)

81, The Tnisteo and THMI re-allege and incorporate paragraphs ono (1) to fifty-one

(51) as If fully set forth herein. ,

82, The Tydings Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to THMI to AO( as would a

reasonably prudent person under the circumstances, including properly acting on THMI's behalf

in defense of the Jackson Litigation,

83, The Tydings Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to FLTC to net as would a

reasonably prudent person under the cirotnstanees, including properly acting on FLTC's behalf

as its legal counsel and in responding to the Order to $how Cause,

84, The Tydings Defendants neglected a reasonable duly owed to THMI when they

directed the withdrawal of any defense of THMI in the Jackson Litigation without seeking any

actual authority of THMI to do so and without proper attention to their Wants' rights,

85, The Tydings Defendants neglected a reasonable duty owed to THMI and PLTC

when they directed the withdrawal of any defense of THMI in the Jackson Litigation without

making reasonably sure that withdrawal would not result in prejudice to THMI, and ultimately,

FLTC,

86, The Tydings Defendants neglected a reasonable duty owed to PLTC when they

failed to respond to the Order to Show Cause on behalf of FLTC or otherwise direct a response

be filed on FLTC's behalf,

87, The Tydings Defendants' conduct constituted a breach of their fiduciary duties to

mml and FLTO when, without making sufficient efforts to Inform THMI or to secure any

authority, they withdrew or caused to be withdrawn, all defense of THMI on the eve of trial in

the Jackson Litigation, failed to secure new counsel and effectively resume any defense of the

16 of 22


Jookson Litigation, allowed a judgment to be entered against TFIMI, took absolutely no notion to

request rehearing, teke en appeal or request =Witty, failed to respond to the Order to Show

Cause, and allowed n judgment to be entered against PLIC,

88, The Tydings Defendants' conduct was n direct end proximate. 001,1$0 of loss to

'TFIMI and FLTC,

89, THMI has suffered damages in the amount of et least $S5

90, FLTO has suffered thanes in the mount of at lost $110 Million,

WHEREFORE, Beth Ann Seharrer, as Chapter 7 Trustee of the estate of Fundamental

Long 'form Caro, Tne,, and Trans Health Management, Inc, demand Judgment against Tydings

Rosenberg LI,P, Marie Ellemt Chavez-Ruarts, and Alan Crochet, Jointly and moray, for

compensatory damages, consequential damages, and special damages, including, but not limited

to, Increased liabilities of TIM, the decreased value of the assets of THMI, the loss of

enterprise value of THMI, out,oflookot fees, costs, and expenses attributable and incurred or

paid by THMI and the Trustee, all attributable fines, penalties, attorneys' fees, costs, (Images

due to the delay resulting from the cover-up of the reasons for the withdrawal of the defense of

THMI, end expenses paid or incurred by TM pre-petition and for the value of all of TEMP s

claims against third parties that wore not properly or timely pursued by THMI, along with pre-

judgment end post-judgment Interest, coats, end such other relief this Court deems just and

proper,

17 of 22


91?1\l'r V — LJOAL 1!.40.11)12ACTICI1 (Zook and Andarson)

91, The Trustee and THMI re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) to fifty-one

(51) as if fully set forth herein,

92. Zaok and Anderson have consistently represented to multiple courts and litigants

that they represent THMI and PLOT and not as counsel for THMI and FLTC.

93, Indeed, Ms, Anderson was identified in the Withdrawal Order as the contact for

Ritmo pleadings and proceedings in the Jackson Litigation,

94. An attorney-client relationship exists between &A and Anderson and THMI,

95, An attorney-client relationship exists between Zack and Anderson and PLTO,

96, Zack and Anderson neglected a reasonable duty owed to THMI when they

directed the Quintairos Defendants to withdraw any defense ofTHMI in the Jackson Litigation

without seeking any authority of TI-IMI to do so.

97, Zack and Anderson narther neglected a reasonable duty owed to THMI when they

directed the Quintairos Defendants to withdraw any defense of THMI in the Jackson Litigation

without making reasonably sure that such withdrawal would not result in prejudice to their client,

THMI, and ultimately, PLTC

98, Zack and Anderson neglected a reasonable duty to FLTO when they failed to

respond to the Order to show Cause on behalf of FLTO or otherwise direct a response be filed on

PLTC's behalf,

99, Zack and Anderson's conduct constituted a breach of their duty to exorcise

reasonable care, skill, and diligence on their Ants' behalf when, without making suffiolent

efforts to inform THMI or to secure any authority, they withdrew or ()Mind to be withdrawn, all

defense of THM1 on the eve of trial in the Jackson Litigation, failed to secure now 00011501 and

18 of 22

Case 8:12-cv-01854-MSS-MAP Document 2 Filed 08/15/12 Page 19 of 37 P agel D 60

effectively resume any defense of the Jackson Litigation, allowed a Judgment to be entered

against THMI, took absolutely no action to request rehearing, take on appeal or request

remittitur, foiled to respond to the Order to Show Cause, and allowed a Judgment to be entered

against FLTC,

100, The negligence of Zack and Anderson in directing the withdrawal of the

representation of THMI without any actual authority and without proper attention to their °lints'

rights was a direct and proximate cause of loss to THMI,

101, The negligence of' Zook and Anderson In failing to respond to the Order to Show

Cause on behalf of RTC or otherwise directing a response be filed on FLIC's behalf was a

direct and proximate cause of loss to TUC,

102, THMI suffered damages of at least $55 Million,

103, FLTO suffered damages of at least $110 Million,

WHBRBFORB, Beth Ann salami., as Chapter 7 Trustee of the estato of Fundamental

Long Term Care, Ina., and Trans Health Management, Inc. demands Judgment against Christine

Zook and Kristi Anderson, Jointly and severally, for compensatory damages, consequential

damages, and special damages, including, but not limited to, Increased nobilities of THMI, the

decreased value of the assets of THMI, the loss of enterprise value of THMI, out-of-pooket fees,

costs, and expenses attributable and incurred or paid by THMI and the Trustee, all attributable

fines, 'manias, attorneys' fees, costs, (11111111M due to the delay resulting from the cover-up of

the reasons for the withdrawal of the defense of THMI, and expenses paid or incurred by THMI

pre-petition and for the value of all ofTHMI's claims against third parties that wore not properly

or timely pursued by TRMI, along with pro Judgment and post-judgment Interest, costs, and such

other relief this Court deems appropriate,

19 of22


COUNT nityAcii OIMMJCIA4Y,MITY, (R4S, Zack, and Anderson)

104, The Trustee and THMI re•allege and incorporate paragraphs ono (1) to filly-one

(5l) as if thlly set forth herein,

105, The VA8 Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to TIM to net as would a reasonably

prudent person under the cirownstances, including properly acting on THMI's behalf in defense

of the Jaokson Litigation,

106, The FAS Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to FLTC to act as would a reasonably

prudent person under the circumstances, including properly acting on VI,TC's behalf as its logal

counsel and in responding to the Order to Show Cause,

107, The PAS Defendants neglected a reasonable duty owed to THMI when they

directed the withdrawal of any defense of THM1 In the Jackson Litigation without seeking any

actual authority of THMI to do so and without proper attention to their clients' rights,

108, The MS Defendants neglected a reasonable duty owed to THMI and FLTC

when they directed the withdrawal of any defense of THMI in the Jackson Litigation without

making reasonably sure that withdrawal would not result in prejudice to THMI, and ultimately,

FLTO,

109, The FAS Defendants neglected a reasonable duty owed to FLTC when they filled

to respond to the Order to Show Cause on behalf of FLTC or otherwise direct a response be filed

on FLTC's behalf,

110, The FAS Defendants' conduct constituted a bread of their fiduciary duties to

THM1 and FLTC when, without making sufficient efforts to infom THMI or to secure any

authority, they withdrew or (UMW to be withdrawn, all defense of TJIM1 on the eve of trial in

the Jackson Litigation, failed to secure now counsel and ()Wean/ay resume any defense of the

20 of 22


Jackson Litigation, allowed a Judgment to be entered against THMI, took absolutely no notion to

request rehearing, take an appeal or request =Minn', failed to respond to the Order to Show

Cause, and allowed a Judgment to be entered against FLTC,

111, The FAS Defendants' conduct was a direot and proximate cause of less to THMI

and FLTC,

112, TINT has suffered damages in the amount of at least $55 Million,

113, FLTC has suffered damages In the amount of at least $110 Million.

WHERIWORE, Beth Ann &horror, as Chapter 7 Trustee of the estate of Fundamental

Long Term Care, tno,, and Trans Health Management, Inc, demand Judgment against

Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC, Christine Zook and Xriell Anderson, Jointly and

severally, for compensatory damages, consequential damages, and special damages, ineluding,

but not limited to, increased liabilities of THMI, rho decreased value of the assets of THMI, the

loss of enterprise value of THMI, out-of-pooket fees, coats, and expenses attributable and

Mowed or paid by TIM and the Trustee, all attributable fines, penalties, attorneys' fees, costa,

damages due to the delay resulting from the cover-up of the reasons for the withdrawal of the

defense of THMI, and expenses paid or incurred by THMIpre-petillo» and for the value of all of

TiIMI's olefins against third parties that were not properly or timely pursued by THIVII, along

with pre-Judgment and post-Judgment interest, costs, and such other relief this Court deems Just

and proper.

21 of22


pEtY10111), l!pit JURY TAT41/

Plaintiffs hooky demand trial by Pry of all balm so trlabla.

SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP Dotods July 19,2012

3y; Stovon Esq, Florida Bar No, 856290 101 8, Kormady Blvd„ Sta, 2800 Tampa, Florida 33602 Pliona; (813) 2291600; Fax; (813) 2291660 Counsel for Beth /Inn Marro., as Chapter 7 rrustee, and for Trans Health Management, MO,

22 of 22

EXHIBIT "C"



TAMPA DIVISION

BETH ANN SCHARRER, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.; and TRANS HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC,;

Plaintiffs,

v. Case. No, 8:12-cv-01854-MSS-MAP

FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; et al.;

Defendants,

PLAINTIFFS' LIMITED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING CHRISTINE ZACK'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT, 85), AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT,

AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Plaintiffs, Beth Ann Scharer, as Chapter 7 Trustee (the "Trustee") for the Bankruptcy

Estate of Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc, ("Debtor"), and Trans Health Management, Inc.

("THMI"), hereby move the Court (i) for limited reconsideration of its Order granting

Defendant, Christine Zack's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 85) so that dismissal is without prejudice

in accordance with Eleventh Circuit precedent, and (ii) for an extension of time of ninety (90)

days within which to file an Amended Complaint against Ms. Zack while discovery proceeds in

the Bankruptcy Court. In support thereof, the Plaintiffs state:


INTRODUCTION

1. On September 10, 2013, this Court dismissed Defendant, Christine Zack, for

lack of personal jurisdiction (the "Dismissal Order"). (Dkt. 85). In the Dismissal Order, the

Court permitted the Plaintiffs "up to and including October 4, 2013 to file an Amended

Complaint." Id, at p. 11. The Court also stated that "[ijf Plaintiffs decide not to file an

Amended Complaint, the Court will dismiss the case against Defendant Christine Zack with

prejudice without further notice from the Court," Id, at p. 11-12 (emphasis added).

2, The Plaintiffs seek limited reconsideration of the Dismissal Order and

respectfully request this Court revise the Dismissal Order to a dismissal without prejudice in

accordance with Eleventh Circuit precedence, to allow Plaintiffs the option of re-filing their

claims against Ms. Zack in another jurisdiction.

3. The Plaintiffs also seek an extension of time of ninety (90) days to file an

Amended Complaint as to Ms. Zack. This Court precluded jurisdictional discovery of Ms.

Zack at the outset of this case, However, the Chapter 7 Trustee continues to conduct Rule

2004 discovery in the bankruptcy case of Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., which

discovery encompasses potential causes of action against a number of parties, including Ms.

Zack.

4. In August and September, 2013, attorneys who purported to represent THMI

produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents that were first ordered to be

produced by the Bankruptcy Court on October 18, 2012, Additionally, the Trustee continues

to seek production of documents from Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC ("FAS"),

Ms. Zack's employer, in accordance with the Bankruptcy Court's October 29, 2012 Order

SLIK_TANCIII662290v1 2


Granting Motion for Rule 2004 Production of Documents from Fundamental Administrative

Services (the "FAS Production Order").

5. The Trustee believes the recently produced discovery from law firms and the

expected further production from FAS will reveal additional facts that will establish this

Court's jurisdiction over Ms. Zack. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request an additional ninety

(90) days to file an Amended Complaint against Ms. Zack while the Rule 2004 discovery

continues in the Bankruptcy Court.

BASIS FOR LIMITED RECONSIDERATION

6. The Plaintiffs request reconsideration of this Court's Dismissal Order such

that the claims against Ms. Zack are dismissed without prejudice rather than with prejudice.

Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to revise any order that

"adjudicates fewer than all the , „ liabilities of fewer than all parties , at any time before

entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' liabilities." See also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(e) (permitting alteration or amendment of a judgment within twenty-eight days

of entry); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) (permitting relief from final order for "any other reason

that justifies relief" if filed within one year). The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is

to correct manifest errors of law, to present newly discovered evidence, or to prevent

manifest injustice. Horowitch v. DiamondAircraft Indus. Inc., 2009 WL 1537896, at *3

(M.D. Fla. June 2, 2009).

7, The Dismissal Order provides that "[i]f Plaintiffs decide not to file an

Amended Complaint, the Court will dismiss the case against Defendant Christine Zack with

prejudice without further notice from the Court." See Dkt. 85 at pg. 11-12 (emphasis added).

SLK_TAM:111662290vI 3


This Court should reconsider its Dismissal Order because dismissal of a defendant from an

action for lack of personal jurisdiction must be without prejudice, Posner v. Essex Ins. Co.,

Ltd., 178 F.3d 1209, 1221 (11th Cir, 1999) (per curiam) (instructing the district court to alter

its order for dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction to without prejudice, so as not to

preclude other litigation on the merits in other jurisdictions) (citing Arrowstnith v, United

Press Int'l, 320 F,2d 219, 221 (2d Cir, 1963) ("A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction . , does

not preclude a subsequent action in an appropriate forum.")); see also Canty v. Fly's

Electronics, Inc., 736 F. Stipp, 2d 1352, 1370 (N,D, Ga, 2010); Matthews v, Brookstone

Stores, Inc., 469 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1068 (S.D. Ala. 2007).

8, Whereas a dismissal under Rule I 2(b)(6) for failure to state a claim may be

with prejudice, a court that determines it lacks jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) must dismiss

without prejudice. See Rogers v, Nacchio, 241 Fed. Appx. 602, 610 n.1 1 (11th Cir. 2007)

(affirming the district court's dismissal without prejudice of defendants over whom the

district court lacked personal jurisdiction and the dismissal with prejudice of defendants over

whom the district court had personal jurisdiction but had concluded that those claims were

without merit); see also Republic of Panama v, BCCI Holdings (Lux.) S,A., 119 F.3d 935,

940 (11th Cir, 1997) (distinguishing between dismissals under Rule 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6))

(citations omitted),

9, When a court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant, it is without power

to dismiss the claims with prejudice because doing so would necessarily involve exercising

jurisdiction. See Warren v. Pearson, 195 F.2d 300, 301 (5th Cir. 1952) ("[T]he provision in

the order for dismissal with prejudice exceeded the power of the court."). Therefore,

"dismissals that do not reach the merits because of a lack of jurisdiction , , must be

SLK JAM:111662290v1 4


considered to have been dismissed without prejudice." 9 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2373 & n.38 (3d ed. 2010) (citing inter alia

Sanderson v. Postal Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 2 F.R.D. 203, 204 (W.D. Mo. 1941) ("It would

seem obvious that if the case is dismissed because the court has no jurisdiction, certainly

it cannot be dismissed with prejudice, since that involves the exercise of jurisdiction.")).

10, Additionally, the Court should revise its Dismissal Order to dismissal without

prejudice because not doing so would be manifestly unjust to the Plaintiffs, who would be

barred from bringing an action against Ms. Zack in any jurisdiction, See Am. Needle and

Novelty Co. v. Schuessler Knitting Mills, Inc,, 379 F.2d 376, 378 (7th Cir. 1967) (determining

that it was a "fundamental infirmity" for the district court to dismiss claims with prejudice

after determining that it lacked jurisdiction because, as a final judgment, defendants could

then assert res judicata or collateral estoppel in subsequent actions). A dismissal without

prejudice would allow Plaintiff to have their claims against Ms. Zack litigated on the merits

in a forum where personal jurisdiction can be obtained. See Morris v. SSE, Inc., 843 F,2d

489, 496 n.11 (1 1 th Cir. 1988); see also Miami Breakers Soccer Club, Inc. v, Women's

United Soccer Ass'n, 140 F. Supp, 2d 1325, 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (noting that plaintiff would

not be prejudiced by the court's finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction because dismissal

was "without prejudice to re-file where jurisdiction [was] proper").

11. Plaintiffs should not be barred from re-filing claims in another forum that has

jurisdiction over Ms. Zack, Posner, 178 F.3d at 1221 (dismissal for lack of personal

jurisdiction is without prejudice and "does not preclude further litigation of Ethel claims on

the merits.") (citation omitted); Family Watchdog, LLC v. Schweiss, 2009 WL 2151152, at *7

(M.D. Fla. July 13, 2009) (dismissing defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction "without

SLK_TAM:111662290v1 5


prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing them in another jurisdiction"). Because dismissing Ms. Zack

with prejudice would be error and would result in manifest injustice, the Plaintiffs

respectfully request this Court reconsider its Dismissal Order such that the claims against Ms.

Zack will be dismissed without prejudice if the Plaintiffs choose not to file an Amended

Complaint.

BASIS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO POTENTIALLY FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Background

l2. On July 12, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court entered its Omnibus Order

Establishing Discovery Procedures and Protocol for the Production of Documents and

Examination of Witnesses (the "Omnibus Discovery Order"),1 pursuant to which the

Bankruptcy Court authorized the Trustee to take the examination of and seek document

production from Ms. Zack and FAS, among others.

13. In response to a Subpoena Duces Tecum, however, Ms. Zack produced no

documents. Instead, Ms. Zack claimed all responsive documents were solely in FAS's

possession, despite Ms. Zack's admitted access to and control of such documents?

Following a motion to compel by the Trustee, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that before seeking

production directly from Ms. Zack, the Trustee should seek production from FAS.

14. In hirn, FAS has complied with its production obligations, notwithstanding a

number of Bankruptcy Court orders outlining such obligations. FAS has not produced "all

books and records (including litigation files) relating to the Debtor or THMI that are in its

i Case No. 8:11-bk-022258 at Dkt. 216. 2 Case No, 8:1 l-bk-022258 at Dkt. 280, A copy of Ms. Zack's Motion for Protective Order is attached as

Exhibit I.

SLK_TAM:ll I 662290v I 6


possession, custody, or control," as required by the FAS Production Order. Accordingly, on

August 30, 2013, the Trustee filed a Motion to Compel against FAS, seeking full compliance

with the FAS Production Order and a number of other discovery-related orders by the

Bankruptcy Court, including a March 19, 2013 Memorandum Opinion on Attorney-Client

Privilege and Work Product Issues (the "Privilege Memorandum") that, over the objection of

FAS, required production of (i) any communications between Trans Healthcare, Inc. (and

the THI Receiver) and the law firms representing THI and THMI in the Nursing Home

Cases; (ii) any communications between FAS and the law firms representing THI and THMI

(but not communications solely between FAS and the THI Receiver); (iii) communications

between the parties to the January 5, 2012 Settlement Agreement (and their lawyers) with

respect to the defense of the Nursing Home Cases; and (iv) copies of the litigation files

(including any attorney work product) for the Nursing Home Cases.3

15. At a hearing on September 16, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court granted the

Trustee's Motion to Compel production of documents from FAS, stating that it appeared that

FAS had not complied with the FAS Production Order, Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court

required FAS, in conjunction with its outside counsel, to review all documents in its

possession, custody or control that may be responsive to the FAS Production Order, and

required FAS to then, on or before October 7, 2013, file a certification that specifically sets

forth (i) the extent of FAS's review to determine what documents are in its possession,

3 In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 489 B.R. 451 (Bankr. M.D. Fla, 2013) reconsideration denied, 493 B.R. 620 (Bankr. M.D. Fla, 2013), Additionally, on June 17, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered its Order on Trustee's Third Motion to Compel (the "June 17 Order"), wherein the Bankruptcy Court again ordered that all documents be produced to the Trustee, and rejected potential additional objections to production based upon: (i) the "pending proceeding" rule, (ii) stays of discovery in other courts, and (iii) the common interest and joint defense privileges involving someone other than the Trustee and THMT, While Ms. Zack was initially named in the June 17 Order, she was removed on reconsideration because the Trustee had not specifically sought relief against Ms. Zack or FAS in the original motion, The Trustee has since sought such relief against FAS.

SLK_TAM:111662290v1 7


custody, or control that relate to THMI in any fashion, (ii) the results of FAS's review, and

(iii) the reasons such documents have not been produced to the Trustee,4

16, FAS and Ms, Zack have similarly impeded the Trustee from obtaining

discovery from Kristie Anderson, FAS's former in-house counsel, including the filing of a

lawsuit by FAS in the District of Maryland that resulted in FAS being sanctioned by the

Bankruptcy Court for interfering with the administration of the estate. FAS and Ms, Zack's

objections during Ms. Anderson's Rule 2004 examination on September 19, 2013 to preclude

Ms. Anderson from testifying has resulted in the need for the Trustee to file another motion

to compel.

Good Cause for Extension of Time

17. Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part:

When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.

Fed, R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Thus, the Court in its discretion may order the deadline for

filing an amended complaint in this case enlarged if a request is made, as in this case,

before the original time or its extension expires.

18. Here, good cause exists to extend the time within which the Plaintiffs may file

an Amended Complaint against Ms. Zack to allow the Trustee to continue her investigation

and discovery in the Bankruptcy Court, Indeed, "`[a] plaintiff faced with a motion to dismiss

for lack of personal jurisdiction is entitled to reasonable discovery, lest the defendant defeat

4 A true and correct copy of the Bankruptcy Court's order and the transcript excerpt of the Bankruptcy Court's oral ruling on the Motion to Compel is attached as Exhibit 2.

SLK JAM:111662290v1 8


the jurisdiction of a federal court by withholding information on its contacts with the

forum.'" Mother Doe I v, Al ltdaktoum, 632 F. Supp. 2d 1130, 1145 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (citing

Diamond Chem. Co. v. Atofina Chems., Inc., 268 F, Supp. 2d 1, 15 (D,C. Cir. 2003)), The

Eleventh Circuit favors jurisdictional discovery before dismissing a defendant for lack of

personal jurisdiction. Majd—Pour v. Georgic-ma Cmty. Hosp., Inc. ,, 724 F.2d 901, 903 (11th

Cir. 1984) ("Although the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the court's jurisdiction, the

plaintiff should be given the opportunity to discover facts that would support his allegations

of jurisdiction,"); see also Eaton v. Dorchester Dev,, 171C. , 692 F.2d 727, 731 (11th Cir.

1982).

19. The Trustee expects the hundreds of thousands of pages of documents

recently produced as well as the documents expected to be produced by FAS to reveal Ms.

Zack's full participation in litigation in Florida and the extent of the duties she owed to

THMI, The Trustee should be provided time to receive, review, and analyze such production

prior to amending Plaintiffs' complaint against Ms, Zack in this case.

20, Moreover, the Bankruptcy Court's Privilege Memorandum precludes the

Plaintiffs from disclosing to third parties any of the documents obtained in accordance with

the Privilege Memorandum without consent or further order of the Bankruptcy Court. Thus,

once all documents are received, reviewed, and analyzed for relevance to this case, the

Plaintiffs must then seek a ruling by the Bankruptcy Court as to whether such documents

may be disclosed, remain confidential, or otherwise be submitted to the Court under seal.

21. Accordingly, there is good cause to extend the deadline for the Plaintiffs to

file an Amended Complaint by 90 days, both to allow Rule 2004 discovery in the Bankruptcy

SLK_TAM:111662290v1 9


Court to continue and to allow time for the Court to consider and act upon the Trustee's

request for referral to the Bankruptcy Court.

Ms. Zack will not be prejudiced by an extension of time

22, Ms. Zack will not be prejudiced by providing the Plaintiffs an extension of

time to file an Amended Complaint against her, First, FAS has filed a motion to stay this case

pending resolution of "critical related matters" in the Bankruptcy Court. See Dkt, 86. While

the Trustee opposes the requested stay, the Trustee has requested this Court refer this case to

the Bankruptcy Court for pretrial proceedings. If this Court stays this case, then any

purported delay caused by additional time for filing an Amended Complaint against Ms.

Zack would coincide with the delay imposed by such stay. If this Court refers this case to the

Bankruptcy Court, then any purported delay caused by additional time for filing an Amended

Complaint against Ms, Zack will allow the case to be referred and will allow the Bankruptcy

Court to decide whether the case should proceed or be stayed. In the meantime, the

Bankruptcy Court will also rule upon all Rule 2004 discovery issues that have arisen and

may arise.

23, Second, if a stay is not entered and this case remains in this Court, dismissal

of Ms, Zack is subject to reconsideration at any time pursuant to Rule 54 until all claims in

this case are adjudicated, At the very least, dismissal of Ms. Zack is subject to

reconsideration until one year after entry of the Dismissal Order pursuant to Rule 60 if new

evidence is discovered, A 90-day extension of time to allow continued discovery prior to the

Plaintiffs potentially amending the complaint against Ms. Zack is less than the time periods

provided in these rules.

SLK_TAM://1662290y I 10


WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court enter an order (i) granting

this Motion, (ii) amending this Court's Dismissal Order to provide that any dismissal of Ms.

Zack for lack of personal jurisdiction is without prejudice; (iii) extending the time for an

additional ninety (90) days within which the Plaintiffs may file an Amended Complaint against

Ms, Zack, and (iv) granting such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary and

proper.

Respectfully submitted,


By: /s/ Seth P. Traub STEVEN M. BERMAN, ESQ. Florida Bar No, 856290 SETH P. TRAUB Florida Bar No, 022088 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2800 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 229-7600; Fax: (813) 229-1660 Counsel for• the Plaintiffs

LOCAL RULE 3.01(G) CERTIFICATION

On October 4, 2013, the undersigned counsel for the Plaintiffs conferred with counsel

for Ms. Zack in a good faith effort to resolve the Trustee's request for referral to the Bankruptcy

Court. Paul Quinn stated that Ms. Zack does not consent to any of the relief requested in this

Motion.

Is/ Seth P. Traub Counsel for the Plaintiffs

SLK_TAM:41662290v I 11



I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 4, 2013 a true and correct copy of the

foregoing was furnished via CM/ECF Notice to all counsel of record.

/s/ Seth P. Traub Counsel for the Plaintifti

SLK_TAM:#1662290v1 12

EXHIBIT "I)"



TAMPA DIVISION

BETH ANN SCHARRER, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.; and TRANS HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case. No, 8:12-cv-01855-JSM-MAP

FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; et al,

Defendants.

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF RELATED ACTIONS

In accordance with Local Rule 1.04(d), the undersigned certifies that the instant action:

X IS related to pending or closed civil or criminal case(s) previously filed in this Court or any other Federal or State court, or administrative agency as indicated below:

8:10-cv-02937-VMC-TGW Jackson-Platts v. Trans Health Management, Inc. et al

8:1 I -cv-01369-SDM-TBM Estate of Juanita Amelia Jackson v. Trans Health Management, Inc, et al

8: I I -cv-01370-SDM-TOW Estate of JuanitaAntelia Jackson v. Trans Health Management, Inc. et al

8:12-cv-01854-MSS-MAP Scharrer et al v. Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC et al

IS NOT related to any pending or closed civil or criminal case filed with this Court, or any other Federal or State court, or administrative agency.


I further certify that I will serve a copy of this NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF RELATED

ACTIONS upon each party no later than 14 days after appearance of the party.

Dated: August 31, 2012,



By: /s/ Seth P. Traub STEVEN M. BERMAN, ESQ, Florida Bar No. 856290 sberman@slk-law,com SETH P. TRAUB, ESQ. Florida Bar No, 022088 straub@slk-law,com 101 East Kennedy Blvd, Suite 2800 Tampa, Florida 33602 Phone: (813) 229-7600; Fax: (813) 229-1660


I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 31, 2012 a true correct copy of the foregoing was

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a

notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record.

Is! Seth P, Traub



TAMPA DIVISION

BETH ANN SCHARRER, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc.; and TRANS HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.

Plaintiffs,

v. Case. No. 8:12-cv-01854-MSS-MAP

FUNDAMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; et al.

Defendants,

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF RELATED ACTIONS

In accordance with Local Rule 1.04(d), the undersigned certifies that the instant action:

X IS related to pending or closed civil or criminal case(s) previously filed in this Court or any other Federal or State court, or administrative agency as indicated below:

8;10-cv-02937-VMC-TGW Jackson-Plaits v. Trans Health Management, Inc. et al

8: 11-cv-01369-SDM-TBM Estate of Juanita Amelia Jackson v, Trans Health Management, Inc, et al

8: 11-cv-01370-SDM-TGW Estate of Juanita Amelia Jackson v, Trans Health Management, Inc. et al

8:12-cv-01855-JSM-MAP Scharrer et al v. Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC et al

IS NOT related to any pending or closed civil or criminal case filed with this Court, or any other Federal or State court, or administrative agency.


I further certify that I will serve a copy of this NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF RELATED

ACTIONS upon each party no later than 14 days after appearance of the party.

Dated: August 31, 2012.



By: /s/ Seth P, Traub STEVEN M. BERMAN, ESQ, Florida Bar No. 856290 [email protected] SETH P. TRAUB, ESQ, Florida Bar No, 022088 [email protected] 101 East Kennedy Blvd, Suite 2800 Tampa, Florida 33602 Phone: (813) 229-7600; Fax: (813) 229-1660


I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 31, 2012 a true correct copy of the foregoing was

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a

notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record,

Is/ Seth P. Traub

EXHIBIT "E"

Electronic Case Filing I U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida Page 1 of 15

U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE ft: 8:12-cv-01854-MSS-MAP

Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 360 PI: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Schaffer et al v. Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC et al Assigned to: Judge Mary S. Scriven Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo Case in other court: State Court/10th Jud/ Polk County, 53-

2012-CA-004992 Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

Plaintiff

Trustee Beth Ann Scharrer as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc,

Plaintiff

Trans Health Management, Inc.

represented by Steven M. Berman Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP 101 E Kennedy Blvd - Ste 2800 Tampa, FL 33602 813/229-7600 Fax: 813/229-1660 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seth P. Traub Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP 101 E Kennedy Blvd - Ste 2800 Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 229-7600 Fax: (813) 229-1660 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Steven M. Berman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Seth P. Traub (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Defendant

Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC

represented by Christopher B. Hopkins Akerman Senterfitt 222 Lakeview Ave - Ste 400

https://ecfflind,uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt,p1?193693986621917-L_I_O-1 10/18/2013

Electronic Case Filing I U,S, District Court Middle District of Florida Page 2 of 15

PO Box 3188 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6147 561/671-3668 Fax: 561/659-6313 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason J. Mendro Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036-5306 Email: [email protected] TERMINATED; 03/20/2013 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE A I 1 ORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gregory M. McCoskey Merman Senterfitt Suite 1700 401 E Jackson St Tampa, FL 33602-5250 813/223-7333 Fax: 813/223-2837 Email: greg,[email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Christine Zack represented by Patrick M. Quinn Brunner Quinn 35 North Fourth Street Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215 Email: pmq@brunnerlaw,com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Alan Contreras Brunner Quinn Suite 200 35 N 4th St Columbus, OH 43215 Fax: 904/399-8440 Email: [email protected] LEAD A 17 ORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf,f1md.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DIctRpt,p17193693986621917-L_1_0-1 10/18/2013

Electronic Case Filing ! U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida Page 3 of 15

Rick L. Brunner Brunner Quinn 35 North Fourth Street Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215 Email: rlb@brunnerlaw,coin LEAD ATTORNEY A11 ORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Kristi Anderson TERMINATED,. 08/02/2013

represented by Gary R. Shendell Shendell & Pollock, PL Suite 150 2700 N Military Tr Boca Raton, FL 33431 561/241-2323 Fax: 561/241-2330 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATI ORNEY A17 ORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Peter Martin Bernhardt McDonald Hopkins, LLC Suite 300 505 S Flagler Dr West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/472-2121 Fax: 561/472-2122 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATI ORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven N. Leitess Leitess Friedberg PC 10451 Mill Run Circle, Ste. 1000 Baltimore, MD 21117-5519 Email: steven.leitess@lf-pc,com LEAD Afl ORNEY All ORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP represented by Patricia Ann Redmond Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterson, PA Suite 2200 150 W Flagler St Miami, FL 33130 305/789-3553

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?193693986621917-L_1_0-1 10/18/2013

Electronic Case Filing I U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida Page 4 of 15

Fax: 305/789-3395 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Maria Ellena Chavez-Ruark

Defendant

Alan M. Grochal individually and not as Receiver

Defendant

Quintairos Prieto

represented by Patricia Ann Redmond (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Patricia Ann Redmond (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

represented by Marjorie Salem Hensel Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP Suite 500 100 S Ashley Dr Tampa, FL 33602 813/276-1662 Fax: 813/276-1956 Email: mhensel@hinshawlaw,com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruel W. Smith Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP Suite 500 100 S Ashley Dr Tampa, FL 33602 (813)868-8831 Fax: (813)276-1956 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

Wood & Boyer, PA

Defendant

represented by Marjorie Salem Hensel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY A.17 ORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruel W. Smith (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/egi-bin/DIORpt.pl?193693986621917-1,_1_0-1 10/18/2013


Thomas A. Valdez

Defendant

Kevin W. Richardson

Defendant

Albert J. Ferrera

represented by Marjorie Salem Hensel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


represented by Marjorie Salem Hensel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED


represented by Marjorie Salem Hensel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY AllORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ruel W. Smith (See above for address) A 11ORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

08/15/2012 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida, case number 23-2012-CA-004992 filed in State Court on 07/19/12. Filing fee $ 350, receipt number TPA 12771 filed by All Defendants. (Attachments: # I Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 State Court Record) (BES) (Entered: 08/16/2012)

08/15/2012 2 COMPLAINT against Kristi Anderson, Maria Ellena Chavez-Ruark, Albert J. Ferrera, Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC, Alan M. Grochal, Quintairos Prieto, Kevin W. Richardson, Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP, Thomas A. Valdez, Wood & Boyer, PA, Christine Zack with Jury Demand filed by Trans Health Management, Inc,, Beth Ann Schauer. (filed in state court on 07/19/12)(BES) (Entered: 08/16/2012)

08/17/2012 3 RELATED CASE ORDER AND NOTICE of designation under Local Rule 3,05 - track 2. Notice of pendency of other actions due by 8/31/2012. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 8/17/2012. (APV) (Entered: 08/17/2012)

08/17/2012 4 INTERESTED PERSONS ORDER. Certificate of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement due by 8/31/2012. Signed by Judge Mary S.

https://ectflmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DlaRpt.pl?193693986621917-L_1_0-1 10/18/2013


Scriven on 8/17/2012. (APV) (Entered: 08/17/2012)

08/20/2012 5 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 2 Complaint or Otherwise Respond and Accompanying Memorandum of Law by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC. (Hopkins, Christopher) Item terminated, See item refiled H . Modified on 8/22/2012 (DG), (Entered: 08/20/2012)

08/20/2012 6 NOTICE by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC of Pendency of Other Actions (Hopkins, Christopher), Counsel's office notified by telephone on 8/21/12 that this item is to be refiled as the electronic signature is incomplete. Item terminated, Modified on 8/21/2012 (DG), (Entered: 08/20/2012)

08/20/2012 7 MOTION for Steven N. Leitess to appear pro hac vice by Kristi Anderson. (Bernhardt, Peter) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A, Pizzo. (Entered: 08/20/2012)

08/20/2012 ***PRO HAC VICE FEES paid and Special Admission Attorney Certification Form filed by attorney Rick L. Brunner appearing on behalf of Christine Zack (Filing fee $10 receipt number TPA12852.) (JNB) (Entered: 08/22/2012)

08/20/2012 ***PRO HAC VICE FEES paid and Special Admission Attorney Certification Form filed by attorney Patricic M, Quinn appearing on behalf of Christine Zack (Filing fee $10 receipt number TPA12852.) (JNB) (Entered: 08/22/2012)

08/21/2012 8 First MOTION for Rick L. Brunner to appear pro hac vice by Gregory M, McCoskey. (McCosIcey, Gregory) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 08/21/2012)

08/21/2012 9 First MOTION for Patrick M. Quinn to appear pro hac vice by Gregory M, McCosIcey. (McCoskey, Gregory) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Marlc A. Pizzo. (Entered: 08/21/2012)

08/21/2012 10 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re .3 Related case order and notice of designation of track 2 per Local Rule 1.04(d) by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC. Related case(s): Yes (Hopkins, Christopher) (Entered: 08/21 /2012)

08/21/2012 11 MOTION for extension of time to file answer or otherwise plead re 2 Complaint or otherwise respond and accompanying Memorandum of Law by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC. (Hopkins, Christopher) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

08/21/20 I 2 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Seth P. Traub on behalf of Beth Ann Scharrer, Trans Health Management, Inc, (Traub, Seth) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

08/21/2012 13 NOTICE of Appearance by Marjorie Salem Hensel on behalf of Albert J. Ferrera (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

08/21/2012 14 NOTICE of Appearance by Marjorie Salem Hensel on behalf of Quintairos Prieto (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DlaRpt.pl?193693986621917-L_I_O-1 10/18/2013

Electronic Case Filing -11,S. District Court Middle District of Florida Page 7 of 15

08/21/2012 15 NOTICE of Appearance by Marjorie Salem Hensel on behalf of Kevin W. Richardson (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

08/21/2012 16 NOTICE of Appearance by Marjorie Salem Hensel on behalf of Thomas A. Valdez (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

08/21/2012 17 NOTICE by Albert J. Ferrera of Filing Designation of Email Address (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

08/21 /2012 18 NOTICE by Quintairos Prieto of Filing Designation of Email Address (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

08/21/2012 19 NOTICE by Kevin W. Richardson (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

08/21/2012 20 NOTICE by Thomas A, Valdez of Filing Designation of Email Address (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 08/21 /2012)

08/22/2012 21 NOTICE of Appearance by Gregory M. McCosIcey on behalf of Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC (McCosIcey, Gregory) (Entered: 08/22/2012)

08/22/2012 22 NOTICE of Appearance by Patricia Ann Redmond on behalf of Maria Ellena Chavez-Ruark, Alan M, Grochal, Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP (Redmond, Patricia) (Entered: 08/22/2012)

08/23/2012 23 ORDER granting 8 motion to appear pro hac vice, Please see Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 8/23/2012. (DK) (Entered: 08/23/2012)

08/23/2012 24 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re Case No.: 8:12-cv-1855-T-30MAP per Local Rule 1.04(d) by Albert J. Ferrera, Related case(s): yes (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 08/23/2012)

08/23/2012 25 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re Case No.: 8:12-cv-1855-T-30MAP per Local Rule 1,04(d) by Quintairos Prieto. Related case(s): yes (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 08/23/2012)

08/23/2012 26 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re Case No.: 8:12-cv-1855-T-30MAP pet' Local Rule 1.04(d) by Kevin W. Richardson. Related case(s): yes (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 08/23/2012)

08/23/2012 27 ORDER granting 9 motion to appear pro hac vice, Please see Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A, Pizzo on 8/23/2012. (DK) (Entered: 08/23/2012)

08/23/2012 28 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re Case No.: 8:12-cv-1855-T-30M4P per Local Rule 1.04(d) by Thomas A, Valdez. Related case(s): yes (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 08/23/2012)

08/23/2012 29 ORDER granting 7 motion to appear pro hac vice. Please see Order for details, Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 8/23/2012. (DK) (Entered: 08/23/2012)

08/26/2012 30 PROOF of service by Beth Ann Schaffer (Traub, Seth) (Entered: 08/26/2012)

08/26/2012 31 PROOF of service by Beth Ann Schaffer (Traub, Seth) (Entered: 08/26/2012)

https://eciflmd,uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DIctRpt,p1?193693986621917-L_I_O-1 10/18/2013

Electronic Case Filing p U,S, District Court - Middle District of Florida Page 8 of 15

08/27/2012 32 ENDORSED ORDER granting 11 Defendants' Motion to Extend the Deadline to Answer or Otherwise Respond, Defendants shall have up to and including September 14, 2012, to file their responses, Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 8/27/2012. (HMJ) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/27/2012 33 RETURN of service executed on August 3, 2012 by Beth Ann Scharrer as to Christine Zack, (Traub, Seth) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/27/2012 34 RETURN of service executed on August 7, 2012 by Beth Ann Scharrer as to Quintairos Prieto, (Traub, Seth) (Entered: 08/27/2012)

08/28/2012 ***PRO HAC VICE FEES paid and Special Admission Attorney Certification Form filed by attorney Steven N. Leitess appearing on behalf of Kristi Anderson (Filing fee $10,00 receipt number TPA12982.) Related document: 7 MOTION for Steven N. Leitess to appear pro hac vice (AG) (Entered: 08/30/2012)

08/31/2012 35 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement by Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP. (Redmond, Patricia) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

08/31/2012 36 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re 3 Related case order and notice of designation of track 2 per Local Rule 1,04(d) by Maria Ellena Chavez-Ruark, Alan M. Grochal, Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP. Related case(s): Yes (Redmond, Patricia) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

08/31/2012 37 NOTICE by Maria Ellena Chavez-Ruark, Alan M. Grochal, Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP Designation of Email Addresses (Redmond, Patricia) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

08/31/2012 38 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 4 Interested persons order by Maria Ellena Chavez-Ruark, (Redmond, Patricia) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

08/31/2012 39 CERTIFICA FE, of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 4 Interested persons order by Alan M. Grochal, (Redmond, Patricia) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

08/31/2012 40 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re 3 Related case order and notice of designation of track 2 per Local Rule 1,04(d) by Beth Ann Scharrer, Trans Health Management, Inc., Related case(s): yes (Traub, Seth) (Entered: 08/31 /2012)

08/31/2012 41 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 4 Interested persons order by Beth Ann Scharrer, Trans Health Management, Inc.. (Traub, Seth) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

09/12/2012 42 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 4 Interested persons order by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC. (Hopkins, Christopher) (Entered: 09/12/2012)

09/12/2012 43 NOTICE of pendency of related cases re 3 Related case order and notice of designation of track 2 per Local Rule 1.04(d) by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC. Related case(s): Y (Hopkins, Christopher) (Entered: 09/12/2012)

https://ecf, flincLuscourts.gov/cgi-bin/D1ctRpt.pl?193693986621917-Ll_0-1 10/18/2013


09/13/2012 44 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 4 Interested persons order by Albert J. Ferrero, (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012 45 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 4 Interested persons order by Quintairos Prieto. (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012 46 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 4 Interested persons order by Kevin W. Richardson. (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012 47 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 4 Interested persons order by Thomas A. Valdez, (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/13/2012 48 CERTIFICATE of interested persons and corporate disclosure statement re 4 Interested persons order by Thomas A. Valdez, (Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 09/13/2012)

09/14/2012 49 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Albert J. Ferrero, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/14/2012 50 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Quintairos Prieto, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/14/2012 51 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Kevin W. Richardson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2. Exhibit 2)(Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/1 4/2012 52 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Thomas A. Valdez. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Hensel, Marjorie) (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/1 4/2012 53 MOTION to dismiss the claims asserted in the Complaint against the Receivership Defendants and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by Maria Ellena Chavez-Ruark, Alan M. Grochal, Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index of Exhibits to Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Exhibit A - Order Appointing Receiver, # 3 Exhibit B - Notice to Creditors, # 4 Exhibit C - Certificate of Mailing Notice of Creditors, # 5 Exhibit D - Motion to approve supplementary notice, # 6 Exhibit E - Order approving form of supplemental notice, # 7 Exhibit F - Supplemental notice to creditors, # 8 Exhibit G (1 of 2) - certificate of mailing supplemental notice to creditors, # 9 Exhibit G (2 of 2) - certificate of mailing supplemental notice to creditors, # 10 Exhibit H - motion to abandon defense claims and for other relief, # 11 Exhibit 1 (1 of 2) - certificate of service, # 12 Exhibit 1 (2 of 2) - certificate of service, # 13 Exhibit J - motion ruling, # 14 Exhibit K - Affidavit of Maria Ellena Chavez-Ruark)(Redmond, Patricia) (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/14/2012 54 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Christine Zack. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Christine Zack)(Quinn, Patrick) (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/1 4/2012 55 MOTION to dismiss claims against it pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6) by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, #

https://ecf.flind.uscourtS.gov/cgi-bi n/DIctRpt,p1?193693986621917-L_I_O-1 10/18/2013


14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit)(Hopkins, Christopher) (Entered: 09/14/2012)

09/14/2012 56 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Kristi Anderson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Kristi Anderson)(Leitess, Steven) (Entered: 09/15/2012)

09/27/2012 57 MOTION for extension of time to file response/reply as to 50 MOTION to dismiss Complaint, 56 MOTION to dismiss Complaint, 51 MOTION to dismiss Complaint, 52 MOTION to dismiss Complaint, 49 MOTION to dismiss Complaint, 53 MOTION to dismiss the claims asserted in the Complaint against the Receivership Defendants and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, 55 MOTION to dismiss claims against it pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6) MOTION to dismiss claims against it pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6) MOTION to dismiss claims against it pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) & I2(b)(6), 54 MOTION to dismiss Complaint by Beth Ann Scharrer, Trans Health Management, Inc.. (Traub, Seth) (Entered: 09/27/2012)

10/01/2012 58 NOTICE by Beth Ann Scharrer, Trans Health Management, Inc. Supplemental Certificate of Good Faith Conference for Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Traub, Seth) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

10/01/2012 59 ENDORSED ORDER granting 57 Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs shall have up to and including October 31, 2012, to file their responses. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 10/1/2012, (HMJ) (Entered: 10/01/2012)

10/30/2012 60 Unopposed MOTION for leave to file excess pages for Memorandum in Response to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss by Beth Ann Scharrer, Trans Health Management, Inc„ (Traub, Seth) (Entered: 10/30/2012)

10/31/2012 61 ENDORSED ORDER granting 60 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Enlarge Page Limitation for Memorandum in Response to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Response shall not exceed fifty (50) pages. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 10/31/2012. (HMJ) (Entered: 10/31/2012)

10/31/2012 62 MOTION to stay discovery by Kristi Anderson, Maria Ellena Chavez-Ruark, Albert J. Ferrera, Alan M, Grochal, Quintairos Prieto, Kevin W. Richardson, Thomas A. Valdez, Christine Zack, (Hopkins, Christopher) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo, (Entered: 10/31/2012)

10/31/2012 63 MOTION to compel Jurisdictional Depositions of Defendants, Christine Zack and Kristi Anderson, MOTION to extend time to ten (10) days after the last jurisdictional deposition to Supplement Jurisdictional Argument in Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss by Beth Ann Scharrer, Trans Health Management, Inc„ (Traub, Seth) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 10/31 /2012)

10/31/2012 64 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 50 Motion to dismiss, 51 Motion to

https://ecf.flmd.uscourts,gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?193693986621917-L_1_0-1 10/18/2013


dismiss, 52 Motion to dismiss, 49 Motion to dismiss, 55 Motion to dismiss, 56 Motion to dismiss, 53 Motion to dismiss, 54 Motion to dismiss filed by Beth Ann Schaffer, Trans Health Management, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14)(Traub, Seth) (Entered: 10/31/2012)

11/01/2012 65 NOTICE of supplemental authority re 62 MOTION to stay discovery by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC (Hopkins, Christopher) (Entered: 11/01 /2012)

11/09/2012 66 MEMORANDUM in opposition re 63 Motion to compelMotion to extend time filed by Christine Zack. (Quinn, Patrick) (Entered: 11/09/2012)

11/14/2012 67 RESPONSE in opposition re 63 MOTION to compel Jurisdictional Depositions of Defendants, Christine Zack and Kristi Anderson MOTION to extend time to ten (10) days after the last jurisdictional deposition to Supplement Jurisdictional Argument in Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss MOTION to extend time to ten (10) days after the last jurisdictional deposition to Supplement Jurisdictional Argument in Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss filed by Kristi Anderson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3) (Leitess, Steven) (Entered: 11/14/2012)

11/16/2012 68 ORDER granting 62 Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motions to Dismiss subject to any jurisdictional discovery the Court may allow in response to 63 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Jurisdictional Depositions, Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 11/16/2012. (HMJ) (Entered: 11/16/2012)

1 1 /28/2012 69 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 63 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Jurisdictional Depositions of Defendants Christine Zack and Kristi Anderson and for Enlargement of Time to Supplement Jurisdictional Argument in Memorandum in Oppositions to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, See Order for details. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 11/28/2012. (HMJ) (Entered: I 1/28/2012)

11/30/2012 70 NOTICE by Beth Ann Schaffer, Trans Health Management, Inc. re 69 Order on motion to compelOrder on motion to extend time of Filing Transcript of Rule 2009 Examination of Christine Zack and Request to Take Judicial Notice of Bankruptcy Court Order Regarding Limitation on Rule 2004 Examination (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Examination Transcript, # 2 Exhibit Bankruptcy Court Order)(Traub, Seth) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

12/04/2012 71 NOTICE of Appearance by Gary R, Shendell on behalf of Kristi Anderson (Shendell, Gaty) (Entered: 12/04/2012)

12/07/2012 72 RESPONSE re 70 Notice (Other)Notice (Other) Fundamental and Christine Zack's Response to Plaintiffs Request to Take Judicial Notice of Bankruptcy Court Order filed by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC, (Hopkins, Christopher) (Entered: 12/07/2012)

https://ectflmd,uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DIctRpt,p1?193693986621917-L_I_O-1 10/18/2013


02/05/2013 73 MOTION for Jason J, Mendro to appear pro hac vice by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC, (Hopkins, Christopher) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A, Pizzo, (Entered: 02/05/2013)

02/06/2013 ***PRO HAC VICE FEES paid and Special Admission Attorney Certification Form filed by attorney Jason J. Mendro, appearing on behalf of Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC (Filing fee $10 receipt number TPA15663.) Related document: 73 MOTION for Jason J. Mendro to appear pro hac vice. (AG) (Entered: 02/07/2013)

02/19/2013 74 ORDER granting 73 Defendant's Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 2/19/2013, (ACS) (Entered: 02/19/2013)

03/18/2013 75 MOTION for Jason J, Mendro to withdraw as attorney by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC. (Mendro, Jason) (Entered: 03/18/2013)

03/20/2013 76 ENDORSED ORDER granting 75 Jason J. Mendro's Motion to Withdraw. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE Jason J. Mendro of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as counsel for Defendant Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC. Attorneys Christopher B. Hopkins and Gregory M. McCoskey of the law firm of Akerman Senterfitt shall remain as counsel for Defendant Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC, Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 3/20/2013, (HMJ) (Entered: 03/20/2013)

07/02/2013 77 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal as to Kristi Anderson Only Pursuant to Bankruptcy Court Memorandum Opinion and Order Granting Joint Motion to Compromise by Beth Ann Schauer, Trans Health Management, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Bankruptcy Court Memorandum Opinion and Order)(Berman, Steven) (Entered: 07/02/2013)

08/02/2013 78 ORDER denying as moot 56 Kristi Anderson's Motion to Dismiss. The claims against Kristi Anderson are DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE Kristi Anderson as a party to this action. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 8/2/2013. (HMJ) (Entered: 08/02/2013)

08/02/2013 79 ORDER denying 63 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Jurisdictional Deposition of Defendant Christine Zack. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 8/2/2013. (HMJ) (Entered: 08/02/2013)

09/06/2013 80 NOTICE by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC re 50 MOTION to dismiss Complaint, 51 MOTION to dismiss Complaint, 52 MOTION to dismiss Complaint, 49 MOTION to dismiss Complaint, 53 MOTION to dismiss the claims asserted in the Complaint against the Receivership Defendants and Incorporated Memorandum ofLctw, 54 MOTION to dismiss Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order in Case #8:12-cv-1855)(Hopkins, Christopher) (Entered: 09/06/2013)

09/09/2013 81 NOTICE of supplemental authority re 53 MOTION to dismiss the claims asserted in the Complaint against the Receivership Defendants and

,

Incorporated Memorandum of Lmv by Maria Ellena Chavez-Ruark, Alan M. Grochal, Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP (Redmond, Patricia) (Entered: 09/09/2013)

https://ecf,flind,uscourts,gov/cgi-bin/D1ctRpt.pl?193693986621917-L_1_0-1 10/18/2013


09/10/2013 82 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 49 motion to dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 50 motion to dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 51 motion to dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 52 motion to dismiss. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 9/10/2013. (HMJ) (Entered: 09/10/2013)

09/10/2013 83 ORDER denying 55 Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC's Motion to Dismiss, See Order for details. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 9/10/2013. (HMJ) (Entered: 09/10/2013)

09/10/2013 84 ORDER granting 53, Motion to Dismiss on behalf of Defendants Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP, Maria Ellena Chavez-Ruark, and Alan M. Grochal, See Order for details. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 9/10/2013. (HMJ) (Entered: 09/10/2013)

09/1 0/2013 85_ ORDER granting 54 Christine Zack's Motion to Dismiss. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 9/10/2013. (HMJ) (Entered: 09/10/2013)

09/17/2013 86 MOTION to stay and/or Motion to Continue Stay of Discovery and Supporting Memorandum Of Law by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC. (Hopkins, Christopher) (Entered: 09/17/2013)

09/17/2013 87 NOTICE of supplemental authority re 86 MOTION to stay and/or Motion to Continue Stay of Discovery and Supporting Memorandum Of Law by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC (Hopkins, Christopher) (Entered: 09/17/2013)

09/1 8/2013 88 JOINDER in motion by Albert J. Ferrera, Quintairos Prieto, Kevin W. Richardson, Thomas A. Valdez, Wood & Boyer, PA re 86 MOTION to stay and/or Motion to Continue Stay of Discovery and Supporting Memorandum Of Law filed by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC , (Smith, Ruel) (Entered: 09/18/2013)

09/23/2013 89 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 2 Complaint, 82 Order on motion to dismiss by Albert J. Ferrera, Quintairos Prieto, Kevin W. Richardson, Thomas A. Valdez, Wood & Boyer, PA. (Smith, Ruel) (Entered: 09/23/2013)

09/24/2013 90 ENDORSED ORDER granting 89 Unopposed Motion for Extension of their Deadline to Answer the Complaint filed on behalf of Defendants Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A,, Thomas A. Valdez, Kevin W. Richardson, and Albert J. Ferrera ("Quintairos Defendants"). The Quintairos Defendants shall have up to and including September 27, 2013, to file their Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 9/24/2013. (HMJ) (Entered: 09/24/2013)

09/24/2013 91 MOTION to extend time to Respond to Complaint by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC. (Hopkins, Christopher) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo. (Entered: 09/24/2013)

09/27/2013 .92 Fundamental's ANSWER and affirmative defenses to 2 Complaint by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC,(Hopkins, Christopher) (Entered:

https://ecfnmd,uscourts,gov/egi-bin/DktRpt.pl?193693986621917-L_1_0-1 10/18/2013

Electronic Case Filing U.S. District Court - Middle District of Florida

09/27/2013)

09/27/2013 93 ANSWER and affirmative defenses to 2 Complaint by Albert J. Ferrera, Quintairos Prieto, Kevin W. Richardson, Thomas A. Valdez, Wood & Boyer, PA,(Smith, Ruel) (Entered: 09/27/2013)

10/04/2013 94 RESPONSE in Opposition re 86 MOTION to stay and/or Motion to Continue Stay of Discovery and Supporting Memorandum Of Law and Motion for Referral to Bankruptcy Court filed by Beth Ann Scharrer, Trans Health Management, Inc.. (Traub, Seth) (Entered: 10/04/2013)

10/04/2013 95 MOTION for Reconsideration re 85 Order on motion to dismiss , MOTION for Extension of Time to File by Beth Ann Schaffer, Trans Health Management, Inc.. (Attachments: II 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Traub, Seth) (Entered: 10/04/2013)

10/04/2013 96 ENDORSED ORDER granting nunc pro tune 91 Defendant Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC's Motion to extend time to respond to complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on 10/4/2013, (DK) (Entered: 10/04/2013)

10/13/2013 97 MOTION for clarification or in the Alternative, for Leave to File Reply by Albert J. Ferrera, Quintairos Prieto, Kevin W. Richardson, Thomas A. Valdez, Wood & Boyer, PA. (Smith, Ruel) (Entered: 10/13/2013)

10/15/2013 98 NOTICE of Joinder by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC re 97 MOTION for clarification or in the Alternative, for Leave to File Reply (Hopkins, Christopher) (Entered: 10/15/2013)

10/15/2013 99 ORDER granting 97 Motion for clarification. Defendants shall have up to and including October 21, 2013, to file their responses in opposition to Plaintiffs' request for referral to the Bankruptcy Court. Signed by Judge Mary S. Scriven on 10/15/2013. (HMJ) (Entered: 10/15/2013)

10/15/2013 100 AMENDED ANSWER to 2 Complaint and Affirmative Defenses by Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC, (Hopkins, Christopher) (Entered: 10/15/2013)

10/16/2013 101 NOTICE of Filing in Further Support of Motion for Referral to Bankruptcy Court and Motion for Extension of Time to File Amended Complaint by Beth Ann Scharrer, Trans Health Management, Inc. re 94 Response in Opposition to Motion, 95 MOTION for Reconsideration re 13.5 Order on motion to dismiss MOTION for Extension of Time to File (Attachments: # 1. October 8, 2013 Transcript)(Traub, Seth) (Entered; 10/16/2013)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

10/18/2013 16:02:50

PACER Login:

b12014 Client Code: 0261021

II

Page 14 of 15

https://ecf.flind.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?193693986621917-L_l_0-1 10/18/2013


Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

8:12-cv-01854-MSS-MAP

Billable Pages: 1I Cost: 1,10

https://ecf.flrnd.useourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?193693986621917-L_I_O-1 10/18/2013

EXHIBIT "F"

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR POLK COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA

CIVIL DIVISION

The Estate of JUANITA AMELIA JACKSON, by and through CATHY JACKSON-PLATTS f/k/a CATHERINE WHATLEY, Personal Representative,

Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 2004-CA-3229

vs. DIVISION: 07

TRANS HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.; TRANS HEALTHCARE, INC.;

Defendants.

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTLTRANS HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.

The undersigned, Steven M. Berman and Seth P. Traub, of Shumaker, Loop &

Kendrick, LLP, pursuant to the authoriation and direction of the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida ("Bankruptcy Court"), hereby gives

notice that Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP (in its role as counsel for Beth Ann

Scharrer, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Fundamental Long Term, Inc,,

the sole owner of Trans Health Management, Inc,) is appearing as counsel for Defendant,

Trans Health Management, Inc, ("THMI"). In support, the undersigned and THMI state

as follows:

1, On December 5, 2011, an Involuntary Petition under Chapter 7 of the

United States Bankruptcy Code was filed against Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc,

("FLTCI"). On January 12, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order for Relief,

which, by operation of law, determined that FLTCI became a debtor in bankruptcy.

SLK JAM:I/1559392v'

2, The Bankruptcy Court appointed Ms, Scharrer as Chapter 7 Trustee

("Trustee") on January 23, 2012.

3, On May 7, 2012, FLTCI filed its Schedules, which disclose, among other

things, FLTCI's 100% interest in THMI, a Defendant in this action.

4. On October 9, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court entered Order and

Memorandum Opinion on Trustee's Motions for Show-Cause Order (Doc, 409), which

determined that the Trustee controls THMI, A copy of the Bankruptcy Court's October

9, 2012 Order is attached as Exhibit 1.

5. At a further hearing on December 5, 2012, the transcript of which is

attached as Exhibit 2, the Bankruptcy Court authorized and directed the Trustee to have

her counsel substitute for existing counsel that had appeared on behalf of THMI, [Ex, 2,

p,26, lines 8-11],

6. At this time, there is no counsel of record for THMI in this case.

Accordingly, Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP (in their role as counsel for the Trustee)

hereby appears as counsel for THMI.

7. Such appearance, however, is not in any way an adoption or affirmation of

,any actions previously taken by any firm purportedly on behalf of THMI, Undersigned

counsel will file papers on behalf of THMI from this date forward.

2

By:

8, Copies of all notices, pleadings, correspondence, and other documents and

papers filed in this case hereafter should be served upon the undersigned,



S N M. BERMAN, ESQ, Florida Bar No.: 856290 SETH P. TRAUB, ESQ. Florida Bar, No, 022088 Primary E-Mail: sberman@slk-law,com Primary E-Mail: [email protected] Secondary E-Mail: [email protected] Secondary E-Mail: [email protected] 101 East Kennedy Blvd, Suite 2800 Tampa, Florida 33602 Phone: (813) 229-7600 Fax: (813) 229-1660 Attorneys for Chapter 7 Trustee, Beth Ann Scharrer, and Trans Health Management, Inc.


I hereby certify that on February 11, 2013, a true and correct copy of the

foregoing was served via electronic notice or U.S. Mail upon:

Bennie Lazzara, Jr. Bennie@wilkesmchugh com Isaac R. Ruiz-Carus lruiz-carus @wilkesmchugh.com Joanna M. Greber [email protected] Wilkes & McHugh, P.A. I N Dale Mabry Hwy, Ste 800 Tampa, Florida 33609

Maria Chavez-Ruark, Esquire mruarlasaul.com Saul Ewing, LLP, 500 East Pratt Street, Suite 800 Baltimore, MD 21202

Richard B, Mangan, Jr., Esquire rbm,service rissman,com brs,service@rissman,coin [email protected] Rissman Barrett Hurt Donahue McLain, PA One North Dale Mabry Highway Ilth Floor Tampa, FL 33609

Jennings L. Hurt, III, Esquire bucky.hurt@rissman,com Post Office Box 4940 Orlando, FL 32802

Carol A. Licko, Esquire carol.licko@hoganlovells,com gladys.cata_,hoganlovells,com gloria,[email protected] in Hogan Lovells US LLP 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 400 Miami, FL 33131 Attorneys for General Electric Capital Corporation

Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc, do The Corporation Trust Co, as Resident Agent

3

Hunter W. Carroll, Esquire hcarroll@matthewseastmoore,com ArnyAmatthewseastmoore.com A. Lamar Matthews, Esquire Al.Matthews@matthewseastmoore,c om Matthews Eastmoore 1777 Main Street, Suite 50Q Sarasota, FL 34236 Attorneys for Ventas Realty Limited Partnership and Ventas

1209 Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801

Dan Weiss, Esq, dweissAjenner,com aborich@jenner,com qinnickfienner,com Jenner & Block, LLC 353 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Attorneys for Ventas Realty Limited Partnership and Ventas, Inc,

Steven A, Engel, Esquire steven.engeladechert,com faith.anderson- leak f,dechert,corn Katherine Wyman, Esquire [email protected] Dechert, LLP 1775 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Attorneys for Rubin Schron

Christopher Hopkins, Esquire Christopher:[email protected] gm Guy Quattlebaum, Esquire Guy,quattlebaum(aakerman , c om Audra,shankle®akermameom Barbara,thomas@akerman,com Akerman Sentertitt 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Co-Attorneys for FAS and THIB

Angela Crawford, Esquire Angela.crawford _,dlapiper.com [email protected] DLA Piper 100 North Tampa Street Suite 2200 Tampa, FL 33602 Attorneys for Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC and THI of Baltimore, Inc.

Nicolle Jacoby, Esquire [email protected] Dechert, LLP 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-6797 Attorney for Defendant, Rubin Schron

Dennis Parker Waggoner, Esquire [email protected] Casey Reeder Lennox, Esquire clennox0,11whlaw,com Hill Ward Henderson, P,A, 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Suite 3700 P.O. Box 2231 Tampa, FL 33601-2231 Attorneys for Troutman Sanders, LLP

Ellen Kennedy, Esquire Ellen,kennedy(ahoganlovells,c pm Lisa Bonanno, Esq, Lisa,bonanno@hoganlovells,co m Hogan Lovells Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Attorneys for GECC

Lisa Markofsky, Esquire lmarkofsky®proskauer.corn Matthew Triggs, Esquire mtrigas@proskauer,coin florida,litigationAproskauer,co

Proskauer Rose, LLP 2255 Glades Road Suite 421 Atrium Boca Raton, FL 33431-7360 Attorneys for Fundamental Administrative Services, LLC and THI of Baltimore, Inc.

Jeffery Carter Andersen, Esquire canderson@bashross,com mmedley@bushross,com Traci Koster, Esquire tkoster0,bushross.corn thoman(abtishross.com Bush Ross, P.A. P.O, Box 3913 Tampa, FL 33601 Attorneys for GRCR Fund L,P., GTCR Golder Rattner, LLC, GTCR Partners VI, L, P, and Edgar D. Jannotta, Jr.

4

Barry Postman, Esquire Barry.postman@csklegal,eom Justin Sorel, Esquire Justin.soiTel@csklegal,com Cole, Scott Kissane, P.A. 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard 2" Floor West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Attorneys for Concepcion Sexton & Martinez, P.A.

Stuart C. Markman, Esquire smarkinan(amf-law.com [email protected],com Kristin A, Norse, Esquire [email protected] Kynes Markman & Felman, P.A. 100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 1300 Tampa, Florida 33602

Joseph H. Varner, III, Esquire joe,[email protected] gloria.mcknight@hklaw,com Stacy D, Blank, Esquire [email protected] joann.loyoltahklaw.com Bradford Kimbro, Esquire brad,kimbro iiklaw,com beverly,longAhklaw.com Michael Chapman, Esquire michael.chapmanO,bklaw.com William Dufoe, Esquire william.dufoe@hklaw,com laura,wisemanO,hklaw,com Patrick M. Chidnese, Esquire [email protected] joann.loyola@hklaw,com Holland & Knight 100 North Tampa St, Suite 4100 Tampa, FL 33602 Attorneys for Rubin Schron

Matthew Emrich Nirider, Esquire [email protected] Gabor Balassa, Esquire gbalassa@kirldand mom Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 300 North LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 Attorneys for GRCR Fund VI, L. P,, OWE Golder Rauner, LLC, GTCR Partners VI, L, P, and Edgar D. Jannotta, Jr,

Mark N. Miller, Esquire [email protected] Karen,[email protected] Monterey Campbell, Esquire Monterey.campbellOgray-robinson.com Owen,[email protected] Gray Robinson, P.A. P.O. Box 3 Lakeland, FL 33802 Attorneys for GRCR Fund VI, L.P., GTCR Golder Rauner, LLC, GTCR Partners VI, L. P. and Edgar D. Jannotta, Jn

John W. Frost, II, Esquire [email protected] [email protected] Frost Van den Boom & Smith, P,A, P.O. Box 218 Bartow, FL 33831-2188 Attorneys for Yentas Realty, Limited Partnership and Ventas, Inc.

James C, Valenti, Esquire jvalentiQvcttalawyers,com i.harris@vatalawyers,com Valenti Campbell Torhn Tamayo & Aranda P.O. Box 2369 Lakeland, FL 33806 Counsel for GECC

5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA€¦ · 30/9/2014 · Order Granting Amended Motion to Modify...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA€¦ · 30/9/2014 · Order Granting Amended Motion to Modify...