The Epstein Index

Keyboard shortcuts

/
Search the files
j k
Move through a list of results
[ ]
Previous or next document
g g · G
Top or bottom of the page
Esc
Leave a search field or close this box
?
Show this box

Go to a page: g then

h
Index
t
Timeline
p
People
r
Redactions
x
Explore
w
News
l
Legislation
a
About

Court filing · 2020

Court filing, 2020

1NTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHEFIFTEENTHJUDICIALCIRCUIT INANDFORPA LMBEACHCOUNTY,FLORIDA

CAFLOMDAHOLDINGS,LLC, PublisherofthePALMBEACHPOST,

DA’VEARONBERG,asState Attorneyof BeachCounty,Florida. PalnaBeachCounty,Florida;SHARONR. BOCK,asClerkandCompirollerofPahn C OS

DEFENDANTDAVEARONBERG’SAMENDEDMO ’/ ON FORATTORNEYS’FEES

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State A %l e alm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby mov rabic Court, pursuant to Rule 1.525, Fla. IL Civ. P. to enter an award of atto f n his favor against Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of following: A BEACH POST, and in support thereof states the

CASENO.:19 -C 14681

SISFORAWARDINGATTOFtNEYS’FEES

I. O ove 2019, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH P PI tiff, filed a. complaint against DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Be ty, Florida (the “State Attorney’s or “Defendant Aronbeig”) and SHARON R. BOCK, Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida (the “Clerk”). The basis of the action was asking the Court to order the State Attorney and the Clerk to disclose the 2006 Jeffrey Epsteingrandjurymaterials,(thc”RequestedMaterials”),pursuantto§905.27(1)Fla.Stat,

Party JOINT

case No •ertil6 COURT Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s First Amended 4. On June 8, 2020, the Court entere tisSkd Granting Defendants Motions to with Prejudice (“Order”).

  1. On December 6, 2019, the State Attorney filed his Motion to Dismiss, then on December 13, 2019, the Clerk also filed a Motion to Dismiss. In response, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on January 17, 2020, which in addition to its original claim under § 905.27 Fla. Stat. (Count II) added a claim for Declaratory Relief (Count 1) that sought an order declaring that the State Attorney and the Clerk disclose the Requested Materials to Plaintiff for the purpose of informing the public.

  2. On January 24, 2019, both the State Attorney and the Cle 31’t Answer to the First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Count II (” ion to Dismiss). Notably, the State Attorney’s Answer/Motion to Dismiss asse V ’ right to attorneys’ fees for defending the action and requested such relief from the C

  3. Immediately following t Co Order, on June 8, 2020, the State Attorney, through the undersigned counsel, ry ntiff with a demand pursuant to § 57.105 Fla. Stat., to voluntary dismiss/withdra the > i t Amended Complaint and the claims against the State Attorney, along with a, Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“57.105 Demand”). See, Exhibit “A”. Specifically, e Court’s Order only Count I of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint remained, ht Declaratory Relief under § 86.011, Fla. Stat.

6.\ ere, in properly serving his 57.105 Demand on Plaintiff, the State Attorney also properly put Plaintiff on notice that he would seek sanctions by filing the 57.105 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees if Plaintiff failed to dismiss the remainder of its First Amended Complaint within 21 days of service of the 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.

  1. On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a response t refusing to withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint. See, the 57.105 Demand Exhibit “B”.

  2. § 57.105, Florida Statutes states the following:

A motion by a party seeking sanctions under this section must be served but may not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion, the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is ot withdrawn or appropriately corrected.

  1. Accordingly, after receiving Plaintiff’s June 23, 2020, withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint and waiting after service of the motion” the State Attorney’s Motion for Attome Court on July I, 2020. See, Exhibit “C”. refusing to uisitc “21 days was filed with this

  2. Thereafter, on August 18, 2020, the State mey filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) and proceeded, on October, 21, 2020, to file a Motion to Set Hearing on the State Attorney’s Motion (“Motion to Set”) a of this matter without the Court’s inte it became clear that there would be no resolution

  3. Nonetheless, latpr4li argt day, rather than setting and participating in a hearing on the merits as to State Attom otion, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Dropping the State Attomey (“Notice”) from the inst4tase. See, Exhibit “D”. As a consequence of filing its Notice, Plaintiff has effectively an admission that its allegations against the State Attorney have no basis in fact or 1 0

“An essential distinction between a notice of dropping a party and a voluntary dismissal is that the former concludes the action as to the dropped party while the latter is generally utilized to conclude the action in its entirety.” Carter v. Lake County, 840 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

  1. Specifically, Plaintiff’s Notice states: “Plaintiff, [sic], pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.250(b), hereby notifies the parties that it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case.”

  2. Rule 1.250(6), Fla. R. Civ. P. states:

(b) Dropping Parties. Parties may be dropped by an adverse party in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in rule 1.420(a)(I) subject to the exceptionstated in that rule. If notice of lis pendens has been filed in the action against a party so> dropped, the notice of dismissal shall be recorded and cancels the notice’ of lis pendens without the necessity of a court order. Parties may be drop d by ioider of court on its own initiative or the motion of any party at any sta he lion on such terms as are just.

  1. Rule l.420(a)(1), Fla. R. Civ. P., Voluntary DismiNtates:

(1) By Panics. Except in actions in which property has been seized or is in the custody of the court, an action, a claim, or any part of an action or claim may be dismissed by plaintiff without order of court (A) before trial by serving, or during trial by stating on the record, a notice of dismissal at any time before a hearing on motion for summary judgment, or if now is served or if the motion is denied, before retirement of the jury in a case tried before a jury or before submission of a nonjury case to the court for decision, or (B) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all current parties to the action. Unless otherwise stated in the notice or stipulation, the dismissal is without prejtidice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits when/served by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court an action bated on of including the same claim.

  1. Notably,ILR]ule 1.250(b) expressly incorporates the procedural aspects of Florida Rule of Civil Propedure 1 20(a)(1) governing voluntary dismissal by providing that parties may be dropped dint anner provided for voluntary dismissal in rule I .420(a)(1) subject to the ex bon in that rule?” Siboni v. , 52 So. 3d 779, 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

Likewise, because Rule 1.250(b) specifies that a party is dropped “in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in Rule I.420(a)(1), the Siboni court concluded that “the manner” includes the same entitlement to costs and attorney’s fees which would have been enjoyed had the dismissal occurred entirely under Rule 1.420(a)(1). Id. at 781.

  1. Accordingly, the Siboni court held that a “party dropped from litigation under rule 1.250(b) is subject to the time limitation contained in rule 1.525 governing service of a motion seeking a judgment for costs and attorney’s fees.” Id.

  2. Although Plaintiff filed its Notice the claims asserted by Plaintiff have been, since the filing of its initial complaint, completely without support of the facts or the law. At their very core, all of Plaintiff’s claims are based on the presumption that the State Attorney,has, the authority to disclose the Requested Materials. Nonetheless, Section 905.17(1), Flori \it makes clear that Plaintiff’s Requested Materials can only be released by the Clerk jiursuan o a court order.

The stenographic records, notes, and transcriptions marytiithe court reporter or stenographer shall be filed with the clerk who shall keep thentin a sealed container not subject to public inspection. The notes, records, and transcriptions are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution and shall be released by-the clerkonly on request by a grand jury for use by the grand jury or on order, of tile court pursuant to s. 905.27.

Section 905.17(1), Florida Statutes (2020).

  1. The State Attorney hasi 011objection to the Clerk producing and disclosing the /7 \ Requested Materials should the-CO* /’, an order to that effect, however, it is impossible for ( \ the State Attorney to complY,ciwith the relief sought by Plaintiff in its remaining claim for declaratory relief as he d dROt possess or control the Requested Materials and is statutorily barred from any disc!

fel1. Ohid ough the State Attorney was prepared to make his argument to the Court, Plaint) , ed instead to drop him as a party. Despite Plaintiff’s decision, the Florida Rules of N Civil Procedure and the above authorities make clear that because Rule 1.250 specifies that a party is dropped “in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in Rule 1.420(a)(1),” it therefore “operates as an adjudication on the merits.” See, Siboni v.M, .52 So. 3d 779, 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Rule 1.420(a)(1) Fla. R. Civ. P.

  1. Consequently, the filing of Plaintiff’s Notice triggered Rule 1.525, Fla. R. Civ. P. and therefore:

Under [* 57.105), the legislature has expressed its unequivocal intent that where a party files a meritless claim, suit or appeal, the party who is wrongfully required to expend funds for attorneys’ fees is entitled to recoup those fees.

County Conservation Alliance v. County, 73 So. 3d 856, 857 (Fla. 1st A… 7 1A 2011) (finding that “Courts are not at liberty to disregard the legislative mandate that courts shat ;impose sanctions in cases without foundation in material fact or law. The word “slfil(“scin4-57.105, Fla. ,. {sup}A ,,_ 9i Stat., evidences the legislative intent to impose a mandatory penalty to discourage baseless claims, by placing a price tag on losing parties who engage in these aetitrities. Section 57.105 expressly states courts “shall” assess attorney’s fees for bringing, of farloi io dismiss, baseless claims or defenses.”).

  1. In fact, “Section 57.105(1) clearly and explicitly confers upon the trial court the authority to award attorney’s fees to thezprevailiag party upon the court’s initiative, if ‘the court finds that the losing party … Icney,(oksheald have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at (My time b efore trial… [w]as not supported by the material facts necessary to establish t claim or defense.” v. 47 So. 3d 320, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

  2. SI {sup}e pie fact of the matter is that Plaintiff failed to withdraw its Amended Com lai nst the State Attorney within the 21-day period provided for in section 57.105(4), and they ore the State Attorney was permitted to file his 57.105 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees as sanctions.

1 25. Furthermore, based on the impossible nature of Plaintiff% demand of the State Attorney, it was proper to demand withdrawal of Plaintiff’s remaining claim for declaratory relief

and serve the 57.105 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees due to Plaintiff’s claim lacking any basis in fact or law. Again, neither the State Attorney nor his office has possession, custody or control of the Requested Materials. Likewise, the State Attorney has no objection, and never has had any objection, to the Clerk releasing the records sought by Plaintiff, as disclosure of the Requested Materials sought by Plaintiff lies solely within the providence of the Clerk pursuant to ah order of the Court.

  1. Consequently, the State Attorney is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees in defending this suit by virtue of 57.105, Florida Slat es. ,

REASONABLENESS AND AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES

  1. From the service of the 57.105 Demand to the date of this motion, the attorneys for the State Attorney have rendered 42.2 hours of c leg c irn s\ fcir a total amount of $18,275.00 in defending this action. See time sheets detail g. %i e ount of hours by each timekeeper, the timekeeper’s hourly rate, and a descri ’ of e tasks done during those times, on attached Exhibit “E”. Of that amount, the l e ed has been paid $0.00 as the engagement with the State Attorney is on a pure contingenc fee basis. The undersigned expects to incur an additional ‘…1 4.0 hours at $425.00 an ur in preparing for and attending the hearing on’ ttorneys’ fees. Thus, the total amount of hourly,frattorneys’ fees the State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of ti\N $19,975.00cAtqurlIter set forth below, the State Attorney also seeks a multiplier of 2.0, which La.’\ when appuctotakes the grand total attorneys’ fees as sanctions sought herein $39,950.00.

— 28. An Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees is attached hereto as Exhibit “F”, which details and breaks down the attorneys’ fees sought herein.

  1. The State Attorney would offer the following facts and arguments as they relate to the factors promulgated in Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. [REDACTED], 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985):
FactorFacts and Arguments
(A) the time and labor required, the novelty, complexity, and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properlyThe time involved by counsel was substantial, consuming nearly 75 hours of legal work. Moreover, the issues in controversy were novel and complex in that Plaintiff sought to create a new private statutory cause of action under Florida Statute § 905.27, implicated several 1st Amendment issues, and further sought declaratory relief pursuant to said Statute. Finally, this litigation has been ongoing for nearly a year and required skill and knowledge in these areas of the law.
(B) the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyerBecause of the amount of time involved in this litigation and considering the relative small size of the firm representing the State Attorney, the undersigned attorneys were forced to turn away or delay representing other clients especially during critical stages of the litigation, due to time required in the instant matter.
(C) the fee, or rate of fee, customarily charged in the locality for legal services of a comparable or similar natureThe base fees consisting of $425.00/hour for Mr. Wyler’s services and $475.00/hour for Mr. [REDACTED] services are reasonable for lawyers in their respective communities possessing equal experience and skill.
(D) the significance of, or amount involved in, the subject matter of the representation, and the results obtainedThe outcome of this case is of great public significance to the State of Florida as it pertains to the disclosure of grand jury records and the role of the State Attorney concerning such disclosure. Here, the results obtained were the maximum sought by Defendant Aronberg as he was dismissed from the case, albeit not within the time constraints of the safe-harbor provision within § 57.105, Fla. Stat.
(E) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances and, as between attorney and client, any additional or special time demands or requests of the attorney by the clientThere were not any extraordinary limitations imposed by the client, however, Defendant Aronberg expected and received zealous representation, with the desire that the case be dispensed of quickly and efficiently.
(F) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the clientAs general counsel for the FPAA the undersigned counsel has represented Defendant Aronberg since the beginning of his tenure as State Attorney in civil matters throughout the State of Florida as well as matters before the Florida Legislature.

receive a court order awarding contingency ba outcome in this case. See, Exhibit “G” hours of work for no pay, of w ty”eli si 9. 30. Defendant Aronberg was able to proceed with this litigation only if counsel would {sup}c iisticmeys’ fees upon achievement of a successful and the fact that counsel risked a total of 74.8 ours is subject to the 57.105 Demand, Defendant Aronberg submits that multiplier of . would be appropriate in this case. Based upon the hours expended, the hourly rat d a 2.0 multiplier, Defendant Aronberg respectfully requests an award of attorneys’ fee sancnons as stated herein.

(G) the experience, reputation, diligence, and
ability of the lawyer orof a media entity and lawyers from multiple states regarding the
lawyers performing the service and the skill, expertise, or efficiency of effort reflected in the actual providing of such servicesrelease of information with a nationwide interest. Accordingly, the
(H) whether the fee isThe fee arrangement herein was entirely contingent,r_Wherein
fixed or contingent, and, ifobtaining a fee was conditioned upon prevailing and obtaining an
fixed as to the amount or rate, then whether the client’s ability to pay rested to any significant degree on the outcome of the representation.order awarding fees. N

JUSTIFICATION FOR MULTIPLIER

  1. (—With regard to the application of a multiplier, the court must analyze the three factors se’t4ithin Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990):
  • (1) whether the relevant market requires a contingency fee multiplier to obtain competent counsel; (2) whether the attorney was able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment in any way; and (3) whether any of the factors set forth in are applicable, especially the amount involved, the results obtained, and the type of fee arrangement between the attomey and his client.

See, Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Pulloquinga, 183 So. 3d 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).

  1. Here, as to the first factor there was no other counsel in the relevant market who would agree to represent Defendant Aronberg under the contingency fee agreement needed due to the financial situation of the Office of the State Attorney as a public entity funded entirely by the taxpayers of the State of Florida. Although “Risk Mitigation” within the Florida Department of Financial Services and the Office of the Attorney General indeed represent the State Attorney in ..”. ±,, some instances, this case was not picked up by either and Defendant Aronberg left needing representation by other, private counsel. Although the undersigned coun law firm are General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys’ Association, i nc., AA”) the instant matter did not fall within the scope of representation for th A and required a separate engagement between Defendant Aronberg and the u counsel. Accordingly, the undersigned counsel and his law firm agreed to re Ae\ ilite ndant Aronberg on a contingency ..”- \ . fee basis and to try the case to final judgment consuler’,.mg that there was no other counsel willing to represent Defendant Aronberg on such terms.

  2. With respect to thezother factors to be considered in applying a multiplier as set \ forth in Quanstrom, here Defendant Arenberg was unable to mitigate against non-payment of fees because as a purely taxpayer funded entity, the Office of State Attorney had no other means by which to pay the undersigned counsel. Additionally, Defendant Aronberg meets each of the individual Rowe factors as set forth in the table located above on pages 8-9. Accordingly, based on the foregoing/the application of a multiplier herein is proper. In this vein, the court set guidelines for the size of a multiplier, as follows:

Based on our review of the decisions of other jurisdictions and commentaries on the subject, we conclude that in contingent fee cases, the lodestar figure calculated by the court is entitled to enhancement by an appropriate contingency risk multiplier in the range from 1.5 to 3. When the trial court determines that success was more likely than not at the outset, the multiplier should be 1.5; when the likelihood of success was approximately even at the outset, the multiplier should

be 2; and, when success was unlikely at the time the ease w multiplier should be in the range of 2.5 to 3. initiated, the

Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 198$).

  1. Additionally, the Quanstrom court confirmed and modified the approach, as follows:

However, we find that the multiplier in should be modified as follows: If the trial court determines that success was more likely than not at the outset, it Ey apply a multiplier of 1 to 1.5; if the trial court determines that the likelihood of success was approximately even at the outset, the trial judge may ap uhiplier of 1.5 to 2.0; and if the trial court determines that success was unlik at the outset of the case, it may apply a multiplier of 2.0 to 2.5. Accordingl e decision is modified to allow a multiplier from 1 to 2.5.

Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 82k 7Th8 4 (Fla. 1990). Thus, based upon all of the foregoing factors, Defendant Aronberg respectfully submits that a multiplier of 2.0 is appropriate for this representation.

CERTIFICATION OF GOODfAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE

The undersigned certifies that a’gooel faith effort was made to resolve the issues raised in \ this motion by agreement of thepattics; The parties were unable to resolve by agreement the issues of entitlement to fees or thearhount of fees.

WHEREFORE, tifendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; plays that this Honorable Court will enter an Order awarding Defendant Aronberg his reasor<tble attorneys’ fees with a multiplier of 2.0 against the Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA HOLDDt3S, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, in the amount of $39,950.00.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of November, 2020, a ieopy of the foregoing Defendant, Dave Aronberg’s Amended Motion for Attorneys’ Fees has been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein.

/s/ Douglas A. Wyler

Arthur 1. Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 10249

Richard J. Scholz, Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 0021261

Douglas A. Wyler, Esq.

Fla. Bar No.: 119979

961687 Gateway Blvd., Su

Fernandina Beach, Florida

(904) 261-3693

(904) 261-7879 F

Primary: jacobs mcast.net

AV ”

nt, Dave Aronberg

EXHIBIT “A”

EXHIBIT “A”

Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT; CASE NO. 2019-CA-014681; CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC V. DAVE ARONBERG ET AL. Date: Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Douglas Wyler To: ‘mendelsohns@gtlaw.coni’, smithl@gtlbw.com, flservice@gtlaw.corn, BoyajianN@gtlaw.com, riveraal@gtlaw.com, GRYGIELM@gtlaw.com Attachments: 2020-06-08 Aronberg 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.pdf

Please see attached and below in this matter.

Court:Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County,
Case No:Case No. 2020-CA-014681
Plaintiff:CA Florida Holdings, LLC , CI
Defendant;Dave Aronberg
Title of Documentsc.. )
Defendant, Dave Aronberg’s Motio orneys’ Fees

aEiWyler, Esq. Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-I Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 904-261-3693 904-261-7879 (fax) dougs@comcast.net

Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this commukcation but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this campgunicittion is strictly prohibited.

SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC.

MI LAW °FTC( S Cr Assaf. PA. ARTHUR

UMITEO RUT’ COMPANY or PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

GATEWAY TO AMCUA

9614107 GATEWAY BLVD.. SUITE 201.,

FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA 32034

TELEPHONE 1904) 261.3693

PAX NO. (904) 261.7 /379

June 8, 2020

VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL

Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. Greenburg Traurig, P.A. 5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33486

RE: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronbergaet al. Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-014681

Dear Mr. Mendelsohn:

RICHARD J. SCHOLZ. P.A. RICHARD J. SCHOL2

DOUGLAS A. W YLC R. P.A. DOUGLAS A. W no;

As you are aware our firm represents the intere of Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, in the above referenced matt The purpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary dismissal of your First Amended Complaint,’ (th “Complaint”), dated January 17, 2020. This demand is made pursuant to section 57.105, Floe3da tatutes.

As you know, Section 57. es:

  • (I) Upon the court’s “nitiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a reasonable attome -.fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the prevailing patty in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney on anyclaim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the court finds that the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial: a Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or
    • defense; or
    • b. Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.

Today, Judge Marx granted, with prejudice, Defendant Aronberg’s Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Pursuant to the Court’s ruling, the Plaintiff’s only remaining cause of action consists of Count I, for Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, we believe that the Complaint filed herein and its sole remaining Count for Declaratory Relief is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims asserted, and that your claims are not supported by the application of current law to said material facts.

First and foremost, the Complaint is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims asserted because neither Defendant Aronberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein. Simply put, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records from my client that are impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to this action because no matter what, he and his office do not have possession, custody, or control of the requested materials.

In addition to the foregoing material facts that negate the claims asserted in the Complaint, your claims are also not supported by the application of current law. Specifically, your action for declaratory relief fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2), Florida Statutes, which states:

When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection Marie a civil case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorneys and by the latter to their legal associates and employees. However, the rand jify testimony afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or DroYstcution of the civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever.

Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the decla , Mr. Aronberg would be unable to comply with any court order granting disclosure of the re ueited documents because neither Mr. Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit have possession, custody, or control of the 2006 Epstein grand jury records.

Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is not dismissed within 21 days of the service of this letter, the enclosed Motion for Attorney’s Fees will be filed and we will seek as sanctions, from your client and your firm, recovery of the legal expenses incurred in defending this frivolous’action.

Please govern yourself accord in 4

Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. ‘I litiv, For the Firm

End.: DefennJan Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

. t

• IN THE CIRCUIT eth1RiDFIFfiStFrENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT • IN AND FOR. PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS; LLC, • • Publisher Of the PALM BEACH POST,

DAVE ARONTIERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach CountY, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida.

CASE NO:: .19- As; -014681

i’S •

CO

DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG’S M i1kV FpR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as S of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorneys, move pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys’ defense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, . (the “Complaint”), and as gro {sup}ar, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served {sup}acopy of this Motion, toge a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) of the a atute, demanding dismissal of the Complarnt, at least 21 days prior to the filing of4Motion. In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the factswhich establisheComplaint is without support of the facts or the law.

REFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBES, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County; Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring:Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys to pay said Defendant’s attorneys’ fees inclined herein after service of this Motion.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this day , 2020, the forego was electronically filed via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein.

/s/Douglai A. Wyk?

Arthur I.=1, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 108249 Richard J. Scholz, Fla. Bar No.: 00212 Douglas A. Wy Fla Bar No.: 1 961687 Gatewa ., Suite 201-I Fernan ch, Florida 32034 (904 9 zlaw@cdmcast.net

ttorneys for Defendant

Stephen A. Mendelsohn Tel S61.955.7629 Fax 561.659.9119 men delsoh nnTbptlaw.com

June 23, 2020

Douglas A. Wyler Jacob Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd. Suite 2Q14 Femandina Beach, Fl. 32034

Re: CA Florida Holdings, tic v. Dave Aronberg etal. Case No. 2019-CA-014681

Dear Mr. Wyler:

We are in receipt of your letter of June 8,.2020 with In your letter and your proposed motion, you as firm of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. should he Ii Attorney Aronberg after the date of your I (a) and (b) for support. As shown b.elo and we expect that if the State Attom ed Fla. Stat. ;section 57.105 motion. CX Florida Holdings, LLC and the law attorneys’ fees to be incurred by State letter cites to Fla. Sttat. sections 57.105(1) o basis for a Fla. Stat. Section 57.105 motion, make such a motion, the court should deny it.

Cos

Your letter omits a citation to 5(3). Subsection 57.105(3)(a) provides that sanctions may not be awarded where ere 1. good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the shment of new law, as it is applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectatio f success.” We have such a good faith argument.

Contrary to your atialysi f Fla. Stat. section 905.27, there are actually three instances where a court may order dkrelease of grand jury materials. As we argue, the court may order release “in furtherance f justi*, ’ There are few cases in Florida reyiewing this provision and its scope. It is alt open vat question as.to whether the .court may order release of grand jury transtripts to the m r both the statute and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in furtherance ofj statutory language you cite refers to instances where a person is seeking grand jury mitten or use in a civil or in a criminal case. In these limited situations, the statute allows for such uses and for no other reason. However, the stature does not state, as you assert, that where the media seeks grand jury materials based upon its constitutional standing, which the Circuit Court acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 hearing includes The Palm Beach Post, that the Statutory

Greenberg Traorig, P.A. I Attorneys at Law

5100 Town Center Circle 1 Suite kICO I Boca Raton, Ronda 33486 I Tel 561.955.7600 I F +1 561.338.7099

Albany. Amsterdam. Manta. Austin. Berlin: Bon Raton. BOSWII. Chicago. Dallas. Delaware. Dower. Fort Lauderdale. LAS Vegas. London: Los Angeles. blexico City: Miami. Milan:NI inneapolis. Nashville. New Jersey. New York. Northern Virginia. Orange county. Orlando. Philadelphia. Phoegig. Sacramento. San Francisco. Seoul. Shanghai. SBiaon Valley. Tallahassee.Tampa.Tel Aviv:Tokio:Warsaw: Washington. D.C. West Palm Soich•WonchenerCounIT

swat. ewswuww…,…o.u…wwwww •owwwwws ows…ow. I…us wwwwwwwwwww us…bwousitwis PA. %la tos’W towevlowust-Ww•nwt. Ovuusk

Correspondence to Douglas A. Wyler June 23, 2020 Page 2

use limitation you cite applies. No repotted Florida case has addressed this issue and there is a good faith basis for our view of Fla. Stat. section 905.27

Your letter also argues that sanctions are applicable because the State Attorney has alleged that it does not possess the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts. This allegation ‘s also contained in the State Attorney’s Antwet. Assuming that the State Attorney does not currently ha physical possession of the Epstein grand jury materials, which has yet to be demonstrated, tic not end the matter. The State Attorney was named as a party not simply as a cyst d jury records. The State Attorney was named in his official capacity as his offi its primary interest the protection of its grand jury system.” [Italics in original.] In re roceedin ,s 832 F. 3d 554, 559 (111h Circuit 1987). In that case, the US petition •ge to order the State Attorney to turn over grand jury transcripts. The State Attorney against their release citing to Fla. Stat. section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury sub , the Broward. County State Attorney for delivery of state grand jury testimony. The State Attorney aciviset1 the federal court that it would produce the transcripts, thereb Ling that while it may not have physical possession of the materials, he had. legal 0 obtaip and, deliver them. It should also be noted. that the State Attorney moved e subpoena arguing that it was unlawful under Florida law and Fla. Stat. section 9 case indicates that where one seeks grand jury materials, the relevant State Attorne teaser)/ party in order to protect the grand jury that the Office of State Attorney supervi o eke arguments, if need be, against release of the grand jury materials. These are some f e reasons why the State Attorney was named in this case.

Also, assuming the State Attome there is nothing in Florida la provide copies to the State Att a State Attorbey demand that rk grant hit office access to grand jury’ materials, even after a criminal case has concl Upon information and belief, the Clerk’s offite maintains a log that tracks release of d aterials to the State Attorney upon its request. Please confirm whether the S om has accessed grand jury materials from the Clerk’s office in other instances or th I i as never done so. If the Clerk has such a log, then jis contents should be disctiverab bj ct to Florida Public records laws. ave physical possession of the grand jury materials, bits the State Attorney from requesting that the Clerk spier 905, Fla. Stets. does not contain a prohibition against

Correspondence to Douglas A. Wyler June 23, 2020 Page 3

For these reasons, we decline your Fla. Stat. section 57.105 demand that the case be dismissed against the Office of the State Attorney. We expect that your demand will be withdrawn.

Thank you,

/s/S4ephen Mendelsohn

O tS < < S42 ) • ? S ’ \ Z i ? O

Very truly yours,

Stephen Mendelsohn

SAM:Is

AC77VE 51081659v1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST,

v. CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681

DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida.

DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG’S MOTIO(FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State 3iPalm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorneys, moves t uant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys’ f efense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), and as grounds, , would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served a copy of this Motion, togeth a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with _ subsection (4) of the abov(e Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing of otion. In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish omplaint is without support of the facts or the law.

ORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, respectfully requests the Court enter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys to pay said Defendant’s attorneys’ fees incurred herein after service of this Motion.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 1st day July, 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record here n.

Is/ Douglas A. Wy/er

Arthur I. Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 108249 Richard J. Scholz, Esgyi Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. WyleccEN Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd: Suite 201-1 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904) 261-3693) (904N{sup}7879 IZIaw@comcast.net

eys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg

os)

EXHIBIT “D”

EXHIBIT “D”

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST,

DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Beach County, Florida,

PLAINTIFF CA HOLDINGS, LLC’S NOTICE OF DROPPING STATE ATTORNEY, DAVE ARONBERG

Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1250(b), hereby notifies the parties that it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above case.

Respectfully submitted,

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.

Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post

Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Telephone: (561) 955-7629 Facsimile: (561) 338-7099

By: /s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn Florida Bar No. 849324 mendelsohns@gtlaw.com [redacted]@gtlaw.com FLService@gtlaw.com

By: /s/ Michael J Grygiel MICHAEL J GRYGIEL (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 54 State St., 6th Floor Albany, New York 12207 Telephone: (518) 689-1400 Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 grygielm@gtlaw.com

By: /s/ Nina D. Boyajian NINA D. BOYAJIAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles California 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 boyajiann@gtlaw.com riveraal@gtlaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21{sup}st day of October, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein

/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn

ACTIVE 53317341v1

EXHIBIT “E”

EXHIBIT “E”

Fr Scholz & Wyler, LLC Gateway Blvd., Suite 2011 Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 United States 904-261-3693

Dave Aronberg

Scholz & Wyler, LLC

Balance $32,440.00 Invoice # 00307 Invoice Date November 6, 2020 Payment Terms Due Date

Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC

Time Entries

DateEEActivityDescription
Z.:I
N/ RateHoursLine Total
11/26/2019OWReviewInitial review of summons anecomplai t.$425.001.5$637.50
11/26/2019DWReviewReviewed motion for pro haavicelPand Judge
$425.000.2$85.00
11/26/2019DWTeleconferenceTeleconferenCe wiClient, re: reSponse to lawsuit$425.000.5$212.50
11/26/2019DWDraftDrafted ingagertient letter and sent to client$425.000.3$127.50
11/26/2019DWReviewRevilwadj:15tneircuit local rules$425.001.0$425.00
11/26/2019AIJReviewInitHal review of complaint$475.001.0$475.00
11/26/2019AIJMeetingMeeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy$475.000.5$237.50
11/26/2019DWMeetingMeeting w/ AL/ to discuss lawsuit and strategy$42 5.000.5$212.50
11 26/2019AIJTeleconferenceTeleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit$475.000.5$237.50
12/°2/2°19DW1
Prep to
Research and prep for Motion to dismiss$425.002.0$850.00
12/02/2019owDraft1st Draft motion to dismiss$425.001.0$425.00
1202/2019DTeleconferenceTeleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to
dismiss$425.000.5$212.50
1202/2019AIJReviewRevioWed 1st Draft MTDismiss$475.000.3$142.50
1202/2019AIJTeleconferenceTeleconference w/ client. re: draft motion to
0.5$237.50
12O3/2019AIJMeetingMeeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss$475.00 10.2$95.00
12/03/2019DWMeetingMeeting w/ AIJ, re: MTDismiss*25.000.2$85.00
12/06/2019DWDraftCompleted final draft of motion to dismiss; Filed with
Can$425.00 $4
0.7$297.50
1206/2019DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss$125.000.5$212.50
12/06/2019DWTeleconferenceSpoke with Clerk’s attorney, re: response$.425.00 10.5$212.50
12/06/2019AIJReviewReviewed final draft MTDismiss* 75.000.2$95.00
12/06/2019AIJReviewReviewed Clerks MTDisrniss*175.000.2$95.00
12/13/2019DWReviewReviewed Clerks Motion to Dismiss51425.000.5$212.50
01/16/2020DWReviewReviewed Order Setting Hewing on Defendants’
$425.000.1$42.50
01/16/2020DWReviewReviewed motion for pro hac vice$425.000.1$42.50
01/17/2020DWReviewReviewed Prs Amended Complaint$425.001.0$425.00
01/17/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke with client, re: Amended Complaint$425.00-I 05$212.50
01/17/2020DWReviewReviewed Prs notice of filing$425.00” 0.1$42.50
01/20/2020AIJReviewReviewed Prs Am. Cornea$475.000.3$142.50
01/21/2020DWReviewReviewed Judge Marx’s Order Cancelling
MTDismiss Hearing$425.000.1$42.50
01/21/2020DWReviewReviewed Prs Objection to Defendants’ MTDismiss$425.000.2$85.00
01/21/2020OWTeleconferenceSpoke with client, re: Amended complaint$425.000.5$212.50
01/21/2020AUMeetingMeeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Contj.5475.000.2$95.00
01/21/2020DWMeetingMeeting w/ AIJ, re: response to Am. S NI ‘$425.000.2$85.00
01/22/2020DWReviewReviewed Order granting pro haciricevidmis4on$425.000.1$42.50
01222020DWResearch & DraftResearched and drafted response to Amended
Complaint$425.001.0$425.00
01/23/2020OWTeleconferenceSpoke with Clerk’s attorney, re:response to
amended complairtt$425.000.205.00
01/24/2020DWVariousCompleted AnSwer/MTDismiss Amended
$425.001.0$425.00
01/24/2020OWDraftDrafted and rded Notice of Unavailabitty$425.000.4$170.00
01/24/2020AUReviewReviewed final Answer/MTDismiss$475.000.2$95.00
01/27/2020DWReviewReviewed Clerk’s Answer/MTDismiss$425.000.3$127.50
02/03/2020DWi, ReviewReviewed Order setting hewing on Deis’
MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
02/03/2020OW( Acre
1.’ ,Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss
$425.000.5$212.50
zt
& Clerks MTDismiss$425.001.5$637.50.
03/13/2020AUReviewReviewed Prs Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss
& Clerk’s MTDismiss$475.000.7$332.50
03/18/2020OWTeleconference$425.00 Reviewed email from Prs counsel, re: motion to
continue hewing0.1$42.50
03/18/2020DWReviewReviewed Prs unopposed motion for continuance5425.000.1$42.50
03/18/2020OWE-mailEmails w/ Clerk’s counsel. re: Ks request to
continue hewing542500
0.2$85.00
03/19/2020DW&mailReviewed email from PI, re: agreed order 8
responded$41 25.000.1$42.50
03/20/2020DWReviewReviewed Court’s agreed order continuing hearing$425.000.1$42.50
04/21/2020DWReviewReviewed order rescheduling hearing on Defs’ MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
04/21/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ client, re: order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing for June 3, 2020$425.000.3$127.50
04/21/2020AJJReviewReviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing$475.000.1$47.50
05/22/2020DWReviewReviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
05/22/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom$425.000.2$85.00
05/27/2020DWReviewReviewed Clerk’s filing: change of atty of record$425.000.1$42.50
05/27/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke with Clerk’s new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut$425.000.2$85.00
05/28/2020DWE-mailReviewed PI’s email, re: cases and authorities for MTDismiss hearing; responded$425.000.1$42.50
05/29/2020DWPreparationBegan oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss hearing$425.001.0$425.00
06/01/2020DWE-mailReviewed email from Judge Marx’s JA and responded$425.000.1$42.50
06/02/2020DWVariousReviewed PI’s 500+ page binder, re: MTDismiss & prepped for hearing$425.003.0$1,275.00
06/02/2020DWE-mailDrafted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing tomorrow$425.000.1$42.50
06/03/2020DWAttend HearingPrepped for and attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom$425.001.5$637.50
06/03/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Client, re: debrief MTDismiss hearing$425.000.5$212.50
06/03/2020DWE-mailEmailed courtesy copies of Aronberg’s Answer and MTDismiss to Judge Marx$425.000.1$42.50
06/03/2020DWE-mailReviewed response from Client and replied$425.000.1$42.50
06/03/2020AJJAttend HearingAttended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom$475.001.0$475.00
06/03/2020AJJReviewReviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudice$475.000.3$142.50
06/08/2020DWReviewReviewed Court’s Order Granting Defendants MTDismiss Count II w/ Prejudice$425.000.5$212.50
06/08/2020DWVariousShared order w/ Client and spoke w/, re: result and plan going forward, re: 57.105$425.000.5$212.50
06/08/2020DWVariousResearched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.; drafted 57.105 demand letter and proposed motion for attorneys’ fees/sanctions; Served PI’s counsel with demand letter and proposed motion.$425.002.0$850.00
06/08/2020AJJMeetingMeeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105$475.000.3$142.50
06/08/2020DWMeetingMeeting w/ AJJ, re: Order & 57.105$425.000.3$127.50
06/08/2020AJJReviewReviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for sanction$475.000.2$95.00
06/10/2020DWVariousReviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk; called and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerra$425.000.3$127.50
06/23/2020DWVariousReviewed PI’s letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called and spoke w/ client, re: PI’s refusal & next steps$425.001.0$425.00
06/23/2020DWE-mailSent client copy of PI’s letter refusing to dismiss complaint$425.000.1$42.50
06/23/2020AJJReviewReviewed PI’s letter refusing to dismiss Count VAm. Compl.$475.000.1$47.50
07/01/2020DWVariousSpoke w/ client, re: filing of 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions; filed motion for attorneys’ fees based on PI’s failure to voluntarily dismiss amended complaint count 1$425.000.5$212.50
07/02/2020DWE-mailEmail to client, re: affidavit and summary judgment$425.000.1$42.50
07/08/2020DWTeleconferenceDiscussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence$425.000.7$297.50
07/08/2020AJJTeleconferenceDiscussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence$475.000.7$332.50
07/10/2020DWDraftCreated 1st draft of Aronberg Affidavit; shared w/ client$425.001.0$425.00
07/10/2020AJJVariousReviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW$475.000.3$142.50
07/10/2020DWMeetingDiscussed draft affidavit w/ AJJ$425.000.2$85.00
07/13/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s Request to Produce, re: Clerk$425.000.1$42.50
07/13/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Request to Produce$425.000.2$85.00
07/27/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s Amended Request to Produce, re: Clerk$425.000.1$42.50
07/27/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Amended Request to Produce$425.000.1$42.50
07/28/2020DWDraftRevised Aronberg affidavit$425.000.5$212.50
07/29/2020DWDraftFinalized Aronberg Affidavit and sent to client$425.000.5$212.50
07/29/2020DWResearch & PreparationResearch and prep for Motion for Summary Judgment$425.001.0$425.00
07/30/2020DWVariousReceived, executed Aronberg Affidavit$425.000.1$42.50
07/30/2020DWDraftBegan drafting Motion for Summary Judgment$425.002.0$850.00
08/05/2020DWDraftContinued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment$425.001.0$425.00
08/07/2020DWReviewReviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to set hearing on 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions$425.000.1$42.50
08/10/2020DWE-mailSent responsive email to PI’s counsel$425.000.1$42.50
08/17/2020DWMeetingDiscussed draft MSJ w/ AJJ$425.000.2$85.00
08/17/2020AJJVariousReviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss$475.000.5$237.50
08/18/2020DWDraftFinalized Motion for Summary Judgment; filed w/ court along with Aronberg affidavit$425.002.0$850.00
08/27/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: request to produce$425.000.1$42.50
09/01/2020DWVariousReviewed PI’s email and accepted conference call invite for 9/2/20$425.000.1$42.50
09/02/2020DWReviewReviewed Clerk’s response to request for production$425.000.2$85.00
09/02/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: dispute as to whether MSJ should be heard before 57.105 fee motion or vis versa - call was unsuccessful$425.000.5$212.50
09/02/2020AUMeetingDiscussed w/ DAW phone call w/ Prs counsel$475.000.2$95.00
09/02/2020DWMeetingDiscussed w/ AIJ phone call w/ Prs counsel$425,000.2$85.00
09/16/2020OWE-mail
0.1$42.50
09/17/2020DWMeetingDiscussed w/ AIJ filing motion for CMC$425.000.1$42.50
09/17/2020AUMeetingDiscussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC$475.000.1$47.50
09/18/2020OWVariousDrafted and filed motion to set case management
$425.000.5$212.50
09/18/2020DWE-mail
,c=_’,,, 0.1$42.50
09/18/2020OWE-mailReviewed Prs email insisting that 57.105 motion be
\ ,\N,
,, V
0.1$42.50
09/18/2020DWE-mail
it i,$42S0D
’L__-;
0.1$42.50
09/18/2020DWE-mailSent client copy of email exchange w/ Prs calrisel;,,
E425.000.5$212.50
09/22/2020DWVarious
$425.000.7$297.50
10)02/2020DWReviewReviewed Prs Memo of LawepposincrAtonberg’s
$425.000.7$297.50
10/02/2020DWReviewReviewed Prs Response to Arenberg’s request to
schedule 57.105 niotion tor fees alter MSJ$425.000.5$212.50
10/002020AIJReviewReviewed Pei MomO_Of Law opposing 57.105
motion 7
$475.000.5$237.50
10/02/2020AIJReviewReviewed Prs Response to Aronberg’s request to
schedule 57.105 motion alter MSJ$475.000.4$190.00
10/12/2020DWResearchResearch caselaw & statutes. re: response to Prs
$425.001.0$425.00
10/13/2020DWResearch &
caselaw, re: response to$425.001.05425.00
10/13/2020OW
,Orell , ,
and shared w/ Client$425.004.0$1,700.00
4,,
.., ,.
$425.000.5$212.50
10/13/2020\
AIJ cVariouscasel Reviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and
$475.000.7$332.50
10/14/2020DWDraftFinalized and lied Response to Ks Memo of Law$425.001.0$425.00
10/14/2020OWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: memo of law$425.000.2$85.00
10/14/2020DWTelephoneSpoke wl client again, re: response to memo of law$425.000.1$42.50
10/192020DWAttend HearingAttended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC; called
1.5$637.50
10/15/2020DWVariousReviewed email and letter from PI, re: settlement.
$:1425.000.5$212.50
10/15/2020 10/15/2020 10/15/2020 10/15/2020DW DW AU AUTelephOne Telephone Various VariousSpoke wl PIS counsel, re: settlement Spoke w/ client, re: PIS settlement proposal Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; discussed w/ client Discussed PFs settlement proposal w/ DAW and*125.00 #25.00 $1475.00 I0.1 0.2 II)$42.50 $85.00 $475.00
then w/ Client$41 75000.48190.00,
10/15/2020OWMeetingDiscussed PIS settlement proposal w/ AIJ$425.000.2585.00
10/16/2020OWVariousDrafted and shared proposed order w/ PIS counsel$425.000.5$212.50
10/16/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ PIS counsel, re: settlement$425.000.2$85.00
10/16/2020OWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: PIS settlement proposal$425.00Illi 0.5$212.50
10/16/2020OWMeetingDiscussed PIS settlement proposal w/ Al.)$425.0002$85.00
10/16/2020AUMeetingDiscussed PIS settlement proposal w/ DAW$475.000.2$95.00
10/19/2020OWVariousUploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge
Hereto__1425.00 __0.1$42.50
10/19/2020OWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: PIS settlement proposali.&a..$425.000.2885.00
10/19/2020OWTelephoneSpoke w/ PIS counsel, re: settlement,./…-t-,… ”- $425.000.1$42.50
10/19/2020AUMeetingDiscussed PIS settlement proposal w/DAW$475.000.2$95.00
10/19/2020DWMeetingDiscussed PIS settlement proposal w/ AU’ $425.000.2$85.00
10/20/2020OWVariousReviewed email from Pl. re: settlement; sent copy
to Client and called to discuss$425.000.5$212.50
10/20/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client. re: settlement$425.000.4$170.00
10/20/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ PIS counsel, re; settlement .,$425.000.1542.50
10/20/2020DWTelephone
Spoke w/ client. csseltlement$425.000.1$42.50
10/20/2020OWMeetingDiscussed PIS settlement proposal w/ Al.)
$425.000.2$85.00
10/20/2020AUMeetingDiscussed ?t/settlement proposal w/ DAW Drafted and filed Motion to Set Hearing on Aronberg MSJ; drafted proposed order granting$475.000.2$95.00
10/21/2020DWVarious
c motion to set; checked court availability; entailed , PIS counsel, re: choose date for hearing$425.001.0$425.00
10/21/2020DWRe4ewReviewed Order, re; CMC unnecessary$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DW”Telephone/Spoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.2$85.00
10/21/2020OW\’ Telephoi neSpoke w/ client. re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10(21/2020- OW-TelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020ovi-i-TelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWE-mailSent email w/ Aronberg statement to media5425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020AUMeetingDiscussed media response w/ DAW1475.000.3$142.50
10/21/2020DWMeetingDiscussed media response wl AU Reviewed Rs Notice of Dropping Aronberg as5’425.000.3$127.50
1022/2020OWVarious
Pil 25.00
party; spoke w/ Client and AIJ. re: notice and next stepsI0.5$212.50
10/22/2020AJJVariousReviewed PI’s Notice of Dropping Aronberg as party; spoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next steps$475.000.5$237.50
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Totals: 79.8 332,940.00

Time Entry Sub-Total:$32,440.00
Sub•Total:$32,440.00
Total:$32,440.00
Amount PaId:$0.00
BalanrUe:$32,440.00

cos

EXHIBIT “F”

EXHIBIT “F”

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST,

CASE NO.: 19-CA-014681

DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Beach County, Florida.

AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES

STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF NASSAU

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority appeared Douglas A. Wyler, Esq., who, after being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

  1. Affiant is a partner of JACOBS, SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, counsel for Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, (“Aronberg”), as well as general counsel to the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, (“FPAA”), and makes this Affidavit of his own personal knowledge.

  2. Affiant is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida, is an active member of the Florida Bar in good standing and has engaged in the practice of law in the State of Florida since 2015.

  3. As detailed herein, the services rendered by Affiant and his firm pertain to Affiant’s demand letter and motion for attorneys’ fees sent to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to § 57.105, Florida Statutes, on June 8, 2020, in defending against Count I of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

. • ,

• . and Plaintiff’s October 21, 2020 Notice of Dropping State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above captioned lawsuit. See, Exhibits “A” “Id “B” attached hereto.

. the total, time Affiant’s law firm has expended services, rendered to date is 74.8 :hours, hoWever, fronythe,date.of Defendipt Aronberg’s 57.105 demand; Affiant’s law firric has expehded a total p142.2 hOurs. Of the 42.2 hoUrs expende4 since Defendant Aronberg’. 57.105 , . • dethand was served, the Affiant • . • .

• • • • 5. Of the 42.2 hours expended .since Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 demand was. served, the total time ‘Milani has expended services rendered to. date 35.160ifis at the rate of . • $425.00 per hour. Likewise, the total time Affiant’s law pa , has expended services rendeeed to date is 6.8 hours at the rate of $475.

k • . .. • , : Actordingly, since befendani Aron demand was served, Defendant Aronberg’s counsel, , SCHOLZ & W . , has rendered services in the amount of $18,275.00, in conjunction with the d %of t instant action pursuant to § 57.105, Florida Statutes. See, Exhibit “C” attache

  1. Affiant expec o ur additional 4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for and attending the hearing o tt eys’ fees. Thus, the total amount of hourly attorneys’ fees the State Attorney is see ilTui• r46 .2 hours fora total of S19,975.00. Additionally, the State Attorney seeks a niid • ier of 2. , which when applied makes the grand total attorneys’ fees sought herein S39,95(6:1)

Dated day of November, 2020.

FURTHER AFPJANTSAifETH NOT.

STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF.NASSAD - . • f •

• . . - … . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9th day of November, 2020, by Do • .. Wyler, Esquire, who is personitIbi known to meitml who did take an.Oath.

''' . • .• • •. Si otary Public State of Florida . .

4itran: R. Tilic-k. on Name typed, printed or stamped

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of Novem a copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal on all patties of record herein.

SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC

uglas A. Wyler

(CS , Arthur 1. Esq. Fla. Bar. o.: 49 Richard .1. Scholz, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wykr, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904)261-3693 • (904) 261-7879 Fax Primary: jacobsscholzlow@comcast.net

Attorneys for Defendant. Dave Aronberg

EXHIBIT “A”

EXHIBIT “A”

Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DOCUMENT; CASE NO. 2019-CA-014681; CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC V. DAVE ARONBERG ET AL.

Date: Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Douglas Wyler

To: ‘mendelsohns@gtlaw.com’, smithl@gtlaw.com, flservice@gtlaw.com, BoyajianN@gtlaw.com, riveraal@gtlaw.com, GRYGIELM@gtlaw.com

Attachments: 2020-06-08 Aronberg 57.105 Demand and Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.pdf

Court: Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida

Case No: Case No. 2020-CA-014681

Plaintiff: CA Florida Holdings, LLC

Defendant: Dave Aronberg

Title of Documents • Fla. Stat. § 57.105 Demand Letter

Served: • Defendant, Dave Aronberg’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Sender’s Name and Telephone Number: Douglas Wyler (904) 261-3693

Doug Wyler, Esq. [REDACTED] Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-I 904-261-3693 904-261-7879 (fax)

Please be advised that this e-[REDACTED] and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client communication or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication but destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC.

A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA 32034

TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693

FAX NO. (904) 261-7079

THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. ARTHUR I. [REDACTED]

RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A. RICHARD J. SCHOLZ

DOUGLAS A. WYLER, P.A. DOUGLAS A. WYLER

June 8, 2020

VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL

Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. Greenburg Traurig, P.A. 5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33486

RE: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. Palm Beach County, Case No.: 2019-CA-014681

Dear Mr. Mendelsohn:

As you are aware our firm represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, in the above referenced [REDACTED] letter. The purpose of this letter is to demand the voluntary dismissal of your First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), dated January 17, 2020. This demand is made pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes.

As you know, Section 57.105 provides:

  1. (1) Upon the court’s initiative or motion of any party, the court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee, including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney on any claim or defense at any time during a civil proceeding or action in which the court finds that the losing party or the losing party’s attorney knew or should have known that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any time before trial:
    1. a. Was not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claim or defense; or
    2. b. Would not be supported by the application of then-existing law to those material facts.

Today, Judge Marx granted, with prejudice, Defendant Aronberg’s Motion to Dismiss Count II of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Pursuant to the Court’s ruling, the Plaintiff’s only remaining cause of action consists of Count I, for Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, we believe that the Complaint filed herein and its sole remaining Count for Declaratory Relief is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims asserted, and that your claims are not supported by the application of current law to said material facts.

First and foremost, the Complaint is not supported by the material facts necessary to establish the claims asserted because neither Defendant Arenberg, nor The Office of the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit is in custody or control of the 2006 grand jury materials sought therein. Simply put, the declaratory relief sought by the Plaintiff, seeks records. from my client that are impossible for him or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is not a proper party to this action because no matter what, he and his office do not have possession, custody, or control of the requested materials.

In addition to the foregoing material facts that negate the claims asserted in the Complaint, your claims arc also not supported by the application of current law. Specifically, your action ford la ory relief fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 90.5.27(2 tutes, which states:

When such disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (I for its 5 civil case, it may be disclosed to all parties to the case and to their attorney d b the latter to their legal associates and employees. However, the wand i4’, testimony afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense °caroler, of the civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever.

Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the decla Mr. Aronberg would be unable to comply with any court order granting disclosure oft es, documents because neither Mr. Aronberg nor The Office of the State Attorney for tl Fi nth Judicial Circuit have possession, custody, or control of the 2006 Epstein grand jury records.

Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is pot dismissed within 21 days of the service of this letter, the enclosed Motion for Attorney’s Fees will be filed and we will seek as sanctions, from your client and your firm, recovery of the legal ex ses iSzfrred in defending this frivolous action.

Please govern yourself according

4-

Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. For the Firm

Encl.: Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

… IN THE CIRCUIT CQURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT . IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY; FLORIDA •

CA FLORIDA HOL.DINCitt,C, Publisher of the PALM BEACH POST,

DAVE ARONBERG, is.State Attorney of Palin. Bach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, a Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida. •

Defendants,

DEFENDANT, DAVE ARONBERG’S M YATTORNEYS’ FEES

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as Stat f Pahn Beach County, Florida, by and it through the undersigned attorneys, moves ursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, for ( defense of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, would show that on June i,2020, Plaintiff was served {sup}aletter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with to award him reasonable attorneys’ . (the “Complaint”), and as gro {sup}acopy of this Motion, to ether subsection (4) of the above te, demanding disniissal of the Complaint, at least 71 days priir to the filing of this In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish Complaint is without support of the facts or the law. .

FORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach Florida, respectfully requests the Court ‘inter an Order requiring Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys tä pay said Defendant’s attorneys’ fees incurred herein after service of this Motion.

. . CERTIFICATE’ F SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this day 2020; the foregoing was electiOnically filed via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record. herein.

JACOBS SCHOI.*& V.1114/4, Lic

is/Douglas A. Wile:

Arthur I Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 108249. Richard 3. Scholz; Fla. Bar NO.: 0021.2 Douglas A. Wyl Fla. Bei No.: 1 961687 Otitewa yy ., Suite 201-I Fernand’ h, Florida 32034 (904), (904) 2.0 jacobsscholzlaw©comcast.net

,4%crtorneys for Defendant .

w¢

\

.CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publiskerof .nizItgA1 BrACKIPOSt.

… • Plaintiff.

DAVE AR,ONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and CoMptroller of Palm Beach County; Florida,

• . .

. IN THE OF THE . FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM.BEAcH COUNTY, FLORIDA

• CASE NO.: 50:2080-CA.76I4681-XX4-MB

DIVISION: AG

PLAINTIFF CA HOLDIN , NOT.ICE OF DROPPING STATE ATT E *ROMBERG

Plaintiff, CA HOLDINGS, LLC, pursuant to Fla. . 0(b), hereby notifies the parties that it has dropped State Attorney, Dave Aronber4m bove case.

cos

,4c c/,,,,,, 4 if RespectfUlly submitted,

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. Attorneys for CA Florida Holdiiiia. LLC. Publisher • of The Palm Beach Paw •

Stephen A.Mendelsohn. Esq. 40I East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 2000 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Telephone: (561) 955-7629 Facsimile: (561) 3313-1099 •

By. /s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN Florida Bar No. 849324. fnenttelsohnsfrfolaw:corn smithltautlav, coin FLServiceeatlaw.cum

By: /s/ Michael J Grygiel MICHAEL J GRYGIEL (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 54 State St., 6th Floor Albany, New York 12207 Telephone: (518) 689-1400 Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 grygielm@gtlaw.com

By: /s/ Nina D. Boyajian NINA D. BOYAJIAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles California 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 Facsimile: (310) 586-7800 boyajiann@gtlaw.com riveraal@gtlaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21{sup}st day of October, 2020, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the State of Florida e-filing system, which will send a notice of electronic service for all parties of record herein

/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn

ACTIVE 53317341v1

[REDACTED] Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 2011 United States 904-261-3693

Jacobs Scholz & Wyler, LLC

Dave Aronberg

Balance $32,440.00 Invoice # 00307 Invoice Date November 6, 2020 Payment Terms Due Date

Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC

Time Entries

DateEEActivityDescriptionRateHoursLine Total
11/26/2019DWReviewInitial review of summons and complaint.$425.001.5$637.50
11/26/2019DWReviewReviewed motion for pro hac vice and Judge Hafele’ order granting.$425.000.2$85.00
11/26/2019DWTeleconferenceTeleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit$425.000.5$212.50
11/26/2019DWDraftDrafted engagement letter and sent to client$425.000.3$127.50
11/26/2019DWReviewReviewed 15th circuit local rules$425.001.0$425.00
11/26/2019AJReviewInitial review of complaint$475.001.0$475.00
11/26/2019AJMeetingMeeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy$475.000.5$237.50
11/26/2019DWMeetingMeeting w/ AJ to discuss lawsuit and strategy$425.000.5$212.50
11/26/2019AJTeleconferenceTeleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit$475.000.5$237.50
12/02/2019DWResearch & PreparationResearch and prep for Motion to dismiss$425.002.0$850.00
12/02/2019DWDraft1st Draft motion to dismiss$425.001.0$425.00
12/02/2019DWTeleconferenceTeleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to dismiss$425.000.5$212.50
12/02/2019AJReviewReviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss$475.000.3$142.50
12/02/2019AJTeleconferenceTeleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to dismiss$475.000.5$237.50
12/03/2019AJMeetingMeeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss$475.000.2$95.00
12/03/2019DWMeetingMeeting w/ AJ, re: MTDismiss$425.000.2$85.00
12/06/2019DWDraftCompleted final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with Court$425.000.7$297.50
12/06/2019DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss$425.000.5$212.50
12/06/2019DWTeleconferenceSpoke with Clerk’s attorney, re: response$425.000.5$212.50
12/06/2019AJJReviewReviewed final draft MTDismiss$475.000.2$95.00
12/06/2019AJJReviewReviewed Clerk’s MTDismiss$475.000.2$95.00
12/13/2019DWReviewReviewed Clerk’s Motion to Dismiss$425.000.5$212.50
01/16/2020DWReviewReviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants’ MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
01/16/2020DWReviewReviewed motion for pro hac vice$425.000.1$42.50
01/17/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s Amended Complaint$425.001.0$425.00
01/17/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke with client, re: Amended Complaint$425.000.5$212.50
01/17/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s notice of filing$425.000.1$42.50
01/20/2020AJJReviewReviewed PI’s Am. Compl$475.000.3$142.50
01/21/2020DWReviewReviewed Judge Marx’s Order Cancelling MTDismiss Hearing$425.000.1$42.50
01/21/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s Objection to Defendants’ MTDismiss$425.000.2$85.00
01/21/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke with client, re: Amended complaint$425.000.5$212.50
01/21/2020AJJMeetingMeeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Compl.$475.000.2$95.00
01/21/2020DWMeetingMeeting w/ AJJ, re: response to Am. Compl.$425.000.2$85.00
01/22/2020DWReviewReviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission$425.000.1$42.50
01/22/2020DWResearch & DraftResearched and drafted response to Amended Complaint$425.001.0$425.00
01/23/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke with Clerk’s attorney, re: response to amended complaint$425.000.2$85.00
01/24/2020DWVariousCompleted Answer/MTDismiss Amended Complaint; filed with Court; sent copy to Client$425.001.0$425.00
01/24/2020DWDraftDrafted and filed Notice of Unavailability$425.000.4$170.00
01/24/2020AJJReviewReviewed final Answer/MTDismiss$475.000.2$95.00
01/27/2020DWReviewReviewed Clerk’s Answer/MTDismiss$425.000.3$127.50
02/03/2020DWReviewReviewed Order setting hearing on Defs’ MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
02/03/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss hearing for March 24, 2020$425.000.5$212.50
03/13/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss$425.001.5$637.50
03/13/2020AJJReviewReviewed PI’s Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss$475.000.7$332.50
03/18/2020DWTeleconferenceReviewed email from PI’s counsel, re: motion to continue hearing$425.000.1$42.50
03/18/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s unopposed motion for continuance$425.000.1$42.50
03/18/2020DWE-mailEmails w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: PI’s request to continue hearing$425.000.2$85.00
03/19/2020DWE-mailReviewed email from PI, re: agreed order & responded$425.000.1$42.50
03/20/2020DWReviewReviewed Court’s agreed order continuing hearing$425.000.1$42.50
04/21/2020DWReviewReviewed order rescheduling hearing on Defs’ MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
04/21/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ client, re: order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing for June 3, 2020$425.000.3$127.50
04/21/2020AJReviewReviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing$475.000.1$47.50
05/22/2020DWReviewReviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: MTDismiss$425.000.1$42.50
05/22/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom$425.000.2$85.00
05/27/2020DWReviewReviewed Clerk’s filing: change of atty of record$425.000.1$42.50
05/27/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke with Clerk’s new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut$425.000.2$85.00
05/28/2020DWE-mailReviewed PI’s email, re: cases and authorities for MTDismiss hearing; responded$425.00-0.1$42.50
05/29/2020DWPreparationBegan oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss hearing$425.001.0$425.00
06/01/2020DWE-mailReviewed email from Judge Marx’s JA and responded$425.000.1$42.50
06/02/2020DWVariousReviewed PI’s 500+ page binder, re: MTDismiss & prepped for hearing$425.003.0$1,275.00
06/02/2020DWE-mailDrafted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing tomorrow$425.000.1$42.50
06/03/2020DWAttend HearingPrepped for and attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom$425.001.5$637.50
06/03/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Client, re: debrief MTDismiss hearing$425.000.5$212.50
06/03/2020DWE-mailEmailed courtesy copies of Aronberg’s Answer and MTDismiss to Judge Marx$425.000.1$42.50
06/03/2020DWE-mailReviewed response from Client and replied$425.000.1$42.50
06/03/2020AJAttend HearingAttended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom$475.001.0$475.00
06/03/2020AJReviewReviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudice$475.000.3$142.50
06/08/2020DWReviewReviewed Court’s Order Granting Defendants MTDismiss Count II w/ Prejudice$425.000.5$212.50
06/08/2020DWVariousShared order w/ Client and spoke w/, re: result and plan going forward, re: 57.105$425.000.5$212.50
06/08/2020DWVariousResearched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.; drafted 57.105 demand letter and proposed motion for attorneys’ fees/sanctions; Served PI’s counsel with demand letter and proposed motion.$425.002.0$850.00
06/08/2020AJMeetingMeeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105$475.000.3$142.50
06/08/2020DWMeetingMeeting w/ AJ, re: Order & 57.105$425.000.3$127.50
06/08/2020AJReviewReviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for sanction$475.000.2$95.00
06/10/2020DWVariousReviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk; called and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerra$425.000.3$127.50
06/23/2020DWVariousReviewed PI’s letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called and spoke w/ client, re: PI’s refusal & next steps$425.001.0$425.00
06/23/2020DWE-mailSent client copy of PI’s letter refusing to dismiss complaint$425.000.1$42.50
06/23/2020AJJReviewReviewed PI’s letter refusing to dismiss Count I/Arn. Compl.$475.000.1$47.50
07/01/2020DWVariousSpoke w/ client, re: filing of 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions; filed motion for attorneys’ fees based on PI’s failure to voluntarily dismiss amended complaint count 1$425.000.5$212.50
07/02/2020DWE-mailEmail to client, re: affidavit and summary judgment$425.000.1$42.50
07/08/2020DWTeleconferenceDiscussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence$425.000.7$297.50
07/08/2020AJJTeleconferenceDiscussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence$475.000.7$332.50
07/10/2020DWDraftCreated 1st draft of Aronberg Affidavit; shared w/ client$425.001.0$425.00
07/10/2020AJJVariousReviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW$475.000.3$142.50
07/10/2020DWMeetingDiscussed draft affidavit w/ AJJ$425.000.2$85.00
07/13/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s Request to Produce, re: Clerk$425.000.1$42.50
07/13/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Request to Produce$425.000.2$85.00
07/27/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s Amended Request to Produce, re: Clerk$425.000.1$42.50
07/27/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Amended Request to Produce$425.000.1$42.50
07/28/2020DWDraftRevised Aronberg affidavit$425.000.5$212.50
07/29/2020DWDraftFinalized Aronberg Affidavit and sent to client$425.000.5$212.50
07/29/2020DWResearch & PreparationResearch and prep for Motion for Summary Judgment$425.001.0$425.00
07/30/2020DWVariousReceived executed Aronberg Affidavit$425.000.1$42.50
07/30/2020DWDraftBegan drafting Motion for Summary Judgment$425.002.0$850.00
08/05/2020DWDraftContinued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment$425.001.0$425.00
08/07/2020DWReviewReviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to set hearing on 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions$425.000.1$42.50
08/10/2020DWE-mailSent responsive email to PI’s counsel$425.000.1$42.50
08/17/2020DWMeetingDiscussed draft MSJ w/ AJJ$425.000.2$85.00
08/17/2020AJJVariousReviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss$475.000.5$237.50
08/18/2020DWDraftFinalized Motion for Summary Judgment; filed w/ court along with Aronberg affidavit$425.002.0$850.00
08/27/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: request to produce$425.000.1$42.50
09/01/2020DWVariousReviewed PI’s email and accepted conference call invite for 9/2/20$425.000.1$42.50
09/02/2020DWReviewReviewed Clerk’s response to request for production$425.000.2$85.00
09/02/2020DWTeleconferenceSpoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: dispute as to whether MSJ should be heard before 57.105 fee motion or vis versa - call was unsuccessful$425.000.5$212.50
09/02/2020AJMeetingDiscussed w/ DAW phone call w/ PI’s counsel$475.000.2$95.00
09/02/2020DWMeetingDiscussed w/ AJ phone call w/ PI’s counsel$425.000.2$85.00
09/16/2020DWE-mailReviewed email from PI’s counsel requested Aronberg to withdraw sanctions motion w/o prejudice$425.000.1$42.50
09/17/2020DWMeetingDiscussed w/ AJ filing motion for CMC$425.000.1$42.50
09/17/2020AJMeetingDiscussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC$475.000.1$47.50
09/18/2020DWVariousDrafted and filed motion to set case management conference; re: MSJ 1st or Fee hearing 1st$425.000.5$212.50
09/18/2020DWE-mailResponded to PI’s 9/16/20 email and refused to withdraw 57.105 motion; provided copy of motion to set CMC and available dates for hearing$425.000.1$42.50
09/18/2020DWE-mailReviewed PI’s email insisting that 57.105 motion be withdrawn$425.000.1$42.50
09/18/2020DWE-mailReplied to PI’s counsel that the 57.105 motion for sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for response, re: CMC$425.000.1$42.50
09/18/2020DWE-mailSent client copy of email exchange w/ PI’s counsel; called and spoke w/ Client$425.000.5$212.50
09/22/2020DWVariousDrafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/20; set up Court Call; spoke w/ client, re: hearing date$425.000.7$297.50
10/02/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s Memo of Law opposing Aronberg’s 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions$425.000.7$297.50
10/02/2020DWReviewReviewed PI’s Response to Aronberg’s request to schedule 57.105 motion for fees after MSJ$425.000.5$212.50
10/02/2020AJReviewReviewed PI’s Memo of Law opposing 57.105 motion$475.000.5$237.50
10/02/2020AJReviewReviewed PI’s Response to Aronberg’s request to schedule 57.105 motion after MSJ$475.000.4$190.00
10/12/2020DWResearchResearch caselaw & statutes, re: response to PI’s Memo of Law$425.001.0$425.00
10/13/2020DWResearch & AnalyzeContinued researching caselaw, re: response to PI’s memo of law$425.001.0$425.00
10/13/2020DWDraftCreated 1st draft of Response to PI’s Memo of Law and shared w/ Client$425.004.0$1,700.00
10/13/2020DWMeetingDiscussed w/ AJ caselaw and draft response to memo$425.000.5$212.50
10/13/2020AJVariousReviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and caselaw$475.000.7$332.50
10/14/2020DWDraftFinalized and filed Response to PI’s Memo of Law$425.001.0$425.00
10/14/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: memo of law$425.000.2$85.00
10/14/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law$425.000.1$42.50
10/15/2020DWAttend HearingAttended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC; called client to discuss$425.001.5$637.50
10/15/2020DWVariousReviewed email and letter from PI, re: settlement. Sent copy to Client and called to discuss.$425.000.5$212.50

•

10/15/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement$425.000.1$42.50
10/15/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: PI’s settlement proposal$425.000.2$85.00
10/15/2020AJVariousAttended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; discussed w/ client$475.001.0$475.00
10/15/2020AJVariousDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW and then w/ Client$475.000.4$190.00
10/15/2020DWMeetingDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJ$425.000.2$85.00
10/16/2020DWVariousDrafted and shared proposed order w/ PI’s counsel$425.000.5$212.50
10/16/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement$425.000.2$85.00
10/16/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: PI’s settlement proposal$425.000.5$212.50
10/16/2020DWMeetingDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJ$425.000.2$85.00
10/16/2020AJMeetingDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW$475.000.2$95.00
10/19/2020DWVariousUploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge Hafele$425.000.1$42.50
10/19/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: PI’s settlement proposal$425.000.2$85.00
10/19/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement$425.000.1$42.50
10/19/2020AJMeetingDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW$475.000.2$95.00
10/19/2020DWMeetingDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJ$425.000.2$85.00
10/20/2020DWVariousReviewed email from PI, re: settlement; sent copy to Client and called to discuss$425.000.5$212.50
10/20/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: settlement$425.000.4$170.00
10/20/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement$425.000.1$42.50
10/20/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: settlement$425.000.1$42.50
10/20/2020DWMeetingDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJ$425.000.2$85.00
10/20/2020AJMeetingDiscussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW$475.000.2$95.00
10/21/2020DWVariousDrafted and filed Motion to Set Hearing on Aronberg MSJ; drafted proposed order granting motion to set; checked court availability; emailed PI’s counsel, re: choose date for hearing$425.001.0$425.00
10/21/2020DWReviewReviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.2$85.00
10/21/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWTelephoneSpoke w/ client, re: media response$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020DWE-mailSent email w/ Aronberg statement to media$425.000.1$42.50
10/21/2020AJMeetingDiscussed media response w/ DAW$475.000.3$142.50
10/21/2020DWMeetingDiscussed media response w/ AJ$425.000.3$127.50
10/22/2020DWVariousReviewed PI’s Notice of Dropping Aronberg as party; spoke w/ Client and AJ, re: notice and next steps$425.000.5$212.50
10/22/2020AJJVariousReviewed PI’s Notice of Dropping Aronberg as party; spoke w/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next steps$475.000.5$237.50
Totals:74.8$32,440.00
Time Entry Sub-Total:$32,440.00
Sub-Total:$32,440.00
Total:$32,440.00
Amount Paid:$0.00
Balance Due:$32,440.00

EXHIBIT “G”

EXHIBIT “G”

JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC.

A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. ARTHUR I. JACOBS

FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA 32004

RICHARD J. SCHOLZ, P.A. RICHARD J. SCHOLZ

DOUGLAS A. WYLER, P.A. DOUGLAS A. WYLER

TELEPHONE (904) 261-3693 FAX NO. (904) 261-7879

November 26, 2019

Office of the State Attorney 15th Judicial Circuit Attn: Jeanne Howard 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Re: CA Florida Holdings, LLC v. Dave Aronberg et al. Case No.: 2019-CA-014681

Dear Mrs. Howard:

The purpose of this letter is to confirm that [REDACTED] Scholz & Wyler, LLC will represent you regarding the above-referenced matter.

Our fees will be contingent upon our success in this matter. You will not be liable or required to pay any monies to our office unless we are successful in our representation of you regarding the above-referenced litigation and receive a court order awarding attorneys’ fees.

Accordingly, should we be successful in this matter, you agree to be billed for the time incurred in defending this action at our current hourly rates. At this time, our current hourly rates are: $475.00/hour for senior partners, $425.00/hour for other partners, $375.00/hour for associate attorneys, and $125.00/hour for paralegal time.

Furthermore, the attorneys’ fees paid to our firm shall be calculated by the above listed hourly rates multiplied by the number of hours expended in defending this action or the total fee mandated and awarded by the court order herein, whichever is greater.

By signing below, you agree to the terms as set forth above. Please return a signed and dated copy of this letter to our office. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact our office. On behalf of the firm, we are proud to represent you in this matter.

Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. For the Firm

6/4/2020 Date

Discuss on Bluesky

Retrieved from https://epstein-index.org/documents/court-ca-florida-holdings-efta02735536/.