Affidavit of attorneys' fees for a state attorney's defense in Palm Beach suit, Apr. 2022

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 Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida.¶

CASE.NO.: 19-CA- 14681¶

CO S¶

AMENDED & SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES & COSTS COUNTY OF NASSAU `9¶

BEFORE ME, the undersigned auth 8ppSed A Douglas A. Wyler. Esq.. who, after being first duly sworn, deposes and say¶

• 1. Affiant is a part SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, counsel for Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as t te Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, (“Aronberg”), as well as general couns t: Iiiiir the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys Association, (“FPAA”), and makes this Affidavit of IS own rsonal knowledge.
• 2. ----Affiant is licensed to practice law in the State of Florida, is an active member of the Florida Darin 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 A ffiant’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,

Party JOINT¶

ID#. J33 EV# DATE ADMITTED: 9 ZZ 1¶

Joint Exhibit J33¶

Case No 2019-CA-014681¶

Plaintiff’s October 21, 2020 Notice of Dropping State Attorney, Dave Aronberg from the above-captioned lawsuit, and Defendant Aronberg’s Amended Motion for Attorneys’ Fees filed on November 9, 2020. See, Exhibits “A”, “B”, and “C” attached hereto.¶

4. The total time Affiant’s law firm has expended services rendered to date is 161.1 hours; however, from the date of Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 demand, Affiant’s law firm has expended a total of 129 hours.

5. Of the 129 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 demand was served, the total time Affiant has expended services rendered to date is 116.2 hours at the rate of $425.00 per hour. Likewise, the total time Affiant’s law partner, Arthur J. Jacobs, has expended services rendered to date is 12.8 hours at the rate of $475.00 per hour.

6. Accordingly, since Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 demand was served, Defendant Aronberg’s counsel, [REDACTED], SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, has rendered services in the amount of $55,465.00 (calculated at 116.2 hours x $425.00/ hour + 12.8 hours x $475.00/hour), in conjunction with the defense of the instant action pursuant to § 57.105, Florida Statutes. See, Exhibit “D” attached hereto.

7. Affiant expects to incur an additional 15.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for, traveling to, and attending the hearing on attorneys’ fees. Thus, the total amount of hourly attorneys’ fees the State Attorney is seeking is 144 hours for a total of $61,840.00 (calculated at 131.2 hours x $425.00/hour + 12.8 hours x $475.00).

8. In addition to the legal fees, Affiant’s law firm incurred expenses for costs during the defense of Defendant Aronberg. These costs include the costs taxable pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 57.041 and total $1,482.77. Affiant expects to incur an additional $800.00 in costs relating to the proceeding on Defendant Aronberg’s Amended Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Thus, the

total amount of costs sought to be reimbursed herein total $2,282.77. See, Exhibit “D” attached hereto.¶

9. The attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Affiant’s law firm on behalf of Defendant Aronberg are reasonable. Moreover, the hourly rate charged to the client was reasonable for this geographic region as was the time and labor required, the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly, the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, the amount in controversy, and the results obtained.

Dated this 12th day of April, 2022.¶

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.¶

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by means of physical appearance this 12th day of April, 2022, by Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire, who is personally known to me and who did take an oath.¶

Name typed, printed or stamped¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 12th day of April, 2022, a copy of the foregoing Amended & Supplemental Affidavit of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs has been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein.¶

[REDACTED] SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC¶

Arthur I. Ng Esq.¶

Fla.:Bar No.: 10249¶

Richard J. Scholz, EiCi.¶

Fla: Bar No.: 0021261¶

Douglas A. Wyler, Esq;¶

Fla. Bar No.: 119970¶

961687 Gateway Ethid., Suite201-1¶

• Fernandina Beach; Florida 32034¶

(904).261-3693¶

(904) 26t77879 Fax C¶

Prirnary:jacdhsscholziaw t.net¶

Attorneys for Defeticla • Arciirberg¶

SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC.¶

GATEWAY TO AMELIA¶

961687 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 201-1¶

FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA 32034¶

[REDACTED] & ASSOCIATES, P.A. ARTHUR I. [REDACTED]¶

VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL¶

Boca Raton, FL 33486¶

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

As you are aware our firm represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, in the above referenced matter. 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 Aronberg, nor The Office of the. State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit it 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 hitti or his office to produce. Accordingly, Defendant Aronberg is hots 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 M the foregoingmakeriat fads that negate the Claims asscrtedin the Complaint, your claims. are also not supported bythe application of current law. . Specifically, your action for dec tory relief fails based on the clear, unambiguous statutory language found in Section 905.27(2), Statutes, which states:¶

When such. disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to Stibsection (I civil case, it may be disClosed.to all patties. to the case and to their anon e latter to their legal. associates ‘anti employees. However, the grandj tes . afforded such persons by the cowl canonlv beused in the defense or pr thecivii or criminal ease and for no other purpose whatsoever.¶

Moreover, evenif die Plaintiff were:to prevail in the declare a r. Aronberg would be unable to.comply with. any court order granting disclosure of t documents because neither Mr. A tmtherg .nor The. Office-of the State Attorney for Judicial Circuit have. possession, ctistodY., or control of the2006 Epstein grand jury¶

Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is the enclosed Motion for Attorney’s Fees W and your firm, recovery of the legal ex within 21 days ot the. service of this letter, and we will seek as sanctions, from,your client inc ed in defendingihis frivolous action.¶

Please govern yourself according’¶

4¶

Douglas A. Wyler, Epq For the Firm¶

End.: Defend Motion for Attorneys’ Fees¶

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys’ fees for the defense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law.¶

WHEREFORE, 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 day , 2020, the foregoing was electronically filed via the Florida E-File Portal for electronic service on the parties of record herein.¶

SCITOLZ & WYLER, LLC¶

Arthur I. Esquire Bar,No.: 108249 Richard J. Scholz, Esqui Fla. Bar No.: 002126 Douglas A. Wyler Fla. Bar No.: 11 961687 Oatewa lv. , Suite 2014 Fernand orida .32034 (904) 2 •vi@omcastnet¶

or. ys for Defendant¶

CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB¶

DIVISION: AG¶

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.¶

smithl@gtlaw.com¶

54 State St., 6th Floor Albany, New York 12207 grygielm@gtlaw.com¶

1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles California 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 boyajiann@gtlaw.com riveraal@gtlaw.com¶

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¶

INTECIRCUITCOURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT INANDFORPA PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

CAFLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC,¶

CASE NO.:19 -CA-014681¶

DÁVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of¶

DEFENDANT DAVE ARONBERG’S AMENDED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES¶

Defendant, DÁVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 1.525, Fla. R. Civ. P. to enter an award of attorneys’ fees in his favor against Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST, and in support thereof states the following:¶

BASIS FOR AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES¶

1. On November 14, 2019, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida (the “State Attorney” or “Defendant Aronberg”) and SHARON R. BOCK, as 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 Epsteingrand jury materials, (the “Requested Materials”), pursuant to §905.27(1) Fla. Stat.

2. 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 I) 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.

3. On January 24, 2019, both the State Attorney and the Clerk filed their Answer to the First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Count II (“Answer/Motion to Dismiss”). Notably, the State Attorney’s Answer/Motion to Dismiss asserted its right to attorneys’ fees for defending the action and requested such relief from the Court.

4. On June 8, 2020, the Court entered its Order Granting Defendants Motions to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint with Prejudice (“Order”).

5. Immediately following the Court’s Order, on June 8, 2020, the State Attorney, through the undersigned counsel, served Plaintiff with a demand pursuant to § 57.105 Fla. Stat., to voluntary dismiss/withdraw the First Amended Complaint and the claims against the State Attorney, along with a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“57.105 Demand”). See, Exhibit “A”. Specifically, because of the Court’s Order only Count I of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint remained, which sought Declaratory Relief under § 86.011, Fla. Stat.

6. Here, 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.

7. On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a response to the 57-105 Demand refusing to withdraw the remainder of the First Amended Complaint. See, Exhibit “B”.

8. § 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 not withdrawn or appropriately corrected.¶

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

10. Thereafter, on August 18, 2020, the State Attorney 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”) after it became clear that there would be no resolution of this matter without the Court’s intervention.

11. Nonetheless, later the same day, rather than setting and participating in a hearing on the merits as to State Attorney’s Motion, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Dropping the State Attorney (“Notice”) from the instant case. See, Exhibit “D”. As a consequence of filing its Notice, Plaintiff has effectively made an admission that its allegations against the State Attorney have no basis in factor law.

12. “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).

13. 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 abovecase.”

14. Rule 1.250(b), 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)(1) subject to the exception stated 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 dropped by order of court on its own initiative or the motion of any party at any stage of the action on such terms as are just.¶

15. Rule 1.420(a)(1), Fla.R.Civ.P., Voluntary Dismissal states:

(1) By Parties. 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 none 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 prejudice, 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 based on reincluding the same claim.¶

16. Notably, “[R]ule 1.250(b) expressly incorporates the procedural aspects of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1) governing voluntary dismissal by providing that parties may be dropped in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in rule 1.420(a)(1) subject to the exception stated in that rule.” Siboni Allen, 52 So.3d 779, 780 (Fla.5th DC A 2010).

17. Likewise, because Rule 1.250(b) specifies that a party is dropped “in the manner provided for voluntary dismissal in Rule 1.420(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.

18. 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 judgm entforced and attorney’s fees.” Id.

19. 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), Florida Statutes makes clear that Plaintiff’s Requested Materials can only be released by the Clerk pursuant to a court order,

The stenographic records, notes, and transcriptions made by the court reporter or stenographer shall be filed with the clerk who shall keep them in 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 clerk only on request by a grand jury for use by the grand jury or on order of the court pursuant to s. 905.27.¶

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

20. The State Attorney has no objection to the Clerk producing and disclosing the Requested Materials should the Court grant an order to that effect, however, it is impossible for the State Attorney to comply with the relief sought by Plaintiff in its remaining claim for declaratory relief as he does not possess or control the Requested Materials and is statutorily barred from any disclosure.

21. Although the State Attorney was prepared to make his argument to the Court, Plaintiff decided instead to drop him as a party. Despite Plaintiff’s decision, the Florida Rules of 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),“{sup}5 it therefore “operates as an adjudication on the merits.” See, Siboni v. [REDACTED], 52 So. 3d 779, 781 (Fla. 5th DGA 2010); Rule 1.420(a)(1) Fla.R.Civ.P.

22, Consequently, the filing of Plaintiff’s Notice triggered Rule 1,525, Fla:. R. Civ: P. andtherefOret¶

Under f§ 57,1051, the legislature has expressed its unequivocal ihtenuthat where a party files a meritless claim, spit or appeal, the party who is wrongfully required to’ expendfundsforattomeys feesisentitledtorecoupthosefees¶

County Conservation Alliance v. (finding that “Courts arenot at hbertyto disregard the legiSlative mandate that court sanctions in cases without ‘foundation in. material .fact. &law. The: ord “s - ” CA Stat., evidences the:legislative intent to impose a mandatory penalty to by placing a price tag on losingparties. who engage in these State*. Count 1st assess tittOttley’S feet for:bringing,* defepses..”), County,’ 3 So. 3d 856, S51.(Fla. 1st A 2011) i mpose 05,T1a. aseless claims, ies. tort .57.105 expressly ditriths, batelets elairria or¶

21 In fact, “Section 57.11.15(1)rclee authority to award. attorney’s fees to the tmds.that. the losing party … knew presented io the court or at a necessary to establish the claim .2010). plicitly.confers, upon. iheirial court the party upon the court’s initiative, if the court aye known.that a claim or defense when initially. dile . . not supportediy theinaterial facts defense?’ v.. M, 47 So. 3d 320, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA¶

24. ple fact of the, matter is that Plaintiff failed to withdraw its Ainended the State Attorney within the .21-day period provided for in section 57:105(4), and the fore the State Attorney was pennitied to. file his 57:105 Motion for Attorneys.’ Fees as sanctions.

25. Furthermore, based on the impossible nature of Plaintiff’s :demand of the State Attorney, it was proper to demand withdraWal of Plaintiff’s retaining claidi 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 an order of the Court.¶

26. Consequently, the State Attorney is entitled to recover all of his reasonable attorneys’ fees indefending thissuit by virtue of 57.105, Florida Statutes,

REASONABLENESS AND AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES¶

27. 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 legal services for a total amount of $18,275.00 in defending this action. See time sheets detailing: the amount of hours by each timekeeper, the timekeeper’s hourly rate, and a description of the tasks done during those times, on attached Exhibit “E”. Of that amount, the undersigned has been paid $0.00 as the engagement with the State Attorney is on a pure contingency fee basis. The undersigned expects to incur an additional 4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for and attending the hearing on attorneys’ fees. Thus, the total amount of hourly attorneys’ fees the State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of $19,975.00. As further set forth below, the State Attorney also seeks a multiplier of 2.0, which when applied makes the grand total attorneys’ fees assanctions sought therein $39,950.00.

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

29. 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 Fundy. [REDACTED], 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) :

Factor	Facts 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 properly	The 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 lawyer	Because 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 their stantmatter.
(C) the fee, or rate office, customarily charged in the locality for legal services of a comparable or similar nature	The base fees consisting of $425.00/hour for Mr. Wyler’s services and $475.00/hour for Mr. [REDACTED]‘s 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 obtained	The 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 client	There 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 client	As 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.

(G)the experience, reputation, diligence, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the service and the skill, expertise, or efficiency of effort reflected in the actual providing of such services

This representation required experience in a field available to few lawyers, which included defending the State Attorney from claims of a media entity and lawyers from multiple states regarding the release of information with a nationwide interest. Accordingly, the undersigned counsel conducted the representation with skill and efficiency wherein Defendant Aronberg was dismissed from the action prior to any hearing on the merits before the court.

(H) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, and, if 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.

The fee arrangement herein was entirely contingent, wherein obtaining a fee was conditioned upon prevailing and obtaining an order awarding fees.

JUSTIFICATION FOR MULTIPLIER¶

30. Defendant Aronberg was able to proceed with this litigation only if counsel would receive a court order awarding contingency based attorneys’ fees upon achievement of a successful outcome in this case. See, Exhibit “G”. Given this and the fact that counsel risked a total of 74.8 hours of work for no pay, of which 39.4 hours is subject to the 57.105 Demand, Defendant Aronberg submits that multiplier of 2.0 would be appropriate in this case. Based upon the hours expended, the hourly rates and a 2.0 multiplier, Defendant Aronberg respectfully requests an award of attorneys’ fees as an action sassated herein.

31. With regard to the application of a multiplier, the court must analyze the three factors set forth in 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 [redacted] are applicable, especially the amount involved, the results obtained, and the type of fee arrangement between the attorney and his client.

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

32. 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 was left needing representation by other, private counsel. Although the undersigned counsel and his law firm are General Counsel for the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys’ Association, Inc., (“EPAA”) the instant matter did not fall within the scope of representation for the EPAA and required a separate engagement between Defendant Aronberg and the undersigned counsel. Accordingly, the undersigned counsel and his law firm agreed to represent Defendant Aronberg a contingency fee basis and to try the case to final judgment considering that there was no other counsel willing to represent Defendant Aronberg on such terms.

33. With respect to the other factors to be considered in applying a multiplier as set forth in Quanstrom, here Defendant Aronberg 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 Rowe 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 case was initiated, the multipliershouldbeintherangeof 2.5to 3.¶

Florida Patient’s Compensation Fundv. Rowe ,472So.2d 1.145 (Fla. 1985).¶

34. Additionally, the Quanstrom court confirmed and modified the [REDACTED] approach, as follows:

However, we find that the multiplier in [REDACTED] should be modified as follows: If the trial court determines that success was more likely than not at the outset, it may 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 apply a multiplier of 1.5 to 2.0; and if the trial court determines that success was unlikely at the outset of the case, it may apply a multiplier of 2.0 to 2.5. Accordingly, our Rowe decision is modified to allow a multiplier from 1 to 2.5.¶

Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828, 834 (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 GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO RESOLVE¶

The undersigned certifies that a good faith effort was made to resolve the issues raised in this motion by agreement of the parties. The parties were unable to resolve by agreement the issues of entitlement to fees or the amount of fees.¶

WHEREFORE, Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, prays that this Honorable Court will enter an Order awarding Defendant Aronberg his reasonable attorneys’ fees with a multiplier of 2.0 against the Plaintiff, CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, publisher of the PALM BEACH POST , in the amount of $3 9,950.00.¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of November, 2020, a copy 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.¶

JACOBSSCHOLZ&WYLER,LLC¶

/s/DouglasA.Wyler¶

---

ArthurI.Jacobs,Esq. Fla.BarNo.:10249 RichardJ.Scholz,Esq. Fla.BarNo.:0021261 DouglasA.Wyler,Esq. Fla.BarNo.:119979 961687GatewayBlvd.,Suite201-1 FernandinaBeach,Florida32034 (904)261-3693 (904)261-7879Fax Primary:jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net¶

Attorneysfor Defendant, Dave Aronberg¶

Subject: SERVICEOFC OURTDDCUMEN T; CASE NO. 2019-Ck014681; CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC V. DAVE ARON8ERGET AL. Date: Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: DouglasW yler To: itiehdelSohiisebOlaviteoMI, sritithlgelaw.cOm, eserViteegtlaw.cotri, BoyajiariN@gtlaw.com, riveraalOgtlaweeit, GRYGitim@g0aw.tom Attachments: 2920-06-08Ar onbergS7.10$DemandandMotionf orA ttorneys’ Fees.pdf¶

Pleaseseea flatbed and below in this matter.¶

Court:	CircuitCourtoftheFift_eenthJudicialCircuit,inandforPalmBeachCounty, Florida
CaseNo:	CaseNo.2020-CA-014681
Plaintiff:	CAFloridaHoldings, LLC
Defendant:	Dave Aronberg
TitleofDocuments	Fla.Stat.§ 57.105 Demand Letter
Served:	Defendant, Dave Aronberg’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
Sender’s Name and Telephone Number:	DouglasWyler (904) 261-3693

aD Wyler, Esq. Scholz:& Wider, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd., STE 201-I Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 904-261-3893 904-2614879 (fax) dpigimtlertacomcast.net¶

Pleasebeadvisedtha tthise-mailanda lestr ansmittedwithitar ec onfidentiel attorney-client communication or may oche privileged or confidential and are intended solely forae individual or entity to•whom they are addre sed. If you are not the intended recipient, pleate do not read, copy or retransmit this coin ‘cation ut destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this co on is strictly prohibited.¶

SCHOLZ Sc WYLER, LLC.¶

mikLAW Off ICCS or a Ala PA. ?PINUP¶

A UNITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS¶

GATEWAY TO.AMCLIA ’ 96.07 GATEWAY BLVD.. SUITE ROW FERNAXINNA BEAM FLORIDA 32034¶

TCULPHONC 4904r 261.3603 FAX NO. 49040 S61-7079

¶

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 Aronbe Palm Beach County, Case No • 2019-CA-0

¶

As you are aware our’ irm represents the interes. County, Florida:in the above referenced matt dismissal of your First Amended Complaint is made pursuant to section 57105, Flo( a Aronbeeg, a1-StateAttomey of Pilm Beach se of this letter is to demand the yoluntary plaint”), dated January 17, 2020. This’ demand¶

As you know; Section 57.1¶

RICMARO. J. SCHOLI, P.A. RICMARO J. 5O+61.2 DOUGLAS A. WYLCR..P.A. DOUGLAS A. …Picot¶

• (I) Upon the court’s or motion of any .party, the toilet shall. award a reasonable attorne , including prejudgment interest, to be paid to the prevailing in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney on any -clai o nse at any time: during a civil proceeding or action in which the c fipd I at the losing prty or the losing party’s attorney knew or should hay own that a claim or defense when initially presented to the court or at any trial:. as 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 fatts. •

Today. Judge Marx granted, with prejudite,.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 l’, for Declaratory Relief. Accordingly, we believe that thf Complaint filed herein and Its:sole reinaining Count for Declaratory Relief is not supported by the -facts necessary to • establish the claims asserted, and that your claims.arc not supported by the application of current law to said material facts¶

Firtt and foremost, the Complaint is not:aupported. 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 rity client that are impossible for hint or hit office to produce. AccOrdingly, Defendant Arenberg 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 thb Complaint; your claims are also not supported by the application of current law.. Specificafty, your ac ion for dec tory relief fails based on the .clear, - unambiguous.statutory language found in. Section 905.27(2), r a Statutes, which states:¶

When such disclosure is ordered by a court purtuant to subsection (1 civil case, it may be disclosed to all. parties to thecase and to their anon . latter to their legal associates and employees. However,Ae grand’ to afforded such persons by the court can .only be used in the defense or pr h n ofthe civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever.¶

Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the declare r. Aronbergwobld be unable to comply with any court order granting disclosure of documents because neither Mr. Aronberg. nor The Office of the State Attorney for r Judicial’ Circuit have potsession, custody, or control of the 2006 Epstein grand jury¶

Based on the foregoing, if the Complaint is ss Within 21 days of the service of letter, the enclosed Motion for Aftoincy’s Fees W. de and we will seek as sanctions, from your client and your firm, recovery of the legal ex inc in defending this frivolous action.¶

Please.govern yourself according)¶

4¶

Douglas A, Wyler, Esq For the Firm¶

End.: Defe Motion.for Attorneys’ fees¶

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section §7.105, to award him reasonable attorneys’ fees for the defense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law.¶

WHEREFORE, 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.¶

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

[REDACTED] SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC¶

Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034¶

Attorneys for Defendant¶

Stephen A. Mendelsohn Tel 561.955.7629 Fax 561.659.9119¶

June 23, 2020¶

Douglas A. Wyler Jacob Scholz & Wyler, LLC 961687 Gateway Blvd. Suite 201-I Fernandina Beach, Fl. 32034¶

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

Dear Mr. Wyler:¶

We are in receipt of your letter of June 8, 2020 with your proposed Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion. In your letter and your proposed motion, you assert that CA Florida Holdings, LLC and the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. should be liable for the attorneys’ fees to be incurred by State Attorney Aronberg after the date of your letter. Your letter cites to Fla. Stat. sections 57.105(1) (a) and (b) for support. As shown below, there is no basis for a Fla. Stat. section 57.105 motion, and we expect that if the State Attorney were to make such a motion, the court should deny it.¶

Your letter omits a citation to section 57.105(3). Subsection 57.105(3)(a) provides that sanctions may not be awarded where there is a “good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, as it is applied to the material facts, with a reasonable expectation of success.” We have such a good faith argument.¶

Contrary to your analysis of Fla. Stat. section 905.27, there are actually three instances where a court may order the release of grand jury materials. As we argue, the court may order release “in furtherance of justice.” There are few cases in Florida reviewing this provision and its scope. It is an open and valid question as to whether the court may order release of grand jury transcripts to the media, under both the statute and the First Amendment to the US Constitution in furtherance of justice. The statutory language you cite refers to instances where a person is seeking grand jury materials for 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 statute 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 Traurig, P.A. | Attorneys at Law¶

5100 Town Center Circle | Suite 400 | Boca Raton, Florida 33486 | T +1 561.955.7600 | F +1 561.338.7099¶

Albany, Amsterdam, Atlanta, Austin, Berlin, Boca Raton, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Delaware, Denver, Fort Lauderdale, Houston, Las Vegas, London, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Miami, Milan, Minneapolis, Nashville, New Jersey, New York, Northern Virginia, Orange County, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Francisco, Seoul, Shanghai, Silicon, Valley, Tallahassee, Tampa, Tel Aviv, Tokyo, Warsaw, Washington, D.C. West Palm Beach, Westchester County.¶

(cited at “Greenberg Traurig Denying US Constitutional Standing And Constitutional Standing Against The Circuit Court Acknowledged at the June 2, 2020 Hearing includes The Palm Beach Post, that the statutory language you cite refers to instances where a person is seeking grand jury materials for use in a civil or in a criminal case.”)¶

Correspondence to Douglas A. Wyler¶

June 23, 2020¶

Page 2¶

use limitation you cite applies. No reported 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 is also contained in the State Attorney’s Answer. Assuming that the State Attorney does not currently [REDACTED] be physical possession of the Epstein grand jury materials, which has yet to be demonstrated, this does not end the matter. The State Attorney was named as a party not simply as a custodian of grand jury records. The State Attorney was named in his official capacity as his office has “as its primary interest the protection of its grand jury system.” [Italics in original.] In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F. 3d 554, 559 (11{sup}th Circuit 1987). In that case, the US petitioned a state judge to order the State Attorney to turn over grand jury transcripts. The State Attorney argued against their release citing to Fla. Stat. section 905.27. Later, a federal grand jury subpoenaed the Broward County State Attorney for delivery of state grand jury testimony. The Broward State Attorney advised the federal court that it would produce the transcripts, thereby demonstrating that while it may not have physical possession of the materials, he had legal authority to obtain and deliver them. It should also be noted that the State Attorney moved to quash the subpoena arguing that it was unlawful under Florida law and Fla. Stat. section 905.27. This case indicates that where one seeks grand jury materials, the relevant State Attorney is a necessary party in order to protect the grand jury that the Office of State Attorney supervised and to make arguments, if need be, against release of the grand jury materials. These are some of the same reasons why the State Attorney was named in this case.¶

Also, assuming the State Attorney does not have physical possession of the grand jury materials, there is nothing in Florida law that prohibits the State Attorney from requesting that the Clerk provide copies to the State Attorney. Chapter 905, Fla. Stats. does not contain a prohibition against a State Attorney demand that the Clerk grant his office access to grand jury materials, even after a criminal case has concluded. Upon information and belief, the Clerk’s office maintains a log that tracks release of grand jury materials to the State Attorney upon its request. Please confirm whether the State Attorney has accessed grand jury materials from the Clerk’s office in other instances, or that it has never done so. If the Clerk has such a log, then its contents should be discoverable, or subject to Florida Public records laws.¶

Correspondence to Douglas A. Wyly;¶

June 232 2020¶

Page 3¶

For these reasons, we decline your Fla. Stat. section 57.105 demand that he case be dismissed against the.0ffice of the Slate. Attorney. We expect•tbat your demand will. bewithdrawn.¶

Thank you,¶

Very truly Mat¶

/8/Stephen Mendelsohn¶

Stephen Mendelsohn¶

ACTIVE 51081659v1¶

Co¶

INTERCIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT¶

CAFLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC,¶

Defendants:¶

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys’ fees for the defense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law.¶

WHEREFORE, 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 in curred herein after service of this Motion.¶

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 herein.¶

JACOBSSCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC¶

Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034¶

Attorneys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg¶

CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB¶

DIVISION: AG¶

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.¶

smithli@gtlaw.com¶

54 State St., 6th Floor Albany, New York 12207 grygielm@gtlaw.com¶

1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles California 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 boyajiann@gtlaw.com riveraal@gtlaw.com¶

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¶

EXHIBIT “E”¶

EXHIBIT “E”¶

Dave Aronberg¶

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

Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC¶

Date	EE	Activity	Description	Rate	Hours	Line Total
11/26/2019	DW	Review	Initial review of summons and complaint.	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
11/26/2019	DW	Review	Reviewed motion for pro hac vice and Judge Hafele’ order granting	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
11/26/2019	DW	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit.	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
11/26/2019	DW	Draft	Drafted engagement letter and sent to client	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
11/26/2019	DW	Review	Reviewed 15th circuit local rules	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
11/26/2019	AJ	Review	Initial review of complaint	$475.00	1.0	$475.00
11/26/2019	AJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy.	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
11/26/2019	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJ to discuss lawsuit and strategy	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
11/26/2019	AJ	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
12/02/2019	DW	Research & Preparation	Research and prep for Motion to dismiss	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
12/02/2019	DW	Draft	1st Draft motion to dismiss	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
12/02/2019	DW	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to dismiss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
12/02/2019	AJ	Review	Reviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
12/02/2019	AJ	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to dismiss.	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
12/03/2019	AJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
12/03/2019	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJ, re: MTDismiss	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
12/06/2019	DW	Draft:	Completed final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with Court	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
12/06/2019	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50

12/06/2019	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with Clerk’s attorney, re: response	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
12/06/2019	AJJ	Review	Reviewed final draft MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
12/06/2019	AJJ	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
12/13/2019	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s Motion to Dismiss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/16/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/16/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed motion for pro hac vice	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/17/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Amended Complaint	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
01/17/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/17/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s notice of filing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/20/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Am. Compl	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
01/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Judge Marx’s Order Cancelling MTDismiss Hearing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Objection to Defendants’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
01/21/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/21/2020	AJJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Compl.	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
01/21/2020	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJJ, re: response to Am. Compl.	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
01/22/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/22/2020	DW	Research & Draft	Researched and drafted response to Amended Complaint	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
01/23/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with Clerk’s attorney, re: response to amended complaint	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
01/24/2020	DW	Various	Completed Answer/MTDismiss Amended Complaints filed with Court; sent copy to Client.	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
01/24/2020	DW	Draft	Drafted and filed Notice of Unavailability	$425.00	0.4	$170.00
01/24/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
01/27/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s Answer/MTDismiss	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
02/03/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order setting hearing on Defs’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
02/03/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss hearing for March 24, 2020	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
03/13/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
03/13/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss	$475.00	0.7	$332.50
03/18/2020	DW	Teleconference	Reviewed email from PI’s counsel, re: motion to continue hearing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
03/18/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s unopposed motion for continuance	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
03/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Emails w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: PI’s request to continue hearing	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
03/19/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed email from PI, re: agreed order & responded.	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
03/20/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Court’s agreed order continuing hearing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50

04/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Defs’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
04/21/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ client; re: order-rescheduling MTDismiss hearing for June 3, 2020	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
04/21/2020	AJ	Review	Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing	$475.00	0.1	$47.50
05/22/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
05/22/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
05/27/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s filing: change of aity of record	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
05/27/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with Clerk’s new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
05/28/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed PI’s email, re: cases and authorities for MTDismiss hearing; responded	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
05/29/2020	DW	Preparation	Begän oräl ärgument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss hearing	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
06/01/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed email from Judge Marx’s JA and responded	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/02/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed PI’s 500+ page binder, re: MTDismiss & prepped for hearing	$425.00	3.0	$1,275.00
06/02/2020	DW	E-mail	Drafted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing tomorrow	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/03/2020	DW	Attend Hearing	Prepped for and attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
06/03/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ Client, re: debrief MTDismiss hearing	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
06/03/2020	DW	E-mail	Emailed courtesy copies of Aronberg’s Answer and MTDismiss to Judge Marx	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/03/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed response from Client and replied	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/03/2020	AJ	Attend Hearing	Attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom	$475.00	1.0	$475.00
06/03/2020	AJ	Review	Reviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudice	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
06/08/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Court’s Order Granting Defendants MTDismiss Count. II w/ Prejudice	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
06/08/2020	DW	Various	Shared order w/ Client and spoke w/, re: result and plan going forward, re: 57.105	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
06/08/2020	DW	Various	Researched § 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.	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
06/08/2020	AJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
06/08/2020	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJ, re: Order & 57.105	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
06/08/2020	AJ	Review	Reviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for sanction	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
06/10/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk; called and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerra	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
06/23/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed PI’s letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called and spoke w/ client, re: PI’s refusal & next steps	$425.00	1.0	$425.00

06/23/2020	DW	Email	Sent client copy of Prs leper refusing to dismiss
				$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/23/2020	Ay	Review	Reviewed Pis letter refusing to dismiss CoUnt. Min.
			Comet.	$475.00	0.1	$47.50
07/01/2020	DW	Various
				$425.00	0.5	$212.50
07/02/2020	OW	E-mail	Email to client, re; affidavit and summary judgment	$425.00.	0.1	$42.50
07/08/2020	DW	Telecenferente	Discussed W/ Client drafting and filing Motion for
			Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
07/08/2020	AIJ	Teleconference	Discussed w/ Client draftng and filing Motion lot
				$475.00:	0.7	$332.50
07/10/2020	DW	Draft’	Created Istdraft of Arenberg Affidavit;. shared w/
				sipiS lk	1.0	$425.00
07/10/2020	AIJ	Various	Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW	1447690
				/	0.3	$142.50
07/10/2020	OW	Meeting	Discussed draft affidavit w/ AU	$425.09-	0.2	$85.00
07/13/2020	OW	Review	Reviewed Prs Request to Produce. re: Clerk	-41425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/13/2020	OW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Request t .r	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
07/27/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Prs Amended Request to e. ’ Clerk
				$425.60-	0.1	$42.50
07/27/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, r equesf to
			Produce	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/28/2020	ow	Draft	Revised Arcobeigtlfhtyil N r	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
07/29/2020	DW	Draft	Finalized Arenberg Affidaltand sent iotlient	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
07/2912029	DW	Research &
			Resear ANYVVietioti for Summary
			Judg • ti. 7
				$425.09	1.0	$425.00
07/30/2020	DW	Various	Received e ted Arenberg Affidavit d	$425.00	9.1	$42.50
07/30/2020	DW	Oran	Beganctrelting Motion for Summary Judgment	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
08/05/2020	DW	Draft	Continued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment	$425.00	i.0	$425.00
08/07/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to set
			hearing on 57.105 motion for lees/sanctions	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
08/10/2020	OW	E-mail	Sent responsive email to Prt counsel	$425.09	0.1	$42.50
08/17/2020	DWG	Meeting	Discussed draft MSJ w/AIJ	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
08/17/2020	All!	jazious	Reviewed draft MSJ and met wl DAW to discuss	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
08/18,2020	OW\	Draft	Finalized Motion for Summary Judgment filed vil
			court along with Arenberg affidavit	$425.00.	2.0	$850.00
08/27/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: request to produce	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/01/2020	OW	Various	Reviewed Prs email and accepted conference caU
					0.1	$42.50
09/02/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s response to request for
				$425.00	0.2	$85.00
09/02/2020	DW	Teleconference
					0.5	$212.50

09/02/2020	AJ	Meeting	Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ PI’s counsel	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
09/02/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed w/ AJ phone call w/ PI’s counsel	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
09/16/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed email from PI’s counsel requested Aronberg to withdraw sanctions motion w/o prejudice	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/17/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed w/ AJ filing motion for CMC	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/17/2020	AJ	Meeting	Discussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC	$475.00	0.1	$47.50
09/18/2020	DW	Various	Drafted and filed motion to set case management conference; re: MSJ 1st or Fee hearing 1st	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
09/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Responded 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	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed PI’s email insisting that 57.105 motion be withdrawn	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Replied to PI’s counsel that the 57.105 motion for sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for response, re: CMC:	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Sent client copy of email exchange w/ PI’s counsel; called and spoke w/ Client	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
09/22/2020	DW	Various	Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/20; set up Court Call; spoke w/ client; re: hearing date	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
10/02/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Memo of Law opposing Aronberg’s 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
10/02/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Response to Aronberg’s request to schedule 57.105 motion for fees after MSJ	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/02/2020	AJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Memo of Law opposing 57.105 motion	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
10/02/2020	AJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Response to Aronberg’s request to schedule 57.105 motion after MSJ	$475.00	0.4	$190.00
10/12/2020	DW	Research	Research caselaw & statutes, re: response to PI’s Memo of Law	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/13/2020	DW	Research & Analyze	Continued researching caselaw, re: response to PI’s memo of law	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/13/2020	DW	Draft	Created 1st draft of Response to PI’s Memo of Law and shared w/ Client	$425.00	4.0	$1,700.00
10/13/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed w/ AJ caselaw and draft response to memo	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/13/2020	AJ	Various	Reviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and caselaw	$475.00	0.7	$332.50
10/14/2020	DW	Draft	Finalized and filed Response to PI’s Memo of Law	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/14/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: memo of law	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/14/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/15/2020	DW	Attend Hearing	Attended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC; called client to discuss	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
10/15/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed email and letter from PI, re: settlement.. Sent copy to Client and called to discuss.	$425.00	0.5	$212.50

10/15/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ Ks counsel. re: settlement	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/15/2020	OW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: PI’S settlement proposal	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/15/2020	Al,)	Various	Attended hewing, re: motion to set CMC;
					1.0	$475.00
10/15/2020	Al,)	Various	Discussed Pt’s settlement proposal w/ OAW and
			then wl CSent.	$475.00	0.4	$190.00
10/1512020	DW	Meeting	Discussed PI’S settlement proposal wl AIJ	$425.00.	0.2	$85.00
10/16/2020	DW	Various	Drafted and shared proposed order w/ Pt’s counsel	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/18/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ Pt’s counsel, re: settlement	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10116,2020	OW	Telephone	SpOke w/ client. re: Pl’s seelernent.propesal	$25,00	` 1,0.5	$212.50
10/16/2020	OW	Meeting	Discussed Prs settlemenrproposal w/ AIJ	$425.00	-46 —=13.2	$85.00
10/16/2020	Al,)	Meeting	Discussed Pl’s settlement proposal w/ DAW	$475.00- 4.2	0.2	$95.00
10/19/2020	OW	Various	Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for…fudge
				$ 00 4
				)	O. t	$42.50
10/19/2020	OW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client. re: Pl’s settlement proposal	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/19/2020	OW	Telephone.	Spoke w/ Pl’s counsel,’ re: settlement
				rib. 25.00	0.1	$42.50
10/19/2020	AU	Meeting	Discussed Pt’s settlement proposal wl DAA	1 $475.00	0.2	$95.00
10/19/2020	OW	Meeting
			Discussed Pt’s settlement proposal de	,i V $425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/20/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed email from PI, re: se	0:1PY
				$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/20/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: segtein)Igt	$425.00	0.4	$170.00
10/20,2020	OW	Telephone	Spoke w/ Pts counaitei settleMeat	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
1020/2020	OW	Telephone	Spoke w/ clienettlerrInt	.$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/M2020	DW	Meeting	DispirsserksNikernent prOposei *LAO	$425.00	0.2	$85,00
10/20/2020	AIJ	Meeting	DisaissaPl’esettlemeni proposal w/ DAW	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
1 or2112020	CM	Various
				s428.00	1.0	$425.00
10/21/2020	OW	Review	Reviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/21/2020	DW	yeeephonel	Spoke w/ client. re: media response	.$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/21/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: media response	$425.00	0.i	$42.50
10/21/2020	OW	Telephone	Spoke wl client, re: media response	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/21/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke ye/ client, re: media response	$425.00	0.1	$2.50
10/21/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke wicker”, re: media response	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
1021/2020	DW	Email	Sent email w/ Arenberg statement to media	$425.00	0.I	$42.50
10/21/2020	AIJ	Meeting	Discussed media response w/ DAW	$475.00	0.3	$142.5D
10/21/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed media response.w/ Al,)	$425.00.	0.3	$127.50
10/22/2020	DW	Various
			party: spoke w/ Client. and AIJ,	re: notice and next
				.1.425-09’	0.5	$212.50

10/22/2020	AJJ	Various	Reviewed PI’s Notice of Dropping Aronberg as party; spokew/ Client and DAW, re: notice and next steps	$475.00	0.5	$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 “F”¶

EXHIBIT “F”¶

GA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC,¶

AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES¶

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 1 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” and “B” attached hereto.¶

4. The total time Affiant’s law firm has expended services rendered to date is 74.8 hours, however, from the date of Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 demand. Affiant’s law firm has expended a total of 42.2 hours. Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 demand was served, the Affiant

5. Of the 42.2 hours expended since Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 demand was served, the total time Affiant has expended services rendered to date is 35.4 hours at the rate of $425.00 per hour. Likewise, the total time Affiant’s law partner, Arthur L. Jacobs, has expended services rendered to date is 6.8 hours at the rate of $475.00 per hour.

6. Accordingly, since Defendant Aronberg’s 57.105 demand was served, Defendant Aronberg’s counsel, [REDACTED], SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC, has rendered services in the amount of $18,275.00, in conjunction with the defense of the instant action pursuant to § 57.105, Florida Statutes. See, Exhibit “C” attached hereto.

7. Affiant expects to incur an additional 4.0 hours at $425.00 an hour in preparing for and attending the hearing on attorneys’ fees. Thus, the total amount of hourly attorneys’ fees the State Attorney is seeking is 46.2 hours for a total of $19,975.00. Additionally, the State Attorney seeks a multiplier of 2.0, which when applied makes the grand total attorneys’ fees sought herein $39,950.00.

Dated this 9th day of November, 2020.¶

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.¶

The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 9th day of November, 2020, by Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire, who is personally known to me and who did take an oath.¶

Taran R. Jackson Name typed, printed or stamped¶

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of November, 2020, a copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein.¶

JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC¶

Arthur I. [REDACTED], Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 10249 Richard J. Scholz, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 (904) 261-7879 Fax Primary: jacobsscholzlaw@comcast.net¶

Attorneys for Defendant, Dave Aronberg¶

Subject: SERVICE OF COURT DdC1JMENT; CASE NO. 2019-CA-014681;CA . FLORIDA HOLDINGS, RC V DAVE ARONBERG ET AL.. Date: Monday, June 8, 2020 at 3:58:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: To: Dougia.VVId!r imendelsohni@gtlaw.cont smitla@gtlaw.com, fiservice@gtlaw.com; BoyajianN@gtlaw com, riyeraal@gtlaw.comARVGI440gtilve.com Attachments: 2020-06-0tAronberg Si.:101Der4d.and Motion for Attorneys’ Feels.pdf¶

Court: Case No: Plaintiff: Defendant: Title of DetuMents Served: Sender’s Name and Telephone Number: Orciiit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beac Florida : , taseiNo. 2020-CA-014681 . CA Florida Holdings, LLC Dave,Aronberg … 1 Fla. Stat. 9 57.10S Demand-Lettei 411 Defendant, Dave Aronberg’s Motion f000rAtnt4ens. Douglas Wyler ’ (904) 261.3693 •¶

sniiWyler, Di Esq. $.O.9it 1 Ss.v_v.vigr, u.c … 961687 Gaieway Blvd., STE 201-1 Fernandina Beach, FL 32034 904:26k-3693 904-261.7879 (fax)¶

,f14/¶

Please. be advised that this eUil and a y le, transmitted with It are confidentialattorneyeclient communication or may otherwise ailed or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the Intended recipient, please dOoot read;c0pYtir ,retransmit thisCommunicationbit destroyIt immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination; dlitributfon or copying of this corpmunication is strictly prohibited.¶

JACOBS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC.¶

GATEWAY TO AMELIA¶

961687 GATEWAY SLVD., SUITE 201-1¶

FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA 32034¶

JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. ARTHUR I. JACOBS¶

VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL¶

Boca Raton, FL 33486¶

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

As you are aware our firm represents the interests of Dave Aronberg, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, in the above referenced matter. 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 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:¶

[REDACTED] disclosure is ordered by a court pursuant to subsection (1) for use in 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 grand jury testimony afforded such persons by the court can only be used in the defense or prosecution of the civil or criminal case and for no other purpose whatsoever.¶

Moreover, even if the Plaintiff were to prevail in the declaratory action, Mr. Aronberg would be unable to comply with any court order granting disclosure of the requested 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 accordingly.¶

Douglas A. Wyler, Esq. For the Firm¶

Encl.: Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees¶

Defendant, DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida, by and through the undersigned attorneys, moves the Court, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 57.105, to award him reasonable attorneys’ fees for the defense of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (the “Complaint”), and as grounds therefor, would show that on June 8, 2020, Plaintiff was served a copy of this Motion, together with a letter from the undersigned attorney, in accordance with subsection (4) of the above Statute, demanding dismissal of the Complaint, at least 21 days prior to the filing of this Motion. In said letter, Defendant’s attorney advised Plaintiff of the facts which establish that the Complaint is without support of the facts or the law.¶

WHEREFORE, 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.¶

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

[REDACTED] SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC¶

Fla. Bar No.: 0021261 Douglas A. Wyler, Esquire Fla. Bar No.: 119979 961687 Gateway Blvd., Suite 201-I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034¶

Attorneys for Defendant¶

r. .¶

O¶

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.¶

smith@gtlaw.com¶

54 State St., 6th Floor Albany, New York 12207 grygielm@gtlaw.com¶

1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles California 90067 Telephone: (310) 586-7700 boyajiann@gtlaw.com riveraal@gtlaw.com¶

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¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

[REDACTED] Scholz & Wyler, LLC¶

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¶

Date	EE	Activity	Description	Rate	Hours	Line Total
11/26/2019	DW	Review	Initial review of summons and complaint.	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
11/26/2019	DW	Review	Reviewed motion for prohac vice and Judge. Hafele’ order granting	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
11/26/2019	DW	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
11/26/2019	DW	Draft	Drafted engagement letter and sent to client	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
11/26/2019	DW	Review	Reviewed 15th circuit local rules	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
11/26/2019	AJJ	Review	Initial review of complaint	$475.00	1.0	$475.00
11/26/2019	AJJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
11/26/2019	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJJ to discuss lawsuit and strategy	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
11/26/2019	AJJ	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
12/02/2019	DW	Research & Preparation	Research and prep for Motion to dismiss	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
12/02/2019	DW	Draft	1st Draft motion to dismiss	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
12/02/2019	DW	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to dismiss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
12/02/2019	AJJ	Review	Reviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
12/02/2019	AJJ	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to dismiss	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
12/03/2019	AJJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
12/03/2019	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ [REDACTED] re: MTDismiss	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
12/06/2019	DW	Draft	Completed final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with Court	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
12/06/2019	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50

12/06/2019	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with Clerk’s attorney, re: response	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
12/06/2019	AJJ	Review	Reviewed final draft MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
12/06/2019	AJJ	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
12/13/2019	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s Motion to Dismiss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/16/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/16/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed motion for pro hac vice	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/17/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Amended Complaint	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
01/17/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/17/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s notice of filing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/20/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Am. Compl	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
01/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Judge Marx’s Order Cancelling MTDismiss Hearing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Objection to Defendants’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
01/21/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/21/2020	AJJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Compl	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
01/21/2020	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJJ, re: response to Am. Compl	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
01/22/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/22/2020	DW	Research & Draft	Researched and drafted response to Amended Complaint	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
01/23/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with Clerk’s attorney, re: response to amended complaint	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
01/24/2020	DW	Various	Completed Answer/MTDismiss Amended Complaint; filed with Court; sent copy to Client	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
01/24/2020	DW	Draft	Drafted and filed Notice of Unavailability	$425.00	0.4	$170.00
01/24/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
01/27/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s Answer/MTDismiss	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
02/03/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order setting hearing on Defs’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
02/03/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss hearing for March 24, 2020	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
03/13/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
03/13/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss	$475.00	0.7	$332.50
03/18/2020	DW	Teleconference	Reviewed email from PI’s counsel, re: motion to continue hearing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
03/18/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s unopposed motion for continuance	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
03/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Emails.w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: PI’s request to continue hearing	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
03/19/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed email from PI, re: agreed order & responded	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
03/20/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Court’s agreed order continuing hearing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50

04/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Defs’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
04/21/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ client, re: order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing for June 3, 2020	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
04/21/2020	AJ	Review	Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing	$475.00	0.1	$47.50
05/22/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
05/22/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
05/27/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s filing: change of atty of record	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
05/27/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with Clerk’s new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
05/28/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed PI’s email, re: cases and authorities for MTDismiss hearing; responded	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
05/29/2020	DW	Preparation	Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss hearing	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
06/01/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed email from Judge Marx’s JA and responded	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/02/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed PI’s 500+ page binder, re: MTDismiss & prepped for hearing	$425.00	3.0	$1,275.00
06/02/2020	DW	E-mail	Drafted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing tomorrow	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/03/2020	DW	Attend Hearing	Prepped for and attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
06/03/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ Client, re: debrief MTDismiss hearing	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
06/03/2020	DW	E-mail	Emailed courtesy copies of Aronberg’s Answer and MTDismiss to Judge Marx	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/03/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed response from Client and replied	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/03/2020	AJ	Attend Hearing	Attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom	$475.00	1.0	$475.00
06/03/2020	AJ	Review	Reviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudice	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
06/08/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Court’s Order Granting Defendants MTDismiss Count II w/ Prejudice	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
06/08/2020	DW	Various	Shared order w/ Client and spoke w/, re: result and plan going forward, re: 57.105	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
06/08/2020	DW	Various	Researched § 57.105 Fla. Stat.; drafted 57.105 demand letter and proposed motion for attorneys’ sanctions; Served PI’s counsel with demand letter and proposed motion.	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
06/08/2020	AJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
06/08/2020	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJ, re: Order & 57.105	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
06/08/2020	AJ	Review	Reviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for sanction	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
06/10/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk; called and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerra	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
06/23/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed PI’s letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss: amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called and spoke w/ client, re: PI’s refusal & next steps	$425.00	1.0	$425.00

06/23/2020	DW	E-mail	Sent client copy of PI’s letter refusing to dismiss complaint	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/23/2020	AJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s letter refusing to dismiss Count I/Am Compl.	$475.00	0.1	$47.50
07/01/2020	DW	Various	Spoke 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.	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
07/02/2020	DW	E-mail	Email to client, re: affidavit and summary judgment	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/08/2020	DW	Teleconference	Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
07/08/2020	AJ	Teleconference	Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence	$475.00	0.7	$332.50
07/10/2020	DW	Draft	Created 1st draft of Aronberg Affidavit; shared w/ client	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
07/10/2020	AJ	Various	Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
07/10/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed draft affidavit w/ AJ	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
07/13/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Request to Produce, re: Clerk	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/13/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Request to Produce	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
07/27/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Amended Request to Produce, re: Clerk	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/27/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Amended Request to Produce	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/28/2020	DW	Draft	Revised Aronberg affidavit	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
07/29/2020	DW	Draft	Finalized Aronberg Affidavit and sent to client	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
07/29/2020	DW	Research & Preparation	Research and prep for Motion for Summary Judgment	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
07/30/2020	DW	Various	Received executed Aronberg Affidavit	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/30/2020	DW	Draft	Began drafting Motion for Summary Judgment	$425.00	-2.0	$850.00
08/05/2020	DW	Draft	Continued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
08/07/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to set hearing on 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
08/10/2020	DW	E-mail	Sent responsive email to PI’s counsel	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
08/17/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed draft MSJ w/ AJ	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
08/17/2020	AJ	Various	Reviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
08/18/2020	DW	Draft	Finalized Motion for Summary Judgment; filed w/ court along with Aronberg affidavit	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
08/27/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: request to produce	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/01/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed PI’s email and accepted conference call invite for 9/2/20	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/02/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s response to request for production	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
09/02/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: dispute as to whether MSJ should be heard before 57.105 fee motion or vis versa - call was unsuccessful	$425.00	0.5	$212.50

09/02/2020	AJ	Meeting	Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ PI’s counsel	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
09/02/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed w/ AJ phone call w/ PI’s counsel	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
09/16/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed email from PI’s counsel requested Aronberg to withdraw sanctions motion w/o prejudice	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/17/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed w/ AJ filing motion for CMC	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/17/2020	AJ	Meeting	Discussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC	$475.00	0.1	$47.50
09/18/2020	DW	Various	Drafted and filed motion to set case management conference; re: MSJ 1st or Fee hearing 1st	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
09/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Responded 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	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed PI’s email insisting that 57.105 motion be withdrawn	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Replied to PI’s counsel that the 57.105 motion for sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for response; re: CMC	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Sent client copy of email exchange w/ PI’s counsel; called and spoke w/ Client	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
09/22/2020	DW	Various	Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/20; set up Court Call; spoke w/ client; re: hearing date	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
10/02/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Memo of Law opposing Aronberg’s 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
10/02/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Response to Aronberg’s request to schedule 57.105 motion for fees after MSJ	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/02/2020	AJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Memo of Law opposing 57.105 motion	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
10/02/2020	AJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Response to Aronberg’s request to schedule 57.105 motion after MSJ	$475.00	0.4	$190.00
10/12/2020	DW	Research	Research caselaw & statutes; re: response to PI’s Memo of Law	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/13/2020	DW	Research & Analyze	Continued researching caselaw; re: response to PI’s memo of law.	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/13/2020	DW	Draft	Created 1st draft of Response to PI’s Memo of Law and shared w/ Client	$425.00	4.0	$1,700.00
10/13/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed w/ AJ caselaw and draft response to memo	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/13/2020	AJ	Various	Reviewed draft MSJ; discussed draft w/ DAW and caselaw	$475.00	0.7	$332.50
10/14/2020	DW	Draft	Finalized and filed Response to PI’s Memo of Law	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/14/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client; re: memo of law	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/14/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client again; re: response to memo of law	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/15/2020	DW	Attend Hearing	Attended hearing; re: Motion to Set CMC; called client to discuss	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
10/15/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed email and letter from PI; re: settlement. Sent copy to Client and called to discuss.	$425.00	0.5	$212.50

10/15/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/15/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: PI’s settlement proposal	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/15/2020	AJ	Various	Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; discussed w/ client	$475.00	1.0	$475.00
10/15/2020	AJ	Various	Discussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW and then w/ Client.	$475.00	0.4	$190.00
10/15/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJ	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/16/2020	DW	Various	Drafted and shared proposed order w/ PI’s counsel	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/16/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/16/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: PI’s settlement proposal	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/16/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJ	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/16/2020	AJ	Meeting	Discussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
10/19/2020	DW	Various	Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge Hafele	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/19/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: PI’s settlement proposal	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/19/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/19/2020	AJ	Meeting	Discussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
10/19/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJ	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/20/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed email from PI, re: settlement; sent copy to Client and called to discuss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/20/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: settlement	$425.00	0.4	$170.00
10/20/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/20/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: settlement	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/20/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJ	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/20/2020	AJ	Meeting	Discussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
10/21/2020	DW	Various	Drafted and filed Motion to: Set Hearing on Aronberg MSJ; drafted proposed order granting motion to set; checked court availability; emailed PI’s counsel, re: choice date for hearing	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order, re: CMC unnecessary	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/21/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: media response	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/21/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: media response	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/21/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: media response	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/21/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: media response	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/21/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: media response	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/21/2020	DW	E-mail	Sent email w/ Aronberg statement to media	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/21/2020	AJ	Meeting	Discussed media response w/ DAW	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
10/21/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed media response w/ AJ	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
10/22/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed PI’s Notice of Dropping Aronberg as party; spoke w/ Client and AJ, re: notice and next steps	$425.00	0.5	$212.50

10/22/2020	AJJ	Various	Reviewed PI’s Notice of Dropping Aronberg as party; spoke w/ Client and DAW; re: notice and next steps	$475.00	0.5	$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”¶

BS SCHOLZ & WYLER, LLC.¶

261987 GATEWAY BLVD, SUITE 2011 FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA 32004¶

JACOBS & ASSOCIATES, P.A. ARTHUR I. JACOBS¶

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¶

6/14/2020 Date¶

Dave Aronberg¶

Balance $70,900.27 Invoice # 00409 Invoice Date April 12, 2022 Payment Terms Due Date¶

Aronberg (SAO15) adv. CA Florida Holdings, LLC¶

Date	EE	Activity	Description	Rate	Hours	Line Total
11/26/2019	DW	Review	Initial review of summons and complaint.	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
11/26/2019	DW	Review	Reviewed motion for pro hac vice and Judge Hafele order granting	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
11/26/2019	DW	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
11/26/2019	DW	Draft	Drafted engagement letter and sent to client	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
11/26/2019	DW	Review	Reviewed 15th circuit local rules	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
11/26/2019	AJJ	Review	Initial review of complaint	$475.00	1.0	$475.00
11/26/2019	AJJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW to discuss lawsuit and strategy	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
11/26/2019	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJJ to discuss lawsuit and strategy	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
11/26/2019	AJJ	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: response to lawsuit	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
12/02/2019	DW	Research & Preparation	Research and prep for Motion to dismiss	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
12/02/2019	DW	Draft	1st Draft motion to dismiss	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
12/02/2019	DW	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ Client, re: draft motion to dismiss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
12/02/2019	AJJ	Review	Reviewed 1st Draft MTDismiss	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
12/02/2019	AJJ	Teleconference	Teleconference w/ client, re: draft motion to dismiss	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
12/03/2019	AJJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: motion to dismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
12/03/2019	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJJ, re: MTDismiss	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
12/06/2019	DW	Draft	Completed final draft of motion to dismiss; filed with Court	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
12/06/2019	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ client, re: final draft of motion to dismiss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
12/06/2019	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with Clerk’s attorney, re: response	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
12/06/2019	AJJ	Review	Reviewed final draft MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00

12/06/2019	AJJ	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
12/13/2019	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s Motion to Dismiss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/16/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order Setting Hearing on Defendants’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/16/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed motion for pro hac vice	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/17/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Pl’s Amended Complaint	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
01/17/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with client, re: Amended Complaint	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/17/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Pl’s notice of filing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/20/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed Pl’s Am. Compl	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
01/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Judge Marx’s Order Cancelling MTDismiss Hearing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Pl’s Objection to Defendants’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
01/21/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with client, re: Amended complaint	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/21/2020	AJJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: response to Am. Compl.	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
01/21/2020	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJJ, re: response to Am. Compl.	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
01/22/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order granting pro hac vice admission	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/22/2020	DW	Research & Draft	Researched and drafted response to Amended Complaint	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
01/23/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with Clerk’s attorney, re: response to amended complaint	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
01/24/2020	DW	Various	Completed Answer/MTDismiss Amended Complaint; filed with Court; sent copy to Client	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
01/24/2020	DW	Draft	Drafted and filed Notice of Unavailability	$425.00	0.4	$170.00
01/24/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed final Answer/MTDismiss	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
01/27/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s Answer/MTDismiss	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
02/03/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Order setting hearing on Defs’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
02/03/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ client, re: order setting MTDismiss hearing; for March 24, 2020	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
03/13/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Pl’s Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
03/13/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed Pl’s Opposition to Aronberg MTDismiss & Clerk’s MTDismiss	$475.00	0.7	$332.50
03/18/2020	DW	Teleconference	Reviewed email from Pl’s counsel, re: motion to continue hearing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
03/18/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Pl’s unopposed motion for continuance	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
03/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Emails w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Pl’s request to continue hearing	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
03/19/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed email from Pl, re: agreed order & responded	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
03/20/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Court’s agreed order continuing hearing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
04/21/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed order rescheduling hearing on Defs’ MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
04/21/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ client, re: order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing; for June 3, 2020	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
04/21/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed Order rescheduling MTDismiss hearing	$475.00	0.1	$47.50
05/22/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed order setting Zoom hearing, re: MTDismiss	$425.00	0.1	$42.50

05/22/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ client, re: hearing will be via Zoom	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
05/27/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s filing: change of atty of record	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
05/27/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke with Clerk’s new counsel, Nicole Fingerhut	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
05/28/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed PI’s email, re: cases and authorities for MTDismiss hearing; responded	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
05/29/2020	DW	Preparation	Began oral argument prep for 6/8 MTDismiss hearing	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
06/01/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed email from Judge Marx’s JA and responded	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/02/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed PI’s 500+ page binder, re: MTDismiss & prepped for hearing	$425.00	3.0	$1,275.00
06/02/2020	DW	E-mail	Drafted and sent email to client, re: MTD hearing tomorrow	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/03/2020	DW	Attend Hearing	Prepped for and attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
06/03/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ Client, re: debrief MTDismiss hearing	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
06/03/2020	DW	E-mail	Emailed courtesy copies of Aronberg’s Answer and MTDismiss to Judge Marx	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/03/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed response from Client and replied	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/03/2020	AJJ	Attend Hearing	Attended MTDismiss hearing via Zoom	$475.00	1.0	$475.00
06/03/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed order granting MTDismiss w/ prejudice	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
06/08/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Court’s Order Granting Defendants MTDismiss Count II w/ Prejudice	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
06/08/2020	DW	Various	Shared order w/ Client and spoke w/ re: result and plan going forward, re: 57.105	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
06/08/2020	DW	Various	Researched § 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.	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
06/08/2020	AJJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: Order & 57.105	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
06/08/2020	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJJ, re: Order & 57.105	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
06/08/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed 57.105 demand and proposed motion for sanction	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
06/10/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed notice of change of attorney, re: Clerk; called and spoke w/ new counsel Cynthia Guerra	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
06/23/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed PI’s letter refusing to voluntarily dismiss amended complaint despite 57.105 demand; called and spoke w/ client, re: PI’s refusal & next steps	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
06/23/2020	DW	E-mail	Sent client copy of PI’s letter refusing to dismiss complaint	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
06/23/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s letter refusing to dismiss Count I/Am. Compl.	$475.00	0.1	$47.50
07/01/2020	DW	Various	Spoke 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	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
07/02/2020	DW	E-mail	Email to client, re: affidavit and summary judgment.	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/08/2020	DW	Teleconference	Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
07/08/2020	AJJ	Teleconference	Discussed w/ Client drafting and filing Motion for Summary Judgment and MSJ evidence	$475.00	0.7	$332.50

07/10/2020	DW	Draft	Created 1st draft of Aronberg Affidavit; shared w/ client	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
07/10/2020	AJJ	Various	Reviewed draft affidavit and discussed w/ DAW	$475.00	0.3	$142.50
07/10/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed draft affidavit w/ AJJ	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
07/13/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Request to Produce, re: Clerk	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/13/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Request to Produce	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
07/27/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Amended Request to Produce, re: Clerk	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/27/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: Amended Request to Produce	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/28/2020	DW	Draft	Revised Aronberg affidavit	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
07/29/2020	DW	Draft	Finalized Aronberg Affidavit and sent to client	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
07/29/2020	DW	Research & Preparation	Research and prep for Motion for Summary Judgment	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
07/30/2020	DW	Various	Received executed Aronberg Affidavit	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/30/2020	DW	Draft	Began drafting Motion for Summary Judgment	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
08/05/2020	DW	Draft	Continued drafting Motion for Summary Judgment	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
08/07/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed email from Plaintiff attempting to set hearing on 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
08/10/2020	DW	E-mail	Sent responsive email to PI’s counsel	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
08/17/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed draft MSJ w/ AJJ	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
08/17/2020	AJJ	Various	Reviewed draft MSJ and met w/ DAW to discuss	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
08/18/2020	DW	Draft	Finalized Motion for Summary Judgment; filed w/ court along with Aronberg affidavit	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
08/27/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ Clerk’s counsel, re: request to produce	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/01/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed PI’s email and accepted conference call invite for 9/2/20	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/02/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s response to request for production	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
09/02/2020	DW	Teleconference	Spoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: dispute as to whether MSJ should be heard before 57.105 fee motion or vis versa - call was unsuccessful	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
09/02/2020	AJJ	Meeting	Discussed w/ DAW phone call w/ PI’s counsel	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
09/02/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed w/ AJJ phone call w/ PI’s counsel	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
09/16/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed email from PI’s counsel requested Aronberg to withdraw sanctions motion w/o prejudice	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/17/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed w/ AJJ filing motion for CMC	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/17/2020	AJJ	Meeting	Discussed w/ DAW filing motion for CMC	$475.00	0.1	$47.50
09/18/2020	DW	Various	Drafted and filed motion to set case management conference; re: MSJ 1st or Fee hearing 1st	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
09/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Responded 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	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Reviewed PI’s email insisting that 57.105 motion be withdrawn	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Replied to PI’s counsel that the 57.105 motion for sanctions will not be withdrawn and asking for response, re: CMC	$425.00	0.1	$42.50

09/18/2020	DW	E-mail	Sent client copy of email exchange w/ PI’s counsel; called and spoke w/ Client	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
09/22/2020	DW	Various	Drafted and filed Notice of Hearing on 10/15/20; set up Court Call; spoke w/ client, re: hearing date	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
10/02/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Memo of Law opposing Aronberg’s 57.105 motion for fees/sanctions	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
10/02/2020	DW	Review	Reviewed PI’s Response to Aronberg’s request to schedule 57.105 motion for fees after MSJ	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/02/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Memo of Law opposing 57.105 motion	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
10/02/2020	AJJ	Review	Reviewed PI’s Response to Aronberg’s request to schedule 57.105 motion after MSJ	$475.00	0.4	$190.00
10/12/2020	DW	Research	Research caselaw & statutes, re: response to PI’s Memo of Law	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/13/2020	DW	Research & Analyze	Continued researching caselaw, re: response to PI’s memo of law	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/13/2020	DW	Draft	Created 1st draft of Response to PI’s Memo of Law and shared w/ Client	$425.00	4.0	$1,700.00
10/13/2020	DW	Meeting:	Discussed w/ AJJ caselaw and draft response to memo	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/13/2020	AJJ	Various	Reviewed draft MSJ, discussed draft w/ DAW and caselaw	$475.00	0.7	$332.50
10/14/2020	DW	Draft	Finalized and filed Response to PI’s Memo of Law	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
10/14/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: memo of law	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/14/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client again, re: response to memo of law	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/15/2020	DW	Attend Hearing	Attended hearing, re: Motion to Set CMC; called client to discuss	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
10/15/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed email and letter from PI, re: settlement. Sent copy to Client and called to discuss.	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/15/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/15/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: PI’s settlement proposal	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/15/2020	AJJ	Various	Attended hearing, re: motion to set CMC; discussed w/ client	$475.00	1.0	$475.00
10/15/2020	AJJ	Various	Discussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW and then w/ Client	$475.00	0.4	$190.00
10/15/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJJ	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/16/2020	DW	Various	Drafted and shared proposed order w/ PI’s counsel	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/16/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/16/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: PI’s settlement proposal	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/16/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJJ	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/16/2020	AJJ	Meeting	Discussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
10/19/2020	DW	Various	Uploaded proposed order, re: CMC for Judge Hafele	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/19/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ client, re: PI’s settlement proposal	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/19/2020	DW	Telephone	Spoke w/ PI’s counsel, re: settlement	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/19/2020	AJJ	Meeting	Discussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ DAW	$475.00	0.2	$95.00
10/19/2020	DW	Meeting	Discussed PI’s settlement proposal w/ AJJ	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
10/20/2020	DW	Various	Reviewed email from PI, re: settlement; sent copy to Client and called to discuss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50

10/20/2020 10/20/2020 10/20/2020 10/20/2020 10/20/2020 10/21/2020 10/21/2020 10/21/2020 10/21/2020 10/21/2020 10/21/2020 10/21/2020 10/21/2020 10/21/2020 10/21/2020 10/22/2020 1022/2020 11/05/2020 11/06/2020 it/09/2020	DW OW OW OW AIJ OW OW DW OW DW DW DW DW AIJ OW OW AIJ DW DW DW	Telephone Telephone Telephone Meeting Meeting Various Review Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone E-mail Meeting Meeting Various Various Draft Draft Various	Spoke w/ client, re: settlement Spoke w/ Prs counsel, re: settlement Sp’oke.‘w/ client, re: settlement Discussed P-I’s settlement proposal w/ AO Discussed Prs settlement proposal w/ DAW Drafted and Ned Motion to Set Hearing on Aronberg MSJ: drafted proposed order granting motion to set; checked court availability; emajled Prs counsel, re: choose dale for hearing Reviewed Order, re: DAC unnecessary Spoke w/ client, re: merfieresponse Spoke w/ client, re: media response Spoke yr/ client, re: meda response Spoke w/ diem, ref media response Spoke w/ client. re: media response Sent email w/ Arenberg statement to media Discussed media response w/ DAW Diecus.sed Media response Reviewed P1% NoticeOf DroppiMj Arenberg ig party; spoke w/ Client and AU, re: n steps Reviewed Prs Notice of Dio party; spoke w/ Client and steps Draft Amended Continue drafting Motion Costs and Affklavtof Attomeys Fees and Affidaivt of ReasorableAtorileys’ Fees, sent to expert for Call w/ exPanite: affidavit; Cal vil Client, re: filings; filed motion & Affidavits Draft-and File Notice for Non-Jury Trial; email to	$125.00 $125.00 5425.00 $126.00 $475.00 $425.00 $425.00 S425.00 $425.00 $425.00, 5425.00 $425.00 ,i( $42V.00’ N ar.00 w/ Al) ./- $425.00 yil not $425.00 A as $475.00 and next ‘Attorneys’ Fees & Costs $425.00 AttorrieyS’ Fees & $425.00 $425.00	0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.1 4i. 0.2 A__ _ , 0.1 , (t1 c 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 3.0 2.0 t.0	5170.00 $42.50 $42.50 sas.og $95.00 $425.00 542:50 $85.00 $4250 $42.50 $42.50 $42.50 $42.50 $142.50 ‘$127.50 5212:50 $237.50 $1,275.00 $850.00 $425.00
12/03/2020	DW	Draft & File
			JA; emails w/ opposing counsel counsel to set Meeting i,,	S425.00	0.7	5297.50
12/09/2020	DW	Teleconference l’!.-	TC wiopposingsounsel; meeting w/ AU afterwards AIJ - TC w/ opposing counsel; meeting w/ DAW	542500	1.0	$425.00
12/09/2020	AIJ	Meriting
			afterwards	5475.00	1.0	$475.00
12/10/2020	DW.	Draft & File	Draft and File-Amended Notice for Non-Jury Trial	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/28/2021	- OW -
	N.	Various	Review Order Setting Hewing; emailed to client	$425.00	0.2	585.00
03/25/2021	OW.-	Review	Review Notice of Change of Counsel	5425.00	0.1	$4250
04/22/2021	OW	Review &Analyze	Review and analyze Pl’s MSJ & Appendix	$425.00	1.0	5425.00
05/24/2021	OW	Review	Review-Prs Motion to Set Hearing	5425.00	0.1	$42.50
05/25/2021	OW	Review & Analyze	Review Notice of Appearance & Response to Prs
			Motion Co Set	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
06/11/2021	DW	Review	Reviewed Agreed Order	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/14/2021	DW	Reparation	Prep for hearing arid trip to West Palm Beach	S425.00	2.0	$850.00
07/15/2021	DW	Travel	Travel to West Palm Beach	5425.00	5.5	$2,337.50
07/16/2021	DW	Attend Hearing	Prep for and attend heari’ng	$425.00	1.5	5637.50

07/16/2021	DW	Review & Analyze	Review and analyze PI’s memo flaw; draft response outline	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
07/16/2021	DW	Teleconference	Call w/ Client, re: entitlement hearing week of 7/26	$425.00	0.3	$127.50
07/16/2021	DW	Teleconference	Call w/ AJ, re: hearing week of 7/26	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/16/2021	DW	Teleconference	Call w/ DAW following hearing	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/17/2021	DW	Travel	Travel back to Amelia Island	$425.00	5.5	$2,337.50
07/19/2021	DW	Various	Research, review, and analyze PI’s memo of law; motion for atty fees, begin drafting responsive memo	$425.00	2.5	$1,062.50
07/20/2021	DW	Draft	Draft memo of law in support of Amended Motion for Atty Fees	$425.00	4.0	$1,700.00
07/21/2021	DW	Draft	Complete 1st draft memo of law in support of amended motion for atty fees	$425.00	3.0	$1,275.00
07/21/2021	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AJ, re: memo of law	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
07/21/2021	AJ	Various	Review and analyze memo of law; meeting w/ DAW to discuss	$475.00	1.0	$475.00
07/23/2021	DW	Various	Complete and File Memo of Law; Meeting w/ AJ to discuss; call to JA; call to Client; several emails w/ opposing counsel	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
07/23/2021	AJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: Memo of Law	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
07/23/2021	DW	E-mail	Email exchange w/ opposing counsel, re: entitlement hearing	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
07/23/2021	DW	Teleconference	Call to Judge Hafale’s JA, re: hearing date	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
07/26/2021	DW	Review & Analyze	Review Order Setting hearing for 7/27, review Notice of Appearance, review Order Resetting Hearing for 8/17/21	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
07/27/2021	DW	Various	Review email from Op. Counsel & phone call	$425.00	0.4	$170.00
07/28/2021	DW	Draft	Draft updated Memo of Law in support of Motion for Attorneys’ fees	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
07/29/2021	DW	Draft & File	Complete drafting and file updated Memo of Law	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
07/30/2021	DW	E-mail	Responded to Op. Counsel’s email	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
08/03/2021	DW	Teleconference	Call w/ Client, re: witnesses and plan for 8/17 hearing	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
08/04/2021	DW	Various	Several emails & call w/ opposing counsel & TC, re: motion to continue	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
08/04/2021	DW	Teleconference	Call w/ Client, ok to file joint motion to continue	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
08/05/2021	DW	Various	Emails w/ opposing counsel, re: Joint Motion to: Continue; review motion to continue	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
08/09/2021	DW	Various	Review Order Granting Continuance and setting calendar call for 3/4/22; called client to discuss	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
08/09/2021	DW	Various	Call w/ Client, re: continuance until March 2022; meeting w/ AJ	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
08/09/2021	AJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: continuance	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
08/11/2021	DW	Draft & File	Draft Amended Memo of Law to comply w/ 10 page limit	$425.00	3.0	$1,275.00
08/12/2021	DW	Various	Complete draft of Amended Memo of Law & filed; reviewed and responded to several emails w/ opposing counsel	$425.00	2.0	$850.00
09/09/2021	DW	E-mail	Reviewed and replied to op. counsel’s email	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
09/10/2021	DW	E-mail	Reviewed and replied to op. counsel’s email	$425.00	0.2	$85.00

09/13/2021	DW	E-mail	Accept calendar invite for 9/14 teleconference	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
09/14/2021	DW	Various	TC w/ opposing counsel, re: multiplier & case law; meeting w/ AIJ afterwards	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
09/14/2021	AIJ	Various	TC w/ opposing counsel, re: multiplier & case law; meeting w/ DAW afterwards	$475.00	1.0	$475.00
09/15/2021	DW	Review & Analyze	Review emails and case law from opposing counsel	$425.00	0.7	$297.50
10/01/2021	DW	Review & Analyze	Review Clerk’s response to MSJ	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
10/05/2021	DW	Review & Analyze	Review Order, re: MSJ hearing on 10/22/21	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
10/05/2021	DW	Review & Analyze	Review PI’s Reply in support of MSJ	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
11/02/2021	DW	E-mail	Reviewed several emails b/w opposing counsel	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
11/05/2021	DW	E-mail	Reviewed several emails b/w opposing counsel	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
12/20/2021	DW	Various	Review & Analyze Final Judgment in favor of Clerk; meeting w/ AIJ, call client to discuss	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
12/20/2021	AIJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: MSJ Order	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
12/21/2021	DW	E-mail	Review email from Op. Counsel	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/04/2022	DW	Review	Review Clerk’s Motion to Amend Final Judgment	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/04/2022	DW	Review	Reviewed Clerk’s Notice of Appearance	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/12/2022	DW	E-mail	Reviewed and replied to email from Op. Counsel	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
01/19/2022	DW	Review & Analyze	Reviewed and replied to email from Op. Counsel	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
01/26/2022	DW	Review	Review Notice of Withdrawing Motion to Amend FJ	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/26/2022	DW	E-mail	Emailed Clerk’s Motion for Sanctions to Client	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/27/2022	DW	Review	Review PI’s Notice of Appeal	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
01/28/2022	DW	Review	Reviewed 4DCA Order, re: abeyance	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
02/24/2022	DW	Various	Review and analyze PI’s Response in Opposition to Aronberg Memo of Law & Motion for Atty Fees; meeting w/ AIJ to discuss	$425.00	1.5	$637.50
02/24/2022	AIJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: PI’s memo	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
03/01/2022	DW	Various	Review and reply to email from op. counsel, re: availability from 3/14 - 5/20; call w/ client; call w/ expert	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
03/02/2022	DW	Teleconference	Call w/ Client, re: upcoming hearing on 3/4	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
03/02/2022	DW	Meeting	Meeting w/ AIJ, re: hearing in Palm Beach	$425.00	0.5	$212.50
03/02/2022	AIJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: hearing in Palm Beach	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
03/03/2022	DW	E-mail	Reviewed and replied to email from opposing counsel	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
03/03/2022	DW	Travel	Travel to West Palm Beach	$425.00	8.0	$3,400.00
03/04/2022	DW	Various	Attend hearing, meet w/ opposing counsel, call to Client, re: hearing date 4/26 and set follow-up call w/ Client	$425.00	2.5	$1,062.50
03/04/2022	DW	Travel	Travel back to Amelia Island	$425.00	5.5	$2,337.50
03/08/2022	DW	Various	Call w/ Client, re: upcoming hearing, experts, plan; Meeting w/ AIJ	$425.00	1.0	$425.00
03/08/2022	AIJ	Meeting	Meeting w/ DAW, re: trip to Palm Beach	$475.00	0.5	$237.50
03/10/2022	DW	E-mail	Reviewed and replied to email from Clerk’s counsel	$425.00	0.2	$85.00

03/25/2022	DW	Teleconference	Call to expert witness, re: fees, updated affidavits, hearing date	$425.00	0.2	$85.00
03/30/2022	DW	Review	Review Motion to Withdraw	$425.00	0.1	$42.50
04/07/2022	DW	Review	Review email from Op. Counsel	$425.00	0.1	$42.50

Totals: 161.1 $69,417.50¶

Expenses¶

Date	EE	Activity	Description	Cost	Quantity	Line Total
07/15/2021	DW	Expense	Gas	$42.02	1.0	$42.02
07/16/2021	DW	Expense	The Ben West Palm Beach, re: 7/16/21 hearing	$557.46	1.0	$557.46
07/17/2021	DW	Expense	Gas	$59.12	1.0	$59.12
03/03/2022	DW	Expense	Gas	$70.41	1.0	$70.41
03/04/2022	DW	Expense	Hyatt Place West Palm Beach/Downtown, re: 3/4 hearing	$659.92	1.0	$659.92
03/04/2022	DW	Expense	Uber to Courthouse	$6.51	1.0	$6.51
03/04/2022	DW	Expense	Gas	$87.33	1.0	$87.33

Expense Total: $1,482.77¶

Time Entry	Sub-Total:	$69,417.50
Expense Sub-Total:		$1,482.77
Sub-Total:		$70,900.27
Total:		$70,900.27
Amount Paid:		$0.00
Balance Due:		$70,900.27

NOTA CERTIFIED¶