Filing # 184176486 E-Filed 10/17/2023 04:35:51 PM
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
`SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
`FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
`CASE NO: 22-004913-CI
`
`AMBER MCMILLIN OROZCO, an Indiana
`Citizen and Resident, as Personal Representative
`ofthe ESTATE OF CARL J. SHARP,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`JOSEPH W. SHARP, an Indiana Citizen and
`Resident, and ELESHA SHARP, an Indiana
`Citizen and Resident,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING HEARING NOTEBOOK
`COMES NOW, the Defendants, JOSEPH W. SHARP and ELESHA SHARP, by and through
`their undersigned counsel and hereby files its Hearing Notebook for the hearing scheduled 0n October
`24, 2023 on Plaintiff’s Motion t0 Amend Complaint for Punitive Damages and Plaintiff‘s Motion
`Seeing t0 Admit Evidence 0f Defendant, Joseph Sharp’s Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) at the Time
`of The Fatal Accident and Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing has been sent to Shana P.
`Nogues, Esquire, Clark, Fountain, La Vista, Prather, Littky-Rubin, Whitman, LLP, 3601 PGA Blvd,
`Suite 300, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 by electronic mail to the designated email address;
`snowe.s@cl-arkfauntain.com; awa-vne@clarkfountain..com 0n October 17, 2023.
`DUTTON LAW GROUP, PA
`1054 Kings Avenue
`Jacksonville, FL 32207-8312
`(904)421-6900
`Designated Service Addresses:
`service;J€R@dutronlawgfiou19.com
`Attorney for Defendants
`
`I
`
`# 54478
`
`fs/ James C. Rinaman, III
`JAMES C. R[NAMAN, 1H, ESQUIRE
`Flon'da Bar No. 838047
`
`***ELECTRONICALLY FILED 10/17/2023 04:35:51 PM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY***
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
`SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
`FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO: 22-004913-CI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMBER MCMILLIN OROZCO, an Indiana
`Citizen and Resident, as Personal Representative
`of the ESTATE OF CARL J. SHARP,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`
`
`JOSEPH W. SHARP, an Indiana Citizen and
`Resident, and ELESHA SHARP, an Indiana
`Citizen and Resident,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`_________________________________________/
`
`
`HEARING ON
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SEEKING TO ADMIT EVIDENCE
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`OCTOBER 24, 2023 AT 2:30 P.M. 30 MINUTES
`
`
`THE HONORABLE PATRICIA MUSCARELLA
`PRESIDING JUDGE
`
`SHANA P. NOGUES, ESQUIRE
`PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY
`
`JAMES RINAMAN, ESQUIRE
`DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF HEARING
`
`B. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION AND OBJECTION TO
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL AUTHORITY - DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
`AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND
`COMPLAINT
`
`1. Noble v. Martin Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n,710 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
`
`2. Vella v. Salaues, 290 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
`
`3. Alvarez v. DeAguirre, 395 So. 2d 213, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
`
`4. Anglo Am. Auto Auctions, Inc. v. Tuminello, 732 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 5th DCA
`1999)
`
`5. Wackenhut Protective Sys., Inc. v. Key Biscayne Commodore Club Condo. I,
`Inc., 350 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
`
`6. Jain v. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, 322 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA
`2021)
`
`7. Versen v. Versen, 347 So. 2d 1047, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
`
`8. Houston Texas Gas & Oil Corporation v. Hoeffner, 132 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d
`DCA 1961)
`
`9. San Martin v. Dadeland Dodge, Inc., 508 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
`
`10. Quality Roof Servs. v. Intervest Nat’l Bank, 21 So. 3d 883
`
`11. Thompson v. Bank of N.Y., 862 So. 2d 768, 770 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
`
`12. Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 1999)
`
`13. Cason v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 819 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14. Fields v. Klein, 946 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
`
`15. Greene v. Well Care HMO, Inc., 778 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
`
`16. In re Amtrack "Sunset Ltd." Train Crash In Bayou Canot v. Warrior & Gulf
`Navigation Co., 121 F.3d 1421 (11th Cir. 1997)
`
`17. Fla. Stat §768.72
`
`18. Bistline v. Rogers, 215 So. 3d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
`
`19. Holmes v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA
`2005)
`
`20. Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995)
`
`21. Imperial Majesty Cruise Line, LLC v. Weitnauer Duty Free, Inc., 987 So. 2d
`706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
`
`22. KIS Grp., LLC v. Moquin, 263 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
`
`23. Wiendl v. Wiendl, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1668 (Fla. 2d DCA August 18, 2023)
`
`24. Cleveland Clinic Fla. Health Sys. Nonprofit Corp. v. Oriolo, 357 So. 3d 703,
`706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
`
`25. Payton Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Campbell ex rel. Est. of Campbell,
`497 So. 2d 1233, 1240 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
`
`26. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard, 749 So. 2d 483, 486 (Fla. 1999)
`
`27. Werner Enters. v. Mendez, 362 So. 3d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
`
`28. Est. of Despain v. Avante Grp., Inc., 900 So. 2d 637, 644 (Fla. 5th DCA
`2005)
`
`29. Napleton's N. Palm Auto Park v. Agosto,364 So. 3d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA
`2023)
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30. Fla. Hosp. Med. Servs., LLC, v. Newsholme, 255 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA
`2018)
`
`31. Marder v. Mueller, 358 So. 3d 1242 & n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
`
`32. Grim v. State, 841 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2003)
`
`33. Varnedore v. Copeland, 210 So. 3d 741, 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
`
`34. Tilton v. Wrobel, 198 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
`
`35. Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214 (Fla. 1936)
`
`36. Valladares v. Bank of Am. Corp., 197 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2016)
`
`37. 33 CFR Part 83
`
`38. Fla. Stat. §90.701
`
`39. Carver v. Orange County, 444 So.2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
`
`40. Zwinge v. Hettinger, 530 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
`
`41. Fino v. Nodine, 646 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
`
`42. Fla. Stat. §768.736
`
`43. Cannon v. State, 91 Fla. 214, 107 So. 360 (1926)
`
`44. Taylor v. State, 46 So.2d 725 (Fla. 1950)
`
`45. Ingram v. Pettit, 340 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1976)
`
`46. Occhicone v. State, 570 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1990)
`
`47. Eberhardt v. State, 550 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
`
`48. State v. Dubose, 152 Fla. 304, 11 So. 2d 477 (1943)
`
`49. Stevens v. Duke, 42 So.2d 361 (Fla. 1949)
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`50. Gonzalez v. Citizens Property Ins. Co., 273 So. 3d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
`
`51. Div. of Admin. v. Samter, 393 So.2d 1142, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
`
`52. Hurricane Boats, Inc. v. Certified Indus. Fabricators, Inc., 246 So. 2d 174
`(Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
`
`53. Heitmyer v. Sasser, 664 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
`
`54. Sherman v. Weintraub, 132 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
`
`55. Pino v. Lopez, 361 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA)
`
`56. Fla. Stat. §90.702
`
`57. Hall v. United Ins. Co. of America, 367 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2004)
`
`58. McCorvey v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 298 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2002)
`
`59. Maiz v. Virani, 253 F.3d 641, 664 (11th Cir. 2001)
`
`60. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L.
`Ed. 2d 469 (1993)
`
`61. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
`
`62. United States v. Cordoba, 104 F. 3d 225 (9th Cir. 1997)
`
`63. U.S. v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004)
`
`64. General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, (1997)
`
`65. DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS, Co., Ltd., 296 F.Supp.2d 1140 (N.D.Cal.2003)
`
`66. Stecyk v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 295 F.3d 408 (3d Cir.2002)
`
`67. McDowell v. Brown, 392 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004)
`
`68. Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharm., 43 F. 3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995)
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`69. Clausen v. M/V New Carissa, 339 F. 3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2003)
`
`70. McClain v. Metabolife, 401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir.2005)
`
`71. Castillo v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 854 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2003)
`
`72. Hudgens v. Bell Helicopters/Textron, 328 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2003)
`
`73. Baan v. Columbia Cty., 180 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
`
`74. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Schoenthal Family, LLC, 555 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir.
`2009)
`
`75. Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Imaging Ctr. of W. Palm Beach, 356 So. 3d
`842 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
`
`76. Morgan v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 200 So. 3d 792, 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
`
`77. Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
`
`78. American Dredging Co. v. Lambert, 81 F.3d 127 (11th Cir.1996)
`
`79. Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Dominguez, 295 So. 3d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
`
`80. Fu Lu Song & Am. Trucking Co. v. Jenkins, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D665 (Fla.
`5th DCA March 31, 2023)
`
`81. Gulf Power Co. v. Kay, 493 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
`
`82. Boshnack v. World Wide Rent-A-Car, Inc., 195 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1967)
`
`83. Metro. Dade Cty. v. Wilkey, 414 So. 2d 269, 271-72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
`
`84. Booker v. Sumter Cty. Sheriff’s Office/N. Am. Risk Servs., 166 So. 3d 189
`(Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
`
`85. Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2010)
`
`86. Cabrera v. Cordis Corp., 134 F.3d 1418 (9th Cir. 1998)
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`87. Geico Cas. Co. v. Beauford, No. 8:05-cv-697-T-24 EAJ, 2007 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 61136 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2007)
`
`88. Perez v. Bell S. Telecomms., Inc., 138 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
`
`IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
`D. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE
`MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF, AND FOR AN ADVERSE
`INFERENCE BASED ON DEFENDANTS’ ASSERTION OF THEIR
`FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE
`
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LEGAL AUTHORITY - DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
`TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF, AND FOR AN
`ADVERSE INFERENCE BASED ON DEFENDANTS’ ASSERTION OF
`THEIR FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE
`
`1. Woods v. START Treatment & Recovery Ctrs., Inc., 864 F.3d 158 (2d Cir.
`2017)
`
`2. In re Carp, 340 F. 3d 15 (1st Cir. 2003)
`
`3. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976)
`
`4. Evans v. City of Chicago, 513 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2008)
`
`5. Doe v. Rudy-Glanzer, 232 F. 3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2000)
`
`6. Fraser v. Sec. & Inv. Corp., 615 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
`
`7. Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Richards, 541 F. 3d 903 (9th Cir. 2008)
`
`8. LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F. 3d 387 (7th Cir. 1995)
`
`9. Centennial Life Ins. Co. v. Nappi, 56 F. Supp. 222 (N.D. N.Y. 1997)
`
`10. Omulepu v. Dep't of Health, Bd. of Med., 249 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 1st DCA
`2018) (Judge Makar, concurring)
`
`11. Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298 (11th
`Cir. 2009)
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`
`
`
`12. Tweeddale v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 841 F. 2d 643 (5th Cir.
`1988)
`
`
`DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`LEGAL AUTHORITY - DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
`OF HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`1. Cullen v. Big Daddy's Lounges, Inc., 364 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
`
`2. Crowell v. Kaufmann, 845 So. 2d 325, 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
`
`3. Erace v. Erace, 683 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
`
`4. Scherr v. Andrews, 497 So. 2d 970, 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Filing # 180318041 E-Filed 08/23/2023 11:15:48 AM
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH
`JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
`IN AND
`FOR
`PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO.: 22-004913-CI
`
`
`
`AMBER MCMILLIN OROZCO, an Indiana
`citizen and resident, as Personal
`Representative of the ESTATE OF CARL J.
`SHARP,
`
`
`vs.
`
`JOSEPH W. SHARP, an Indiana citiizen and
`resident, and ELESHA SHARP, an Indiana
`citizen and resident,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/
`
`NOTICE OF HEARING VIA ZOOM
`(30 min. Special Set)
`
`YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the undersigned has called up for hearing the
`
`following:
`
`DATE:
`
`TIME:
`
`JUDGE:
`
`Zoom:
`
`SPECIFIC MATTERS TO BE HEARD:
`
`Tuesday, October 24, 2023
`
`2:30 p.m.
`
`Honorable Patricia Ann Muscarella
`
`1. Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Filed 8-21-23);
`2. Plaintiff's Motion for Seeking to Admit Evidence (File 8-21-23); and
`3. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (filed 8/21/23).
`
`THIS HEARING shall be held using the Zoom video call process and all parties and
`
`counsel will need to access a telephone, webcam, laptop, or cellular telephone to participate in
`
`this hearing. A Zoom invitation to participate in this hearing is attached.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No. 22-004913-Cl
`Notice ot‘lrlcan'ng
`Page 2
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that a good faith attempt to resolve the above matter hag
`been made; however, the issue(s) remain unresolved and a hearing is necessary.
`l HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via the Florida
`Courts eFiling Portal to: James Rinaman, Esquire, Attorney for Defendants, Dutton Law Group,
`FL
`
`32207
`
`irinama-n@dutton'l'awgvroup.com,
`
`1054
`
`Kings
`
`Avenue,
`
`Jacksonville,
`
`jlarl‘ly(chuttonlawgroup;cam, sjerviceJCRQDdutthlawg-roupgcom‘on August 23, 2023.
`
`/s/ Shana P. Nozzles
`Shana P. Nogues, Esq. for
`CLARK, FOUNTAIN, LA VISTA, PRATHER,
`LITTKY-RUBIN, WHITMAN, LLP
`3601 PGA Blvd., Suite 300
`Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
`PH: (561) 899—2100
`Fax: (561) 832-3580
`Email: snogues@clarkfountain.com
`Florida Bar N0. 99946
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`cc:
`
`Honorable Patricia Ann Muscarella
`
`THIS NOTICE [S PROVIDED PURSUANT TO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.: 2.207-1/15
`“If you are a Qerson 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 Human Rights Office, 400 South Ft. Harrison Avenue, Suite 500, Clearwater, FL
`33756; telephone number (727-464-4062 V/TDD or 711 for the hearing impaired) at least 7 days
`before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving this notification if the
`time before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; if you are hearing or voice impaired,
`call 711.”
`“Si usted es una Qersona minusvélida que necesita algl'm acomodamiento para poder participar
`en este procedimiento, usted tiene derecho, sin tener gastos propios, a que se le provea cierta
`ayuda. Tenga la amabilidad de ponerse en contacto con the Human Rights Office, 400 South
`Ft. Harrison Avenue, Suite 500, Clearwater, FL 33756; telephone number (727—464—4062
`V/TDD or 711 for the hearing impaired) por lo menos 7 dias antes de la cita fijada para su
`comparecencia en los tribunales, o inmediatamente después de recibir esta notificacién si el
`tiempo antes de la comparecencia que se ha programado es menos de 7 dias; si usted tiene
`discapacitacién del oido o de la v02, llame al 711.”
`“Si ou se yon moun ki enfim ki bezwen akomodasyon pou w ka patisipe nan pwosedi sa, ou
`
`

`

`Case No. 22-004913-CI
`Notice of Hearing
`Page 3
`
`kalifye san ou pa gen okenn lajan pou w peye, gen pwovizyon pou jwen kèk èd. Tanpri kontakte
`the Human Rights Office, 400 South Ft. Harrison Avenue, Suite 500, Clearwater, FL 33756;
`telephone number (727-464-4062 V/TDD or 711 for the hearing impaired) nan 7 jou anvan dat
`ou gen randevou pou parèt nan tribinal la, oubyen imedyatman apre ou fin resevwa
`konvokasyon an si lè ou gen pou w parèt nan tribinal la mwens ke 7 jou; si ou gen pwoblèm pou
`w tande oubyen pale, rele 711.”
`
`
`
`Join Zoom Meeting
`https://zoom.us/j/91959795609?pwd=NHpnOEovNmNlYkdJOTFXQ0dLN1Zidz09
`
`Meeting ID: 919 5979 5609
`Passcode: 620311
`
`---
`
`One tap mobile
`+17866351003,,91959795609#,,,,*620311# US (Miami)
`+16513728299,,91959795609#,,,,*620311# US (Minnesota)
`
`---
`
`Dial by your location
`• +1 786 635 1003 US (Miami)
`• +1 651 372 8299 US (Minnesota)
`• +1 267 831 0333 US (Philadelphia)
`• +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
`• +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
`• +1 470 250 9358 US (Atlanta)
`• +1 470 381 2552 US (Atlanta)
`• +1 646 518 9805 US (New York)
`• +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
`• +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
`• +1 602 753 0140 US (Phoenix)
`• +1 669 219 2599 US (San Jose)
`• +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
`• +1 720 928 9299 US (Denver)
`• +1 971 247 1195 US (Portland)
`• +1 206 337 9723 US (Seattle)
`• +1 213 338 8477 US (Los Angeles)
`• +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
`• +48 22 306 5342 Poland
`• +48 22 307 3488 Poland
`• +48 22 398 7356 Poland
`
`Meeting ID: 919 5979 5609
`Passcode: 620311
`
`Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aeg9Eu9YGu
`
`
`
`

`

`Filing # 183859344 E-Filed 10/12/2023 03:18:14 PM
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH
`JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
`IN AND FOR
`PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO.: 22-004913-CI
`
`
`
`AMBER MCMILLIN OROZCO, an Indiana
`citizen and resident, as Personal
`Representative of the ESTATE OF CARL
`J. SHARP,
`
`
`vs.
`
`JOSEPH W. SHARP, an Indiana citiizen
`and resident, and ELESHA SHARP, an
`Indiana citizen and resident,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/
`
`ADD ON NOTICE OF HEARING VIA ZOOM
`(30 min. Special Set)
`
`YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the undersigned adds the following Motion to
`
`the previously set hearing on:
`
`DATE:
`
`TIME:
`
`JUDGE:
`
`Zoom:
`
`ADDITIONAL MATTER TO BE HEARD: Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint for
`Punitive Damages and Plaintiff’s Motion Seeing to Admit Evidence of Defendant,
`Joseph Sharp’s Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) at the Time of The Fatal Accident (filed
`8/24/2023)
`
`Tuesday, October 24, 2023
`
`2:30 p.m.
`
`Honorable Patricia Ann Muscarella
`
`See Below
`
`THIS HEARING shall be held using the Zoom video call process and all parties
`
`and counsel will need to access a telephone, webcam, laptop, or cellular telephone to
`
`participate in this hearing. A Zoom invitation to participate in this hearing is attached.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case N0. 22-004913-Cl
`Noficcoflkafing
`Page 2
`
`Dutton
`
`Group,
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that a good faith attempt to resolve the above matter
`has been made; however, the issue(s) remain unresolved and a hearinq is
`necessa .
`| HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via the
`Florida Courts eFiIing Portal to: James Rinaman, Esquire, Attorney for Defendants,
`Law
`32207
`FL
`1054
`
`Kings
`
`Avenue,
`
`Jacksonville,
`
`irinaman©duttonlawqrou‘p.com,
`
`ilalIy@.duttonlawqroup,.,com,
`
`service.JCR@.duttonlawqroup.com on October 12, 2023.
`
`/s/ Shana P. Noques
`Shana P. Nogues, Esq. for
`CLARK, FOUNTAIN, LA VISTA, PRATHER,
`LITTKY-RUBIN, WHITMAN, LLP
`3601 PGA Blvd., Suite 300
`Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
`PH: (561) 899-2100
`Fax: (561) 832-3580
`Email: snogues@clarkfountain.com
`Florida Bar No. 99946
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`Honorable Patricia Ann Muscarella
`
`cc:
`
`THIS NOTICE IS PROVIDED PURSUANT TO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO.:
`2.207-1/15
`“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 Human Rights Office, 400
`South Ft. Harrison Avenue, Suite 500, CleanNater, FL
`33756; telephone
`number (727-464-4062 VITDD or 711 for the hearing impaired) at least 7 clays
`before your scheduled court appearance, or immediately upon receiving this
`notification if the time before the scheduled appearance is less than 7 days; if
`you are hearing or voice impaired, call 711.”
`“Si usted es una persona minusvélida que necesita algl'm acomodamiento
`para poder participar en este procedimiento, usted tiene derecho, sin tener
`Tenga la amabilidad de
`gastos propios, a que se Ie provea cierta ayuda.
`
`

`

`Case No. 22-004913-CI
`Notice of Hearing
`Page 3
`
`ponerse en contacto con the Human Rights Office, 400 South Ft. Harrison
`Avenue, Suite 500, Clearwater, FL 33756; telephone number (727-464-4062
`V/TDD or 711 for the hearing impaired) por lo menos 7 días antes de la cita
`fijada para su comparecencia en los tribunales, o inmediatamente después de
`recibir esta notificación si el tiempo antes de la comparecencia que se ha
`programado es menos de 7 días; si usted tiene discapacitación del oído o de
`la voz, llame al 711.”
`
`“Si ou se yon moun ki enfim ki bezwen akomodasyon pou w ka patisipe nan
`pwosedi sa, ou kalifye san ou pa gen okenn lajan pou w peye, gen pwovizyon
`pou jwen kèk èd. Tanpri kontakte the Human Rights Office, 400 South Ft.
`Harrison Avenue, Suite 500, Clearwater, FL 33756; telephone number (727-
`464-4062 V/TDD or 711 for the hearing impaired) nan 7 jou anvan dat ou gen
`randevou pou parèt nan tribinal la, oubyen imedyatman apre ou fin resevwa
`konvokasyon an si lè ou gen pou w parèt nan tribinal la mwens ke 7 jou; si ou
`gen pwoblèm pou w tande oubyen pale, rele 711.”
`
`
`
`Join Zoom Meeting
`https://zoom.us/j/91959795609?pwd=NHpnOEovNmNlYkdJOTFXQ0dLN1Zidz09
`
`Meeting ID: 919 5979 5609
`Passcode: 620311
`
`---
`
`One tap mobile
`+17866351003,,91959795609#,,,,*620311# US (Miami)
`+16513728299,,91959795609#,,,,*620311# US (Minnesota)
`
`---
`
`Dial by your location
`• +1 786 635 1003 US (Miami)
`• +1 651 372 8299 US (Minnesota)
`• +1 267 831 0333 US (Philadelphia)
`• +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
`• +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
`• +1 470 250 9358 US (Atlanta)
`• +1 470 381 2552 US (Atlanta)
`• +1 646 518 9805 US (New York)
`• +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
`
`

`

`Case No. 22-004913-CI
`Notice of Hearing
`Page 4
`
` •
`
` +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
`• +1 602 753 0140 US (Phoenix)
`• +1 669 219 2599 US (San Jose)
`• +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)
`• +1 720 928 9299 US (Denver)
`• +1 971 247 1195 US (Portland)
`• +1 206 337 9723 US (Seattle)
`• +1 213 338 8477 US (Los Angeles)
`• +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
`• +48 22 306 5342 Poland
`• +48 22 307 3488 Poland
`• +48 22 398 7356 Poland
`
`Meeting ID: 919 5979 5609
`Passcode: 620311
`
`Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/aeg9Eu9YGu
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
`SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
`FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO: 22-004913-CI
`
`
`AMBER MCMILLIN OROZCO, an Indiana
`Citizen and Resident, as Personal Representative
`of the ESTATE OF CARL J. SHARP,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`
`
`JOSEPH W. SHARP, an Indiana Citizen and
`Resident, and ELESHA SHARP, an Indiana
`Citizen and Resident,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`_________________________________________/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION AND OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
`
`Defendants, JOSEPH W. SHARP, and ELESHA SHARP, by and through their
`
`undersigned counsel, hereby file this Response in Opposition and Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion
`
`to Amend Complaint, and in support thereof, states:
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for wrongful death and negligence arising from a boating
`
`accident that occurred on October 24, 2020.
`
`2.
`
`On October 24, 2020, Defendant Elesha Sharp was operating the subject boat and
`
`saw a fast-approaching jet ski from the right. See Deposition Transcript of Patti Sharp, 28:1-
`
`29:11; 60:2-5.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Elesha Sharp took evasive action and made a U-turn, which led to the
`
`decedent, Carl Sharp, being ejected from the boat and drowning.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`Legal Standard for Motion for Leave to Amend.
`While Rule 1.190 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provides for liberality in
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`the granting of motions for leave to amend, Florida District Courts of Appeal have also
`
`recognized that the trial court possesses the discretion to deny such motions where appropriate.
`
`Noble v. Martin Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, 710 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Florida Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 1.190(a) states that a court may deny leave to amend when there is prejudice to a
`
`party, the amendment would be futile, or the privilege to amend has been abused. Vella v.
`
`Salaues, 290 So. 3d 946, 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)).
`
`2.
`
`The most significant consideration in determining whether a motion for leave to
`
`amend should be granted is whether the amendment would prejudice the opposing party. Anglo
`
`Am. Auto Auctions, Inc. v. Tuminello, 732 So. 2d 1218, 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). See
`
`Wackenhut Protective Sys., Inc. v. Key Biscayne Commodore Club Condo. I, Inc., 350 So. 2d
`
`1150, 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) ("Florida case law applies a test of prejudice to the defendant as
`
`the primary consideration in determining whether the plaintiff's motion to amend should be
`
`granted or denied.").
`
`3.
`
`"Whether granting [a] proposed amendment would prejudice the opposing party is
`
`analyzed primarily in the context of the opposing party's ability to prepare for the new
`
`allegations or defenses prior to trial." Progressive Select Ins. Co. v. Imaging Ctr. of W. Palm
`
`Beach, 356 So. 3d 842, 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (citing Morgan v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 200 So.
`
`3d 792, 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)).
`
`4.
`
`A trial judge in his or her discretion may deny further amendments where the
`
`amendments materially vary from the relief initially sought, or where a case has progressed to a
`
`point that the liberality ordinarily to be indulged has diminished. Vella, 290 So. 3d at 949 (citing
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Alvarez v. DeAguirre, 395 So. 2d 213, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)); Jain v. Buchanan Ingersoll &
`
`Rooney PC, 322 So. 3d 1201, 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (same). The rule of liberality gradually
`
`diminishes as the case progresses to trial. Noble v. Martin Mem'l Hosp. Ass'n, 710 So. 2d 567,
`
`568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). See Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA
`
`1992) (“as an action progresses, the privilege of amendment progressively decreases to the point
`
`that the trial judge does not abuse his discretion in dismissing with prejudice”).
`
`5.
`
`This is because "in addition to the desirability of allowing amendments to
`
`pleadings so that cases may be concluded on their merits, there is an equally compelling
`
`obligation on the court to see to it that the end of all litigation be finally reached." Jain, 322 So.
`
`3d at 1206 (citing Vella v. Salaues, 290 So. 3d 946, 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (emphasis added).
`
`“There comes a point in litigation where each party is entitled to some finality.” Noble, 710 So.
`
`2d at 568.
`
`6.
`
`Appellate courts recognize that the trial court possesses the discretion to deny
`
`motions for leave to amend where appropriate. Noble, 710 So. 2d at 568 (citing Versen, 347 So.
`
`2d at 1047). The trial judge's conclusion to permit or refuse amendment to pleadings will not be
`
`disturbed on appeal in absence of some demonstration that he has abused his discretion. Versen,
`
`347 So. 2d 1047, 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (citing Houston Texas Gas & Oil Corporation v.
`
`Hoeffner, 132 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). The granting or denying of amendments to the
`
`pleadings is within the discretion of the trial judge and a gross or flagrant abuse of this discretion
`
`must be demonstrated by the complaining party before an appellate court will substitute its
`
`judgment for that of the trial judge. Vella, 290 So. 3d at 948-49 (quoting Stern v. Four Freedoms
`
`Nat'l Med. Servs., Co., 417 So. 2d 1085, 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`7.
`
`Plaintiff moved to amend its Complaint on August 21, 2023. The preliminary lay
`
`and expert witnesses discovery deadline already passed as of July 15, 2023, the close of
`
`discovery is on October 15, 2023, the pre-trial period begins November 13, 2023, and the trial
`
`date is set for December 4, 2023. See Order Setting Jury Trial and Pre-Trial Conference, dated
`
`May 18, 2023.
`
`8.
`
`The Complaint initially sought damages for negligence and wrongful death
`
`against both Defendants Elesha and Joseph Sharp. The Amended Complaint adds two new
`
`claims for dangerous instrumentality and punitive damages against Defendant Joseph Sharp.
`
`9.
`
`It would be unfairly prejudicial to Defendants to allow Plaintiff to amend its
`
`complaint to add new causes of action. Defendants would be forced to prepare for the new
`
`allegations of dangerous instrumentality and punitive damages on the eve of trial. See Vella v.
`
`Salaues, 290 So. 3d 946, 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (affirming denial of motion for leave to amend
`
`complaint where "following two years of contentious litigation, on the proverbial 'eve' of the
`
`summary judgment hearing, immediately preceding the scheduled trial date, [plaintiff] sought to
`
`inject an entirely novel theory of prosecution into his lawsuit. Under these circumstances, the
`
`prejudice to the [defendants] is evident."); see also Noble, 710 So. 2d at 569 ("The trial court
`
`properly exercised the discretion given to it in denying [plaintiff's] motion for leave to amend at
`
`this juncture of the litigation.")
`
`10.
`
`Not only does Plaintiff seek to amend its Complaint at the eleventh hour, it raises
`
`entirely new claims for dangerous instrumentality and punitive damages that are based upon
`
`evidence obtained months ago at the beginning of litigation. The amendment relies upon the
`
`deposition testimony of Brian Brown, taken January 26, 2023, Richard Schefano, taken February
`
`10, 2023, Patti Sharp, taken March 9, 2023, Joseph Sharp and Elesha Sharp, taken March 10,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`2023, as well as Defendants’ interrogatory answers, a report issued on December 1, 2020, and
`
`the affidavit of its expert, Teri Stockham. Plaintiffs’ Affidavit of Teri Stockham, M.S.F.S.,
`
`Ph.D., based her affidavit upon review of documents from October 24, 2020 and December 1,
`
`2020, Defendants’ deposition testimony from March 10, 2023 and Defendants’ interrogatory
`
`answers. The Defendants, Joseph Sharp and Elesha Sharp have made known that they were
`
`invoking the Fifth Amendment as early as March 10, 2023 when Plaintiff took their depositions.
`
`It was known by Plaintiff that Defendants would likewise invoke the Fifth Amendment in their
`
`interrogatory answers.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff had ample opportunity to amend its Complaint based upon the evidence
`
`obtained by March 2023. See San Martin v. Dadeland Dodge, Inc., 508 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA
`
`1987) (denying motion to amend where trial date already set and plaintiff should have been
`
`aware of alleged basis for additional, amended count long before he sought to amend his
`
`complaint).
`
`12.
`
`It is within this Court’s discretion to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend.
`
`The amendment must be denied due to the significant, unfair prejudice Defendant suffers from
`
`adding two new claims on the verge of trial. This amendment would require Defendant to
`
`prepare for new defenses prior to trial.
`
`13.
`
`A proposed amendment is futile if it is insufficiently pled or is "insufficient as a
`
`matter of law." Quality Roof Servs. v. Intervest Nat’l Bank, 21 So. 3d 883, 885 (citing Thompson
`
`v. Bank of N.Y., 862 So. 2d 768, 770 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)); Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169
`
`F.3d 1310, 1320 (11th Cir. 1999); Cason v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 819 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 1st
`
`DCA 2002); Fields v. Klein, 946 So. 2d 119, 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). An amendment is futile
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`where the allegations fail to state a cause of action. Greene v. Well Care HMO, Inc., 778 So. 2d
`
`1037, 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff’s motion to amend must be denied because the allegations fail to
`
`establish entitlement to relief for punitive damages under Florida Law, and is thus futile. See
`
`Greene, 778 So. 2d at 1041 (“The last test is whether allowing an amendment would have been
`
`futile; that is, whether the [plaintiff] could state a cause of action.”).
`
`15.
`
`The proffered evidence and the record evidence do not support a claim for
`
`punitive damages. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint must be denied as futile.
`
`II.
`
`Legal Standard for Bringing a Claim for Punitive Damages.
`
`16.
`
`This matter is governed by federal maritime law and is supplemented by Florida
`
`state tort law. The Eleventh Circuit Court explained:
`
`In the case of American Dredging Co. v. Lambert, 81 F.3d 127, 130 (11th
`Cir.1996), this Court held that Yamaha extended the right of recovery in wrongful
`death cases to the nonpecuniary remedies afforded by the Florida Wrongful Death
`Act to actions for wrongful death to non-seamen occurring in state territorial
`waters. The plaintiffs in the wrongful death actions have available to them the
`remedies provided in Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U.S. 375, 90 S. Ct.
`1772, 26 L. Ed. 2d 339 (1970). In addition, although such plaintiffs cannot
`recover punitive damages for simple negligence, they may recover punitive
`damages upon a showing of "intentional or wanton and reckless conduct" on the
`part of defendants amounting to "a conscious disregard of the rights of others."
`CEH, Inc. v. F/V Seafarer, 70 F.3d 694, 699 (1st Cir.1995). This is because the
`standard of liability necessary for the recovery of punitive damages is governed
`by admiralty law.
`
`In re Amtrack "Sunset Ltd." Train Crash In Bayou Canot v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 121
`
`F.3d 1421, 1427-28 (11th Cir. 1997).
`
`17.
`
`Section 768.72, Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part that: "In any civil
`
`action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by
`
`evidence in the