RK
RONALD KAUFMAN
Thu, Apr 13, 2017 9:52 PM
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction AttorneyCertified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.com rekesq@gmail.com
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised
that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any
information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If
that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather
advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in
this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or
attachment.
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
*Board Certified Construction AttorneyCertified Circuit Civil Mediator*
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.com <rekesq@gmail.com>
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
*Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised
that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any
information obtained may be used for that purpose.*
*NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:*
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If
that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather
advise me of your receipt, in writing.
*CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:*
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in
this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or
attachment.
SA
Sean A. Mickley
Thu, Apr 13, 2017 10:10 PM
If I understand the question correctly, you (or someone else) filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 57.105, Fla. stat., but failed to provide the requisite 21 day notice prior to filing; however, the Court denied the 57.105 Motion anyways…
If that is correct, then the Court has already ruled and there withdrawal is a moot point.
Also, if they filed the 57.105 Motion with the Court prior to the expiration of the 21 safe harbor period, then they did not comply with the statute anyways and they would not be entitled to fees.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of RONALD KAUFMAN
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:52 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject motion under 57.105(4)?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.commailto:rekesq@gmail.com
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.infohttp://www.miamiconstructionattorney.info/
[http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/E9FCC9C6B2384C36852574FA00690DDC/$FILE/ConstructionLaw.jpg?OpenElement][http://www.flcourts.org/images/banner_adr.jpg]
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
If I understand the question correctly, you (or someone else) filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 57.105, Fla. stat., but failed to provide the requisite 21 day notice prior to filing; however, the Court denied the 57.105 Motion anyways…
If that is correct, then the Court has already ruled and there withdrawal is a moot point.
Also, if they filed the 57.105 Motion with the Court prior to the expiration of the 21 safe harbor period, then they did not comply with the statute anyways and they would not be entitled to fees.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of RONALD KAUFMAN
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:52 PM
To: <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject motion under 57.105(4)?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.com<mailto:rekesq@gmail.com>
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info<http://www.miamiconstructionattorney.info/>
[http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/E9FCC9C6B2384C36852574FA00690DDC/$FILE/ConstructionLaw.jpg?OpenElement][http://www.flcourts.org/images/banner_adr.jpg]
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
SA
Sean A. Mickley
Thu, Apr 13, 2017 10:17 PM
If I understand the question correctly, you (or someone else) filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 57.105, Fla. stat., but failed to provide the requisite 21 day notice prior to filing; however, the Court denied the 57.105 Motion anyways…
If that is correct, then the Court has already ruled and their withdrawal is a moot point.
Also, if they filed the 57.105 Motion with the Court prior to the expiration of the 21 safe harbor period, then they did not comply with the statute anyways and they would not be entitled to fees.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of RONALD KAUFMAN
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:52 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject motion under 57.105(4)?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.commailto:rekesq@gmail.com
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.infohttp://www.miamiconstructionattorney.info/
[http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/E9FCC9C6B2384C36852574FA00690DDC/$FILE/ConstructionLaw.jpg?OpenElement][http://www.flcourts.org/images/banner_adr.jpg]
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
If I understand the question correctly, you (or someone else) filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 57.105, Fla. stat., but failed to provide the requisite 21 day notice prior to filing; however, the Court denied the 57.105 Motion anyways…
If that is correct, then the Court has already ruled and their withdrawal is a moot point.
Also, if they filed the 57.105 Motion with the Court prior to the expiration of the 21 safe harbor period, then they did not comply with the statute anyways and they would not be entitled to fees.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of RONALD KAUFMAN
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:52 PM
To: <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject motion under 57.105(4)?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.com<mailto:rekesq@gmail.com>
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info<http://www.miamiconstructionattorney.info/>
[http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/E9FCC9C6B2384C36852574FA00690DDC/$FILE/ConstructionLaw.jpg?OpenElement][http://www.flcourts.org/images/banner_adr.jpg]
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
RK
RONALD KAUFMAN
Thu, Apr 13, 2017 10:46 PM
I'll attempt to clarify: Court ruled on the underlying motion to which the
57.105 notice was directed (the "Motion") within the 21 day safe harbor
period (i.e. within 21 days of being served with the notice). Does the
fact that the Motion was ruled upon within the 21 day safe harbor period
render the 57.105 motion moot?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction AttorneyCertified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.com rekesq@gmail.com
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised
that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any
information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If
that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather
advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in
this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or
attachment.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Sean A. Mickley smickley@gouldcooksey.com
wrote:
If I understand the question correctly, you (or someone else) filed a
Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 57.105, Fla. stat., but failed to provide
the requisite 21 day notice prior to filing; however, the Court denied the
57.105 Motion anyways…
If that is correct, then the Court has already ruled and there withdrawal
is a moot point.
Also, if they filed the 57.105 Motion with the Court prior to the
expiration of the 21 safe harbor period, then they did not comply with the
statute anyways and they would not be entitled to fees.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:
clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] *On Behalf Of *RONALD
KAUFMAN
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:52 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion@lists.
flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to a
57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor period,
does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject motion
under 57.105(4)?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.com rekesq@gmail.com
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised
that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any
information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If
that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather
advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained
in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or
attachment.
I'll attempt to clarify: Court ruled on the underlying motion to which the
57.105 notice was directed (the "Motion") within the 21 day safe harbor
period (i.e. within 21 days of being served with the notice). Does the
fact that the Motion was ruled upon within the 21 day safe harbor period
render the 57.105 motion moot?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
*Board Certified Construction AttorneyCertified Circuit Civil Mediator*
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.com <rekesq@gmail.com>
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
*Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised
that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any
information obtained may be used for that purpose.*
*NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:*
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If
that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather
advise me of your receipt, in writing.
*CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:*
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in
this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or
attachment.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Sean A. Mickley <smickley@gouldcooksey.com>
wrote:
> If I understand the question correctly, you (or someone else) filed a
> Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 57.105, Fla. stat., but failed to provide
> the requisite 21 day notice prior to filing; however, the Court denied the
> 57.105 Motion anyways…
>
>
>
> If that is correct, then the Court has already ruled and there withdrawal
> is a moot point.
>
>
>
> Also, if they filed the 57.105 Motion with the Court prior to the
> expiration of the 21 safe harbor period, then they did not comply with the
> statute anyways and they would not be entitled to fees.
>
>
>
> *From:* clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:
> clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] *On Behalf Of *RONALD
> KAUFMAN
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:52 PM
> *To:* <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion@lists.
> flabarrpptl.org>
> *Subject:* [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to a
> 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor period,
> does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject motion
> under 57.105(4)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
>
> *Board Certified Construction Attorney Certified Circuit Civil Mediator*
>
>
>
> Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
>
> 3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
> Coral Gables, FL 33134
> Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
> Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
> Email: rek@reklawfirm.com <rekesq@gmail.com>
> Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
>
> *Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised
> that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any
> information obtained may be used for that purpose.*
>
>
> *NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:*
> The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
> intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If
> that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather
> advise me of your receipt, in writing.
> *CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:*
> Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained
> in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
> used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or
> attachment.
>
D
dagee (at) reidagee.com
Thu, Apr 13, 2017 11:16 PM
Did the judge address whether the motion was frivolous? Did he rule in favor of the movant? Is this an issue that would require cert to get to an appellate court, or did it dispose of the case?
I think there is some ambiguity in the statute and I have never seen a case on point if the issue gets heard before the 21 day period.
It seems like you would be out of luck if a court ruled in favor of the movant because the court couldn't reach its decision in favor of the movant if it was not supported by the application of the facts to the then existing law etc.especially if it is a case that would require certiori which can be hard to get (Unless an appellate court reversed)
That being said there is the Ganz case that says that you should be able to wait until the case is over to deal with 57.105 issues and it doesn't require a request for attorney fees under stockman. So arguably, you might be able to take this up after the issues are disposed of and then appeal.
-----Original Message-----
From: "RONALD KAUFMAN" rek@reklawfirm.com
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 6:46pm
To: "Sean A. Mickley" smickley@gouldcooksey.com
Cc: "clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org" clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject motion under 57.105(4)?
I'll attempt to clarify: Court ruled on the underlying motion to which the 57.105 notice was directed (the "Motion") within the 21 day safe harbor period (i.e. within 21 days of being served with the notice). Does the fact that the Motion was ruled upon within the 21 day safe harbor period render the 57.105 motion moot?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.com
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Sean A. Mickley < smickley@gouldcooksey.com > wrote:
If I understand the question correctly, you (or someone else) filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 57.105, Fla. stat., but failed to provide the requisite 21 day notice prior to filing; however, the Court denied the 57.105 Motion anyways…
If that is correct, then the Court has already ruled and there withdrawal is a moot point.
Also, if they filed the 57.105 Motion with the Court prior to the expiration of the 21 safe harbor period, then they did not comply with the statute anyways and they would not be entitled to fees.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org ] On Behalf Of RONALD KAUFMAN
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:52 PM
To: < clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org > < clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org >
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject motion under 57.105(4)?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.com
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
Did the judge address whether the motion was frivolous? Did he rule in favor of the movant? Is this an issue that would require cert to get to an appellate court, or did it dispose of the case?
I think there is some ambiguity in the statute and I have never seen a case on point if the issue gets heard before the 21 day period.
It seems like you would be out of luck if a court ruled in favor of the movant because the court couldn't reach its decision in favor of the movant if it was not supported by the application of the facts to the then existing law etc.especially if it is a case that would require certiori which can be hard to get (Unless an appellate court reversed)
That being said there is the Ganz case that says that you should be able to wait until the case is over to deal with 57.105 issues and it doesn't require a request for attorney fees under stockman. So arguably, you might be able to take this up after the issues are disposed of and then appeal.
-----Original Message-----
From: "RONALD KAUFMAN" <rek@reklawfirm.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 6:46pm
To: "Sean A. Mickley" <smickley@gouldcooksey.com>
Cc: "<clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>" <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject motion under 57.105(4)?
I'll attempt to clarify: Court ruled on the underlying motion to which the 57.105 notice was directed (the "Motion") within the 21 day safe harbor period (i.e. within 21 days of being served with the notice). Does the fact that the Motion was ruled upon within the 21 day safe harbor period render the 57.105 motion moot?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: [ rek@reklawfirm.com ]( mailto:rekesq@gmail.com )
Website: [ www.miamiconstructionattorney.info ]( http://www.miamiconstructionattorney.info/ )
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Sean A. Mickley <[ smickley@gouldcooksey.com ]( mailto:smickley@gouldcooksey.com )> wrote:
If I understand the question correctly, you (or someone else) filed a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 57.105, Fla. stat., but failed to provide the requisite 21 day notice prior to filing; however, the Court denied the 57.105 Motion anyways…
If that is correct, then the Court has already ruled and there withdrawal is a moot point.
Also, if they filed the 57.105 Motion with the Court prior to the expiration of the 21 safe harbor period, then they did not comply with the statute anyways and they would not be entitled to fees.
From: [ clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org ]( mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org ) [mailto:[ clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org ]( mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org )] On Behalf Of RONALD KAUFMAN
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:52 PM
To: <[ clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org ]( mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org )> <[ clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org ]( mailto:clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org )>
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject motion under 57.105(4)?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: [ (305) 444-1500 ]( tel:(305)%20444-1500 )
Facsimile: [ (305) 675-3327 ]( tel:(305)%20675-3327 )
Email: [ rek@reklawfirm.com ]( mailto:rekesq@gmail.com )
Website: [ www.miamiconstructionattorney.info ]( http://www.miamiconstructionattorney.info/ )
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
GE
Greg Elliott
Fri, Apr 14, 2017 11:53 AM
Mr. Kaufman. See attached decision. I believe it is squarely directed
to your question.
Regards,
G. Elliott
Gregory T. Elliott
ELLIOTT - BERGER, P. A.
10225 Ulmerton Road, Suite 4A
Largo, Florida 33771
(727) 360-2600 (Phone)
(727) 360-6588 (Fax)
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This email message and any attachments are
private communications sent by a law firm, Elliott - Berger, P.A., and
may contain confidential or legally privileged information meant solely
for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
immediately by replying to this message, then delete the email and any
attachments from your system. Thank you.
Disclaimer regarding Uniform Electronic Transactions Act ("UETA")
(Florida Statutes, Section 668.50): If this communication concerns
negotiation of a contract or agreement, UETA does not apply to this
communication. Contract formation in this matter shall occur only with
manually-affixed original signatures on approved, original documents.
NOTE: The Florida Bar Disciplinary Counsel requires all lawyers to
notify all recipients of e-mail that (1) e-mail communication is not a
secure method of communication, (2) any e-mail that is sent to you or by
you may be copied and held by various computers it passes through as it
goes from me to you and vice versa, (3) persons not participating in our
communications may intercept our communications by improperly accessing
your computer or my computer or even some computer unconnected to either
of us which the e-mail passed through. If you want future communications
to be sent in a different fashion, please let me know.
------ Original Message ------
From: "dagee@reidagee.com" dagee@reidagee.com
To: "RONALD KAUFMAN" rek@reklawfirm.com
Cc: "clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org"
clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Sent: 4/13/2017 7:16:14 PM
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject
to a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor
period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject
motion under 57.105(4)?
Did the judge address whether the motion was frivolous? Did he rule in
favor of the movant? Is this an issue that would require cert to get to
an appellate court, or did it dispose of the case?
I think there is some ambiguity in the statute and I have never seen a
case on point if the issue gets heard before the 21 day period.
It seems like you would be out of luck if a court ruled in favor of the
movant because the court couldn't reach its decision in favor of the
movant if it was not supported by the application of the facts to the
then existing law etc.especially if it is a case that would require
certiori which can be hard to get (Unless an appellate court reversed)
That being said there is the Ganz case that says that you should be
able to wait until the case is over to deal with 57.105 issues and it
doesn't require a request for attorney fees under stockman. So
arguably, you might be able to take this up after the issues are
disposed of and then appeal.
-----Original Message-----
From: "RONALD KAUFMAN" rek@reklawfirm.com
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 6:46pm
To: "Sean A. Mickley" smickley@gouldcooksey.com
Cc: "clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org"
clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject
to a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor
period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject
motion under 57.105(4)?
I'll attempt to clarify: Court ruled on the underlying motion to which
the 57.105 notice was directed (the "Motion") within the 21 day safe
harbor period (i.e. within 21 days of being served with the notice).
Does the fact that the Motion was ruled upon within the 21 day safe
harbor period render the 57.105 motion moot?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: mailto:rekesq@gmail.com
Website: http://www.miamiconstructionattorney.info/
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby
advised that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts
and any information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney
privileged. If that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy
this mail, rather advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used,
and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding
penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Sean A. Mickley
smickley@gouldcooksey.com wrote:
If I understand the question correctly, you (or someone else) filed a
Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 57.105, Fla. stat., but failed to
provide the requisite 21 day notice prior to filing; however, the
Court denied the 57.105 Motion anyways…
If that is correct, then the Court has already ruled and there
withdrawal is a moot point.
Also, if they filed the 57.105 Motion with the Court prior to the
expiration of the 21 safe harbor period, then they did not comply with
the statute anyways and they would not be entitled to fees.
From:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
RONALD KAUFMAN
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:52 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to
a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor
period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the
subject motion under 57.105(4)?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney
Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: mailto:rekesq@gmail.com
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby
advised that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts
and any information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney
privileged. If that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy
this mail, rather advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used,
and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding
penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
Mr. Kaufman. See attached decision. I believe it is squarely directed
to your question.
Regards,
G. Elliott
Gregory T. Elliott
ELLIOTT - BERGER, P. A.
10225 Ulmerton Road, Suite 4A
Largo, Florida 33771
(727) 360-2600 (Phone)
(727) 360-6588 (Fax)
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This email message and any attachments are
private communications sent by a law firm, Elliott - Berger, P.A., and
may contain confidential or legally privileged information meant solely
for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying
of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
immediately by replying to this message, then delete the email and any
attachments from your system. Thank you.
Disclaimer regarding Uniform Electronic Transactions Act ("UETA")
(Florida Statutes, Section 668.50): If this communication concerns
negotiation of a contract or agreement, UETA does not apply to this
communication. Contract formation in this matter shall occur only with
manually-affixed original signatures on approved, original documents.
NOTE: The Florida Bar Disciplinary Counsel requires all lawyers to
notify all recipients of e-mail that (1) e-mail communication is not a
secure method of communication, (2) any e-mail that is sent to you or by
you may be copied and held by various computers it passes through as it
goes from me to you and vice versa, (3) persons not participating in our
communications may intercept our communications by improperly accessing
your computer or my computer or even some computer unconnected to either
of us which the e-mail passed through. If you want future communications
to be sent in a different fashion, please let me know.
------ Original Message ------
From: "dagee@reidagee.com" <dagee@reidagee.com>
To: "RONALD KAUFMAN" <rek@reklawfirm.com>
Cc: "<clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>"
<clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
Sent: 4/13/2017 7:16:14 PM
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject
to a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor
period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject
motion under 57.105(4)?
>Did the judge address whether the motion was frivolous? Did he rule in
>favor of the movant? Is this an issue that would require cert to get to
>an appellate court, or did it dispose of the case?
>
>
>
>I think there is some ambiguity in the statute and I have never seen a
>case on point if the issue gets heard before the 21 day period.
>
>
>
>It seems like you would be out of luck if a court ruled in favor of the
>movant because the court couldn't reach its decision in favor of the
>movant if it was not supported by the application of the facts to the
>then existing law etc.especially if it is a case that would require
>certiori which can be hard to get (Unless an appellate court reversed)
>
>
>
>That being said there is the Ganz case that says that you should be
>able to wait until the case is over to deal with 57.105 issues and it
>doesn't require a request for attorney fees under stockman. So
>arguably, you might be able to take this up after the issues are
>disposed of and then appeal.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "RONALD KAUFMAN" <rek@reklawfirm.com>
>Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 6:46pm
>To: "Sean A. Mickley" <smickley@gouldcooksey.com>
>Cc: "<clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>"
><clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
>Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject
>to a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor
>period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject
>motion under 57.105(4)?
>
>
>I'll attempt to clarify: Court ruled on the underlying motion to which
>the 57.105 notice was directed (the "Motion") within the 21 day safe
>harbor period (i.e. within 21 days of being served with the notice).
>Does the fact that the Motion was ruled upon within the 21 day safe
>harbor period render the 57.105 motion moot?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
>Board Certified Construction Attorney
>Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
>
>Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
>3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
>Coral Gables, FL 33134
>Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
>Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
>Email: mailto:rekesq@gmail.com
>Website: http://www.miamiconstructionattorney.info/
>
>
>
>Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby
>advised that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts
>and any information obtained may be used for that purpose.
>
>NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
>The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
>intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney
>privileged. If that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy
>this mail, rather advise me of your receipt, in writing.
>CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
>Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice
>contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used,
>and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding
>penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
>marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
>addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
>
>On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Sean A. Mickley
><smickley@gouldcooksey.com> wrote:
>>If I understand the question correctly, you (or someone else) filed a
>>Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 57.105, Fla. stat., but failed to
>>provide the requisite 21 day notice prior to filing; however, the
>>Court denied the 57.105 Motion anyways…
>>
>>
>>
>>If that is correct, then the Court has already ruled and there
>>withdrawal is a moot point.
>>
>>
>>
>>Also, if they filed the 57.105 Motion with the Court prior to the
>>expiration of the 21 safe harbor period, then they did not comply with
>>the statute anyways and they would not be entitled to fees.
>>
>>
>>
>>From:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org
>>[mailto:clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] On Behalf Of
>>RONALD KAUFMAN
>>Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:52 PM
>>To: <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
>><clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>
>>Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to
>>a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor
>>period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the
>>subject motion under 57.105(4)?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>
>>
>>Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
>>Board Certified Construction Attorney
>>Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
>>
>>
>>Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
>>
>>3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
>>Coral Gables, FL 33134
>>Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
>>Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
>>Email: mailto:rekesq@gmail.com
>>Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
>>
>>
>>Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby
>>advised that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts
>>and any information obtained may be used for that purpose.
>>
>>
>>NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
>>The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
>>intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney
>>privileged. If that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy
>>this mail, rather advise me of your receipt, in writing.
>>CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
>>Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice
>>contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used,
>>and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding
>>penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
>>marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
>>addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
>>
>
>Virus-free.
>http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
RK
RONALD KAUFMAN
Fri, Apr 14, 2017 1:32 PM
The Judge, in ruling on the Motion, did not find the Motion frivolous or
award attorney fees (and the opposition noted that a 57.105 notice was
served in connection with the Motion in its response filed in opposition to
the Motion and the 57.105 notice was mentioned during oral argument at
hearing). Current status is that the opposition filed its 57.105 motion
(post order denying the Motion).
My initial thought was since Judge did not award fees (own initiative) or
even deem motion frivolous (for future ruling pursuant to the 57.105
notice/motion which the Court was on notice of) at hearing on the Motion
that the 57.105 motion is moot.
That said and for argument's sake, would setting a frivolous motion subject
to a 57.105 notice for hearing and having the motion ruled upon within the
21 day safe harbor period be a viable way to avoid the ramifications
thereof? Or does having a frivolous motion heard within the safe harbor
period result in a waiver of the safe harbor period?
Thank you all!
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction AttorneyCertified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.com rekesq@gmail.com
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised
that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any
information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If
that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather
advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in
this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or
attachment.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 7:16 PM, dagee@reidagee.com dagee@reidagee.com
wrote:
Did the judge address whether the motion was frivolous? Did he rule in
favor of the movant? Is this an issue that would require cert to get to an
appellate court, or did it dispose of the case?
I think there is some ambiguity in the statute and I have never seen a
case on point if the issue gets heard before the 21 day period.
It seems like you would be out of luck if a court ruled in favor of the
movant because the court couldn't reach its decision in favor of the movant
if it was not supported by the application of the facts to the then
existing law etc.especially if it is a case that would require certiori
which can be hard to get (Unless an appellate court reversed)
That being said there is the Ganz case that says that you should be able
to wait until the case is over to deal with 57.105 issues and it doesn't
require a request for attorney fees under stockman. So arguably, you might
be able to take this up after the issues are disposed of and then appeal.
-----Original Message-----
From: "RONALD KAUFMAN" rek@reklawfirm.com
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 6:46pm
To: "Sean A. Mickley" smickley@gouldcooksey.com
Cc: "clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org" <clc-discussion@lists.
flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to
a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor
period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject
motion under 57.105(4)?
I'll attempt to clarify: Court ruled on the underlying motion to which
the 57.105 notice was directed (the "Motion") within the 21 day safe harbor
period (i.e. within 21 days of being served with the notice). Does the
fact that the Motion was ruled upon within the 21 day safe harbor period
render the 57.105 motion moot?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction AttorneyCertified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.com rekesq@gmail.com
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised
that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any
information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If
that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather
advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained
in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or
attachment.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Sean A. Mickley <
smickley@gouldcooksey.com> wrote:
If I understand the question correctly, you (or someone else) filed a
Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 57.105, Fla. stat., but failed to provide
the requisite 21 day notice prior to filing; however, the Court denied the
57.105 Motion anyways…
If that is correct, then the Court has already ruled and there withdrawal
is a moot point.
Also, if they filed the 57.105 Motion with the Court prior to the
expiration of the 21 safe harbor period, then they did not comply with the
statute anyways and they would not be entitled to fees.
From: clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:
clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] *On Behalf Of *RONALD
KAUFMAN
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:52 PM
To: clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org <clc-discussion@lists.
flabarrpptl.org>
Subject: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to
a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor
period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject
motion under 57.105(4)?
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
Board Certified Construction Attorney Certified Circuit Civil Mediator
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.com rekesq@gmail.com
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby
advised that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and
any information obtained may be used for that purpose.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If
that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather
advise me of your receipt, in writing.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained
in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or
attachment.
The Judge, in ruling on the Motion, did not find the Motion frivolous or
award attorney fees (and the opposition noted that a 57.105 notice was
served in connection with the Motion in its response filed in opposition to
the Motion and the 57.105 notice was mentioned during oral argument at
hearing). Current status is that the opposition filed its 57.105 motion
(post order denying the Motion).
My initial thought was since Judge did not award fees (own initiative) or
even deem motion frivolous (for future ruling pursuant to the 57.105
notice/motion which the Court was on notice of) at hearing on the Motion
that the 57.105 motion is moot.
That said and for argument's sake, would setting a frivolous motion subject
to a 57.105 notice for hearing and having the motion ruled upon within the
21 day safe harbor period be a viable way to avoid the ramifications
thereof? Or does having a frivolous motion heard within the safe harbor
period result in a waiver of the safe harbor period?
Thank you all!
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
*Board Certified Construction AttorneyCertified Circuit Civil Mediator*
Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
Email: rek@reklawfirm.com <rekesq@gmail.com>
Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
*Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised
that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any
information obtained may be used for that purpose.*
*NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:*
The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If
that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather
advise me of your receipt, in writing.
*CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:*
Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in
this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or
attachment.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 7:16 PM, dagee@reidagee.com <dagee@reidagee.com>
wrote:
> Did the judge address whether the motion was frivolous? Did he rule in
> favor of the movant? Is this an issue that would require cert to get to an
> appellate court, or did it dispose of the case?
>
>
>
> I think there is some ambiguity in the statute and I have never seen a
> case on point if the issue gets heard before the 21 day period.
>
>
>
> It seems like you would be out of luck if a court ruled in favor of the
> movant because the court couldn't reach its decision in favor of the movant
> if it was not supported by the application of the facts to the then
> existing law etc.especially if it is a case that would require certiori
> which can be hard to get (Unless an appellate court reversed)
>
>
>
> That being said there is the Ganz case that says that you should be able
> to wait until the case is over to deal with 57.105 issues and it doesn't
> require a request for attorney fees under stockman. So arguably, you might
> be able to take this up after the issues are disposed of and then appeal.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "RONALD KAUFMAN" <rek@reklawfirm.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 6:46pm
> To: "Sean A. Mickley" <smickley@gouldcooksey.com>
> Cc: "<clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org>" <clc-discussion@lists.
> flabarrpptl.org>
> Subject: Re: [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to
> a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor
> period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject
> motion under 57.105(4)?
>
> I'll attempt to clarify: Court ruled on the underlying motion to which
> the 57.105 notice was directed (the "Motion") within the 21 day safe harbor
> period (i.e. within 21 days of being served with the notice). Does the
> fact that the Motion was ruled upon within the 21 day safe harbor period
> render the 57.105 motion moot?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
>
> *Board Certified Construction AttorneyCertified Circuit Civil Mediator*
>
> Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
> 3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
> Coral Gables, FL 33134
> Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
> Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
> Email: rek@reklawfirm.com <rekesq@gmail.com>
> Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
>
>
>
> *Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby advised
> that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and any
> information obtained may be used for that purpose.*
>
> *NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:*
> The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
> intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If
> that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather
> advise me of your receipt, in writing.
> *CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:*
> Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained
> in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
> used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
> U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or
> attachment.
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Sean A. Mickley <
> smickley@gouldcooksey.com> wrote:
>
>> If I understand the question correctly, you (or someone else) filed a
>> Motion for Sanctions pursuant to 57.105, Fla. stat., but failed to provide
>> the requisite 21 day notice prior to filing; however, the Court denied the
>> 57.105 Motion anyways…
>>
>>
>>
>> If that is correct, then the Court has already ruled and there withdrawal
>> is a moot point.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, if they filed the 57.105 Motion with the Court prior to the
>> expiration of the 21 safe harbor period, then they did not comply with the
>> statute anyways and they would not be entitled to fees.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org [mailto:
>> clc-discussion-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org] *On Behalf Of *RONALD
>> KAUFMAN
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 13, 2017 5:52 PM
>> *To:* <clc-discussion@lists.flabarrpptl.org> <clc-discussion@lists.
>> flabarrpptl.org>
>> *Subject:* [CLC-Discussion] 57.105(1) Question - If a motion subject to
>> a 57.105 notice is ruled upon (denied) within the 21 day safe harbor
>> period, does such ruling negate the requirement to withdraw the subject
>> motion under 57.105(4)?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>>
>> Ronald E. Kaufman, Esq.
>>
>> *Board Certified Construction Attorney Certified Circuit Civil Mediator*
>>
>>
>>
>> Law Offices of Ronald E. Kaufman, P.A.
>>
>> 3399 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, suite 202
>> Coral Gables, FL 33134
>> Main Telephone: (305) 444-1500
>> Facsimile: (305) 675-3327
>> Email: rek@reklawfirm.com <rekesq@gmail.com>
>> Website: www.miamiconstructionattorney.info
>>
>> *Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act you are hereby
>> advised that portion of our practice involves the collections of debts and
>> any information obtained may be used for that purpose.*
>>
>>
>> *NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY:*
>> The information contained in this mail is intended for the use of the
>> intended recipient only and may be confidential and attorney privileged. If
>> that is not you stop reading, do not distribute or copy this mail, rather
>> advise me of your receipt, in writing.
>> *CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE:*
>> Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained
>> in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
>> used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
>> U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
>> another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or
>> attachment.
>>
>
