IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE
`SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
`AND
`FOR
`BROWARD
`COUNTY,
`FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO. COSO 17-007088 (60)
`
`Filing # 62358991 E-Filed 10/03/2017 10:36:44 PM
`
`RESTORATION
`INSURANCE
`ALL
`SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation
`a/a/o Horacio Valle and Adalberta Valle,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE
`COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE JUDICIAL DEFAULT AND
`ORDER OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
`
`Defendant, AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY(“American Security”
`
`or “Defendant”), hereby moves for entry of an Order vacating the Default entered in this case on
`
`August 30, 2017 and the Order of Default Final Judgment entered in this case on September 19,
`
`2017, in favor of Plaintiff, ALL INSURANCE RESTORATION SERVICES, INC. a/a/o Horacio
`
`Valle and Adalberta Valle (“Plaintiff”), and, as groundstherefore,states:
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
`
`A,
`
`PlaintiffServes The Complaint And Original Notice On American Security.
`
`1.
`
`On July 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this matter, which was served
`
`on American Security with a “Summons/Notice to Appear for Pretrial Conference” dated July
`
`17. 2017 (the “Original Notice”). The date of the Pre-Trial Conference set forth in the Original
`
`Notice was August 16, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. The Complaint and Original Notice were served on the
`
`“FL Chief Financial Officer” on 07/19/2017” and the FL Chief Financial Officer served process
`
`*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK10/3/2017 10:36:43 PM.****
`
`

`

`CASE NO. COSO 17-007088 (60)
`
`on American Security by electronic Delivery on July 21, 2017. True and correct copies of the
`
`documents served to Defendant on July 21, 2017 are attached hereto as Comp. Exhibit 1.
`
`2.
`
`After being served with the Original Summons and Complaint, on August 10,
`
`2017, American Security filed its Motion to Compel Appraisal and Supporting Memorandum of
`
`Law.Atrue and correct copy of the Motion to Compelis attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`3.
`
`On August 16, 2017 at 9:30 am., in accordance with the Original Summons
`
`served with the Complaint, American Security appeared for the Pretrial Conference. However,
`
`after waiting in the courthouse with numerous other counsel and parties, everyone who was
`
`waiting in attendance was advised that the Honorable Claudia Robinson wasnot available to
`
`conduct
`
`the Pretrial Conference and that
`
`the Clerk would be sending out a new Pretrial
`
`Conference date at a future date.
`
`4,
`
`After
`
`the cancelled Pre-Trial Conference on August 16, 2017, Defendant
`
`proceeded to coordinate a hearing date to argue its Motion to Compel Appraisal with Plaintiff's
`
`counsel. Due to Plaintiff's counsel’s unavailability, the parties agreed to a November 6, 2017
`
`hearing date, which notice was served on September 5, 2017. A true and correct copy of the
`
`Notice of Hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`
`B.
`
`Re-Notice Changing Date Of Pre-Trial Hearing Is Issued But Not Served Upon
`Defendant.
`
`5.
`
`On August 30, 2017, as American Security would inadvertently later discover,
`
`Plaintiff's counsel had attended a Pretrial Conference about which American Security had not
`
`received any notice because, unbeknownst to American Security, on July 20, 2017, one day
`
`after the FL Chief Financial Officer had been served with the Original Notice and
`
`Complaint and one day before the FL Chief Financial Officer had electronically served
`
`American Security the Complaint and the Original Notice, a “Notice of Resetting Pretrial
`
`

`

`CASE NO. COSO 17-007088 (60)
`
`Conference” had been signed rescheduling the originally noticed August 16, 2017 Pre-Trial
`
`Notice to a new date of August 30, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. (the “Re-Notice”). A true and correct copy
`
`of the Re-Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
`
`6.
`
`At no time prior to the filing of this Motion, did American Security ever get
`
`served or otherwise receive notice a copy of the Re-Notice from opposing counsel or the Clerk of
`
`the Court. American Security only became aware of the Re-Notice on September 5, 2017, after
`
`reviewing a court docket in one of eleven (11) other cases that Plaintiff had filed and served
`
`against American Security on the same dates and discovering that a default had been entered by
`
`the Court in that case based upon a non-appearance at the Pre-Trial Conference on August 30,
`
`2017 -- about which American Security had neverreceived notice.!
`
`C.
`
`American Security Discovers Entry Of Default Based Upon None Appearance at
`Pre-Trial hearing About Which American Security Had Never Received Notice.
`
`7.
`
`On September 5. 2017, after discovering the entry of a default entered against
`
`Defendant in Case No.: COSO-17-0070094 and the Re-Notice, American Security began to
`
`review all of the dockets in the eleven (11) other cases that Plaintiff had served the Summons
`
`and Original Notice on the FL Chief Financial Officer on July 19, 2017, who then electronically
`
`served the Summons and Original Notice on American Security on July 21, 2017, all of which
`
`were pending before this Court.
`
`In reviewing the dockets, American Security discovered for the
`
`first time that defaults had been entered against it in 10 of the 11 cases, including this pending
`
`case, due to its failure to appear at the August 30, 2017 Pre-Trial Conference that had been
`
`
`' On August 10, 2017, the undersigned counsel sent Plaintiff's counsel an email advising that American Security,
`who had been named as the defendant, was not the proper party as confirmed by the exhibit that had been attached
`to the complaint. Subsequentthereto, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in Case No.: COSO-17-007094 in which
`Plaintiff substituted American Bankers for American Security. However, after dropping American Security as the
`defendant, Plaintiff failed to serve American Bankers with the amended complaint and thus American Bankersis not
`before this Court. Ironically, Plaintiff did not advise the Court of the amendmentor that the defendantin the lawsuit
`had not been served, and a default and default final judgment was entered against American Security even though
`Plaintiff had dropped American Security as a party to the lawsuit. See email dated August 10, 2017 from Alaine S.
`Greenberg to Jasiel Tabares attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
`
`

`

`CASE NO. COSO 17-007088 (60)
`
`rescheduled pursuant to the Re-Notice, which Re-Notice was never served or otherwise provided
`
`to American Security at any time, either prior to or after the rescheduled hearing. See Affidavit
`
`of Carmen Collazo and Affidavit of Alaine S. Greenberg, Esq., attached hereto as Exhibits 6 &
`
`Exhibit 7, respectively
`
`D.
`
`American Security Immediately Contacts Plaintiff’s Counsel And The Court.
`
`8.
`
`Having discovered that defaults had been entered against American Security for
`
`its failure to appear at the Pre-Trial Conference on August 30, 2017, about which American
`
`Security never received notice, the undersigned counsel immediately contacted the Tabares Law
`
`Firm and was advised that Lisa Gonzalez, Esq. was the attorney assigned to the claims. The
`
`undersigned asked whether counsel would agree to enter into an order setting aside the default.
`
`As Ms. Gonzalez was not available, the paralegal at the Tabares Law Firm handledthe call and,
`
`during a lengthy conversation, acknowledged that Plaintiffs firm had served the complaint with
`
`the Original Notice but had not thought to serve the Re-Notice that was issued before service had
`
`been effectuated on American Security. The paralegal represented that she would speak to Ms.
`
`Gonzalez and either she or Ms. Gonzalez would call back.
`
`9.
`
`On September 6, 2017, the undersigned contacted this Court’s judicial assistant
`
`and left a voicemail to try to identify to whom the Re-Notice might have been mailed sinceit
`
`wasnot possible that the Re-Notice had been sent to ““Defendant’s Counsel” on July 20, 2017 as
`
`indicated on the Re-Notice because American Security had not yet been served, neither
`
`American Security or any attorney on behalf of American Security had made an appearance in
`
`the case, and American Security had not yet retained the undersigned law firm in this case.
`
`10.
`
`That same day, at approximately 5:00 p.m., this Court’s judicial assistant returned
`
`the undersigned’s call. The reason that the date and time are so vivid, as the undersigned was so
`
`

`

`CASE NO. COSO 17-007088 (60)
`
`appreciative of the return call on Wednesday in the late afternoon, was because we had just
`
`received word that the Greenberg Traurig offices and certain courts and schools were being
`
`closed for at least the next two days due to Hurricane Irma. At that time, the undersigned learned
`
`from this Court’s judicial assistant that the Clerk of the Court (not the Court) mailed out the Re-
`
`Notice on July 20, 2017 because the Clerk included the wrong date in the Original Notice. The
`
`undersigned then contacted the Clerk of the Court to find out where the Re-Notice might have
`
`been sent since “Defendant’s Counsel” -- as indicated on the Re-Notice -- could not have been
`
`possible.
`
`11.
`
`As the Clerk’s office was closed and did not open until September 18, 2017 due to
`
`Hurricane Irma, it was not possible to get any additional information regarding where the Clerk
`
`may have sent the Re-Notice.
`
`12.
`
`After Hurricane Irma, on September 21, 2017, Dorothy and Mary in the Clerk of
`
`the Court’s office advised that the court file did not have any record of the address to where the
`
`Re-Notice presumably would have been mailed, but that the Re-Notice would have been mailed
`
`to “Defendant’s address on record with the Clerk.” Since 1) American Security had not been
`
`served on the date the Re-Notice was alleged to have been mailed to “Defendant’s Counsel,”
`
`2) American Security had not retained the undersigned law firm, and 3) no counsel had appeared
`
`in the case, the Re-Notice -- indicating that it had been mailed to “Defendant’s Counsel” -- is
`
`facially flawed.
`
`E.
`
`American Security Never Received Notice Of The August 30, 2017 Pre-Trial Hearing.
`
`13.
`
`At no time did American Security or American Security’s counsel ever receive a
`
`copy of the Re-Notice from Plaintiff or the Clerk of the Court. The first time American Security,
`
`by and through its counsel, ever became aware of the Re-Notice or that the date of the Pre-Trial
`
`

`

`CASE NO. COSO 17-007088 (60)
`
`Conference had been changed to August 30, 2017, was on September 5, 2017, as more fully
`
`described above. See Affidavit of Carmen Collazo and Aline S. Greenberg, Esq.
`
`14.
`
`Moreover, the “Notice of Filing Service of Process” filed by Plaintiff with the
`
`Court on August 30, 2017, which attached the “Notice of Service of Process”, evidences that the
`
`Complaint and “Summons/Notice” were electronically served in this case upon the Chief
`
`Financial Officer on July 19, 2017 -- one day before the Re-Notice was issued.
`
`It further
`
`confirms that the FL Chief Financial Officer electronically did not electronically serve that
`
`Complaint on American Security on July 21, 2017 -- one day after the Re-Notice wasfiled by the
`
`Clerk. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Filing and Exhibit are attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 8.
`
`15.
`
`Therefore, pursuant to the Notice of Service Process filed by Plaintiff with the
`
`Court, the Complaint could only have been sent out with the Original Notice, as the Re-Notice
`
`had not even been issued by the Clerk of the Court, and the Clerk of the Court could not have
`
`served “Defendant’s Attorney” with the Re-Notice on July 19, 2017 because American Security
`
`had not even been served with the Complaint, muchless retained an attorney in the case.
`
`F,
`
`Plaintiff’s Counsel Sends In Order OfFinal Judgment
`
`16.
`
`On September 21, 2017, American Security was about to file the Motion to Set
`
`Aside the Default in this case, but, to its total surprise -- especially after having explained the
`
`situation to opposing counsel’s paralegal who had acknowledged the mistake -- American
`
`Security’s counsel received a signed “Order of Default Judgment” dated September 19, 2017.
`
`The Order clearly had been submitted by Plaintiff's counsel to the Court for execution, as the
`
`incorrect county was included in the Order and crossed out by the Court. A true and correct
`
`copy of the Order of Default Judgmentis attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
`
`

`

`CASE NO. COSO 17-007088 (60)
`
`17.
`
`However, including the wrong county in the proposed order that was provided ex-
`
`parte to the Court was not the only error in the Order of Default Judgment. First, Plaintiff,
`
`contrary to the Order of Default Judgment, never served the “Notice to Appear dated July 20,
`
`2017” because, based upon the Notice of Filing Service of Process filed by Plaintiff with this
`
`Court, Plaintiff electronically served the complaint upon the FL Chief Financial Officer on July
`
`19, 2017 -- one day before the “Notice to Appear dated July 20, 2017” wasissued.
`
`18.
`
`Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court could not have served the “Notice to Appear
`
`dated July 20, 2017” on Defendant’s Counsel because American Security had not received
`
`service from the FL Chief Financial Officer until July 21, 2017 and, therefore, no attorney had
`
`appeared in the case on behalf of Defendant.
`
`In addition, contrary to the “Order of Default
`
`Judgment”, there is no record of Plaintiff having ever filed a “Motion for Default Judgment” in
`
`this case.
`
`19.|American Security moves to vacate the “Order of Default Judgment” dated July
`
`19, 2017, and the “Default” dated August 30, 2017, based upon fundamental principles of due
`
`process. This is not even a case involving excusable neglect because the Re-Notice was never
`
`served upon and American Security never received notice that the August 16, 2017 Pre-Trial
`
`Conference set forth in the Original Notice, for which American Security’s counsel appeared,
`
`had been changed to August 30, 2017. Defendant does not suggest that Plaintiff's failure to
`
`serve the Re-Notice on Defendant or its counsel was intentional and was most probably an
`
`oversight.
`
`20.
`
`However, Plaintiff's counsel was well aware that on August 30, 2017, the date of
`
`the Pre-Trial Conference, that the undersigned firm had not only appeared in this case butfiled a
`
`Motion to Compel Appraisal with the Court just two (2) weeks earlier and, thus, should have
`
`

`

`understood that there was a problem and made a phonecall to find out why American Security
`
`did not appearat the hearing.
`
`CASE NO. COSO 17-007088 (60)
`
`21.|What is more disappointing is that after American Security advised Plaintiff that
`
`Plaintiff failed to serve American Security with the Re-Notice in this case, Plaintiff continued to
`
`seek the entry of an Order of Default Judgment” with the Court, again without any notice to
`
`American Security’s counsel. The Order misrepresented that American Security had been served
`
`with the “Notice to Appear dated July 20, 2017” when Plaintiff knew that it did not serve the
`
`“Re-Notice” on American Security or its counsel, and that the Clerk of the Court could not have
`
`served the Re-Notice on Defendant’s counsel because not only had no attorney appeared in the
`
`case on behalf of American Security on July 20, 2017, American Security had not even been
`
`served with the Complaint as of that date, as evidenced by Plaintiff's Notice of Filing and exhibit
`
`attached thereto.
`
`22.
`
`It was incumbent upon Plaintiff's counsel to re-serve the complaint with the Re-
`
`Notice in order to notify American Security that the original Summons that had been served
`
`reflected the incorrect date of the Pre-Trial conference. However, at no time prior to August 30,
`
`2017, did the Clerk of the Court or Plaintiff’s counsel ever serve the Re-Notice on American
`
`Security or American Security’s counsel after the latter filed an appearance in the case,
`
`especially where, as here, it provided an order to the Court that affirmatively represented that the
`
`Re-Notice had been served upon Defendant, wheninreality it had not been served.
`
`LEGAL ARGUMENT
`
`“A judgmentis void if, in the proceedings leading up to the judgment, there is a violation
`
`of the due process guarantee of notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Tannenbaum y. Shea,
`
`133 So. 3d 1056, 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citation omitted). A denial of due process “voids
`
`

`

`CASE NO. COSO 17-007088 (60)
`
`the default, and derivatively the default judgment.” Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enterprises, Inc.,
`
`922 So. 2d 1090, 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
`
`If a judgment is void, a party is not required to
`
`demonstrate excusable neglect or a meritorious defense. See Mullne v. Sea-Tech Const. Inc., 84
`
`So. 3d 1247, 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the failure to serve the Re-Notice upon American Security, the final judgment
`
`after default is void and derivatively the default is likewise void. See Mullne, Inc., 84 So.3d at
`
`1249. As such, American Security does not even have the burden to demonstrate excusable
`
`neglect or a meritorious defense. Jd. Moreover, notwithstanding that American Security filed an
`
`appearance in the case, Plaintiff continued to submit ex-parte documents to the Court. As such,
`
`American Security moves to have the final judgment after default and the default declared void
`
`and to permit the case to proceed on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this Case and Compel
`
`Appraisal, currently scheduled to be heard on November 1, 2017, or as soon thereafter as
`
`possible.
`
`
`
`* UnderFlorida law, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500, a party movingto set aside a default must show
`that: (1) the failure to file a timely responsive pleading was due to excusable neglect; (2) there is a
`meritorious defense to the claim; and (3) the request for relief from the default was made with reasonable
`diligence after it was discovered. Venero v. Balbuena, 652 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
`Florida courts have repeatedly held that “Florida policy dictates a preference that cases be decided on
`their merits, 1f there is any reasonable doubt as to whether to vacate a default, it should be resolved in
`favor of granting relief from a default judgment so that a matter may be tried on the merits.” Nations
`American Security, N.A. v. Regency Ctrs., Inc., 725 So. 2d 439, 440 (Fla, 4th DCA 1999), However, in
`the instant case, the issue is not even one of excusable neglect because this case does not involve an issue
`of having received notice and not appearing because of some human error, but because notice was never
`received in the first instance. Even under the standard set forth in Rule 1.500, the final judgment after
`default and the default itself should be set aside for the following reasons: 1) Meritorious Defenses:
`American Security has meritorious defenses to the complaint as more fully set forth in the Motion to
`Compel Appraisal, attached hereto as Exhibit 8; and 2) Due Diligence: American Security’s request for
`relief from the default and default judgment entered against it in this action was made with reasonable
`diligence after it was discovered. American Security’s counsel immediately contacted Plaintiff's counsel
`after first learning of the default entered based upon a Re-Notice about which American Security never
`received notice. American Security also immediately tried to obtain information from the Clerk of the
`Court, which receipt of information was delayed due to the closures caused by Hurricane Irma.
`
`9
`
`

`

`CASE NO. COSO 17-007088 (60)
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY
`
`respectfully requests this Court’s enter the Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Vacate the
`
`Default Final Judgment and the Default, and grant such further relief as this Court may deem
`
`appropriate.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG,P.A.
`Attorneys for American Security Ins. Co.
`401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2000
`Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
`Phone: (954) 765-0500
`Facsimile: (954) 765-1477
`
`Email Designations:
`Primary:
`claytonw@gtlaw.com
`Secondary:
`rosr@gtlaw.com
`FLService@gtlaw.com
`
`Primary:
`Secondary:
`
`greenberga@gtlaw.com
`brownc@gtlaw.com
`FLService@gtlaw.com
`
`Primary:
`Secondary:
`
`singerj@gtlaw.com
`brownc@gtlaw.com
`FLService@gtlaw.com
`
`
`By:/s/ Alaine S. Greenberg
`WILLIAM R. CLAYTON
`Florida Bar No. 0485977
`ALAINE S. GREENBERG
`Florida Bar No. 699349
`JEREMY R. SINGER
`Florida Bar No.: 092049
`
`10
`
`

`

`CASE NO. COSO 17-007088 (60)
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`WE HEREBY CERTIFYthat a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent via E-
`
`Mail (service@tabareslaw.com) to:
`
`Jasiel Tabares, Esq., Tabares Law, P.A., 12150 SW 128"
`
`Court, Suite 131, Miami, Florida 33186 on this 3rd day of October, 2017.
`
`FTL 111456778v1
`
`/s/Alaine S. Greenberg
`ALAINE S. GREENBERG
`
`11
`
`

`

`Composite Exhibit 1
`
`

`

` CHILF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
`
`STATE OF FLORIDA
`JIMMY PATRONIS
`
`*17-000133840*
`
`CASE #:
`ALL INSURANCE RESTORATION SERVICES,
`.
`INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION A/A/O
`
`HORACIO VALLE AND ADALBERTA VALLE COURT:=—CIRCUIT COURT
`COUNTY:
`BROWARD
`DFS-SOP #: 17-000133840
`
`COSO-17-007088
`
`PLAINTIFF(S)
`
`VS.
`
`AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY
`
`DEFENDANT(S)
`
`/
`
`SUMMONS, COMPLAINT, DISCOVERY, E-MAIL
`
`NOTICE OF SERVICE OF PROCESS
`
`NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENofacceptance of Service of Process by the Chief Financial Officer of the
`State of Florida. Said process was received in my office by ELECTRONIC DELIVERYon Wednesday,
`July 19, 2017 and a copy was forwarded by ELECTRONIC DELIVERYon Friday, July 21, 2017 to the
`designated agent for the named entity as shown below.
`
`AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY
`
`LYNETTE COLEMAN
`
`1201 HAYS STREET
`TALLAHASSEEFL 32301
`
`*Ouroffice will only serve the initial process(Summons and Complaint) or Subpoenaandis not responsible
`for transmittal of any subsequentfillings, pleadings, or documents unless otherwise ordered by the Court
`pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule #1.080
`
`Fnfa
`
`Jimmy Patronis
`Chief Financial Officer
`
`DKG
`
`JASIEL TABARES
`ATTORNEY
`TABARESLAW,P.A.
`12150 SW 128 COURT
`SUITE 131
`MIAMIFL 33186
`
`Office of the General Counsel - Service of Process Section
`
`200 East Gaines Street - P.O. Box 6200 - Tallahassee, FL 32314-6200 - (850)413-4200
`
`

`

`Case Number: COSO-17-007088 Division: 60
`Filing # 59063530 E-Filed 07/14/2017 08:19:46 PM
`
`
`RECEIVEDASSTATUTORYREGISTERED
`
`
`
`
`AGENTon19July,2017andservedondefendantornamedpartyon21July,2017
`
`
`
`
`
`bytheFloridaDepartmentofFinancialServices
`
`
`IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND
`:
`ALL INSURANCE RESTORATION_
`FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
`SERVICES, INC. A Florida Comoration:
`
`a/a/o Horacio Valle
`:
`CASE NO.
`
`and Adalberta Valle
`:
`JUDGE
`
`:
`DIV.
`
`VS.
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`
`
`2
`AMERICAN SECURITY
` INSURANCE COMPANY
`i
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`TICE
`;
`PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
`
`FOR
`
`Pretrial Information: Appearat
`3550 Hollywood Boulevard,Hollywood, FL 33021
`on 08/16/2017 at 9:30 AM in South Courtroom 210.
`
`STATE OF FLORIDA — NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF(S) AND DEFENDANT(S)
`
`
`
`
`YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that you are required to appearin personor byattorney at the
`Broward County Courthouse in Courtroom
`, located at
`;
`
`on
`at
`fora PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCEbefore a Judge of this court.
`
`,
`
`IMPORTANT — READ CAREFULLY
`WILL N
`
`The defendant(s) must appear in court on the date specified in order to avoid a default judgment. The
`plaintiff(s) must appear to avoid havingthe case dismissedfor lack of prosecution. A written MOTION
`or ANSWERtothe court by the plaintiff(s) or the defendant(s) shall not excuse the personal appearance
`of a party orits attorney in the PRETRIAL CONFERENCE.Thedate andtimeofthe pretrial conference
`CANNOTberescheduled without good cause and prior court approval.
`
`A corporation may be represented at any stage ofthe trial court proceedings by anofficer of the
`corporation or any employee authorized in writing by anofficer of the corporation. Written authorization
`must be brought to the Pretrial Conference.
`
`The purpose ofthe pretrial conferenceis to record your appearance, to determine if you admitall or part
`of the claim, to enable the court to determine the nature of the case, andto set the casefortrial if the case
`cannotberesolved at the pretrial conference. You or your attorney should be prepared to confer with the
`court and to explain briefly the nature of your dispute, state what efforts have been madeto settle the
`dispute, exhibit any documents necessaryto prove the case, state the names and addresses of your
`witnesses,stipulate to the facts that will require no proof and will expedite the trial, and estimate how
`longit will take to try the case.
`
`Mediation may take placeat the pretrial conference. Whoever appears for a party must havefull authority
`to settle. Failure to have full authority to settle at this pretrial conference may result in the imposition of
`costs andattorney fees incurred by the opposingparty.
`
`*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 7/14/2017 8:19:44 PM. ****
`
`

`

`If you admit the claim, but desire additional time to pay, you must comeandstate the circumstances to
`the court. The court may or may not approve a paymentplan and withhold judgmentor execution or
`levy.
`
`RIGHT TO VENUE.Thelaw gives the person or company whohassued youtherightto file in any one
`of severalplaces as listed below. However, if you have been sued in any place other than oneofthese
`places, you, as the defendant(s), have the right to request that the case be movedto a properlocation or
`venue. A proper location or venue maybe one ofthe following: (1) where the contract was entered into;
`(2) if the suit is on an unsecured promissory note, wherethe note is signed or where the maker resides; (3)
`if the suit is to recover property or to foreclose a lien, where the property is located; (4) where the event
`giving rise to the suit occurred; (5) where any one or moreofthe defendants sued reside; (6) any location
`agreed to in a contract; (7) in an action for money due, if there is no agreement as to where the suit may
`be filed, where paymentis to be made.
`
`If you, as the defendant(s), believe the plaintiff(s) has/have not sued in oneof these correct places, you
`must appear on your court date and orally request a transfer, or you must filea WRITTENrequest for
`transferin affidavit form (sworn to under oath) with the court 7 daysprior to yourfirst court date and
`send a copyto theplaintiff(s) or plaintiff(s) attorney, if any.
`
`A copy of the statement of claim shall be served with this summons.
`DATEDat
`Florida, on
`JUL 17 2017
`
`
`Filed by:_Jasiel Tabares, Esq.
`Address: 12150 SW_{£28 Court. Suite [31
`
`Miami, Florida 33186
`
`
`
`
`
`By
`
`If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order
`to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the
`provision of certain assistance. Please contact the ADA Coordinator, Room
`470, 201 S.E. Sixth Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, 954-831-7721 at least
`7 days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon
`receiving this notification if the time before the scheduled appearanceisless
`than 7 days; if you are hearing or voice impaired,call 711.
`
`

`

`Case Number: COSO-17-007088 Division: 60
`Filing # 59063530 E-Filed 07/14/2017 08:19:46 PM
`
`ALL INSURANCE RESTORATION
`
`SERVICES, INC. A Florida Comoration:
`
`a/a/o Horacio Valle
`
`and Adalberta Valle
`
`
`:
`
`IN THE COUNTY COURTIN AND
`FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
`CASE NO.
`
`JUDGE
`DIV.
`
`VS.
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`
`
`AMERICAN SECURITY
`INSURANCE COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`SUMMONS/NOTICE TO APPEAR FOR
`PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE
`
`Pretrial Information: Appearat
`3550 Hollywood Boulevard,Hollywood, FL 33021
`on 08/16/2017 at 9:30 AM in South Courtroom 210.
`
`STATE OF FLORIDA — NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF(S) AND DEFENDANT(S)
`
`
`
`
`‘D that you are required to appearin person or by attorneyat the
`
`Broward County Courthouse iin Courtroom.
`, located at
`fora PRETRIAL
`on
`CONFERENCEbefore a Judge ofthis court.
`
`at
`
`IVIPORTANT —~ READ CAREFULLY
`THE CASE WILL NOT BE TRIED AT THAT TIME.
`5,
`
`
`The defendant(s) must appear in court on the date specified in order to avoid a default judgment. The
`plaintiff(s) must appear to avoid having the case dismissed for lack of prosecution. A written MOTION
`or ANSWERtothe court bythe plaintiff(s) or the defendant(s) shall not excuse the personal appearance
`of a party orits attorney in the PRETRIAL CONFERENCE.Thedate and time of the pretrial conference
`CANNOTberescheduled without good cause and prior court approval.
`
`A corporation may be represented at any stage ofthe trial court proceedings by an officer of the
`corporation or any employee authorized in writing by an officer of the corporation. Written authorization
`must be broughtto the Pretrial Conference.
`
`The purpose ofthe pretrial conference is to record your appearance, to determine if you admitall or part
`of the claim, to enable the court to determine the nature ofthe case, andto set the case fortrial if the case
`cannot be resolved atthe pretrial conference. You or your attorney should be prepared to confer with the
`court and to explain briefly the nature of your dispute, state what efforts have been madetosettle the
`dispute, exhibit any documents necessary to prove the case, state the names and addresses of your
`witnesses,stipulate to the facts that will require no proof and will expedite the trial, and estimate how
`long it will take to try the case.
`
`Mediation maytake place at the pretrial conference. Whoever appears for a party must have full authority
`to settle. Failure to have full authority to settle at this pretrial conference mayresult in the imposition of
`costs and attorney fees incurred by the opposing party.
`
`*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 7/14/2017 8:19:44 PM.****
`
`

`

`If you admit the claim, but desire additional time to pay, you must comeand state the circumstances to
`the court. The court may or may not approve a payment plan and withhold judgment or execution or
`levy.
`
`RIGHT TO VENUE.Thelaw gives the person or company whohas sued youtherightto file in any one
`ofseveralplacesaslisted below. However, if you have been suedin any place other than one of these
`places, you, as the defendant(s), have the right to request that the case be movedto a proper location or
`venue. A proper location or venue maybe one ofthe following: (1) where the contract was entered into;
`(2) if the suit is on an unsecured promissory note, where the note is signed or where the makerresides;(3)
`if the suit is to recover property or to foreclose a lien, where the property is located; (4) where the event
`giving tise to the suit occurred; (5) where any one or more of the defendants sued reside; (6) any location
`agreed to in a contract; (7) in an action for money due, if there is no agreement as to where the suit may
`be filed, where paymentis to be made.
`
`If you, as the defendant(s), believe the plaintiff(s) has/have not sued in one ofthese correct places, you
`must appear on your court date and orally request a transfer, or you must filea WRITTEN request for
`transfer in affidavit form (sworn to under oath) with the court 7 daysprior to yourfirst court date and
`send a copyto the plaintiff(s) or plaintiff(s) attorney, if any.
`
`A copyof the statement of claim shall be served with this summons.
`
`DATED at
`
`Florida, on
`
`JUL 17 2017
`
`Filed by:_Jasiel Tabares, Esq.
`Address: 12150 SW 128 Court, Suite 131
`Miami, Florida 33186
`
`
`
`
`
`Me
`
`
` BRENDAD. FORG4
`
`By.
`
`If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodationin order
`to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the
`provision of certain assistance. Please contact the ADA Coordinator, Room
`470, 201 S.E. Sixth Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, 954-831-7721 at least
`7 days before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon
`receiving this notification if the time before the scheduled appearanceisless
`than 7 days; if you are hearing or voice impaired,call 711.
`
`

`

`Case Number: COSO-17-007088 Division: 60
`Filing # 59063530 E-Filed 07/14/2017 08:19:46 PM
`
`ALL INSURANCE RESTORATION
`_:
`SERVICES, INC. A Florida Corporation:
`
`a/a/o Horacio Valle
`:
`
`and Adalberta Valle
`:
`
`:
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`
`VS.
`
`
`AMERICANSECURITY
`INSURANCE COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`oe
`:
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`IN THE COUNTY COURTIN AND
`FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
`CASE NO.
`.
`JUDGE
`DIV,
`
`SUMMONS/NOTILCETO APPEAR FOR
`PRETRIAL
`CONFERENCE
`
`Pretrial Information: Appearat
`3550 Hollywood Boulevard,Hollywood, FL 33021
`on 08/16/2017 at 9:30 AM in South Courtroom 210.
`
`STATE OF FLORIDA — NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF(S) AND DEFENDANT(S)
`
`
`
`
`YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIEDthat you are required to appearin personor by attorneyat the
`Broward County Courthouse in Courtroom
`, located at
`
`on
`at
`CONFERENCEbefore a Judgeofthis court.
`
`for a PRETRIAL
`
`IMPORTANT — READ CAREFULLY
`THE CASE WILL NOT BE TRIED AT THAT TIME.
`
`
`The defendant(s) must appear in court on the date specified in order to avoid a default judgment. The
`plaintiff(s) mu