Petition for Writ of Certiorari — In re Holbrook

Supreme Court brief2004

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Suprerie Court, U.S.

FILED

No. 031242FER 2 7 2004

OFFICE OF THE Ginn

In The

Supreme Court of the Anited States

In re DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Petitioner.

PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF

MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION

DIANE L. HOLBROOK

Petitioner

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone: (772) 545-9793

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Issuance by the Court of an Extraordinary Writ

authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) is not'a matter of right,

but of discretion. The writ will be in aid of support of the

Court’s appellate jurisdiction, that exceptional circum-

stances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary

powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any

other form or from any other Court because of abuses of

judicial power where judge refuses to take some actions he

is required to take. Another case, judge takes some action

he is not empowered to take from exceeding its jurisdiction

in matters over which it has cognizance or usurping

- matters not within its jurisdiction to hear or determine.

The Florida Bar, Fla., 329 So.2d 301, 302. A writ issued by

a superior court, directed to the judge and parties of a suit

in an inferior court, commanding them to cease from ... ,

upon a suggestion that the cause originally, or some

collateral matter arising therein, does not belong to that

jurisdiction, but to the cognizance of some other court. The

writ of prohibition is the counterpart of the writ of man-

damus directing the restoration of the complainant to

rights or privileges of which she has been illegally de-

prived.

Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure for the United

States District Courts Rule 60(a) and Rule 60(b), State Of

Florida Rules Of Civil Procedure Rule 1.500. Defaults

and Final Judgments Thereon (a) By the Clerk, and

Rule 1.500(e) Final Judgment, and Rule 1.540. Relief

from Judgment, Decrees, or Orders (a) Clerical Mistakes,

and Rule 1.540(b)(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

QUESTION PRESENTED — Continued

excusable neglect; and Rule 1.540(bX3) fraud (whether

heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresenta-

tion, or other misconduct of an adverse party. Case #1 Petition

For A Writ Of Certiorari and Petition For Rehearing No.

01-31 Diane L. Holbrook v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Company, a foreign corporation and Case #2 Petition For

Writ Of Certiorari and Petition For Rehearing No. 02-1613

Diane L. Holbrook v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., a foreign

corporation would be the two other cases presenting the

same question(s) as in Case #3 Diane L. Holbrook v. Eileen

Buchmann, ET AL. from lower tribunal No. 4D03-187. A

different case involving Cases No. CL92-306, CL93-350

and CL96-7 in the Circuit Court Of Fauquier County of

the State of Virginia for conflict of interest and fraud,

misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party

in regards to the writ of mandaraus.

1. Are clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or

other parts of the record and errors therein arising from

oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any

time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party

and after such notice, a violation of Rules of Civil Proce-

dure Rule 1.540(a), Rule 1.500(a) and Rule 1.500(e), as

well as, a violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 60(a) and Rule 55(a)? y

2. Is Judge William L. Roby chargeable with any

abuse of his power, when judge takes some conflict action

of Judge Ben L. Bryan, Jr.’s Order regarding Docket Call

and judge refuses to take some action he is required to

take? Do his actions constitute an abuse of discretion or

were his actions a mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

excusable neglect pursuant to the fact that an adverse

Seen

lil

QUESTION PRESENTED - Continued

party prepared the Order and mailed it to the Court for

his signature? Do these actions fall under Rules of Civil

Procedure Rule 1.540(b)(1) and Rule 1.540(b)(3)... mis-

representation, or other misconduct of an adverse party?

3. Is Alan Clayton Espy, Esquire by preparing

Order(s) and mailing it to the Court for judge(s) signa-

ture(s) containing misrepresentation or other miscondvrt,

being an adverse party, chargeable with abuses of judicial

power?

4. Is Lowry Jock Miller, Esquire by Ex Parte pro-

ceedings and by preparing Order for Judge William Shore

Robertson’s signature with alleged fraud, misrepresenta-

tion, or other misconduct under guidelines of conflict of

interest, being an adverse party, chargeable with abuses of

judicial power?

RULE 20.3 LISTING

Petitioner submits the following list of interested

persons and a complete list of Respondent’s affiliates and

parent corporations not previously presented to the Su-

preme Court of the United States as a continuation:

Administrative File

American States (as THE Carrier)

Birch, Honorable Judge Stanley F. (U.S. COA 11th Cir-

cuit)

Bryan, Jr., Honorable Judge Ben L. (19th Judicial Circuit)

Buchmann, EiJeen (Respondent)

Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit in and for

Martin County, Florida

Circuit Court of Fauquier County in Virginia

Commonwealth Of Virginia Fauquier County Office of the

Commonwealth’s Attorney

Dill, Daniel F., Esquire (Counsel for Respondent)

District Court of Appeal Fourth District of Florida

Espy, Alan Clayton, Esquire (Counsel for Respondent)

Farmer, Chief Honorable Judge Gary M. (COA 4th Dis-

trict) |

Farmer, Honorable Judge C. J. (COA 4th District)

First Floridian Insurance Company (as THE Carrier)

Gunther, Honorable Judge J. (COA 4th District)

RULE 20.3 LISTING - Continued

Hunter, Carlin T. (as Administrator of the Estate of Dale

Bruce Holbrook, et al.)

Krathen, Honorable Judge David H. (COA 4th District)

Marcus, Honorable Judge Stanley (U.S. COA 11th Circuit)

Metzger, Elizabeth A., Esquire (Counsel for Respondent)

Miller, Lowry Jock, Esquire (Counsel for Respondent)

Miller, Miller, Kearney & Geschickter, LLP (Law Office for

Respondent)

Mortell, III, Edwin E., Esquire (Counsel for Respondent)

Office of the State Attorney 19th Judicial Circuit of Flor-

ida

Oswald, Jon L. (as interested owner and/or President)

Oswald, Jon L. (as registered agent)

Other (any state clerk of court/court administrator —

Stuart, Martin County, Florida)

Peterson, Bernard, Vandenberg, Zei, Geisler & Martin,

P.A. (law office for Respondent)

Potts, Jr., H. Russell (Senator of Fauquier County)

Pressure Cleaning Services, Inc., a Florida Corp.

Roby, Honorable Judge William L. (19th Judicial Circuit)

Rogers, Coleman, Pendas, Knapp & Dill, P.A. (law office

for Respondent)

RULE 20.3 LISTING — Continued

SAFECO Property & Casualty Insurance Companies (as

THE Carrier)

Second Housing Corp. Et Al. or

Sugar Pines Homeowner’s Association and/or

Sugar Pines, Inc., all Florida Corporations (Respondent(s))

Seropian, Diran V., Esquire (Counsel for Respondent)

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (as THE Carrier)

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

United States Department of Justice — Civil Division —

Washington, D.C.

United States District Court Southern District of Florida

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-

sion — Miami

PETITION FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF

MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION

Diane L. Holbrook respectfully petitions for an ex-

traordinary writ of mandamus and/or prohibition to

review the judgment and opinion of the Supreme Court of

the United States entered in this proceeding on December

1, 2003 Appendix 71 and Appendix 72, as well as, Appen-

dix 73 and Appendix 74. This is supported by United

States v. Ohio Power Co., 353 U.S. 98 (1957) for common

law by introducing the District Court Of Appeal of the

State of Florida Fourth District on December 10, 2003,

Appendix 7 and January 23, 2004, Appendix 1.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion to the District Court of Appeal of the

State of Florida Fourth District Appendix 1 and Appendix

7 that gives rise to this petition presenting the same

question(s) that this present case has. United States uv.

Ohio Power Co., 353 U.S. 98; ... Orders of denying were

vacated and decided so that the present case might be

disposed of consistently with two other cases then pending

and presenting the same question(s). Supreme Court of

the United States Cases No. 01-31 and No. 02-1613.

JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court of the United States entered its

Order of Denial on December 1, 2003 Appendix 71. Pursu-

ant to Supreme Court Rule 13.1, this petition has been

filed within 90 days of the Denial of Rehearing. The

District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida Fourth

District presents the same question. Furthermore, there is a

conflict of interest at the Florida Supreme Court level

because the presiding judge has been the defense counsel for

the Supreme Court of the United States Case No. 01-31.

The jurisdiction of this Court is authorized by 28

U.S.C. § 1651(a). The writ will be in aid of support of the

Court’s appellate jurisdiction, that exceptional circum-

stances warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary

powers, and that adequate relief cannot be obtained in any

other form or from any other Court.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND

STATUTES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE

Pursuant to Federal Constitution of the United States

Constitution, Amendment XIV Section 1, 28 U.S.C. § 1332

Part IV(a) and Part IV(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1337, and Case

United States v. Ohio Power Co., 353 U.S. 98 (1957) for

common law Order denying Certiorari(s) and Rehearing(s)

vacated and Decided. |

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On January 23, 2004, the District Court of Appeal of

the State of Florida Fourth District denied Petitioner’s

Rehearing and denied Petitioner’s Rehearing En Banc. See

Appendix 1 thru 28. Alan Clayton Espy, Esquire has been

writing the Orders for Judge William L. Roby to sign. See

Appendix 29 thru 35.

On January 15, 2003, the Petitioner filed a Notice of

Appeal. See Appendix 36 thru 67 involving Rules of Civil

Procedure Rule 1.540(a), Rule 1.500(a), Rule 1.500(e), and

Rule 1.540(b)(1). Please notice that the Trial Schedule —

Civil Division sheet was Faxed to Maggie who is Judge

William L. Roby’s Assistant stating that cases specially set

herein for dates subsequent to December 2 are not re-

quired to attend the December 2 Docket Call. Also noting

that on December 16, 2002 (the beginning of my 3 days

Jury Trial dates) I, as Plaintiff, was at Court Room A...

for Jury Trial and did not see any of the Defendants nor

their Counsels on that day.... I have witnesses before

January 15, 2003. On January 15, 2003 I filed a Notice of

Appeal. If this case goes to the Florida Supreme Court, I

would immediately Recuse Judge Raoul Cantero, III,

because he was the Nationwide Insurance Company

Defendant’s Counselor. Before Petitioner filed the Rehear-

ing, after November 12, 2003 Order was signed, Petitioner

filed with the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit

Appendix 68 thru Appendix 70 for a window of correction

to the November 12, 2003 Order before the deadline for

filing the Rehearing into the District Court of Appeal of

the State of Florida Fourth District.

Pertaining to Allied Van Lines, Inc., a Foreign Corpo-

ration, See appendix 75 thru 88 for additional regards to

be related to Case No. 02-1613. Judge K. Michael Moore

issued an Order Requiring Response of which both parties

responded to within time allowed. However, United States

Magistrate Judge obviously ignored the Notice Of Refusal

To Proceed Before A United States Magistrate Judge

dated signed August 8, 2001. Keep in mind that the Order

Requiring Response was signed by a United States Dis-

trict Judge K. Michael Moore and not any Magistrate

Judge of parallel authority.

Pertaining to Nationwide Mutual Insurance Com-

pany, a Foreign Corporation, See Appendix 89 thru 109 for

additional regards to be related to Case No. 01-31 for the

Rehearing portion of better explanation of Jurisdiction

issues. Also, notice that Supreme Court of the United

States filing of “Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari” was

received hand delivered on June 15, 2001 being AFTER

June 6, 2001 Order from Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. involv-

ing this issue. Totally different case, Allied Van Lines,

same Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. DENIED Clerical Court

Mistakes to be Corrected AGAIN on February 27, 2002.

Pertaining to Case No. 01-31 see Appendix 110 thru

117. Also, see Appendix 118 thru 129 involving approxi-

mate $5,300.00 losses on Disciplinary-Resigned Attor-

ney(s) who are in business.

Pertaining to Cases CL92-306, CL93-350 and CL96-7

involving conflict of interest see Appendix 143 thru 177.

Pertaining to Case No. 01-31 see Appendix 130 thru

137.

Pertaining to Magistrate Judge Frank Lynch, Jr. (in

part) see Appendix 138 thru 142.

Remainder Appendix 178 thru 186 are more issues

that are self explained throughout. To this date, I have not

gotten my restitution that was Ordered to do so and

neither addressed letters have been answered. Consumer

Services of Florida closing their file is reasons why cases

end up in Court!

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

County Court versus Federal Court jurisdiction issues

within Petition for Writ of Certiorari/Petition for Rehear-

ing, Case No. 02-1613.

Because of Alan Clayton Espy, Esquire’s Motion For

Entry Of Order Of Final Dismissal with Prejudice appears to

follow the guidelines of involving Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 1.540(b)(3). See Appendix 14, Appendix 29 thru 32.

Lowry Jock Miller, Esquire representing Nationwide

Insurance Company on retainer went against Nationwide

Insurance Company by representing Lisa Holbrook, as his

client, as plaintiff. Conflict of interest, which explains why

he received $25,000 when he lost the case and owed for

sanctions.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner Diane L. Hol-

brook respectfully requestfully requests that the petition

for an extraordinary writ of mandamus/prohibition should

be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

DIANE L. HOLBROOK

Petitioner

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone (772) 545-9793

App. 1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE

STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT, P.O.

BOX 3315, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33402

January 23, 2004

CASE NO.: 4D03-187

L.T. No.: 01-937 CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK v. EILEEN BUCHMANN, ET AL.

Appellant/Petitioner(s), Appellee/Respondent(s).

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

ORDERED that appellant’s motion filed December 18,

2003, for rehearing is hereby denied; further,

ORDERED that appellant’s motion filed December 23,

2003, for rehearing en banc is hereby denied.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy

of the original court order.

Served:

Diane L. Holbrook Edwin E. Mortell, III

Diran V. Seropian Alan Clayton Espy

Elizabeth A. Metzger

Daniel F. Dill

/s/ Marilyn Beuttenmuller [SEAL]

MARILYN BEUTTENMULLER, Clerk

Fourth District Court of Appeal

App. 2

MANDATE

from

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE

STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

This cause having been brought to the Court by

appeal, and after due consideration the Court having

issued its opinion;

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that such further

proceedings be had in said cause as may be in accordance

with the opinion of this Court, and with the rules of

procedure and laws of the State of Florida.

WITNESS the Honorable GARY M. FARMER, Chief

Judge of the District Court of Appeal of the State of

Florida, Fourth District, and seal of the said Court at West

Palm Beach, Florida on this day.

DATE: February 13, 2004

CASE NO.: 4D03-187

COUNTY OF ORIGIN: Martin

T.C. CASE _NO.: 01-937 CA

STYLE: DIANE L. HOLBROOK V.

EILEEN BUCHMANN, ET AL.

/s/ Marilyn Beuttenmuller

[SEAL] MARILYN BEUTTENMULLER,

Clerk Fourth District Court of Appeal

ORIGINAL TO: Marsha Ewing, Clerk

cc:

Diane L. Holbrook Elizabeth A. Metzger

Alan Clayton Espy Daniel F. Dill

App. 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard/P. O. Box 3315

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401/West Palm Beach,

Florida 33402-3315

CASE NO.: 4D03-187

L. T. No.: 01-937 CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Appellant,

Vs.

EILEEN BUCHMANN,

SERVE ALSO: First Floridian Insurance

Company Claims Department

(as THE Carrier);

PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC.,

a Florida corporation,

SERVE ALSO: SAFECO Property & Casualty

Insurance Companies American

States (as THE Carrier);

SECOND HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL.

or SUGAR PINES HOMEOWNER’S

ASSOCIATION and/or SUGAR PINES, INC.,

all Florida corporations,

SERVE ALSO: JON L. OSWALD as

REGISTERED AGENT.

Jon L. Oswald as interested

owner and/or President of

Second Housing Corporation

Et Al. or Sugar Pines

Homeowner’s Association

or Sugar Pines, Inc.,

App. 4

SERVE ALSO: State Farm Fire and Casualty

Company Claims Department

(as THE Carrier),

Appellees.

MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Filed Dec. 23, 2003)

Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook, moves the Honorable

Court for Rehearing En Banc being timely filed pursuant

to Rules Of Appellate Procedure Rule 9.330 within 15 days

of an order attached. Pursuant to Florida Rules Of Appel-

late Procedure Rule 9.331(a) Determination Of Causes In

A District Court Of Appeal En Banc questioning whether

the case is of such exceptional importance or that such

consideratioi is necessary to maintain uniformity in the

Court’s decision. This outcome could affect different

outcomes on Case # 00-026 CA, Case # 98-969 CA, Case #

99-615 CA, Case # 00-751 CA, Case # 01-001 CA, Case #

01-148 CA, Case # 00-733 CA, Case # 01-836 CA, Case #

02-102 CA, Case # 02-174 CA, Case # 01-565 CA, Case #

99-230 CA, Case # 00-773 CA, Case # 02-171 CA, Case #

00-206 CA, Case # 01-379 CA, Case # 01-703 CA, Case #

01-893 CA, Case # 01-351 CA, Case # 98-939 CA, Case #

00-896 CA and # 01-499 CA before out of Court settle-

ments and after December 2nd Docket Call, Case # 02-112

CA, Case # 00-830 CA all being cases scheduled for trials

from December 2nd, 2002 thru December, 24, 2002 be-

cause Case No. 01-937 CA would set a new first impres-

sion case resulting into a Common Law affect simply

because of Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.540(b)(1).

Otherwise, Judicial Administration Rules Rule 2.071(a)

Use of Communication Equipment.

App. 5

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook,

respectfully requests the Honorable Court to Grant Re-

hearing En Banc and decide upon the attached Motion For

Rehearing, as well as, Affidavit of Diane L. Holbrook In

Support Of Final Order Of Final Judgment In Favor Of

The Plaintiff With Prejudice and to Grant Final Judgment

by vacating Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice and

vacating Order of Second Housing Corporation (ET AL.)’s

Summary Judgment as grounds shown.

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy

hereof has been furnished to Alan Clayton Espy, Esquire,

3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 630, Palm Beach Gardens,

Florida 33410; Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, ROGERS, COLE-

MAN, PENDAS, KNAPP & DILL, P.A., Post Office Box

3427, Orlando, Florida 32802-3427; Elizabeth A. Metzger,

Esquire/Edwin E. Mortell, III, Esquire, PETERSON,

BERNARD, VANDENBERG, ZEI, GEISLER & MARTIN,

P.A., 301 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200, Stuart, Florida

34994; Diran V. Seropian, Esquire, PETERSON, BER-

NARD, VANDENBERG, ZEI, GEISLER & MARTIN, P.A.,

Post Office Drawer 15700, West Palm Beach, Florida

33406 by certificate of mailing receipt of by United States

mail, on this 23rd day of December, 2003.

App. 6

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Plaintiff

Diane L. Holbrook

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone: (772) 545-9793

App. 7

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2003

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Appellant,

Vv.

EILEEN BUCHMANN,

PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC.,

a Florida corporation, and SECOND HOUSING

CORPORATION, a Florida corporation,

Appellees.

CASE NO. 4D03-187

Decision filed December 10, 2003 “

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth

Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Ben L. Bryan and Wil-

liam L. Roby, Judges; L.T. Case No. 01-937 CA.

Diane L. Holbrook, Hobe Sound, pro se.

Daniel F. Dill of Rogers, Coleman, Pendas, Knapp &

Dill, P.A., Orlando, for appellee Eileen Buchmann.

Alan C. Espy, Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee

Pressure Cleaning Services, Inc.

Elizabeth A. Metzger of Peterson, Bernard, Vanden-

berg, Zei, Geisler & Martin, Stuart, for appellee Second

Housing Corporation.

App. 8

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

FARMER, C.J., GUNTHER, J., and KRATHEN, DAVID

H., Associate Judge, concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL DISPOSITION OF ANY TIMELY

FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING.

App. 9

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard/P. O. Box 3315

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401/West Palm Beach,

Florida 33402-3315

CASE NO.: 4D03-187

L. T. No.: 01-937.CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Appellant,

vs.

EILEEN BUCHMANN,

SERVE ALSO: First Floridian Insurance

Company Claims Department

(as THE Carrier);

PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC.,

a Florida corporation,

SERVE ALSO: SAFECO Property & Casualty

Insurance Companies American

States (as THE Carrier);

SECOND HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL.

or SUGAR PINES HOMEOWNER’S

ASSOCIATION and/or SUGAR PINES, INC.,

all Florida corporations,

SERVE ALSO: JON L. OSWALD as

REGISTERED AGENT.

Jon L. Oswald as interested

owner and/or President of

Second Housing Corporation

Et Al. or Sugar Pines

Homeowner’s Association

or Sugar Pines, Inc.,

App. 10

SERVE ALSO: State Farm Fire and Casualty

Company Claims Department

(as THE Carrier),

Appellees.

MOTION FOR REHEARING

Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook, moves the Honorable

Court for Reversal of Order of Final Order of Dismissal

with Prejudice and Reversal of Order of Second Housing

Corporation (ET AL.)’s Summary Judgment. Plaintiff,

Diane L. Holbrook, moves the Honorable Court to Grant a

Final Order of Final Judgment in full favor of the Plaintiff

with Prejudice. As grounds thereof, the Plaintiff would

show as follows:

1. See (R.Vol.I,pg.1) showing statue of limitation was

met of Complaint on or about October 29, 2001 and all

summons were served and received as well as filed at the

Court. See (R.Vol.I,pg.4-5) and (R.Vol.I,pg.192-197) Regis-

tered Agent is Jon L. Oswald listing on the Insurance

Blank Endorsement as follows: Second Housing Corpora-

tion & Sugar Pines Company A FL Corp (etc.) as one

entity by using & (and). Regarding Rules of Civil Proce-

dure Rule 1.540(a) Clerical Mistakes pertaining to De-

faults as follows:

(a) August 8, 2002 of (R.Vol.I,pg.85-89) Plaintiff’s

Opposition to Defendant(s) Motion for Summary

Judgment, along with Request To Produce For In-

spection And Copying. To this date, Defendant(s) had

not made arrangements with Plaintiff to inspect and

copy.

App. 11

(b) August 20, 2002 of (R.Vol.I,pg.108) verbal-Order

by the Honorable Judge Ben L. Bryan, Jr. states “will

produce minutes for Plaintiff’s request.” To this date,

Plaintiff has not received any documents requested to

produce. The Defendant(s) has Defaulted.

Granted included break down list of THE one entity

and in addition states interest from the date of occur-

rence on all medical expenses, as well as reimburse-

ments, and also punitive damages against the

insurance(s) from policy holder(s). Etc., results

(R.Vol.I,pg.118). Amended Complaint was timely filed

(R.Vol.I,pg.118) dated August 27, 2002. Amended

Complaint was done before September 4, 2002 Hear-

ing and unanswered to this date by Second Housing

Corporation ET AL. etc..

(d) Under Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.540(b)(1),

Second Housing Corporation (ET AL.)’s Summary

Judgment (R.Vol.I,pg.173) is a mistake supporting for

a Reversal because September 4th, 2002 is subse-

quent date to August 8th, 2002, August 20th, 2002

and August. 27th, 2002. The Defendant(s) has De-

faulted to this date.

2. See (R.Vol.II,pg.341-350) for December 2nd, 2002.

See (R.Vol.I,pg.269) whereas Honorable Judge William L.

Roby noting: “Judge called her @ 772-545-9793.” See

attached Judicial Administration Rules Rule 2.071(a) Use

of Communication Equipment. With this Motion For Rehear-

ing filing is an Affidavit of Diane L. Holbrook in Support of

Final Order of Final Judgment in Favor of the Plaintiff with

Prejudice with attachment of (R.Vol.II,pg.341 and 349 dated

September 20th, 2002 TRIAL SCHEDULE - CIVIL DIVI-

SION quoting “All counsel ... are to be present on the day

their case is scheduled, whether it be the #1 case or a

backup case.” On next paragraph quoting “Cases specially

App. 12

set herein for dates subsequent to December 2 are not

required to attend the December 2 Docket Call.” Under

Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.540(b)(1) “Judge enters

dismissal for FTA” is a mistake supporting for a Reversal

because December 16th, 17th, and 18th, 2002 JURY

TRIAL Dates are dates subsequent to December 2nd

Docket Call.

3. Alan Clayton Espy, Esquire’s Order should have

read Final Judgment For the Plaintiff with Prejudice due

to Defendants failure to attend Jury Trial Dates because

later on December 18th, 2002 is subsequent date to De-

cember 16th, 17th, and 18th, 2002 whereas Plaintiff was

present at Court on the days their case was scheduled for

Jury Trial and did not see any of the Defendants or their

Counselors. Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice is a

mistake supporting for a Reversal because TRIAL

SCHEDULE - CIVIL DIVISION dated September 20th,

2002 comes before December 2nd, 2002 and Plaintiff was

present for Jury Trial starting December 16th, 2002 before

scheduled time of 9:00a.m..

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook,

respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order Vacating

Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice and Vacating

Order of Second Housing Corporation (ET AL.)’s Summary

Judgment and Order Granting Final Order of Final

Judgment in Full Favor for Plaintiff with Prejudice for the

reasons set forth above.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy

hereof has been furnished to Alan Clayton Espy, Esquire,

3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 630, Palm Beach Gardens,

ae °

App. 13

Florida 33410; Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, ROGERS, COLE-

MAN, PENDAS, KNAPP & DILL, P.A., Post Office Box

3427, Orlando, Florida 32802-3427; Elizabeth A. Metzger,

Esquire/Edwin E. Mortell, III, Esquire, PETERSON,

BERNARD, VANDENBERG, ZEI, GEISLER & MARTIN,

P.A., 301 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200, Stuart, Florida

34994; Diran V. Seropian, Esquire, PETERSON, BER-

NARD, VANDENBERG, ZEI, GEISLER & MARTIN, P.A.,

Post Office Drawer 15700, West Palm Beach, Florida

33406 by certificate of mailing receipt of by United States

mail, on this 23rd day of December, 2003.

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Plaintiff

Diane L. Holbrook

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone: (772) 545-9793

App. 14

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARTIN

COUNTY FLORIDA

CASE NO: 01-937 CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff,

EILEEN BUCHMANN, et al.,

Defendants. /

FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITH PREJUDICE

This matter was previously dismissed by the Court on

December 18th, 2002. The order stated that it was without

prejudice but since the statute of limitations had run, the

Plaintiff could not refile this case.

An appeal was subsequently taken of the court’s order

of December 18th, 2002 which is presently pending before

the Fourth District Court of Appeals. In order to proceed

with the appeal, a final order is needed for appelie-<

purposes. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is

dismissed with prejudice for the reasons previously set

forth in this court’s order of December 18th, 2002 as well as

for the reasons set forth herein. The Court reserves juris-

diction to tax attorney’s fees and costs upon proper motion.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Stuart,

Martin County, Florida this ___ day of November, 2003.

/s/ Judge William L. Roby

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Nov 12 2003

SA Rae

domi “Whig ra anc:

App. 15

Copies furnished to:

Diane Holbrook, PO Box 1512, Hobe Sound, FL 33455

Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, Post Office Box 3427, Orlando,

FL 32802-3427

Alan C. Espy, Esquire, 3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 630,

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Dirian V. Seropian, Esquire, Post Office Drawer 15700,

West Palm Beach, FL 33406

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Rule 1.530

(f) Order Granting to Specify Grounds. All

orders granting a new trial shall specify the specific

grounds therefor. If such an order is appealed and does not

state the specific grounds, the appellate court shall relin-

quish its jurisdiction to the trial court for entry of an order

specifying the grounds for granting the new trial.

(g) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. A

motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not

later than 10 days after entry of the judgment, except that

this rule does not affect the remedies in rule 1.540(b).

Amended June 19, 1968, effective Oct. 1, 1968 (211 So.2d

206); Sept. 13, 1984, effective Jan. 1, 1985 (458 So.2d 245).

Amended July 16, 1992, effective Jan. 1, 1993 (604 So.2d

1110).

Committee Notes

Rule 1.540. Relief from Judgment, Decrees, or Orders

(a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judg-

ments, decrees, or other parts of the record and errors

App. 16

therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected

by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the

motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the

court orders. During the pendency of an appeal such

mistakes may be so corrected before the record on appeal

is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the

appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the

appellate court.

(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect;

Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc. On motion

and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a

party or a party’s legal representative from a final judg-

ment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following rea-

sons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due

diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a

new trial or rehearing; (3) fraud (whether heretofore denomi-

nated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) that the judgment or

decree is void; or (5) that the judgment or decree has been

* * *

——

JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION RULES

Rule 2.071. Use of Communication Equipment

(a) Definition. Communication equipment means a

conference telephone or other electronic device that permits

all those appearing or participating to hear and speak to

et ES li EE Si RET NA ca ARS tr le ca BE A A Ga cg IES ihe BO ae hee oR eSB

—

App. 17

each other, provided that all conversation of all parties is

audible to all persons present.

(b) Use by all Parties. A county or circuit court

1200 N. Federal Sins Suite 200

Boca Raton, FL 33432

Friday, November 21, 2003

Diane Holbrook

PO Box 1512 Account #: 117258

Hobe Sound, FL 33475 Principle: $131.22

Collection Fee: $15.00

Total: $146.22

Client: Craig Lichtblau M.D.

Debtor: Diane Holbrook

Since you have refused to pay the above balance due, this

letter will serve as formal notice that your bad debt has

been reported to the credit bureaus — Equifax, Experian

and Trans Union. This credit blemish will, in many cases,

prevent credit grantors from extending you credit. Be

advised, this credit blemish may affect future plans for

mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, personal loans, etc. for

a period of seven (7) years.

This obligation will not be reported as paid-in-full until

satisfactory settlement has been made to the above client.

App. 18

Be advised, this is an attempt to collect a debt and any

information obtained will be used for that purpose. This

communication is from a debt collector.

To receive proper credit, send payment to:

Craig Lichtblau M.D.

550 Northlake Blvd.

North Palm Beach, FL 33408

(561) 842-3694

PO Box 4545

Boynton Beach, Florida 33424

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

Diane L. Holbrook

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone: (772) 545-9793

October 15, 2003

American Credit Bureau, Inc.

1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 200

Boca Raton, Florida 33432

RE: Account #: 117258

Principal: $131.22

Collection Fee: $15.00

Total Due: $146.22

Client: Craig Lichtblau M.D.

Debtor: First Floridian Insurance Company

Claims Department SAFECO Property &

Casualty Insurance Companies aka

American States

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

SSCP RMA TRAE a OS SEL A EMS ROR Be ‘

App. 19

Dear To Whom Concern:

Please refer to the attachment for the Debtors addresses

to mail these bills to directly, as the above Debtors are

listed in correction to having my name listed. The unpaid

balance should be reported against First Floridian Insur-

ance Company, SAFECO Property & Casualty Insurance

Companies aka American States, and State Farm Fire and

Casualty Company to the three national credit bureaus —

Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union. These Defendants of

Eileen Buchmann, Pressure Cleaning Services, Inc.,

Second Housing Corporation ET AL. or Sugar Pines

Homeowner’s Association and/or Sugar Pines, Inc. have

the above listed insurance companies as their Carriers.

This case is currently in the District Court of Appeal

Fourth District of Florida Case No. 4D03-187 located at

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, Florida

33401 and is open. The national credit bureau blemishes

the Defendants and the records of not taking responsibil-

ity by the insurance companies to pay their Defendants

debt (as THE Carrier) should not affect my name.

Sincerely Yours,

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

U.S. Postal Service CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

App. 20

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE 19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MARTIN

COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 01-937CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Court of Appeals

Plaintiff, Fourth District of Florida

VS. Case No. 4D03-187

EILEEN BUCHMANN,

Defendants

SERVE ALSO:

First Floridian Insurance Company

Claims Department (as THE Carrier)

1000 Legion Place and/or P. O. Box 30180

P. O. Box 4962 Tampa, FL 33630-3180

Orlando, FL 32802-4962 Attn: Mr. Randy Greer

Insurance Adjuster Tina M. Boskovich

PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC.,

a Florida corporation, Defendants

SERVE ALSO:

SAFECO Property & Casualty Insurance Companies

American States (as THE Carrier)

Maitland Claims Office Mailing address:

2201 Lucien Way Suite 300 14286-19 Beach Blvd. #343

Maitland, FL 32250 Jacksonville, FL 32250

Attn: Stephen M. Ruling

SECOND HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL. or

SUGAR PINES HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION and/or

SUGAR PINES, INC., all Florida corporations, Defendants.

App. 21

SERVE ALSO:

Jon L. Oswald as interested owner and/or President

of Second Housing Corporation et al. or Sugar

Pines Homeowner’s Association or Sugar Pines, Inc.

SERVE ALSO:

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Claims Department (as THE Carrier)

1811 South 25th Street

Fort Pierce, FL 34947-4783

Insurance Adjuster Mr. Sam Cartwright /

AMERICAN CREDIT BUREAU, INC.

1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 200

Boca Raton, FL 33432

Monday, October 06, 2003

Diane Holbrook

PO Box 1512 Account #: 117258

Hobe Sound, FL 33475 Principle: $131.22

Collection Fee: $15.00

Total Due: $146.22

Client: Craig Lichtblau M.D.

Debtor: Diane Holbrook

Be advised the above referenced client is a member of

American Credit Bureau and has turned your account over

to our office with instructions to report your unpaid

balance to the three national credit bureaus — Equifax,

Experian, and Trans Union.

This bad debt is scheduled to be recorded on your perma-

nent credit file during the next system update. This credit

App. 22

blemish will, in many cases, prevent credit grantors from

extending you credit. Be advised, this credit blemish may

affect future plans for mortgages, auto loans, credit cards,

personal loans, etc. for a period of seven (7) years.

To prevent this blemish from appearing on your credit file,

the above referenced client must notify our office prior to

the next system update that satisfactory payment or

arrangements have been made.

Be advised, this is an attempt to collect a debt and any

information obtained will be used for that purpose. This

communication is from a debt collector.

To receive proper credit, send payment to:

Craig Lichtblau M.D.

550 Northlake Blvd.

North Palm Beach, FL 33408

(561) 842-3694

Unless you notify this office within 30 days after

receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of

this debt or any portion thereof, this office will

assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office in

writing within 30 days from receiving this notice,

this office will: obtain verification of the debt or

obtain a copy of a judgement and mail you a copy of

such judgement or verification. If you request this

office in writing within 30 days after receiving this

notice, this office will provide you with the name

and address of the original creditor, if different

from the current creditor.

I de. Eee ioe Ah EE TAA Li RRL EERE Ai OWT LT LOE, ett BO

App. 23

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

1525 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard/P.O. Box 3315

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401/West Palm

Beach, Florida 33402-3315

CASE NO.: 4D03-187

L. T. No.: 01-937 CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Appellant,

VS.

EILEEN BUCHMANN,

SERVE ALSO:

First Floridian Insurance Company

Claims Department (as THE Carrier);

PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC.,

a Florida corporation,

SERVE ALSO:

SAFECO Property & Casualty Insurance

Companies American States (as THE Carrier);

SECOND HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL. or

SUGAR PINES HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION and/or

SUGAR PINES, INC., all Florida corporations,

SERVE ALSO:

JON L. OSWALD as REGISTERED AGENT.

Jon L. Oswald as interested owner and/or

President of Second Housing Corporation Et Al.

or Sugar Pines Homeowner’s Association or

Sugar Pines, Inc.,

SERVE ALSO:

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Claims

Department (as THE Carrier),

Appellees. /

App. 24

AFFIDAVIT OF DIANE L. HOLBROOK

IN SUPPORT OF FINAL ORDER OF

FINAL JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE

PLAINTIFF WITH PREJUDICE

UPON sworn statement, deposes and states:

See attachment TRIAL SCHEDULE - CIVIL DIVISION

page 1 and page 9:

1. On page 9 of the TRIAL SCHEDULE - CIVIL

DIVISION for Monday, December 16, 2002*, cases were

settled out of Court cases #1 on docket case no. 00-896 CA

Colebrook vs State Farm ET AL., #2 on docket case no. 01-

499 CA Braun vs Wellcraft Marine Corp ET AL., and #3

on docket case no. 01-684 CA Bailey vs Craig ET AL..

2. Case scheduled for JURY Trial on Monday,

December 16, 2002 listed case #4 on dacket case no. 01-937

CA Holbrook vs Buchmann ET AL. for 3 days JURY Trial

at 9:00a.m..

3. Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook, was at Court on

December 16th, 2002 approximately 8:50a.m. for being

present for JURY TRIAL as scheduled date to do so. See

page 9 of the TRIAL SCHEDULE - CIVIL DIVISION

attached.

4. One of the witnesses of my present appearance at

Court on December 16th, 2002 before 9:00a.m. deadline

being H. Randal Brennan from Law Offices of Hendrix &

Brennan from 1443 Twentieth Street, Suite F, Vero Beach,

Florida 32961-0520. Telephone 778-3777. Fax 778-3835.

5. Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook, was at Court on

December 17th, 2002 approximately 8:20a.m. for being

present for JURY TRIAL as scheduled date to do so. There

App. 25

were witnesses of my present appearance at Court on

December 17th, 2002 before 9:00a.m.

6. Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook, was at Court on

December 18th, 2002.

7. Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook, did not see any of the

Defendants or their Counselors at Court on the days their

case was scheduled for JURY TRIAL being December

16th, 17th, 18th 2002 before 9:00a.m.

FOR THE ABOVE SWORN reasonings, Plaintiff,

Diane L. Holbrook is entitled to a Final Order of Final

Judgment in full favor of the Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook

with Prejudice.

FURTHER THE DEPONENT SIGNS AND SERVICE

DEFENDANTS BY MAIL.

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

~ Diane L. Holbrook

Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy

hereof has been furnished to Alan Clayton Espy, Es-

quire, 3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 630, Palm Beach

Gardens, Florida 33410; Daniel F. Dill, Esquire,

ROGERS, COLEMAN, PENDAS, KNAPP & DILL, P.A.,

Post Office Box 3427, Orlando, Florida 32802-3427;

Elizabeth A. Metzger, Esquire/Edwin E. Mortell, III,

Esquire, PETERSON, BERNARD, VANDENBERG, ZEI,

GEISLER & MARTIN, P.A., 301 E. Ocean Boulevard,

Suite 200, Stuart, Florida 34994; Diran V. Seropian,

Esquire, PETERSON, BERNARD, VANDENBERG, ZEI,

GEISLER & MARTIN, P.A., Post Office Drawer 15700,

App. 26

West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 by certificate of mail-

ing receipt of United States mail, on this 23rd day of

December, 2003.

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Plaintiff

Diane L. Holbrook

Post Office Box 1512

_ Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone: (772) 545-9793

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA

Ben L. Bryan Jr., Circuit Judge 9/20/02

100 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 263

Stuart, Florida 34994

Trial Period: October 14, 2002 — December 30, 2002)

(Cases scheduled from September 19, 2002

TRIAL SCHEDULE - CIVIL DIVISION

PLACE: Courtroom “A”, 2nd Floor

Martin County Courthouse

100 East Ocean Boulevard

Stuart, Florida 34994

ALL COUNSEL (AND ANYONE NEEDED FOR JURY

SELECTION) ARE TO BE PRESENT ON THE DAY

THEIR CASE IS SCHEDULED, WHETHER IT BE

THE #1 CASE OR A BACKUP CASE. WITNESSES

FOR BACKUP CASES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE AT

1:30 P.M. ON THAT DATE.

A JURY CASE NOT TRIED ON ITS SCHEDULED

DATE IS RESCHEDULED FOR THE DOCKET CALL

App. 27

ON DECEMBER 2, 2002 AT 9:00 A.M. BEFORE JUDGE

WILLIAM ROBY. COUNSEL WILL BE PRESENT WITH

CALENDARS. A NONJURY CASE NOT TRIED ON ITS

SCHEDULED DATE WILL BE NOTIFIED AS TO THE

NEXT DOCKET CALL DATE. CASES SPECIALLY SET

HEREIN FOR DATES SUBSEQUENT TO DECEM-

BER 2 ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ATTEND THE

DECEMBER 2 DOCKET CALL.

Thursday, September 19, 2002

[SETTLED]

Monday, September 23, 2002*

9:00 a.m.:

01-796 CA Hanner vs Francois MORTELL, M.

and Wright (2 days) FRANCOIS,

JURY pro se WRIGHT,

pro se [YOUNG, W.]

Monday, December 16, 2002*

[SETTLED]

9:00 a.m., #4 on docket:

01-937 CA Holbrook vs. Buchmann HOLBROOK,

et al (3 days) JURY pro se

DILL/ ESPY

MORTELL, E.

* SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE 1

App. 28

Tuesday, December 17, 2002

1:30 p.m.:

02-112 CA Showcase Designer STEGER

Homes vs Wagner (1/2 COPELAND

days) NONJURY

Wednesday, December 18, 2002

9:00 a.m.:

00-830 CA Mile High Air vs BARLOW

Aircraft Trading FREEMAN

(3-4 days) NONJURY

App. 29

LAW OFFICES OF

ALAN C. EspPy, P.A.

3300 PGA BOULEVARD

SUITE 630

PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410

E-MAIL: espy@flite.net

ALAN C. ESPY* TELEPHONE (561) 627-4775

*FLORIDA BAR BOARD CERTIFIED TELEFAX (561) 627-4802

CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER

JAMES C. PAINE, JR.

OF COUNSEL

November 6, 2003

The Honorable William L. Roby

Martin County Courthouse

100 SE Ocean Blvd, Suite 263

Stuart, FL 34994

Re: Holbrook v. Buchmann, et al

Case No. 01-937 CA

Dear Judge Roby:

You previously entered an order of dismissal in this case

for failure of the plaintiff to attend the docket call. A copy

of that order is enclosed.

The plaintiff took an appeal of that order to the Fourth

District Court of Appeals.

However, because the order of December 18th, 2002 was

“without prejudice” the appellate court has ordered us to

get a final order for appellate purposes.

The statute of limitations in this claim had expired by the

time your order of December 18th, 2002 was entered so for

all intents and purposes, that order was with prejudice.

App. 30

I am enclosing herewith a copy of the order received from

the Fourth District Court of Appeals instructed me to

obtain an appropriate final order from you. A proposed

final order is enclosed. If this meets with your approval, it

would be appreciated if you would please sign and forward

copies of the order in the enclosed stamped, addressed

envelopes.

Respectfully,

/s/ Alan C. Espy

ALAN C. ESPY

ACE/drl

cc: Diane Holbrook

Daniel F. Dili, Esquire

Diran Seropian, Esquire

App. 31

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR

MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA

CASE NO: 01-937 CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff,

EILEEN BUCHMANN, et al.,

Defendants. /

MOTION FOR ENTRY OCF ORDER OF

FINAL DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Defendant, Pressure Cleaning Services, Inc., by and

through its undersigned attorneys, moves the court for

entry of an order of final dismissal with prejudice. As

grounds therefor, the Defendant would show as follows:

1. On December 18th, 2002 this court entered a final

order of dismissal for failure of the plaintiff to attend the

docket call.

2. The Plaintiff subsequently took an appeal.

3. The final order of dismissal is without prejudice.

4. However, the statute of limitations had expired at

the time the final order of dismissal was entered, so in

effect it was with prejudice.

5. The matter is currently on appeal and the appel-

late court has entered an order requesting an appropriate

“final order” for appeal purposes.

App. 32

6. Obviously, no prejudice would arise to any party if

the court were to enter an order of final dismissal with

prejudice since it would allow the parties to proceed with

their appeal and have the appeal determined on the merits

at this time.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Pressure Cleaning

Services, Inc., respectfully requests the court to enter an

order of final dismissal with prejudice for the reasons set

forth above.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has

been furnished, by mail, to Diane Holbrook PO Box

1512, Hobe Sound, FL 33455; Daniel F. Dill, Esquire,

Rogers, Dowling, Fleming & Coleman, PA, Post Office Box

3427, Orlando FL 32802-3427 and Edwin F. Mortell, III,

Esquire, Peterson, Bernard, Vandenberg, Zei, Geisler &

Martin, 301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200, Stuart, FL

34994 this 6 day of November, 2003.

/s/ Alan C. Espy

ALAN C. ESPY

Attorney for Defendant,

Pressure Cleaning

3300 PGA Blvd., Suite 630

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Telephone: (561) 627-4775

Facsimile: (561) 627-4802

Fla. Bar No.: 375187

App. 33

LAW OFFICES OF

ALAN C. ESPY, P.A.

3300 PGA BOULEVARD

SUITE 630

PALM BEACH GARDENS, FLORIDA 33410

E-MAIL: espy@flite.net

ALAN C. ESPY* TELEPHONE

*FLORIDA BAR BOARD (561) 627-4775

CERTIFIED CIVIL TELEFAX (561) 627-4802

TRIAL LAWYER

JAMES C. PAINE, JR.

OF COUNSEL

December 17, 2002

The Honorable William L. Roby

Martin County Courthouse

100 SE Ocean Blvd, Suite 263

Stuart, FL 34994

Re: Holbrook v. Buchmann, et al

Case No. 01-937 CA

Dear Judge Roby:

Enclosed is a copy of the original and copies of the order of

dismissal which you earlier asked me to prepare following

docket call.

I have spoken to the plaintiff, Ms. Holbrook, who opposes

the order. I believe she has contacted your office directly

App. 34

on the matter. The co-defendant agrees with the contents

of the order.

Respectfully,

/s/ Alan C. Espy

ALAN C. ESPY

ACE/drl

ec: Diane Holbrook

Daniel F. Dill, Esquire

ERE Ree CT, a ee eee ee

App. 35

IN THS CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARTIN

COUNTY FLORIDA

CASE NO: 01-937 CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff,

EILEEN BUCHMANN, et al.,

Defendants.

FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS matter came before the court at a scheduled

docket call on December 2nd, 2002. Due to the Plaintiffs

failure to attend the docket call, either in person or

through counsel, this matter is hereby dismissed without

prejudice. The court reserves jurisdiction to tax attorney’s

fees and/or costs upon proper motion.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Stuart,

Martin County, Florida this ___ day of December, 2002.

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Diane Holbrook, PO Box 1512, Hobe Sound, FL 33455

Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, Post Office Box 3427, Orlando, FL

32802-3427

Alan C. Espy, Esquire, 3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 630,

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

App. 36

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE 19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY,

FLORIDA

CASE NO. 01-937CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff/Appellant,

we NOTICE OF APPEAL

EILEEN BUCHMANN, (Filed Jan. 15, 2003)

Defendants/Appellee

SERVE ALSO: First Floridian Insurance Company

Claims Department (as THE Carrier)

PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC.,

a Florida corporation,

Defendants/Appellee

SERVE ALSO: SAFECO Property & Casualty Insur-

ance Companies American States (as

THE Carrier)

SECOND HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL. or

SUGAR PINES HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION and/or

SUGAR PINES, INC., all Florida corporations,

Defendants/Appellee.

SERVE ALSO: Jon L. Oswald as interested owner and/or

President of Second Housing Corpora-

tion et al. or Sugar Pines Homeowner’s

Association or Sugar Pines, Inc.

SERVE ALSO: State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Claims Department (as THE Carrier)

App. 37

NOTICE IS GIVEN that Diane L. Holbrook, Plain-

tiff/Appellant, appeals to the Fourth District Court Of

Appeal of the state of Florida, the orders of this court

rendered on Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit

CASE NO. 01-937CA December 18, 2002 order of Final

Order Of Dismissal, September 24, 2002 (part in deny-

ing) order of Order Granting In Part And Denying In

Part Defendant, Pressure Cleaning Services, Inc.’s,

Motion To Strike Or Dismiss Amended Complaint,

September 4, 2002 order of Order On Defendant, Second

Housing Corporation’s Motion For Summary Judgment,

and unsigned since September 16, 2002 filing of motions

for Motion For Default by the Clerk with supporting

Affidavit. September 16, 2002 filing of Motion For

Default By The Court with accompany order for Order

Re: Default By Court. All the above are attached in

accordance with rules 9.110(d), and 9.160(c). The nature

of the order is a final order stating Final Order Of

Dismissal due to the Plaintiffs failure to attend the

docket call (when Plaintiffs jury trial dates were subse-

quent to docket call).

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Plaintiff/Appellant

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone: (772) 545-9793

The undersigned certifies that a copy hereof has

been furnished to: Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, Rogers,

Coleman, Pendas, Knapp & Dill, P.A., Post Office Box

3427, Orlando, Florida 32802-3427; Edwin E. Mortell,

III, Esquire, Peterson, Bernard, Vandenberg, Zei,

Geisler & Martin, P.A., 301 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite

App. 38

200, Stuart, Florida 34994; Alan C. Espy, Esquire, 3300

PGA Boulevard, Suite 630, Palm Beach Gardens, Flor-

ida 33410 by certificate of mailing receipt of United

States mail on this 15th day of January, 2003.

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Phone: (772) 545-9793

Plaintiff/Appellant

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA

Ben L. Bryan Jr., Circuit Judge 9/20/02

100 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 263

Stuart, Florida 34994

Trial Period: October 14, 2002 — December 30, 2002)

(Cases scheduled from September 19, 2002

[Attention: Maggie

FAX (772) 463-3283

Plaintiff plans to do Notice of Appeal approx. January

15th, 2003. If this was honestly OVERLOOKED, then

the appropriate ORDERS should be done urgently to

avoid Appeal.

Copy will be Court Filed then.]

App. 39

TRIAL SCHEDULE - CIVIL DIVISION

PLACE: Courtroom “A”, 2nd Floor

Martin County Courthouse

100 East Ocean Boulevard

Stuart, Florida 34994

ALL COUNSEL (AND ANYONE NEEDED FOR JURY

SELECTION) ARE TO BE PRESENT ON THE DAY

THEIR CASE IS SCHEDULED, WHETHER IT BE THE

#1 CASE OR A BACKUP CASE. WITNESSES FOR

BACKUP CASES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE AT 1:30

P.M. ON THAT DATE.

A JURY CASE NOT TRIED ON ITS SCHEDULED

DATE IS RESCHEDULED FOR THE DOCKET CALL

ON DECEMBER 2, 2002 AT 9:00 A.M. BEFORE

JUDGE WILLIAM ROBY. COUNSEL WILL BE PRE-

SENT WITH CALENDARS. A NONJURY CASE NOT

TRIED ON ITS SCHEDULED DATE WILL BE NOTI-

FIED AS TO THE NEXT DOCKET CALL DATE.

CASES SPECIALLY SET HEREIN FOR [**] DATES

SUBSEQUENT TO DECEMBER 2 ARE NOT RE-

QUIRED TO ATTEND THE DECEMBER 2 DOCKET

CALL. i

[** Plaintiff was at Court Room A on Dec. 16th 2002

approximately 8:50 A.M. for appearance for jury trial.

Plaintiff was, also, at court on Dec. 17th, 2002 approxi-

mately 8:20 A.M. Plaintiff did not see Defendants on

either day.

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook]

App. 40

Thursday, September 19, 2002

[SETTLED]

Monday, December 16, 2002*

9:00 a.m., #1 on docket:

00-896 CA Colebrook vs. State LEWIS ELDER/

Farm et al McGINLEY

(3 days) JURY

[SETTLED]

9:00 a.m., #2 on docket:

01-499 CA Braun vs. Wellcraft KOHL

Marine Corp et al SARASON/DAVID

(3 days) JURY

[SETTLED]

* * *

9:00 a.m., #4 on docket:

01-937 CA Holbrook vs. Buchmann HOLBROOK,

et al(3 days) JURY pro se

Note: Copy being mailed to: DILL & ESPY

Note: Copy being mailed to: MORTELL, E.

_—

App. 41

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARTIN

COUNTY FLORIDA

CASE NO. 01-937CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff,

EILEEN BUCHMANN, et al.,

Defendants. /

FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(Filed Dec. 18, 2002)

THIS matter came before the court at a scheduled

docket call on December 2nd, 2002. Due to the Plaintiffs

failure to attend the docket call, either in person or

through counsel, this matter is hereby dismissed with-

out prejudice. The court reserves jurisdiction to tax

attorney’s fees and/or costs upon proper motion.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Stuart,

Martin County, Florida this ___ day of December, 2002.

/s/ William L. Robey

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Diane Holbrook, PO Box 1512, Hobe Sound, FL 33455

Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, Post Office Box 3427,

Orlando, FL 32802-3427

Alan C. Espy, Esquire, 3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 630,

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

———— -

App. 42

26 95 25 216 26 6 296 26 26 2k 2g 24k 2k 2k 9 2K 2k 2K 2 2 2k

“—* TARErUR. **?

26 26 2k 26 26 2k 2k 2k 2k ik 2k 2k 2k 2K 2 2 2 ok 2k 2k 2k

TRANSMISSION OK

TX/RX NO 4615

CONNECTION TEL 5614633283

SUBADDRESS

CONNECTION ID

ST. TIME 01/09 08:43

USAGE T 00°36

PGS. SENT 1

RESULT OK

App. 43

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARTIN

COUNTY FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 01-937CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff,

EILEEN BUCHMANN, et al.,

Defendants. /

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

IN PART DEFENDANT, PRESSURE CLEANING

SERVICES, INC.’S, MOTION TO STRIKE OR

DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT

THIS CAUSE having come before the court on the ~

motion of the Defendant, Pressure Cleaning Services,

Inc., to dismiss and/or strike the Plaintiffs amended

complaint and the court having heard the argument of

counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the prem-

ises, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that any and all

claims in the amended complaint for punitive damages

[without prejudice] are hereby stricken for the reasons

set forth in Defendant’s motion. The remainder of the

Defendant’s motion to dismiss and/or strike the Plain-

tiffs amended complaint is hereby denied. The Defen-

dant, Pressure Cleaning Services, Inc., has ten (10) days

from the date of this order within which to file an

answer and affirmative defenses.

App. 44

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Stuart,

Martin County, Florida this 24 day of September, 2002.

/s/ Ben L. Bryan, Jr.

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Diane Holbrook, PO Box 1512, Hobe Sound, FL 33455

Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, Post Office Box 3427, Orlando,

FL 32802-3427

Edwin F. Mortell, III, Esquire, 301 East Ocean

Boulevard, Suite 200, Stuart, FL 34994

Alan C. Espy, Esquire, 3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 630,

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

App. 45

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE 19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MARTIN

COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 01-937CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK, Plaintiff,

vs.

EILEEN BUCHMANN, Defendants

SERVE ALSO:

First Floridian Insurance Company Claims

Department (as THE Carrier)

1000 Legion Place and/or P.O. Box 30180

P. O. Box 4962 Tampa, FL 33630-3180

Orlando, FL 32802-4962 Attn: Mr. Randy Greer

Insurance Adjuster Tina M. Boskovich

PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC.,

a Florida corporation, Defendants

SERVE ALSO:

SAFECO Property & Casualty Insurance Companies

American States (as THE Carrier)

Maitland Claims Office Mailing address:

2201 Lucien Way £:iite 300 14286-19 Beach Blvd. #343

Maitland, FL 322 © Jacksonville, FL 32250

Attn: Stephen M. ¢ aling

SECOND HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL. or

SUGAR PINES HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION and/or

SUGAR PINES, INC., all Florida corporations, Defendants.

SERVE ALSO:

Jon L. Oswald as interested owner and/or President

of Second Housing Corporation et al. or Sugar Pines

Homeowner’s Association or Sugar Pines, Inc.

App. 46

SERVE ALSO:

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Claims Department (as THE Carrier)

1811 South 25th Street

Fort ierce, FL 34947-4783

Insurance Adjuster Mr. Sam Cartwright

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF, DIANE L.

HOLBROOK’S AMENDED COMPLAINT IN IT’S

ENTIRETY Re: PREVIOUSLY GRANTED

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND ALSO

HEARING DENIED DISMISS-STRIKE MATTERS

(Filed Sept. 13, 2002)

THIS CAUSE having come before the court on the

motion of the Defendant, Pressure Cleaning Services, Inc.,

to dismiss and/or strike the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint

and this honorable court having heard the argument of

counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises,

it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs

Amended Complaint in it’s entirety be GRANTED as

this Honorable Court has verbally stated on September

9th, 2002. See Court Notes of September 9th, 2002 in

court file. See attached copy of ORDER previously

GRANTED Plaintiffs Motion To Amend and already

included for added punitive damages starting (12.)

within the Plaintiffs Motion to Amend. None of the

Defendant’s Opposed or Objected within the allowable

time frame to do so. Hearing on this was August 20,

2002 and none of the Defendant’s pleaded to Deny

Plaintiff's Motion to Amend or even strike any contents

of it. Please note filing date August 8, 2002.

Pa ert at RS tA A ae a

Veadiodliid. i

Me hn nee

;

App. 47

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

DONE AND ORDERED in Stuart, Martin County,

Florida this 12th day of September, 2002.

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Daniel F. Dill, Esquire

Alan C. Espy, Esquire

Edwin E. Mortell, III, Esquire

Diane L. Holbrook

Attached (3) three copies consist of GRANTED ORDER

RE: PLAINTIFF’S Motion to Amend and a couple pages

of Plaintiffs Motion to Amend.

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, Rogers, Dowling & Coleman, P.A.

Post Office Box 3427

Orlando, FL 32802-3427

Alan C. Espy, Esquire

3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 630

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Edwin E. Mortell, III, Esquire, Peterson, Bernard,

Vandenberg, Zei, Geisler & Martin, P.A.

301 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200

Stuart, FL 34994

Diane L. Holbrook

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

App. 48

The undersigned certifies that a copy hereof has

been furnished via U.S. Mail to: Daniel F. Dill, Esquire,

Rogers, Dowling & Coleman, P.A.; Alan C. Espy, Es-

quire; Edwin E. Morteil, III, Esquire, Peterson, Bernard,

Vandenberg, Zei, Geisler & Martin, P.A. on this 13th

day of September, 2002.

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Phone: (772) 545-9793

Plaintiff/In propria persona

DOCKET CALL COURT NOTES

(Filed Sept. 9, 2002)

CASE NO.:: 01-937CA

STYLE OF CASE: HOLBROOK VS BUCHMANN, ET AL.

DATE: 09/09/2002

TIME: 9:00 A.M.

JUDGE: BEN L. BRYAN, JR.

CLERK(S): CAROL JETER/SHERRY LEWIS

BAILIFF(S): STEVE MULLINS

COURT REPORTER:

App. 49

THE FOLLOWING OCCURRED AT DOCKET CALL:

COUNSEL’S -R=READY

NAME/PARTY NR=NOT READY CONFLICT

REPRESENTED MTC=MOVEDTOCONT. DATES

[~] Bruce Williamson

[~] David Knapp (for Dill) | (after 09/09)

[v]

Holbrook Pro Se

TOTAL PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES:

ESTIMATED DURATION OF TRIAL: 3 days or 4

COURT ACTION: (MTCD = MOTION TO CONTINUE

DENIED

MTCG=MOTION TO CONTINUE

GRANTED)

Atty states case is not at issue — Mtn For Leave To

Amend filed — 08/27/02 Amended Complaint Denied Mtn

To Dismiss — Strike matter re: punitive damages (needs

Mtn to Add Pun. Damage)

[/s/ MSJ - 10/09] #4 12/16/02 Trial

App. 50

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE 19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MARTIN

COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO.: 01-937CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff,

EILEEN BUCHMANN, PRESSURE

CLEANING SERVICES, INC., a Florida

corporation, SECOND HOUSING

CORPORATION ET AL., SUGAR PINES

HOMEOWNER'’S ASSOCIATION, and/or

SUGAR PINES, INC., all Florida

corporations,

Defendants.

SERVE ALSO: Jon L. Oswald as interested

owner and/or President of

Second Housing Corporation

et al., Sugar Pines

Homeowner’s Association,

and/or Sugar Pines, Inc. i

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND

(Filed Aug. 8, 2002)

Plaintiff moves to amend the complaint by adding (2)

two other defendants known under claim number: 59-

A132-353 for clarification of all parties and the following

paragraphs:

(5.)

(6.)

(12.)

App. 51

According to “Affidavit of Jon L. Oswald” in

paragraph #1. has Owner of Second Housing

Corporation as one company and also lists

Presidents of Sugar Pines Homeowners’ Asso-

ciation separately as other businesses.

According to photos taken, bushes were over-

grown which obstructed view of walkway and

other photos shows the isolating runoff sub-

stances deposited from the gutter downspout

resting on the walkway. This overextension is

an unsafe hazard! Definition of downspout is a

pipe that carries rain water from a roof to the

ground or to a sewer or drain (NOT WALK-

WAY). See attachment of copies of isolated in

reference to downspout for exhibits.

Plaintiff demands for interest from the date of

occurrence on all medical expenses arising from

on or about November 7, 1997. Plaintiff, also,

demands for medicare to be reimbursed and

Piaintiff to be reimbursed on medical expenses

that were paid out of both of our pockets. The

defendant(s) acted with actual malice action in

bad faith in not paying within the 60 day inter-

val or acted under circumstances amounting to

a willful and wanton disregard of the plaintiffs

rights. See exhibit of phone records taken by

Plaintiff on January 5, 1998 approximately

11:31 a.m. leaving message about insurance

from policy holder not paid on bills ... Bill of

$635.91, Bill of $175.00, Bill of $17.00. Re-

minder of in two days for 60 day liability will

show bad faith in not paying! Adjustor was

warned and therefore Plaintiff may assess pu-

nitive damages against the insurance from pol-

icy holder.

App. 52

(13.) Plaintiff shows that a reasonable basis for the

recovery of punitive damages is shown by evi-

dence obtained in

* * *

App. 53

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE 19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MARTIN

COUNTY, FLORIDA

CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO.: 01-937CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff,

EILEEN BUCHMANN, PRESSURE

CLEANING SERVICES, INC., a Florida

corporation, SECOND HOUSING

CORPORATION ET AL., SUGAR PINES

HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION, and/or

SUGAR PINES, INC., all Florida

corporations,

Defendants.

SERVE ALSO: Jon L. Oswald as interested

Owner and/or President of

Second Housing Corporation

et al., Sugar Pines

Homeowner's Association,

and/or Sugar Pines, Inc. F

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND

(Filed Aug. 20, 2002)

THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard upon the

Plaintiffs Motion To Amend as for plaintiff, DIANE

HOLBROOK, and the Court having heard and having

reviewed the Order submitted by plaintiff and in all other

respects having been fully advised in the premises, it is

App. 54

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. granted

DONE AND ORDERED in Stuart, Martin County,

Florida this 20th day of August, 2002

/s/ Ben L. Bryan, Jr.

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, Rogers, Dowling & Coleman, P.A.

Post Office Box 3427

Orlando, FL 32802-3427

Alan C. Espy, Esquire

3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 630

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Edwin E. Mortell, III, Esquire, Peterson, Bernard,

Vandenberg, Zei, Geisler & Martin, P.A.

301 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200

Stuart, FL 34994

Diane L. Holbrook

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

App. 55

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE 19TH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR

MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NUMBER: 01-937 CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff,

EILEEN BUCHMANN, PRESSURE

CLEANING SERVICES, INC., a Florida

corporation, SECOND HOUSING

CORPORATION, a Florida corporation,

Defendants.

ORDER ON DEFENDANT, SECOND

HOUSING CORPORATION’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Filed Sep. 4, 2002)

THIS MATTER having come before the Court this 4th

day of September, 2002, upon the Motion for Summary

Judgment filed by Defendant, SECOND HOUSING

CORPORATION, and the Court, having heard argument

of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the facts

and premises, it is hereby;

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion be, and

the same is hereby GRANTED/DEN#ESD.

App. 56

DONE AND ORDERED this 4 day of September,

2002, at Stuart, Martin County, Florida.

/s/ Ben L. Bryan, Jr.

HONORABLE BEN L. BRYAN

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Copies to:

Diane Holbrook, Pro Se Plaintiff, P.O. Box 1512, Hobe

Sound, FL 33455

Alan C. Espy, Esquire, 3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 630,

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33401

Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, ROGERS, DOWLING & COLE-

MAN, P.A., P.O. Box 3427, Orlando, FL 32802

Edwin E. Mortell, III, Esquire, Peterson, Bernard, et al.

301 East Ocean Boulevard, #200, Stuart, FL 34994

App. 57

CASE NUMBER: 01-937CA

DATE: 8/20/2002

TIME: 8:45

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDI-

CIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY,

STATE OF FLORIDA, CONVENED WITH JUDGE BEN

L. BRYAN, JR. PRESIDING.

(Filed Aug. 20, 2002)

OTHER COURT OFFICIAL PRESENT WERE:

PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY: Diane L. Holbrook — pro se

DEFENDANT ATTORNEY: 2nd Housing

DEPUTY CLERK: CAROL JETER/SHERRY LEWIS

COURT REPORTER/FIRM:

BAILIFF: BOB WILLMARTH

COURT WAS OPENED BY PROCLAMATION OF THE

BAILIFF AND THE FOLLOWING CAME BEFORE THE

COURT FOR MARTIN COUNTY

STYLE OF CASE: Diane L. Holbrook

| Eileen Buchmann, et al

ACTION TAKEN: PI’s Request to Produce For Inspection

and Copying: Will produce Minutes

[Dfs] Motion for Summary Judgment:

App. 58

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE 19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MARTIN

COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 01-937CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EILEEN BUCHMANN, Defendants

SERVE ALSO:

First Floridian Insurance Company

Claims Department (as THE Carrier)

1000 Legion Place and/or P.O. Box 30180

Y P. O. Box 4962 Tampa, FL 33630-3180

Orlando, FL 32802-4962 Attn: Mr. Randy Greer

Insurance Adjuster Tina M. Boskovich

PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC.,

a Florida corporation, Defendants

SERVE ALSO:

SAFECO Property & Casualty Insurance Companies

American States (as THE Carrier)

Maitland Claims Office Mailing address:

2201 Lucien Way Suite 300 14286-19 Beach Blvd. #343

Maitland, FL 32250 Jacksonville, FL 32250 -

Attn: Stephen M. Ruling

SECOND HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL. or

SUGAR PINES HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION and/or

SUGAR PINES, INC., all Florida corporations, Defendants.

SERVE ALSO:

Jon L. Oswald as interested owner and/or President

of Second Housing Corporation et al. or Sugar Pines

Homeowner’s Association or Sugar Pines, Inc.

App. 59

SERVE ALSO:

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Claims Department (as THE Carrier)

1811 South 25th Street

Fort Pierce, FL 34947-4783

' Insurance Adjuster Mr. Sam Cartwright

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

(Filed Sep. 16, 2002)

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

by and through undersigned in propria persona, and

moves this Court for the entry of a default by the Clerk

against the Defendant, EILEEN BUCHMANN, for failure

to serve any papers on the undersigned or file any papers

as required by law.

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

Phone: (772) 545-9793

In propria persena for

Plaintiff

DEFAULT

A default is entered in this action against the defen-

dant named in the foregoing motion for failure to serve or

file any papers required by law.

App. 60

DATED on this 16th day of September, 2002.

(Name of Clerk)

As Clerk of the Court

As Deputy Clerk

cc: Diane L. Holbrook, P. O. Box 1512, Hobe Sound, F'L

33475-1512

cc: Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, Rogers, Dowling & Coleman,

P.A., Post Office Box 3427, Orlando, FL 32802-3427

cc: Edwin E. Mortell, III, Esquire, Peterson, Bernard,

Vandenberg, Zei, Geisler & Martin, P.A.,

301 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 200, Stuart, FL 34994

cc: Alan C. Espy, Esquire, 3300 PGA Blvd., Suite 630,

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

App. 61

IN THE CIRCUI™ COURT OF

THE 19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MARTIN

COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 01-937CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EILEEN BUCHMANN, Defendants

SERVE ALSO:

First Floridian Insurance Company

Claims Department (as THE Carrier)

1000 Legion Place and/or P.O. Box 30180

P. O. Box 4962 Tampa, FL 33630-3180

Orlando, FL 32802-4962 Attn: Mr. Randy Greer

Insurance Adjuster Tina M. Boskovich

PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC.,

a Florida corporation, Defendants

SERVE ALSO:

SAFECO Property & Casualty Insurance Compe ues

| American States (as THE Carrier)

| Maitland Claims Office Mailing address:

| 2201 Lucien Way Suite 300 14286-19 Beach Blvd. #343

Maitland, FL 32250 Jacksonville, FL 32250

Attn: Stephen M. Ruling

SECOND HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL. or

SUGAR PINES HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION and/or

SUGAR PINES, INC., all Florida corporations, Defendants.

SERVE ALSO:

: Jon L. Oswald as interested owner and/or President

of Second Housing Corporation et al. or Sugar Pines

Homeowner’s Association or Sugar Pines, Inc.

App. 62

SERVE ALSO:

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Claims Department (as THE Carrier)

1811 South 25th Street

Fort Pierce, FL 34947-4783

Insurance Adjuster Mr. Sam Cartwright

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

(Filed Sep. 16, 2002)

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

by and through undersigned in propria persona, and

moves this Court for the entry of a default by the Clerk

against the Defendant, SUGAR PINES HOMEOWNER'S

ASSOCIATION and/or SUGAR PINES, INC., all Florida

corporations, for failure to serve any papers on the under-

signed or file any papers as required by law.

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

Phone: (772) 545-9793

In propria persona for

Plaintiff

DEFAULT

A default is entered in this action against the defen-

dant named in the foregoing motion for failure to serve or

file any papers required by law.

cc:

App. 63

DATED on this 16th day of September, 2002.

(Name of Clerk)

As Clerk cf the Court

As-Deputy Clerk

Diane L. Holbrook, P. O. Box 1512, Hobe Sound, FL

33475-1512

Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, Rogers, Dowling & Coleman,

P.A., Post Office Box 3427, Orlando, FL 32802-3427

Edwin E. Mortell, III, Esquire, Peterson, Bernard,

Vandenberg, Zei, Geisler & Martin, P.A.,

301 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 200, Stuart, FL 34994

Alan C. Espy, Esquire, 3300 PGA Blvd., Suite 630,

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

App. 64

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE 19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MARTIN

COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 01-937CA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff,

EILEEN BUCHMANN, Defendants

SERVE ALSO:

First Floridian Insurance Company

Claims Department (as THE Carrier)

1000 Legion Place and/or P.O. Box 30180

P. O. Box 4962 Tampa, FL 33630-3180

Orlando, FL 32802-4962 Attn: Mr. Randy Greer

Insurance Adjuster Tina M. Boskovich

PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, Inc.,

a Florida corporation, Defendants

SERVE ALSO:

SAFECO Property & Casualty Insurance Companies

American States (as THE Carrier)

Maitland Claims Office Mailing address:

2201 Lucien Way Suite 300 14286-19 Beach Blvd. #343

Maitland, FL 32250 Jacksonville, FL 32250

Attn: Stephen M. Ruling

SECOND HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL. or

SUGAR PINES HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION and/or

SUGAR PINES, INC., all Florida corporations, Defendants.

SERVE ALSO:

Jon L. Oswald as interested owner and/or President

of Second Housing Corporation et al. or Sugar Pines

Homeowner’s Association or Sugar Pines, Inc.

App. 65

SERVE ALSO:

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Claims Department (as THE Carrier)

1811 South 25th Street

Fort Pierce, FL 34947-4783

Insurance Adjuster Mr. Sam Cartwright

AFFIDAVIT — IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

ENTRY OF DEFAULT — FAILURE TO PLEAD

OR OTHERWISE DEFEND AS PROVIDED BY

RULES OR APPLICABLE STATUTE OR

ORDER OF COURT (RCP 1.140(a)(3))

(Filed Sep. 16, 2002)

I, Diane L. Holbrook, being first sworn, depose and

state:

1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action.

2. On August 20th, 2002, Plaintiffs Motion to

Amend Complaint was Granted by this Court for within 10

days as provided by Rules of Civil Procedure 1.140(a)(3) to

Amend Complaint.

3. On August 27th, 2002, Plaintiff filed and certified

U. S. Mail to Defendants being within 10 days after notice

of the court’s Order. Original filed in the court on August

27th, 2002. Copies of the amended complaint were mailed

out the same day.

4. Time for Defendants to plead or otherwise defend,

as provided by Rules of Civil Procedure 1.140(a)(3) has

expired, and Defendants have not done so, in that more

than ten (10) days have elapsed since furnished to all

of the Defendants, no pleading or otherwise defend [was

delivered] with the exception of PRESSURE CLEANING

SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation has been received

App. 66

by the undersigned Plaintiff, and no pleading or otherwise

defend [was received into Court] with the exception of

PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC., a Florida

corporation was filed with the Clerk of the Court.

5. The default of Defendants, EILEEN BUCHMANN

and also SUGAR PINES HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIA-

TION and/or SUGAR PINES, INC. on the claim as

charged in the amended complaint should be entered.

Dated on this 14th day of September, 2002.

Diane L. Holbrook

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

Phone: (772) 545-9793

Plaintiff/In propria persona

I CERTIFY, that a copy of this Affidavit — in support

of Motion for entry of Default — Failure to plead or other-

wise defend as provided by rules or applicable statute or

order of court (RCP 1.140(a)(3)) has been furnished via

certified U.S. Mail to: Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, Rogers,

Dowling & Coleman, P.A., Post Office Box 3427, Orlando,

FL 32802-3427; Alan C. Espy, Esquire, 3300 PGA Blvd.,

Suite 630, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410; Edwin E.

Mortell, III, Esquire, Peterson, Bernard, Vandenberg, Zei,

Geisler & Martin, P.A., 301 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 200,

Stuart, FL 34994 on this 14th day of September, 2002.

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook :

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

Phone: (772) 545-9793

Plaintiff/In propria persona

;

op,

‘©:

ast

App. 67

Rule 1.140. Defenses

(a) When Presented.

* * *

(3) If the court permits or requires an amended or

responsive pleading or a more definite statement, the

pleading or statement shall be served within 10 days after

notice of the court’s action. Responses to the pleadings or

statements shall be served within 10 days of service of the

pleadings or statements.

* * *

App. 68

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE 19TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MARTIN

COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 01-937CA

4th DCA CASE NO.: 4D03-187

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EILEEN BUCHMANN,

SERVE ALSO:

First Floridian Insurance Company

Claims Department (as THE Carrier);

PRESSURE CLEANING SERVICES, INC.,

a Florida corporation,

SERVE ALSO:

SAFECO Property & Casualty Insurance Companies

American States (as THE Carrier);

SECOND HOUSING CORPORATION ET AL. or

SUGAR PINES HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION and/or

SUGAR PINES, INC., all Florida corporations,

SERVE ALSO:

JON L. OSWALD as REGISTERED AGENT,

Jon L. Oswald as interested owner and/or President

of Second Housing Corporation Et Al. or Sugar Pines

Homeowner’s Association or Sugar Pines, Inc.

SERVE ALSO:

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

‘Claims Department (as THE Carrier),

Defendants.

App. 69

ORDER VACATING FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITH PREJUDICE and ORDER VACATING ORDER

OF SECOND HOUSING CORPORATION (ET AL.)’S

SUMMARY JUDGMENT and ORDER GRANTING

FINAL ORDER OF FINAL JUDGMENT IN FULL

FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF WITH PREJUDICE

This matter was mistakenly previously dismissed by

the Court with prejudice. Under Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 1.540(b)(1) allows such Orders to be Reversed.

Motion For Rehearing subsequently taken and served

upon Defendants and filed before time has expired on

Monday, December 22nd, 2003 statute of limitations for

mailing and filing at the Court.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Orders of

Final Order of Dismissal with Prejudice is Vacated and

Order of Second Housing Corporation (ET AL.)’s Summary

Judgment is Vacated for the reasons previously set forth

in this Court’s Motion For Rehearing as well as for the

reasons set forth in plaintiffs Affidavit of Diane L. Hol-

brook in Support of Final Order of Final Judgment in

Favor of the Plaintiff with Prejudice.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this matter is

GRANTED Final Order of Final Judgment in Full Favor

Of Plaintiff With Prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at __, __,

Florida this __ day of ___, 200_.

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

App. 70

Copies furnished to:

Alan Clayton Espy, Esquire, 3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite

630, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410

Daniel F. Dill, Esquire, ROGERS, COLEMAN, PENDAS,

KNAPP & DILL, P.A., Post Office Box 3427,

Orlando, Florida 32802-3427

Elizabeth A. Metzger, Esquire/Edwin E. Mortell, III,

Esquire, PETERSON, BERNARD, VANDEN-

BERG, ZEI, GEISLER & MARTIN, P.A., 301

E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 200, Stuart, Florida

34994

Diran V. Seropian, Esquire, PETERSON, BERNARD,

VANDENBERG, ZEI, GEISLER & MARTIN,

P.A., Post Office Drawer 15700, West Palm

Beach, Florida 33406

Diane L. Holbrook, Post Office Box 1512, Hobe Sound,

Florida 33475-1512

App. 71

(ORDER LIST: 540 U.S.)

U.S. Supreme Court

MONDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2003

* * *

REHEARING DENIED

* * *

02-1613 HOLBROOK, DIANE L. V. ALLIED VAN LINE,

INC.

App. 72

Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

William K. Suter

Clerk of the Court

(202) 479-3011

October 6, 2003

Ms. Diane L. Holbrook

PO Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

Re: Diane L. Holbrook

v. Allied Van Line, Inc.

No. 02-1613

Dear Ms. Holbrook:

The Court today entered the following order in the

above entitled case:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Sincerely,

/s/ William K. Suter

William K. Suter, Clerk

App. 73

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20543

October 1, 2001

Ms. Diane L. Holbrook

PO Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

Re: Diane L. Holbrook

v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

No. 01-31

Dear Ms. Holbrook:

The Court today entered the following order in the

above entitled case:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Sincerely,

/s/ William K. Suter

William K. Suter, Clerk

App. 74

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20543

December 3, 2001

Ms. Diane L. Holbrook

PO Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

Re: Diane L. Holbrook

y. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

No. 01-31

Dear Ms. Holbrook:

The Court today entered the following order in the

above entitled case:

The petition for rehearing is denied.

Sincerely,

/s/ William K. Suter

William K. Suter, Clerk

App. 75

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

Case No.: 01-14198-CV-MOORE

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff

VS.

ALLIED VAN LINES, INC.

a FOREIGN CORPORATION,

Defendant /

AFFIDAVIT OF DIANE HOLBROOK

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR FINAL JUDGMENT IN FULL

(Filed Feb. 26, 2002)

UPON being duly sworn, deposes and states:

1. Plaintiff Diane L. Holbrook did not have Home-

owner’s Insurance in fall of 1996.

2 Plaintiff Diane L. Holbrook did not have Rental

Insurance in fall of 1996.

This covers the time period of Allied Van Lines, Inc.

a Foreign Corporation’s move [me /s/DLH] to Florida in

fall of 1996.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

P.O. Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone: 1 (772) 545-9793

App. 76

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a true and correct

copy of the foregoing has been furnished via FAX to

Defendant per request and United States Mail to: Gilda

M. Chavez, Esquire, 1700 Miami Center, 201 S. Bis-

cayne Blvd., Miami, Florida 33131 on this the 26th day

of February, 2002.

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

Case No.: 01-14198-CV-MOORE

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff

Vs. i

ALLIED VAN LINES, INC.

a FOREIGN CORPORATION,

Defendant /

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned

matter of all Clerical Mistakes on all records tc be

corrected pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

Dated:

United States Judge

as war

4 te atebnlll

App. 77

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 01-14198-CIV-MOORE/LYNCH

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff,

ALLIED VAN LINES, INC.,

Defendant. /

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION [D.E. #31]

(Filed Mar. 20, 2002)

THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard upon the

aforementioned motion and this Court having reviewed

the motion, makes the following findings:

1. The Plaintiffs Motion for Clarification is more

in the nature of an objection which should be properly

titled an objection and directed to the District Court for

review of this Court’s previous orders. If the time has

expired for the filing of an objection in regards to any

prior orders or reports and recommendations issued by

this Court or if the District Court has already entered

orders adopting and approving any such orders and/or

reports and recommendations, then any objection/appeal

of those to the District Court would not be available to

the Plaintiff. However, any orders and/or reports and

recommendations which have not yet been adopted or

approved by the District Court and regarding which the

time for the filing of objections has not expired, can be

“objected to” by the pro se Plaintiff by the filing of

App. 78

objections with the District Court for review. This is in

the nature of an appeal of this Court’s orders to the

District Court and the District Court will then make a

determination based upon those objections, if any.

2. The Plaintiff also objects that she did not agree

to have this Court enter any orders concerning her

Motion For All Clerical Mistakes To Be Corrected or on

Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment. However,

consent of the parties is not required for orders and

reports and recommendations on motions specifically

referred by the District Court. There is an Order of

Referral from Judge Moore in this case for all pretrial

matters and that is why this Court ruled on pending

motions and issued orders and/or reports and recom-

mendations as were deemed appropriate.

3. This Court believes that its previous orders

sufficiently state the reasons why the Plaintiffs position

was not sustainable in this case. This Court is not going

to reiterate those reasons at this point. Since this Court

has already ruled on the Motion For Summary Judg-

ment and motions relating thereto, this Court denied

the Plaintiffs Motion For All Clerical Mistakes To Be

Corrected. Additionally, this Court did not find any

basis for awarding that relief as requested by the Plain-

tiff.

It is therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff's

Motion For Clarification [D.E. #31] is DENIED.

App. 79

DONE AND ORDERED this 20 day of March,

2002, at Fort Pierce, Northern Division of the Southern

District of Florida.

/s/ Frank J. Lynch, Jr.

FRANK J. LYNCH, JR.

UNITED STATES

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished:

Hon. K. Michael Moore

—_——_—

Diane L. Holbrook, pro se

P.O. Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475

Gilda M. Chavez-Hernandez, Esq.

201 South Biscayne Boulevard

Suite 1700

Miami, FL 33131

DOMBROFF & GILMORE [STAMP]

1700 MIAMI CENTER ®

201 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULEVARD

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131

Diane L. Holbrook

P.O. Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

App. 80

CLOSED CIVIL CASE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FT. PIERCE DIVISION

DIANE L. HOLBROOK, Case No. 01-14198-CIV-

fo MOORE/LYNCH

Plaintiff,

VS.

ALLIED VAN LINES, INC.,

Defendant. /

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(Filed Mar. 27, 2002)

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defen-

dant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (DE #13).

THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Frank

J. Lynch, United States Magistrate Judge. A Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge dated February

27, 2002 has been filed recommending that Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. On March

11, 2002, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification and a

Notice of Filing, both of which this Court will construe

as objections to the Report and Recommendation.

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Report and Rec-

ommendation, and after a de novo review of the record

herein, the Court enters the following order ADOPTING

the port and Recommendation in full, and entering

summary judgment against Plaintiff.

App. 81

A. Discussion

I. Common Law Claims

Magistrate Judge Lynch recommended that summary

judgment be entered against Plaintiff on her common law

claims, because the claims are preempted by the Carmack

Amendment. Plaintiff's objections do not directly address

this conclusion, and the Court agrees that the common law

claims are preempted. Therefore, this Court will enter

summary judgment against Plaintiff with respect to her

common law claims.

Il. Carmack Amendment Claim

Magistrate Judge Lynch recommended that summary

judgment be entered against Plaintiff on her Carmack

Amendment claim because she failed to show that she

filed a proper notice of claim with Defendant, in compli-

ance with 49 U.S.C. § 14706(e). He further found that the

statute of limitations for the claim had expired.

In her Motion for Clarification, Plaintiff contests

Defendant’s Affidavit stating that Defendan: had no notice

of the claim. However, Plaintiff again fails to substantiate

her assertion that she gave Defendant proper notice of her

claim. The exhibits attached to her Notice of Filing do not

in any way lend support to her assertion. The exhibits are:

(1) two documents entitled “ESTIMATED COSTS OF

SERVICES”; (2) a document entitled “ALLIED VAN

LINES BILL OF LADING & FREIGHT BILL”; (3) a

document entitled “INTERSTATE AUTOMATED SCALE

SYSTEMS”: (4) a list designated “THESE ITEMS ARE

INCLUDED IN THE SINGLE FACTOR CHARGES”; and

(5) a document entitled “LOCAL MOVING PROPOSAL.”

Clearly, none of these documents constitute proper notice

App. 82

under the Carmack Amendment. See 49 U.S.C. § 14706(e).

Therefore, this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Lynch

that Plaintiff has failed to offer evidence capable of show-

ing that she complied with the necessary pre-suit re-

quirements, and will enter summary judgment against

Plaintiff on this claim.

III. Other Objections by Plaintiff

Plaintiff also contends that the entry of summary

judgment against her is not appropriate because this

Court lacks jurisdiction over the action, which was re-

moved to this Court by Defendant. Plaintiff reasons that

the amount in controversy does not exceed $15,000.

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 provides:

The district courts shall have original jurisdic-

tion of any civil action or proceeding arising un-

der any Act of Congréss regulating commerce or

protecting trade and commerce against restraints

and monopolies: Provided, however, That the dis-

trict courts shall have original jurisdiction of an

action brought under section 11706 or 14706 of

title 49, only if the matter in controversy for each

receipt or bill of lading exceeds $10,000, exclu-

sive of interest and costs.

Because Plaintiff seeks $15,000 in damages, this Court

has subject matter jurisdiction.

In addition, Plaintiff contends that a demand of

$0,000. “shown on the screen at the Courthouse.” is a

clerical error, and should be corrected pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(a). Because Magistrate Judge Lynch’s Report

and Recommendation was not based on this clerical error,

this objection is inapposite.

App. 83

B. Conclusion

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, and after a de

novo review of the record herein, and being otherwise fully

advised in the premises, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that United States

Magistrate Judge Lynch’s Report and Recommendation

be, and the same is, hereby ADOPTED in its entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, and based thereon, that

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (DE # 13) is

GRANTED.

This case is CLOSED. All pending motions not other-

wise ruled upon are DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami,

Florida, this 27th day of March, 2002.

/s/ K. M. Moore

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES

DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided:

United States Magistrate Judge Frank J. Lynch

Diane L. Holbrook, Pro Se

PO Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

Gilda M. Chavez, Esq.

App. 84

Diane L. Holbrook

P.O. Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

February 12, 2003

RE: 02-12030-FF Diane L. Holbrook v. Allied Van Lines

DC DKT NO.: 01-14198 CV-KMM

TO:

CC:

Clarence Maddox

Diane L. Holbrook

Gilda M. Chavez

Hon. Frank J. Lynch Jr.

Administrative File

[Notice that the ASSIGNED United States

District Court Judge K. Michael Moore is not

listed to receive a copy of the decision from the

Court Of Appeals!]

aaa els ihe aah ais ca RS I ea bar ERR LVS :

App. 85

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-12030-FF

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ALLIED VAN LINES, INC.,

a foreign corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Florida

(Filed Feb. 12, 2003)

ORDER:

(“~) The motion of Appellant, Diane L. Holbrook, for (X)

stay of the issuance of the mandate pending petition

for writ of certiorari is DENIED.

( ) The motion of Appellant, Diane L. Holbrook, for (X)

stay of the issuance of the mandate pending petition

for writ of certiorari is GRANTED to and including

May 5, 2003, the stay to continue in force until the

final disposition of the case by the Supreme Court,

provided that within the period above mentioned

there shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court the

certificate of the Clerk of the Supreme Court that

App. 86

the certiorari petition has been filed. The Clerk

shall issue the mandate upon the filing of a copy of

an order of the Supreme Court denying the writ, or

upon expiration of the stay granted herein, unless

the above mentioned certificate shall be filed with

the Clerk of this Court within that time.

/s/ Stanley F. Birch

UNITED STATES

CIRCUIT JUDGE

Ord-45

App. 87

WAIVER

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Supreme Court Case No. 02-1613

DIANE L. HOLBROOK v. ALLIED VAN LINES, INC.

a foreign corporation

(Petitioner) (Respondent)

I DO NOT INTEND TO FILE A RESPONSE to the peti-

tion for a writ of certiorari unless one is requested by the

Court.

Please check one of the following boxes:

& Please enter my appearance as Counsel of Record

for all respondents.

O There are multiple respondents, and I do not

represent all respondents. Please enter my ap-

pearance as Counsel of Record for the following

respondent(s):

I certify that I am a member of the Bar of the Supreme

Court of the United States (Please explain if your name

- has changed since your admission):

Signature Gilda M. Chavez

Application for admission is

Date: 6/3/03 filed concurrently herewith.

(Type or print) Name Gilda M. Chavez

O Mr. & Ms. O Mrs. OU Miss

Firm Dombroff & Gilmore, P.C.

Address 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1050

City & State Miami, FL Zip 33182

Phone 305-670-4843

App. 88

A COPY OF THIS FORM MUST BE SENT TO PETI-

TIONER’S COUNSEL OR TO PETITIONER IF PRO SE.

PLEASE INDICATE BELOW THE NAME(S) OF THE

RECIPIENT(S) OF A COPY OF THIS FORM. NO ADDI-

TIONAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS REQUIRED.

SEE REVERSE FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING

THE STATUS OF A CASE ON THE DOCKET.

CC:

App. 89

800 GRAVES MILL ROAD « P.O. BOX 10669 ¢

LYNCHBURG, VA 24506-0669

HOME OFFICE: COLUMBUS, OHIO

[LOGO] NATIONWIDE

INSURANCE

Nationwide is on your side

July 11, 1994

Ms. Diane Holbrook

Rt 2, Box 191

Bealeton, VA 22712

Policy: 53MP 162-847

Dear Ms. Holbrook:

We regret we will be unable to renew your insurance

policy.

This is required notice, then, your policy is nonrenewed at

12:01 a.m. 9/3/94.

We are unable to renew your protection because of a

frequency of claims dated 2/11/94, 1/23/94, 1/15/94, and

11/19/91.

This advance notice should provide sufficient time to

secure other coverage. Insurance companies sponsor the

Virginia Property Insurance Association and you may

apply for insurance under this plan. Any agent or broker

can assist.

Because of the importance of this protection, we urge you

to make other arrangements promptly.

Sincerely,

/s/ M. Turner

App. 90

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

NATIONWIDE PROPERTY-CASUALTY INSURANCE

COMPANY

(804) 237-7200

CW/b/MAT/vh/v256a/MA0611 45-11746

SPECIAL NOTICE:

Virginia Insurance Law provides that you may have your

cancellation reviewed by the Commissioner of Insurance.

Such request must be in writing to the Commissioner of

Insurance, P O Box 1157, Richmond, Virginia 23209 and

must be made within 10 days of the receipt of the enclosed

notice.

SEE SECOND PAGE FOR IMPORTANT NOTICE TO

VIRGINIA POLICYHOLDERS.

Re sated tect RR UE a let tite Tne oF ax eee Oy ct Nea es Sa .

ae arash eet RR ia ta taa te Teen Nida ead RBS Na eet oe Se a Ses pale

App. 91

DEPOSITION

EXHIBIT

Holbrook #1

800 GRAVES MILL ROAD « P.O. BOX 10669 ¢

LYNCHBURG, VA 24506-0669

HOME OFFICE: COLUMBUS, OHIO

[LOGO] NATIONWIDE

INSURANCE

Nationwide is on your side

February 24, 1995

Diane Holbrook

13231 Marsh Road

Bealeton, VA 22712-9312

Policy: 53PU 003-798

Dear Ms. Holbrook:

We regret we will be unable to continue your Personal

Umbrella Liability Policy. This is notice, then, your policy

is cancelled effective 12:01 a.m. 4/20/95.

The reason for the termination is because not all liability

limits are currently insured with Nationwide. This is a

minimum requirement for a Personal Umbrella policy.

This advance notice should provide sufficient time to make

other arrangements.

Sincerely,

/s/ M. Turner

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

- (804) 237-7200

BF/MAT/vh/V278/FA028 45-11746

App. 92

(An agent for Prudential was charged with misleading an

Alabama couple about their policy. Their alleged loss:

perhaps as much as $30,000. Yet the couple won $430,000

in compensatory damages. Punitive damages: $25 million.

The case was settled in October for an undisclosed sum.

Mrs. Holbrook’s comments — When I received this letter, it

took me awhile to know what they were talking about. See

highlight in Personal Umbrella Policy. Also, see law in the

books about misleading agent. This was published in

Business Week Nov. 28, 1994.]

App. 93

COPY OF TRANSCRIPT

VIRGINIA:

In the Circuit Court for Fauquier County

Diane L. Holbrook,

Plaintiff,

At Law No. CL97000250-00

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company,

Defendant.

Vv.

CONDENSED TRANSCRIPT

The Hearing held in the above-styled matter in the

Circuit Court for Fauquier County, in the Courthouse

thereof, Warrenton, Virginia, before the Honorable James

H. Chamblin, Judge of said Court, on the 18th day of

September, 1998, beginning at 9:15 a.m.

APPEARANCES

On Behalf of the Plaintiff:

Diane L. Holbrook, Pro se

On Behalf of the Defendant:

Lowry Jock Miller, Esquire

MILLER, MILLER, KEARNEY & GESCHICKTER,

L.L.P.

County Court Reporters, Inc.

[1] HEARING

THE BAILIFF: All rise. Court’s now in session.

: The Honorable Judge James H. Chamblin ee Be

seated and come to order, please.

App. 94

THE CLERK: Case with Diane L. Holbrook

versus Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. Ms.

Holbrook appearing pro se. Mr. Miller for the Defendant.

Court Reporter has been sworn.

THE COURT: Good morning, everybody.

MR. MILLER: Good morning.

MS. HOLBROOK: Good morning.

THE COURT: I need to, before we start this

trial, to disclose to you that I am insured by Nationwide,

the Defendant in this case, both my homeowners and my

automobile insurance.

MS. HOLBROOK: Have you ever had a claim

before?

THE COURT: We have something pending with

them now because my wife, about a month ago, backed out

of our driveway and hit a car across the street.

MS. HOLBROOK: Have they taken care of it in

any way, shape, or form?

[2] THE COURT: The car has been repaired.

That’s all we really know, so I figure Nationwide took care

of it.

MS. HOLBROOK: Is there another Judge then?

THE COURT: Not right now, no, ma’am.

MS. HOLBROOK: Would there be a continuance

for later on? Plus I have a diversity of citizenship. I mean,

I have this law right here. (WHEREUPON, the Court

reviewed the document.)

App. 95

THE COURT: Ma’am, I understand what you

are doing here. Let’s put this to the side for a minute. The

issue right now is whether or not there is any objection to

my presiding over this case. Ms. Holbrook?

MS. HOLBROOK: There may be a conflict of

interest. Because you may be partial to the company as

opposed to someone that is going through the system and

did not recover anything. So there may be. You know.

THE COURT: Are you asking me to disqualify

myself in this case?

MR. MILLER: Could I say something, Your

Honor. Keep in mind, you did not want [3] Judge Robert-

son. You filed two or three times for him to recuse himself.

MS. HOLBROOK: Yes.

MR. MILLER: This is an entirely different

Judge. This Judge happens to be insured,so .. .

MS. HOLBROOK: Is you being insured with

this company going to have any effect in any way, shape,

or form on your judgments of any kind?

THE COURT: I don’t think so. No, ma’am. I just

feel like it is something that I should bring to the attention

of the parties in this case. Because I think both parties

should know that.

MS. HOLBROOK: So you're being open and, I

mean, if you found evidence, you are not going to turn

around and avoid the law or do anything different. You're

going to be fair with me, personally.

App. 96

THE COURT: Yes, ma’am. I just feel like it’s

fair disclosure. It’s something that probably the Defen-

dant, Nationwide, would have more access to the informa-

tion than you would. But maybe ultimately you could find

out. I felt like I should bring it to your attention. Every-

body has to have insurance. I just happen to have chosen

Nationwide, not because of the company but because of the

local agent. And this is [4] in Leesburg, not here in War-

ren. [Warrenton]

MS. HOLBROOK: So it would be a different

agent?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. HOLBROOK: So, different practices of a

different agent?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. MILLER: So you sort of have to tell him

whether you agree or disagree with him being the judge

today.

MS. HOLBROOK: Gosh. It kind of shocks my

nerves that he’s got policies with the ... my question is, I

have got a law and it has to do with the District Court and

it states diversity of citizenship. So shouldn’t this go to

Federal Court as opposed to being in this Court, being

transferred to Federal Court where it belongs?

THE COURT: Are you making a motion to

transfer this case to a Federal Court?

MS. HOLBROOK: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Do I understand ... I looked at

the file when I was over here on Wednesday, have you

App. 97

filed a suit against Nationwide on the same matters in the

Southern District of Florida, Federal U.S. District Court?

[5] MS. HOLBROOK: I filed for a transfer of this

case to The Florida.

MR. MILLER: Your Honor, we have investi-

gated that. She filled out a form which is a form that you

fill out in order to file a suit. She’s put that form in the file

and given it to us. We sent people down to that court to

find out if the suit has been filed and there has been no

suit filed. . .

MS. HOLBROOK: I object.

MR. MILLER: Pardon?

MS. HOLBROOK: I object.

MR. MILLER: Did you file a suit?

MS. HOLBROOK: Yes, sir.

MR. MILLER: Have you served it on anyone?

MS. HOLBROOK: I just did it on August 28th.

[Referring to filing]

MR. MILLER: We checked before then. I don’t

know about that.

THE COURT: Without any prejudice whatso-

ever to your decision, Miss Holbrook, as to how you feel

about me presiding in this case. It has always been my

consistent policy that when litigation is filed in the State

Court and in the Federal Court, and it involves the same

issues, the same problems, that the Plaintiff [6] has got to

App. 98

make a choice. You're not going to be able to litigate it in

both places.

MS. HOLBROOK: I permanently live in Florida,

and I prefer for it to be done in Florida. And I paid my

$150 for filing it for this case to be transferred from this

court to that court. I have a Judge whose name is Chief

Davis down in Miami, he’s the Chief Judge that’s put on to

the case.

MS. MILLER: Your Honor, I know nothing

about this case in Florida. However, I do know about

removal. There is no such thing as transfer. You may

remove to the Federal Court. This case has been going on

for over a year. It is way too late to remove, you must

remove forthwith upon filing, upon service, upon this kind

of a case. That in addition, this case, this Court has

jurisdiction of the parties, this case has been ... we've

been to court a lot of times, we have gone to the Supreme

Court of Virginia a number of times, the case is ready for

trial today. They haven’t even, to the best of my knowl-

edge, served the thing in Florida. And I don’t even know

what that suit says down there. . .

MS. HOLBROOK: They were served...

THE COURT: Ms. Holbrook, wait a [7] minute.

Let Mr. Miller finish. I'll certainly give you every opportu-

nity, but let him finish, please.

MR. MILLER: This Court does not have the

power, I don’t believe, to transfer a case to the Federal

Court. So a motion to you is not ... is a motion that you

don’t have the power to transfer it. Now, the Federal

Judge can allow or order it to be transferred, I believe

that’s the way it works. I’ve never gone to the State Court

aitineh icy igchinws Ro AR

Viksusney GSE Sie RBS She PRs teeth And

ey’)

App. 99

Judge and said can we transfer it to the Federal Court. We

go to the Federal Court and ask that it be removed to the

Federal Court. So I think any request by her to do this is

not within your jurisdiction to transfer to it, I think it is

up to the Federal Court to decide that. Now, so far as an

ongoing suit is concerned, I really don’t ... it’s not been

served. This case is ready to go. There can be concurrent

jurisdiction on matters in different states and different

courts that can be concurrent and whoever tries it first,

basically, that’s going to be the result of it. I have got a

Declaratory Judgment going right now in Arizona and

Culpepor at the same time. And I guess the way it’s going

to work is whoever reaches judgment first ... and there-

fore, I would oppose transferring this or delaying this case

at all.

THE COURT: Let’s get back to the [8] primary

issue, and that is whether or not there is any objection to

my presiding over this case.

MS. HOLBROOK: I feel nervous about it.

THE COURT: Are you asking me to disqualify

myself?

MS. HOLBROOK: I did put in... when I served

the papers on August 20th, I did notify Nationwide on

their served papers that the civil cover sheet, that it was

going to Federal Court, that it is being transferred to

Federal Court. So they have been notified of the change.

MR. MILLER: They haven’t got it to me. This is

in Florida and the 28th of August. . .

MS. HOLBROOK: Plus they have not answered

App. 100

THE COURT: Wait.

MS. HOLBROOK: Plus they have not answered

THE COURT: Excuse me, just a minute. Let’s

deal with the primary issue here. You are asking me to

make a decision as a Judge in this case. But the threshold

decision we’ve got to first make is whether or not I should

continue to preside over this case. I told you that I don’t

feel I would be unfair, I [9] want to know how you feel

about it, Miss Holbrook?

MS. HOLBROOK: Im nervous about it.

THE COURT: Do you wish for me to disqualify

myself?

MS. HOLBROOK: Not to disqualify.

THE COURT: All right, then we'll go on and

decide this issue that we are arguing right now. You heard

what Mr. Miller said, go ahead.

MS. HOLBROOK: These papers were not served

until August 20th, 1998.

MR. MILLER: These, the Florida papers?

MS. HOLBROOK: No, the one from this Court.

Because I requested not to have service at this time, back

MR. MILLER: This is a different issue than the

Federal Court.

MS. HOLBROOK: Back in December 29th of ’97:

IETS TR RRB REN aaa ie Re ys or aS eae SRS “iat ae hk) SONIA Re)

App. 101

THE COURT: One thing we're going to do is

we're going to argue one issue at a time. I think what you

were asking first is that this Court, the Circuit Court of

Fauquier County transfer this case to the Southern

District of Florida, U.S. District Court, [10] there. You are

arguing something else about this case, about service in

this case?

MS. HOLBROOK: Yes, sir. They have not

answered the service that was ... the service that was

served to them on August 20th, 1998 was not answered

within 21 days. So where is it, I wrote it down... .

MR. MILLER: Your Honor.

THE COURT: Perhaps, maybe this would be of

some help. Would you like to look at the Court file, the

return of service on the sheriff in Lynchburg. It appears to

me that what was served on August 20th was merely an

undated, quote, to whom it may concern letter with at-

tachment referred to therein. Would you all like to see the

Court file in return to the sheriff? You all can approach if

you'd like to take a look at it.

MS. HOLBROOK: What is this ... proof of

service. Yes, they were served on August 25th.

THE COURT: Is there a note?

MS. HOLBROOK: And they have not answered

in 21 days; that is correct, that’s what I’m saying. They

have not answered, so they have defaulted.

THE COURT: But look at what it [11] was

served, look what it says it was served upon.

App. 102

MR. MILLER: Among other things that was

served was an Amended Motion for Judgment which I filed

an answer to many months ago. And a, also. . .

MS. HOLBROOK: And a Motion in Limine.

[Should have (written and quoted) “And a Motion in

Limine” to be “And a Motion for Default” (lacked knowl-

edge of definition).]

THE COURT: It’s called Limine.

MS. HOLBROOK: Limine. My Motion in

Limine, I got to locate it to be able to read off of that to

you. The papers were served on the 20th. They’ve had 21

days to respond, there was no answer to it, so I [win]

automatically. I got it over there in that pile somewhere,

it’s just taking . . . I’m just nervous. That was on top of the

file.

THE COURT: I looked at the file when I was

over here on Wednesday and there was an Order that

allowed you leave to file an Amended Motion for Judg-

ment, which you did. And then there was an answer filed

to that Amended Motion for Judgment on January...

MS. HOLBROOK: Okay, the Orders I have been

signing as seen and objected to.

THE COURT: But the Order was entered and it

is an Order of this Court.

(12) MS. HOLBROOK: But, the Defendant

wasn’t served.

THE COURT: The Defendant is before the

Court. The purpose of the service is just to get the Defen-

dant before the Court. The Defendant was before the

App. 103

Court upon the service of the Original Motion for Judg-

ment.

MS. HOLBROOK: The Original Motion for

Judgment was on 96-17. It was not on 97-250.

MR. MILLER: Well, Your Honor, that case was

non-suited, the 96-17. This is. . .

THE CLERK: The computer shows that on

December the 9th, Plaintiff filed Amended Motion by

January the 5th, Amended Motion for Judgment was filed

on 12-29-97. And answer to the Amended Motion of the

Demurrer was filed on January the. . .

MR. MILLER: I can explain her problem, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. MILLER: Miss Holbrook has filed six or

seven lawsuits in this Courthouse and this has been going

on for about three years or four years. She filed another

suit... this suit, last year, probably

* * *

CIVIL REMEDIES AND PROCEDURE

§ 8.01-380

j Plaintiff has absolute right to one non-suit. — Under

: this section, a plaintiff has an absolute right to one nonsuit.

4 The election is his and if he insists upon taking the nonsuit

A within the limitations imposed by this section, neither the

trial court nor opposing counsel can prevent him from doing

so. Nash v. Jewell, 227 Va. 230, 315 S.E.2d 825 (1984).

* * *

App. 104

[19] on this list which you've just handed up. These other

items have all been taken out of this case. They are not a

part of this case.

MS. HOLBROOK: Until I have a final Order to

be able to re-introduce it because I did ask for a first time

non-suit and was not granted my first time non-suit on the

other three cases. There is a law, it’s called federal rules

CIVPROC Rule 12B6 28USCA. A motion to dismiss for

failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted.

Complaint must be read in light most favorable to Plaintiff

with every doubt resolved in Plaintiffs favor. Those ...

that law right there was disregarded in all three of those

cases.

THE COURT: But Ma’am, those decisions have

been made, and they are the law as far as this case is

concerned. I can’t change those.

MS. HOLBROOK: 8.01-380 entitles me to first

time non-suit. And I was disallowed, but I was allowed by

law.

THE COURT: That decision was made.

MR. MILLER: It was appealed to the Supreme

Court and denied, all of those.

MS. HOLBROOK: Because I did not have a

petition.

[20] THE COURT: That’s a final Judgment.

Miss Holbrook, would you like for me to stay this proceed-

ing in this Court and you can pursue it in Florida, in

Federal Court down in Miami or wherever you. .- .

App. 105

MS. HOLBROOK: If I could have a continuance

to where I’m able to get it transferred or removal from

[...] Federal Court in order to have it transferred down

there, I would love to have that. Just to have a continu-

ance in order for that to transpire.

THE COURT: Mr. Miller, I know you object.

MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I will say this, Your

Honor. That Judge Robertson over the years has been very

kind to this lady. These are the kind of motions he hears

Motion Day after Motion Day. He has not awarded us one

single dime of attorney’s fees in this case. Because she’s

pro se. Now, to allow her to go down to Florida and create

a disaster down there, like she has up here, it’s going to

cost my company thousands and thousands of dollars to

defend such a thing. And we’re going to have to... I know

she will proceed with it anyway, whether you stay it or

not, or whether there is a judgment here, she will proceed

with it. But she has probably filed a similar suit that she

[21] filed originally here down in Florida. Secondly, these

actions, this action occurred in Fauquier County. This is

her home, it was burglarized. All of the evidence is here,

the police department is here, the property is here, the

parties are here, everything is here. Now, to go to the state

of Florida because she moved down there for her conven-

ience means that we, and I’m an attorney who has been

dealing with this two or three years, am going to have to

retrain some lawyer down in Florida to do this whole case.

This is totally unfair to stay this matter at this time. This

case belongs here, it needs to be tried here, she’s going to

appeal it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court is

going to take whatever they want to do with it. And I

would like to have the hearing held, the trial held, and

let her do what she needs to do here. And she can do

App. 106

whatever she wants to down there, but I would like to get this

one over with. I think the Court has jurisdiction, the Court has

the parties for it, she’s ready to proceed and we ought to do it.

THE COURT: Whatis your...

MS. HOLBROOK: I do not feel that they have

_ it says law number 1332 [28 U.S.C.A. 1332] diversity

of citizenship. District Courts shall have original jurisdic-

tion of all civil cases where the matter being [22] contro-

verted exceeds a settlement or value of $50,000 excluding

of interest and costs and is between citizens of different

states in which the citizen or subject of foreign state are

additional parties. It also has one that says citizens of ...

there is four of them there. Nationwide is a foreign corpo-

ration. Statute 1332A3 clearly states that it should be in

the Federal Courts, not in the Circuit Courts. It is just a

matter of time before the whole thing is moved from here

and sent there. And I would like to have a continuance

until that has transpired because the Statute of Limita-

tions have already been met here as opposed to having

anything closed on it in case, because the Statute of

Limitations is over with otherwise, so I do get a fair trial.

[At this time, I did not know Federal Court had five year

Statute of Limitations and it was not over. I met their

Statute of Limitations.]

THE COURT: Are you saying you want to

pursue this in Florida?

MS. HOLBROOK: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Is that what you are saying?

MS. HOLBROOK: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: I know of no jurisdiction in

Florida that allows this Court to transfer to a Federal

App. 107

Court. However, since you have filed in a Federal Court, I

will stay this proceeding. There won’t be anything further

in this case.

[23] MS. HOLBROOK: There will be a continu-

ance until the papers have been transferred?

THE COURT: Everything is stayed, everything

in this case is just going to stop until somebody comes

back before the Court where the circumstances have

changed and asks this Court to do something.

MS. HOLBROOK: So it is like a continuance. In

other words, it’s held dormant and then if it’s conducted

down there, then that’s the final stage, and if it’s not

conducted down there because it doesn’t meet certain

requirements to be in Federal Court, then I can come back

here for a hearing to reopen it; right?

THE COURT: You can ask the court to go

forward, yes, ma’am.

MS. HOLBROOK: So it doesn’t close anything,

it just puts it in limbo.

THE COURT: If that’s the way you look at it,

yes, ma’am. Mr. Miller, [ll note your exception to the

Court’s ruling.

MR. MILLER: I’m quite sure we'll be back later

on. Your Honor, the. . .

MS. HOLBROOK: With all due respect, Your

Honor, I really appreciate your honesty, I appreciate it a

lot.

(24) THE COURT: Ma’am, I would encourage

you wholeheartedly to find an attorney. . .

App. 108

MS. HOLBROOK: That’s what I want to do. It’s

a lot easier where you live than it is sending packages out

out of state...

THE COURT: That’s one reason... if you are in

Florida, you might be nearer to attorneys. . .

MS. HOLBROOK: Walk in and out.

THE COURT: Go somewhere and get some help.

Believe me, Ma’am, you need it in this case to understand

what this case is all about and what’s occurred in the past.

Not even just in this case but in the other case.

MR. MILLER: Could we possibly make the Order up

today and get it signed by the parties and get it stayed here...

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

MR. MILLER: ...So that we don’t have to come

back to court again on this matter.

THE COURT: I want to tell the jury what hap-

pened so we can excuse them and after I do that if you all

will remain I will prepare the Order, get the Clerk to type it

up, and let you all look at it before I leave. How is that?

(WHEREUPON, the Hearing was concluded at 9:45 a.m.)

[I did not ask the Court to go forward. Lowry Miller did on

his own with a different Judge!]

[25] CAPTION

The Hearing in the matter, on the date, and at the

time and place set out on the title page hereof.

It was requested that the Hearing be taken by the

reporter and that same be reduced to typewritten form.

IE eee grt ee Oe Ie OS Re

App. 109

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA

AT RICHMOND

Record No.

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff,

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. a

MOTION FOR ACCELERATED RULING

ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

COMES NOW the defendant, Nationwide Mutual

Insurance Company, hereinafter “Nationwide,” by its

attorney, Lowry J. Miller, Esquire, upon its motion under

Rule 5:4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia for

an accelerated ruling on its motion to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction previously filed herein and states in support

thereof as follows:

1. Diane L. Holbrook, hereinafter “Holbrook,” is a

pro se plaintiff in a civil action which was filed in the

Circuit Court of Fauquier County. Holbrook, after several

adverse rulings, appeared in person before the Circuit

Court of Fauquier

App. 110

Diane L. Holbrook

P.O. Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone: 1 (561) 545-9793

President George W. Bush

Attn: Agency Liaison Room #592

The White House

Washington, D.C. 20502

Dear Chief of Commander:

Please have the right agency take care of these eight

pages. I’ve got in contact with the Better Business, Con-

sumer and Business, State Attorney Office, and even got a

criminal Case # from the Sheriff of Port Saint Lucie

County in Florida but the criminal case got closed because

the Sheriff says that this case is Civil not Criminal.

History with Better Business Bureau:

Unsatisfactory

November, 1998 Returned by P.O. undeliverable

History with Consumer and Business —

Mrs. Ellen Mancina

3 cases

1. Refund

2. 1997 —Misstermeter Filed

3. 1998-—No Results

The correct agency can call me the first week in May

unless our personnal appointment is then.

8 Documental Evidences Attach

App. 111

Sincerely and Respectfully Yours,

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Telephone: 1 (561) 545-9793

OFFICE OF THE

State Attorney

NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA

SERVING

INDIAN RIVER, MARTIN, OKEECHOBEE

AND ST. LUCIE COUNTIES

[SEAL] 415 South Second Street

Bruce H. Colton Fort Pierce, Florida 34950

State Attorney (561) 465-3000

Fax (561) 462-1218

March 16, 2000

Ms. Diane Holbrook

P.O. Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

Re: Scott A. Fagan

Dear Ms. Holbrook:

I have no way of assisting you obtain a refund from Mr.

Fagan, based upon the information you have presented

to this office. The problems with your case are as fol-

lows:

1. There is no adequate description reflected in a

contract of the services to be rendered by Mr. Fagan.

The word “Appeal,” written on the receipt, does not

provide enough information to substantiate a criminal

prosecution.

App. 112

2. The Consumer & Business Assistance Division

handles cases concerning on-going and existing compa-

nies. This unit does not practice in the area of criminal

law. As it appears Mr. Fagan is no longer doing busi-

ness, there is no viable action I can take in this matter.

3. A civil case or action would likely prove fruitless, as

there is no one to serve with a copy of the complaint.

Even if you won your case and received a judgment, how

would you collect your money?

The practicing of law without a license is a criminal

matter, but your complaint lacks sufficiency, in my legal

opinion, to support the filing of a criminal charge, even

if Mr. Fagan could be found. The proper steps to deter-

mine if a crime has occurred, is to file a complaint with

law enforcement, in this case, the St. Lucie County

Sheriffs Office. I am sorry I cannot assist you. By the

way, Mr. Fagan was arrested within the past several

years on a worthless check charge.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ellen Mancini

Ellen Mancini

Assistant State Attorney

| Case No.:

Date Received:

OFFICE USE ONLY

AFFIDAVIT

COMPANY OR/AND PERSON Scott A. Fagan

COMPLAINING AGAINST A Paralegal of Florida

App. 113

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, this day per-

sonally appeared Mr./Mrs./Ms. Diane Holbrook

(Print or type your name)

P O Box 1512

(address)

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

(city, state, zip)

(home phone) (561) 545-9793 (work phone) N/A

(age) 48

1. Ihave acomplaint against Scott A. Fagan or/and

(person or company name & address)

A Paralegal of Florida, 5200 Turnpike Feeder Road, Fort

Pierce, FL 34951

The telephone number of this person or company is

(561) 465-8376

1 (877) 676-4672

1 (877) 727-2529

2. I first learned of the above-named person or

company through (telephone, newspaper, etc.) telephone-

yellow pages. See Attached copy of yellow page advertised

in.

3. Clearly and in detail, please state your complaint

below. Describe events in the same order in which they

occurred, and include dates, times and the names of

individuals you dealt with, if possible. Include in this

section, a description of the goods, products, or services

you purchased, rented or for which you were solicited, and

report in as much detail as possible any statements that

were made to you regarding the goods or services.

App. 114

On May 10, 1999, I paid-in-full for all requirements done,

for doing Appeal Brief in its entirety with all required sets,

everything to be mailed to court and parties for $320.00 by

May 21, 1999 in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in At-

lanta, Georgia and to Defendant’s Counsel in Miami, Florida.

On May 19, 1999 about 9:08 P.M., I received a Fax (see

attached Copy). When I got back home, I called Scott

Fagan. He refused full refund. Later, I made a trip to Fort

Pierce with a friend Pat as a witness and had Sheriff C.

Bates at his front door to get my belongings and again

asked for refund because job was not done at all. He

(Scott) refused any refund at all in front of Pat and C.

Bates the Deputy Sheriff. Got my belongings in box,

opened box and Deputy Sheriff acknowledged that there is

no Appeal Brief in box and he knows what a Brief looks

like.

Question: Was AAA Paralegal and Assisted Legal Ser-

vices owned or operated by Scott Fagan? Both

of these companies are disconnected.

—_—————__——————_

Florida Law

The company must pay you within 20 days once you

agree upon an amount for repair or replacement of your

auto and you sign a settlement agreement. If not, you

may collect 12-percent interest per year on the amount

of the claim from the date of the agreement. Once the

company receives proper written notification of the

amount of your PIP loss, they must pay you or the

service provider within 30 days. If not, you may collect

10-percent interest per year on the amount of your loss

App. 115

until you receive payment. Make sure the insurance

company agrees to pay before you start repairs.

* * *

May-19-99 21:08

[Handwritten Note Faxed To Holbrook]

Diane

Please send me some additional funds as to insure my

complete attention to your project tomorrow.

Scott

App. 116

ylsaus Ayndag O0CL-19% (199) SEZY-S0r- 195 Key ("Tg Wed Poomeney)

- > ( ) OLES-99r- 19S “Ud -_ — e oO IS6rC Ty ‘Que

oe oe / : Oz¢E-Z9% (196 brs CEO “Lidell occeccmee en an

i / ELIA-9L9-Lb3-l

= SeRUNCD YowEg wed @ Sent UEPUI ‘eOM) IS ‘UNVeYy SUES

UOISIAIG JO1Ieg WIOJIUN "Ne ‘Apoysny ‘siAq ‘SUNSME|

S32 1MONYM ..Aqqog,, “> LHAGOY a ebueyd owen ‘uondopy ‘eaonig ‘Ad)}drujueg

Jatwaus uopesedesg juewNs0g je6e7

, eye. fo prbozried pf

uepruyoe, je6e7 payed

ue6Sey ‘y nods

1@6%C EPUOlY ‘22491g YOY

peoy Aemptw IS2M OOLY

ae 48 ft X3non> EO | 3no Wwe

Sa I i "S27 GAC | LNBWAVd

a SY ( J f usvo EES | nnooow

fy oat

Anau uOSYS

S¥v1100 Z " iii

_— a ee

(0 a, seg ‘| $

O1StLg ON ee eins

AL Ae

\ 3

LAs

. =

SN\—s

ee #320.00 |q*-

NERY . ten 3:00P ND .

8 sl SES gbos.wé6 0504.8 693. y.... 10009754508.

\\ SX a. TS anananiog fob.” rAts + 49

< Sio8 — im oc“ a ii wee eth bt .

XY» wea “Se yee kek Z

—>

—aN

| i

“A

OBS

> Yd

>. *

—

oS —_

é6t IF : , ;

b b U/ | TISI-SLPEE |J PUNOS 20H got!

OL O29/vi 11-8 ZISI xOg ‘O'd

I6T ! £6-10 WOOUPIOH ANVIG Y ‘ !

2WOH 1WO9TM.=———

—-——

App. 117

[Yellow Pages]

Paralegals

AAA Paralegal 3361 S U S Highway 1 Ft Pc......... 595-5106

[Noticed Same Address as A Paralegal of Fla.]

AA PARALEGAL OF FLORIDA

DIVORCE ¢ BANKRUPTCY ¢ PATERNITY

NAME CHANGE e¢ ADOPTIONS e¢ CHILD SUPPORT

[Sounds Great]

Certified & Licensed

[Pd-In-Full]

3361 S US Hwy 1 Ft Pc 465-8376

[Per Demand]

ACCESS PARALEGALS

[Left Message with phone # Did Not Return Call.]

In Business Since 1989

Incorporations ¢ Divorce

Legal Documents Prepared

10075 Federal Hwy #144 Pt St Lucie 334-4000

Assisted Legal Services

[Notice Same Address As “A Paralegal of Fla.”]

3361 S US Hwy 1 Ft Pc [Called-Disconnect] 465-8017

Legal Aide-Paralegal Service [Called-Disconnect] 336-8260

App. 118

DIANE L. HOLBROOK v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION

APPEAL NO. 00-10141-CC

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

MERITING EN BANC CONSIDERATION

I. The Panel Opinion Contains A Material Factual

Mistake About What My Brief Primarily Involved

Starting From The Beginning And Ending Before The

Panel Started In Referring To February 2, 1999 On

II. The Panel Opinion Shows Miscommunication By Not

Referring To Plaintiff's Notice Of Clarification Re-

garding Motion For Extensions Issues (i.e. Preparing

And Filing A Second Amended Complaint May Not Be

Necessary)

(1)

App. 119

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO. 98-14246-

CIV-DAVIS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE:

v. LYNCH

DIANE L. HOLBROOK, )

)

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL MOTION TO RECUSE

)

Plaintiff,

INSURANCE COMPANY,

a FOREIGN CORPORATION,

Defendant.

COMES NOW Diane L. Holbrook, the plaintiff, and

respectfully states:

1. That Raoul C. Cantero, III, the defendant’s

counsel was the law clerk to Honorable Edward B. Davis

in the United States District Court, Southern District of

Florida in Miami, Florida. See Attached Exhibit I.

2. Since Raoul C. Cantero, III, the defendant’s

counsel was employed in the Miami, Florida Division, I

am requesting an assigned at random to the judges of

the West Palm Beach District Court because of the

following reasons stated:

a. Court ORDER signed March 18, 1999 clearly

states that the Defendant and Plaintiff both filed on the

same day of which I agree with. However, the same

Order with Clerical mistake of records and errors shows

both filed on March 4, 1999. See Attached Exhibit J. I

was clearly at the United States District Court in

Miami, Florida on March 5, 1999 and I was also in the

Records Room on second floor.

App. 120

b. On the crucial time for filing and Rule 5.2D.

Service of pleadings and papers states “Service by

delivery after 5:00 p.m. shall be deemed to have been

made on the next business day.” Therefore, under Rule

60(a) Relief from ORDER due to clerical mistakes and a

new previously presented Order to go with Motion to

Correct ORDER and Grant judgment by Default of

Naturalization. Extension of Time had expired on March

4, 1999 within which to file its response and March 5,

1999 was too late resulting in default judgment should

have been granted. Crucial time for filing should not be

shown the day before or even the day after actual filing

because of results affecting final ORDERS.

c. The Honorable Judge’s Secretary answered

the door on the eleventh floor and directed me to the

Clerk of Filing to go through with my papers on March

5, 1999. She may have kept record as minutes of daily

occurrence.

d. With papers must be filed in the office

where the Judge is located because that is where the file

stays, I am also hand delivering to the court, and Raoul

C. Cantero, III, the defendant’s counsel was not em-

ployed in the West Palm Beach, Florida Division, are

primary reasons for file to be transferred to United

States District Court Southern District of Florida in

West Palm Beach.

WHEREFORE, your plaintiff Diane L. Holbrook

prays that the Honorable Chief Judge Edward B. Davis

recuse himself from all further matters pertaining to

these proceedings against Diane L. Holbrook, and that in

the place and [in]stead of the Honorable Judge another

App. 121

Federal Court Judge from West Palm Beach Division be

assigned for these proceedings.

Respectfully Submitted.

Diane L. Holbrook

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Plaintiff — Pro Se

PO Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Phone: 561-545-9793

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of

the foregoing was furnished by certified mail this 5th

day of April, 1999 to:

Eric N. Assouline, Esq./Raoul G. Cantero, [III,] Esq.

Adorno & Zeder, P.A.

2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 1600

Miami, Florida 33133

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

App. 122

PROFESSIONAL BIOGRAPHIES

ADORNO & ZEDER

A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

SUITE 1600, 2601 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133

* * *

RAOUL G. CANTERO, III, born Madrid, Spain,

August 1, 1960; admitted to bar, 1986, Florida. Education:

Florida State University (B.A., summa cum laude, 1982);

Harvard University (J.D., cum laude, 1985), Phi Beta

Kappa; Phi Kappa Phi. Fulbright Scholar, 1987, Law

Clerk to Honorable Edward B. Davis, United States

District Court, Southern District of Florida, 1986-1987.

Member, Planning and Zoning Board, City of Coral Ga-

bles. Member, Board of Directors, Legal Services of

Greater Miami, Inc. Member: Dade County Bar Associa-

tion; The Florida Bar (Member, Appellate Rules Commit-

tee); Catholic Lawyers Guild; Cuban-American Bar

Associations. LANGUAGES: Spanish.

EXHIBIT I

App. 123

In the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

Proceedings include all events. APPEAL

2:98cv14246 Holbrook v. Nationwide Mutual INTAPP

4/7/99 20 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

by Diane L. Holbrook of [18-1] order. EOD

Date: 03/24/99; Filing Fee: $105.00; Re-

ceipt #:800321; Copies to USCA and Coun-

sel of Record. (ga) [Entry date 04/09/99]

4/12/99 21 ORDER denying [19-1] motion for recusal

of district judge (signed by Judge Edward

B. Davis on 4/10/99) CCAP (aa) [Entry date

04/13/99]

4/12/99 22 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE The plaintiff

shall have 10 days from the date stamped

on this order to show cause why the Defen-

dant’s Motion to Dismiss, Motion te Strike,

Motion for Definite Statement should not

be granted for plaintiffs failure to comply

with Rule 7.1C of the Local Rules (signed

by Judge Edward B. Davis on 4/10/99)

CCAP (aa) [Entry date 04/13/99]

4/13/99 23 NOTICE of Unavailability from 5/10/99

through 6/18/99 by Diane L. Holbrook (aa)

[Entry date 04/14/99]

4/13/99 24 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

by Diane L. Holbrook of [15-1] order. EOD

Date: 02/25/99; Filing Fee: $FEE NOT

PAID;; Copies to USCA and Counsel of

Record. (ga) [Entry date 04/15/99]

App. 124

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APPEAL CASE NO. :00-10141-CC

DIANE L. HOLBROOK, ) DC DKT NO.

Plaintiff ‘ 98-14246 CV-EBD

. ) MOTION TO

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL ) REINSTATE

INSURANCE COMPANY, ) caves PROCESS

FOREIGN CORPORATION, ) WITH EVIDENCES

; ) SHOWING GOOD

Defendant. ) CAUSE

COMES NOW Diane L. Holbrook, the plaintiff/Pro

Se, and moves this Honorable Court for reinstatement

Appeal process with evidences showing good cause as

follows:

1. On February 23, 2000, Plaintiff hired Racin

& Boncek, P.A. law firm to do complete Appeal

and final judgment from 11th Circuit United

States Court of Appeals regarding appeal is-

sues only. See attached Agreement For Repre-

sentation.

2. In May, 2000, Plaintiff talked to Court Of

Appeals Clerk who informed Plaintiff that there

was no record of Counsel and records show that

Plaintiff has always been Pro Se to date. Coun-

selor did not notify record of Counsel and Cer-

tificate of Interested Persons And Corporate

Disclosure Statement for requirements for record.

3. Pro Se Appellant’s failure to comply with

formal requirements for Appellate Briefs did

not justify dismissal of appeal in civil rights

case. F.R.A.P. Rule 28, 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.Ct. of

App. 9th Cir. Rule 13-1 et seq., 28 U.S.C.A.; 42

App. 125

U.S.C.A. § 1983. See attached ORDER states

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL because appellant has

failed to file the record excerpts.

4. Plaintiff called Lawyers Membership Record

and Legal Departments on May 5, 2000 and

discovered as follows:

a) Edward Boncek Lic. No. 58701 is not

active as of April 3, 2000 because of Discipli-

nary resigned.

b) John Author Racin Lic. No. 45624 has

4 separate cases with a case pending Supreme

Court and 3 more on there way for Disciplinary

actions.

5. Racin & Boncek, P.A. law firm cashed out

$5,300.00 of my written checks to them.

6. Clarence Maddox, Court Administra-

tor/Clerk of Court in Miami received a letter

from me on May 24, 2000 and I’ve waited 14

days for response or reply.

This and for the foregoing reasons the Pro Se Plain-

tiff/Appellant, Diane L. Holbrook, prays that this Court

will reinstate Appeal process by reversing the ORDER of

Entry Of Dismissal and process the complete package of

Brief and Record Excerpts enclosed with this mailing.

See Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached.

App. 126

Respectfully Submitted,

Diane L. Holbrook

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Plaintiff Pro Se Appellant

P O Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone: 561-545-9793

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of

the foregoing was furnished by certified mail this 8th

day of June, 2000 to:

Eric N. Assouline, Esq./Raoul G. Cantero, III, Esq./

ADORNO & ZEDER, P.A. Natalie J. Carlos, Esq.

2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 1600

Miami, Florida 33133

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

App. 127

Diane L. Holbrook

P.O. Box 1512

Hobe Sound FL 33475-1512

June 28, 2000

RE: 00-10141-CC Diane L. Holbrook v. Nationwide Mutual

Ins. Co.

DC DKTNO.: 98-14246 CV-EBD

CC:

Diane L. Holbrook

Raoul G. Cantero III

Clarence Maddox

Eric Nissim Assouline

Administrative File

App. 128

United States Court of Appeals

Eleventh Circuit

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Thomas K. Kahn In Replying Give Number

Clerk Of Case And Names of

Parties ;

June 28, 2000

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES

RE: 00-10141-CC Diane L. Holbrook v. Nationwide

Mutual Ins. Co.

DC DKTNO.: 98-14246 CV-EBD

The following action has been taken in the referenced case:

The enclosed order has been ENTERED.

APPELLEE’S BRIEF IS DUE 30 DAYS FROM THE

DATE OF THIS ORDER

(JULY 28, 2000).

ENCLOSED IS THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF.

Sincerely,

THOMAS K. KAHN, Clerk

Reply To: Jenifer Alexander

(404) 335-6172

MOT-2 [1999]

App. 129

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-10141-CC

(Filed: June 28, 2000)

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, a Foreign Corporation

C/O Robert CiWetzel, Esq. Registered Agent,

800 Graves Mill Road, P.O. Box 10669,

Lynchburg, Virginia,

Defendant-Appellee.

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

ORDER:

Appellant’s “Motion to Reinstate” her appeal is

GRANTED

/s/ {Illegible]

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT

JUDGE

App. 130

Diane L. Holbrook

P O Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone: 1 (561) 545-9793

PRESIDENT George W. Bush

Attn: Agency Liaison Room #592

The White House

Washington, D.C. 20502

Dear Chief Of Commander;

I'm requesting an appointment to see you personally in May,

2001 being before June 18, 2001 deadline for me to file and pay

filing fees to the United States Supreme Court in Washington,

D.C. in hopes that you will have my case be one of the 85

chosen cases to be trial and hear by the Supreme Court Judges.

I am a ProSe as a Plaintiff against an Insurance Company

who, by law and rules of the lower court, had won against the

Insurance Company over two years ago! The Supreme Court

reviews about 10,000 cases a year and only 85 are chosen. It

would be injustice against me to not be one of the 85 chosen

ones. It is a District Court clerical error resulting into a chain

reaction of occurrences. Furthermore, I do not have an attorney

and Lowry Jock Miller has a Brian M. Madden, Esquire listed

to appear in the Circuit Court of Fauquier County on May 8th,

2001 as my attorney whom I do not have a contract with and

don’t know what he looks like. Need to get this out fast. We'll

talk later and hopefully all these documental evidences will

encourage you to Order the Supreme Court to have me picked

as one of the 85 Cases to be heard even though I'm Pro-Se.

“EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW” is engraved over the doors

of the Supreme Court in marble. You

* * *

App. 131

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case No. 98-14246-CIV-MOORE

DIANE L. HOLBROOK,

ants ORDER OF

vs. REFERENCE TO

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL MAGISTRATE

INSURANCE COMPANY, (Filed Jun. 4, 2001)

Defendant. /

PURSUANT to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate

Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Flor-

ida, the above-captioned Cause is referred to United

States Magistrate Judge Lynch to take all necessary and

proper action as required by law with respect to Plaintiffs

Rule 60(a) Motion, filed May 15, 2001.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami,

Florida, this 31st day of May, 2001.

/s/ K. Michael Moore

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES

DISTRICT JUDGE

copies provided:

United States Magistrate Judge Lynch

Diane Holbrook, pro se

PO Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475

Raoul G. Cantero III, Esq., Counsel for Defendant

App. 132

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

DIANE L. HOLBROOK, CASE NO.

“aor 98-14246-CIV-MOORE

Plaintiff,

vs.

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. /

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S

RULE 60(a) MOTION (DE #58)

(Filed Jun. 6, 2001)

THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard upon the

aforementioned Motion, and this Court having reviewed

the Motion, and noting that this case was closed and final

judgment entered on December 15, 1999, and further

noting that Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals, and further noting that on

January 19, 2001 the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the

judgment of this Court, and further noting that on April 9,

2001 the Eleventh Circuit issued its mandate and denied

Plaintiffs motion for a stay of the issuance of mandate

pending petition for writ of certiorari, and being otherwise

advised in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Rule

60(a) Motion is DENIED.

App. 133

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce,

Florida, this 6th day of June, 2001.

/s/ Frank J. Lynch, Jr.

FRANK J. LYNCH, JR.

UNITED STATES

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

cc: Diane L. Holbrook, Pro Se

Raoul G. Cantero, Esq.

App. 134

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DIANE L. HOLBROOK, )

Petitioner,

~-—

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY, A

FOREIGN CORPORATION,

Respondents.

ee eee

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that today, October 25, 2001, I

delivered (mailed), in quantities itemized, copies of the

PETITION FOR REHEARING (1 volume) in the above-

entitled matter to the following counsel of record:

(file 40 copies)

(FILED BY HAND DELIVERY)

3 copies to: 3 copies to:

Raoul G. Cantero, III, Esq. Clarence Maddox

Eric N. Assouline, Esq. Clerk of Court,

Natalie J. Carlos Court Administration

Adorno & Zeder, P.A. US. District Court

2601 South Bayshore Drive Federal Courthouse Square

Suite 1600 301 North Miami Avenue

Miami, Florida 33133-5413 Miami, Florida 33128

(305) 858-5555 (MAILED FIRST CLASS)

(MAILED FIRST CLASS)

App. 135

3 copies to: ~ Remaining copies to: (6)

Lowry J. Miller Diane L. Holbrook

Miller, Miller, Kearney P.O. Box 1512

& Geschickter, LLP Hobe Sound, Florida

10400 Eaton Place 33475-1512

Suite 312 (561) 545-9793

Fairfax, Virginia 22030

(703) 218-1300

(MAILED FIRST CLASS)

THIEL

PRESS

1319 Naylor Court, N.W.

(at 10th & “O” Streets)

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 328-3286

By: /s/ Roger Thiel

Subscribed to and sworn before me this __ day of ___,

19__

Notary Public.

My commission expires:

App. 136

Diane L. Holbrook

P. O. Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone: (561) 545-9793

December 7, 2001

Attention: Yvonne Cedeno, Court Clerk’s

Operations Supervisor

United States District Court

Federal Courthouse Square

301 North Miami Avenue

Miami, Florida 33128-7788

Diane L. Holbrook v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Company, a Foreign Corporation

Case No.: 98-14246-CIV-MOORE (was EBD)

Appeal Case No.: 00-10141-CC

Dear Yvonne Cedeno:

There is a clerical mistake on record arising from over-

sight, See January 29, 1999 #8 and also see January 19,

1999 #5 and January 19, 1999 #6. Pursuant to Rule 60(a)

with Request To Clerk To Enter Default after correction

has been made upon record. Please also notice that on

August 27, 1999, the Defendant, Nationwide Mutual

Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation in Paragraph

1. only, clearly agrees with Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook

that they were served on December 21, 1998 and not on

January 12, 1999 as the record indicates. With both sides

in agreement in writing and also signed by the Defendant

themself and states in Procedural History by Defendant

with all attachments contained as APPENDIXs within

enclosed Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari to this letter.

Plaintiff is asking for the mistake to be corrected by this

Court pursuant to Rule 60(a) and also to Rule 55(a) to be

entered in default of naturalization because the motion to

App. 137

extend time was presented to this Court after time expired

and after Default Judgment against Defendant by Diane

L. Holbrook, Plaintiff. This and for the foregoing reasons

the Plaintiff, Diane L. Holbrook, prays that this Court will

correct and issue thru naturalization by laws provided

within to allow the Plaintiff to Reinstate in the Appeal

process with corrected records to reverse and receive the

entitled to Default Judgment against the Defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook — Plaintiff

P. O. Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone: (561) 545-9793

App. 138

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Miami, F1 33131

[LOGO] One Biscayne Boulevard

2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2700

Miami, Fl 33131

PH: (305) 530-4491

Diane L. Holbrook

P.O. Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

Re: Correspondence

Dear Ms. Holbrook:

We have received your inquiry of pro se discrimination:

EEOC has authority to investigate complaints of employ-

ment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,

age, national origin or disability against certain employ-

ers, employment agencies and labor organizations.

Your letter indicates that the situation you describe is not

covered by the laws we enforce, therefore we have no

authority to handle the matter you raised.

Your inquiry has been examined for possible referral to

another source of assistance. However, we are unable to

identify another source which we believe would be assis-

tance to you. This does not mean that there is no govern-

mental or private agency which could assist you, but we

are not aware of any based on the information you pro-

vided.

App. 139

We regret that we are unable to be of assistance to you in

this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Susan Diaz 5/21/02

Susan Diaz Date

Investigator

App. 140

ACLU

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF FLORIDA

April 30, 2002

Complaint #02-03-0060

Diane Holbrook

P.O. Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Dear Ms. Holbrook,

Thank you for contacting the American Civil Liberties

Union of Florida (ACLU). We have carefully reviewed your

recent request, and regret to inform you that we are

unable to offer you legal assistance.

In declining to represent you the ACLU is not passing

judgment on the merits of your case. We suggest that you

contact a private attorney. We understand how difficult it

can be to obtain legal counsel. The Florida Bar Association

Lawyer Referral Service can direct you to an appropriate

attorney. You may contact the Lawyer Referral Service by

calling 1-800-342-8011.

Once again, thank you for writing to the ACLU of Florida.

We wish you success in resolving your difficulties.

Sincerely,

/s/ S Brion

Sophie Brion

Intake Coordinator

App. 141

Diane L. Holbrook

Post Office Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone: (772) 545-9793

October 14, 2003

Attention: Carey Codd

WPEC

1100 Fairfield Drive

West Palm Beach, Florida 33407

Dear Carey Codd (the Court Reporter)

Per our telephone conversation on October 13, 2003, I’ve

enclosed a copy of Supreme Court of the United States

Petition for Writ of Certiorari pertaining to receiving

positive Media coverage behind me all the way before

October 31, 2003 deadline of filing in the Court for RE-

HEARING!

A copy of the October 6, 2003 letter of denied signed by

William K. Suter, Clerk of the Court does not give reasons

why. I called (202) 479-3011 on the date I received this

letter and left message with my address and telephone

number requesting reasons to der:=d and asking why

denied when County Court verses F+ ieral Court was an

issue of question of jurisdiction pertaining to 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 1337. To this moment, he has not personally returned

my call. I’m in great immediate need of a positive Media

supporting me all the way from a very professional, very

well addressed excellent presentation giver to the Media

like yourself!

Hopefully, everything that you promised me will have

so far been completed to be able to proceed forward by

re a a a re a a ae ee OOOO E CGO EE —— — EEE eel ch eelmh error -r

App. 142

televise as the next step. Please keep me in contact of your

progress and good luck!!

Sincerely Yours,

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

Telephone: (772) 545-9793

P. S. I’m an afternoon person.

App. 143

Diane L. Holbrook

P O Box 1512

Hobe Sound, Florida 33475-1512

Telephone: 1 (561) 545-9793

President George W. Bush

Attn: Agency Liaison Room #592

The White House

Washington D. C. 20502

Dear Chief Of Commander; Commander and Chief;

I’m requesting an appointment to see you personally about

the injustice within the Judiciary and Judicial system

towards Pro-Se as plaintiff within the court system.

Within this folder is documental evidences and telephone

records of some of the things that transpired on my hus-

band and his brother’s death.

VERY VERY BRIEF:

1. Lowry Jock Miller has Nationwide Insurance Co. on

retainer.

2. Lowry Jock Miller took Lisa Dutcher AKA Lisa Holbrook

as a plaintiff corresponding with Nationwide Insurance Co..

3. Lowry Jock Miller’s close attorney friend is Robin C.

Gulick and according to my telephone notes of exact

transpired in general conversations, Lowry Jock Miller

took care of his bill to be my husband’s administrator.

4. Trooper indicated to Rose Snidow that Dale (my

hrother-in law) driving. My sister Denise took telephone

conversations at the very beginning because I was dis-

traught over my husband and brother-in law’s death.

5. Fauquier Hospital had my husband as John Doe. The

State Trooper who was in charge of an accident at the

App. 144

same location back in the end of October, 1991 and also

never seen or knew my husband or his brother identified

the bodies. We have no relatives who live in Virginia. To

make a long story of events short. The Chief Medical

Examiner had the wrong bodies and was contacted per-

sonally by me as well as the insurance company and thru

the court system as you can see by telephone records of

which some of them are enclosed and COUNTY COURT

REPORTERS, INC.. Nothing was done about it from

insurance company, attorneys and the presiding Judge

William Shore Robertson himself. I went into the Court

System Pro-Se (representing myself) within a timely

matter before the statute ran out.

6. My Motion For Judgment was very simular to Lowry

Jock Miller’s Motion For J udgment for the exception of

that Dale was driving as per the Trooper assigned to the

case at the very beginning. Lowry Jock Miller immediately

tried to demurr my case and then dismiss. Exhibits of

documents shows how he illegally got it dismissed with

Judge William Shore Robertson’s help by taking the

administrator off in the middle of litigation.

7. Ihave no closure of my husband’s death!!! It has been

over seven years and by law he is declared dead. You are

the only one who can see justice thru and make a point of

law that this never ever happens to a person who repre-

sents themself again!

38 Documental Exhibits attach Respectfully and

Sincerely Yours

Is it possible to have a per- = /s/ Diane L. Holbrook

sonal appointment in May, Diane L. Holbrook

2001 or ASAP!!!! Telephone: 1 (561) 545-9793

App. 145

Lowry Jock Miller received $25,000.00 as a settlement.

($6,500 for him)

[See Sept. 2, 1993, whereas Lowry Miller lost the case and

owed for sanctions. His client on retainer, Nationwide

Mutual Insurance Company, (conflict of interest with his

representation Adm’r of the Estate of Dale B. Holbrook)

got a settlement reward for a case he lost and owed sanc-

tions on.]

ooo

_Certificate_of_Service_

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy to prose-

cute appeal was handed on May 21, 1997 to:

Miller, Miller, Kearney & Geschickter, LLP

10400 Eaton Place, Suite 312

Fairfax, Virginia 22030

in the Circuit Court of Fauquier County

/s/ Diane L. Holbrook

Diane L. Holbrook

App. 146

[LOGO] U. S. Department of Justice

Civil Division

Washington, D.C. 20530

MAY 23 2001

Ms. Diane L. Holbrook

P.O. Box 1512

Hobe Sound, FL 33475-1512

Dear Ms. Holbrook:

Your letter to President Bush of April 25, 2001,

regarding your complaint against the Nationwide Mutual

Insurance Company has been referred to the Civil Divi-

sion, Department of Justice for response. Unfortunately,

the demands on the President as he works for a better

America make it hard for him to meet with everyone he

wishes. We apologize for any inconvenience our delay in

responding may have caused.

The United States Department of Justice, as the

federal agency representing the United States govern-

ment, cannot provide legal advice to or represent private

individuals, except under certain limited conditions, which

are not present in this instance. Under our Constitution,

the Judicial Branch is separate and independent from the

Executive Branch. The Department of Justice, as part of

the Executive Branch of the United States Government,

has no authority over the judicial branch’s handling of

cases. We suggest that you continue to seek private

counsel or contact the agency listed below for advice and

assistance:

App. 147

Broward County Bar Association

1051 S.E. Third Ave.

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316

Cynthia R. White, Director

Phone: (954) 764-8040

Fax: (954) 764-8060

An alternative would be to contact a local law school which

has a clinical program.

We hope this information is helpful and regret we

cannot assist you further.

Sincerely,

/s/ (Megible]

COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE

CIVIL DIVISION

App. 148

VIRGINIA:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY

CARLIN T. HUNTER, Adm’r. of the )

Estate of DALE B. HOLBROOK,

)

Plaintiff,

v. )

ROBIN C. GULICK, Adm’. of the Estate

of EDWARD JESSE HOLBROOK,

Defendant.

) Law No. CL-92-306

MOTION TO DISMISS

FOR FAILURE TO MAKE DISCOVERY

AND

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

(Filed Sep. 2, 1993)

COMES NOW the defendant, by counsel, and moves this

Court for an Order dismissing this case for failure to make

discovery and for an Order awarding sanctions for the filing of

this Motion, and for his reasons states as follows:

1. The attached Motion to Compel Production of

Certain Documents was filed and noticed for Motions Day

on August 10, 1993.

2. The day prior to that date, counsel for the defen-

dant spoke with counsel for the plaintiff and was promised

a response to the production request.

3. Pursuant to that understanding and representa-

tion of plaintiffs counsel, the Motion was taken off the

docket and an Order was forwarded to plaintiffs counsel

on August 16, 1993. To this date, there has been no re-

sponse to that Motion despite repeated attempts to contact

plaintiffs counsel.

App. 149

In addition, defense counsel has requested various

deposition dates for taking of plaintiffs experts. Plaintiffs

counsel has not taken any steps toward obtaining any

convenient dates.

There is a discovery cut-off of September 20, 1993, in

this case. In light of plaintiffs not providing the docu-

ments requested within the required period of time, the

defendant is greatly prejudiced in the defense of this

action. For these reasons the defendant would move the

Court for an Order dismissing this case for failure to make

discovery, and also request the Court award sanctions for

having to file and argue this Motion.

ROBIN C. GULICK

Adm’r. of the Estate of

EDWARD JESSE HOLBROOK

By Counsel

SLENKER, BRANDT, JENNINGS

& JOHNSTON

By: /s/ Joseph D. Roberts

Joseph D. Roberts

VA Bar ID #12261

Counsel for Defendant

CERTIFICATE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing

was mailed September 1, 1993 to: Lowry J. Miller, MILLER,

MILLER, KEARNEY & GESCHICKTER, 2701 N. Pershing

Dr., Arlington, VA 22201-1499, counsel for plaintiff.

/s/ Joseph D. Roberts

Joseph D. Roberts

App. 150

PROFESSIONAL BIOGRAPHIES

MILLER, MILLER, KEARNEY & GESCHICKTER

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22201

* * *

LOWRY J. MILLER, born San Diego, California,

November 15, 1937; admitted to bar, 1967. Virginia.

Education: University of Richmond (B.A., 1960; LL.B.,

1967), Phi Delta Phi. Member: Arlington County, The

Virginia and American Bar Associations; Virginia State

Bar; Virginia Association of Defense Lawyers; Virginia

Trial Lawyers Association. [Lt. Col., USMCR]. PRACTICE

AREAS: Domestic Relations Law; Insurance Law; Per-

sonal Injury Law.

* * *

REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS: Government Employees

Insurance Co.; ... Prudential Property and Casualty

Insurance Co.; Nationwide Insurance oa

App. 151

COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC.

Diane’s Deposition

of this accident, that you know of, that was at your home

after you went in the Rehab unit?

A. My husband and Dale.

Q. Other than your husband and Dale, that was the

only ones that you knew; no one else was staying there, or

anything like that?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, there has been some questions about the

autopsy that was done here and the report seems to

apparently be slightly inaccurate in some manner; could

you tell me, on the date of the accident, approximately how

much your husband weighed?

A. 220 pounds.

Q. Why do you know that?

A. Because he wears the same exact pants size as he

has for a while.

Q. At one time had he weighed a lot more or a lot

less, and you knew that he had come to that approximate

weight?

A. No, sir.

Q. What was his height?

A. Five foot, eight inches tall.

Q. Now, the autopsy of your husband indicates that

he weighed 274 pounds; were you told that? That is

obviously inaccurate, is that correct?

App. 152

A. Itis obviously not him.

Q. It is either not him or that is inaccurate, is that

correct?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, it is either not him or it is

an mistake, I mean, it won't get you anywhere.

Q. Have you checked out to see, why the, at anyway,

you have gone to investigate why the autopsy report seems

to be inaccurate?

A. Ihave been to two different Chief Medical Exam-

iner’s Office, one in Richmond and one in Fairfax.

Q. You have, and what has been the result of that?

A. The one in Richmond assured me that the scales

are accurate, and it would absolutely not be, not even 30

pounds difference, in any way, shape, or form, and I was

just using that as an example.

Q. Did you ask anybody whether this was a typo-

graphical error?

A. Iwas very upset at the time and I know I went to

both Chief Medical Examiner’s Offices and I do not re-

member word for word.

Q. When did you do this?

A. Right at, shortly after I had received the paper-

work.

Q. Was that after this lawsuit was filed, or was this

before the lawsuit was filed?

A. When was this lawsuit filed?

Q. In October of ’92.

App. 153

A. Way before October of ’92.

Q. Did you look at the complete autopsy of what was

supposed to be your husband’s autopsy report and the

photographs?

A. I did not receive the photographs until I received

the interrogatories packages; that is the first time I saw

the diagrams.

Q. Iam speaking of the photographs at the autopsy,

did you ever review any of those?

A. You mean the diagrams of the body?

Q. No, the photographs of the body?

A. No, sir.

MR. ROBERTS: Did you ever provide those to

us?

MR. MILLER: I do not have them, and I do not

know that they exist either, but usually they do.

MR. ROBERTS: I know you subpoenaed them

and you said you sent me everything they had. Did Bayer

take photographs?

MR. MILLER: Yes, I was just down there

recently and I noticed there were photographs, of which

were not produced in that case either, and come to think

about it, your firm, no, it was not your firm.

CONTINUATION OF DIRECT

EXAMINATION BY MR. MILLER:

Q. Just to, and these are not easy questions to

answer, I understand, but you do know, or do you believe

App. 154

that your husband did die in this accident that is in this

lawsuit?

A. Yes, because he would be home if he was not.

Q. You went to his funeral, is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see, view his body before?

A. No, sir.

Q. Closed casket?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.