Preview
Filing # 160217826 E-Filed 10/28/2022 04:38:20 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM
BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
BENJAMIN MAGGIO,
CASE NO. 50-2019-CA-015230XXXXMB
Plaintiff,
vs.
FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
and C-BB MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE DUE TO SPOLIATION
Plaintiff, BENJAMIN MAGGIO (“Plaintiff”) by and through undersigned counsel, files this
Motion for Sanctions and/or Adverse Inference Due to Spoliation and states:
FACTS
Plaintiff, Benjamin Maggio has sued the Defendants FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY
(“FAU”) and C-BB MANAGEMENT, LLC’s (“C-BB”) for damages as it relates to toxic mold at Glades
Park Towers located at 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431, which was Plaintiff’s dormitory at FAU.
C-BB was responsible for maintenance of the Glades Park Towers.
Plaintiff was a student and attended classes at FAU for the 2017 - 2018 school term. On or about
October 2017, as a result of a leak in the dorm room directly above the Plaintiff, Plaintiff noticed mold
emanating from the ceiling and walls in his shower. Plaintiff contacted FAU to report the mold issue in his
dorm room on two occasions, but nothing was done. In January 2018, the Plaintiff again complained about
mold in the dorm room. The Defendants dispatched a janitor who allegedly cleaned the mold.
In February 2018, Plaintiff’s mother became aware of the mold issue in the dorm room and
immediately contacted FAU to address this problem. C-BB was responsible for maintenance of the Glades
Park Towers dormitory. Defendants then dispatched a maintenance crew to the dorm room. Instead of fixing
the leak and properly remediating the mold, the maintenance crew only cleaned the mold and painted over
*** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 10/28/2022 04:38:20 PM ***
it. In March 2018, there was another complaint about leaking water in the shower area of the dorm room.
Mold was removed with bleach. Because this was the third work order referencing mold, C-BB’s
representative testified that these complaints were of a serious nature that needed immediate assessment.
However, no mold assessment was done.
In April 2018, the mold returned to the same place. At that time, the Plaintiff’s mother again called
FAU and complained on mold in the dorm room. In response, the Defendants found a leak in the bathroom
of the dorm room immediately above the Plaintiff’s dorm room. Once the leak was fixed, the Defendants
removed the “tainted” ceiling in the Plaintiff’s dorm room. While C-BB reported this to FAU as a complaint
of a serious nature, this crucial evidence was not retained by the Defendants. There was no protocol by C-
BB to retain the tainted ceiling to test it for mold. Instead, C-BB simply disposed of the tainted evidence.
As a result of the Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff meets criteria for Chronic Inflammatory
Response Syndrome due to exposure to mold and inflammagens found in Water Damaged Buildings(CIRS-
WDB). CIRS-WDB is a multi-system, multi-symptom illness that can cause significant disability.
Symptoms include neurological, visual, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, respiratory, dermatological,
hormonal urinary, and metabolic issues. Attached is a letter from Benjamin’s doctor, explaining that
Benjamin meets criteria for Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome due to exposure to mold and
inflammagens found in Water Damaged Buildings(CIRS-WDB). CIRS-WDB is a multi-system, multi-
symptom illness that can cause significant disability. Symptoms include neurological, visual,
gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, respiratory, dermatological, hormonal urinary, and metabolic issues. Ben
falls into the 25% of the population who is genetically at risk for the development of CIRS upon exposure
to water damaged buildings.
SPOLIATION
I.
Spoliation Standard Under Florida Law
The Florida Supreme Court has held that spoliation occurs when a party, which reasonably
anticipates litigation, loses, discards, alters, or destroys pertinent evidence. Further, the loss, discarding,
destruction, or alteration need not be intentional—mere negligence suffices:
2
Even in the absence of a legal duty, though, the spoliation of evidence results in an adverse
inference against the party that discarded or destroyed the evidence. As this Court
explained in Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 908 So. 2d 342, 346 (Fla. 2005), Florida
courts may impose sanctions, including striking pleadings, against a party that intentionally
lost, misplaced, or destroyed evidence, and a jury could infer under such circumstances
that the evidence would have contained indications of liability. If the evidence was
negligently destroyed, a rebuttable presumption of liability may arise. Id. at 347. In
other words, as recognized by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, “an adverse inference
may arise in any situation where potentially self-damaging evidence is in the
possession of a party and that party either loses or destroys the evidence.” Golden
Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777, 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Martino v. Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., 835 So. 2d 1251, 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), approved, 908 So. 2d 342);
see also Nationwide Lift Trucks, Inc. v. Smith, 832 So. 2d 824, 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
(stating that “[c]ases in which evidence has been destroyed, either inadvertently or
intentionally, are discovery violations” that may be subject to sanctions).
League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner , 172 So. 3d 363, 391 (Fla. 2015) (emphasis added).
Florida law thus authorizes the imposition of sanctions for both intentional and negligent
spoliation—and adverse-inference jury instructions are among the least severe sanctions available. See
Detzner, 172 So. 3d at 391; Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777, 780-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“In
cases involving negligent spoliation, courts prefer to utilize adverse evidentiary inferences and adverse
presumptions during trial to address the lack of evidence. In cases involving intentional spoliation, courts
more often strike pleadings or enter default judgments.”).
The following elements apply when determining whether spoliation exists which warrants the
imposition of a leveling mechanism: “1) whether the evidence existed at one time, 2) whether the spoliator
had a duty to preserve the evidence, and 3) whether the evidence was critical to an opposing party being
able to prove its prima facie case or a defense.” Golden Yachts, 920 So. 2d at 781.
However, regarding the second element (the existence of a duty to preserve the evidence), the
Florida Supreme Court clarified in 2015 that “[e]ven in the absence of a legal duty, . . . the spoliation of
evidence results in an adverse inference against the party that discarded or destroyed the evidence .”
Detzner, 172 So. 3d at 391 (emphasis added). As such, a party can be sanctioned for spoliation of evidence
even if it does not have an affirmative duty to preserve the evidence. Id.; see also Adamson v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., 325 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (holding that an adverse inference instruction is
3
appropriate even in the absence of a duty to preserve). Applicable here, the standard adverse-inference jury
instruction—which, again, is a lesser spoliation sanction—provides:
If you find that:
(Name of party) [lost] [destroyed] [mutilated] [altered] [concealed] or otherwise caused the
(describe evidence) to be unavailable, while it was within [his] [her] [its] possession,
custody, or control; and the (describe evidence) would have been material in deciding the
disputed issues in this case; then you may, but are not required to, infer that this evidence
would have been unfavorable to (name of party). You may consider this, together with the
other evidence, in determining the issues of the case.
Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civil) 301.11a; see also Golden Yachts, 920 So. 2d at 780-81 (“In cases
involving negligent spoliation, courts prefer to utilize adverse evidentiary inferences and adverse
presumptions during trial to address the lack of evidence.”); Am. Hosp’y Mgmt. Co. v. Hettiger, 904 So. 2d
547, 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (describing an appropriate adverse-inference instruction as permitting the
jury “to infer that the evidence would have been unfavorable to” the spoliator).
Here, as explained below, the circumstances surrounding Defendants’ spoliation of critical
evidence, and the prejudicial impact that the spoliation has had on the Plaintiff, warrant the remedy of an
adverse inference as provided under Florida Standard Jury Instruction 301.11a.
II.
Florida Precedent Entitles Defendant to an Adverse-Inference Jury Instruction
A.
Element 1: The Tainted Drywall Was in the Defendant’s Possession
First, it is undisputed that the evidence at issue here – namely, the “tainted” ceiling in the Plaintiff’s
dorm room, was in the exclusive possession of FAU and C-BB. Thus, the first element is met.
B.
Element 2: Defendant Knowingly Discarded this Critical Evidence, Despite a
Duty Not To
Under Florida law, including Florida Supreme Court precedent, FAU and C-BB were under a duty
to preserve this evidence. See, e.g., Detzner, 172 So. 3d at 391 (explaining that “Florida courts have . . .
found a duty to preserve evidence in other circumstances when a party should reasonably foresee
litigation”); St. Mary's Hospital Inc. v. Brinson, 685 So. 2d 33, 34-5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(recognizing that
a hospital destroyed a vaporizer could have reasonably foreseen plaintiffs future lawsuit against vaporizer's
manufacturer); Torres v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 762 So. 2d 1014, 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (Harris, J.,
4
concurring) (“If one knows that he, she, or it is about to become involved in a civil action, this alone should
be sufficient special circumstances to impose a duty of care to preserve such evidence in such potential
party’s possession that a reasonable person would foresee is material to that action.
But even if FAU and C-BB did not have such a duty, which they did, Plaintiff is still entitled to
an adverse inference because such relief is appropriate even in the absence of duty. As explained by the
Florida Supreme Court, “an adverse inference may arise in any situation where potentially self-damaging
evidence is in the possession of a party and that party either loses or destroys the evidence.” Detzner, 172
So. 3d at 391 (quoting Golden Yachts, 920 So. 2d at 781). Thus, even if the Court declines to find an
affirmative duty, FAU and C-BB’s destruction of key evidence still entitles Plaintiff to an adverse
inference.
C.
Element 3: The Evidence Was Critical to the Plaintiff
Finally, FAU and C-BB’s spoliation of evidence ultimately deprived the Plaintiff of critical mold
inspection that would have confirmed Plaintiff’s contention that there was toxic mold in the dorm room.
Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute this action has been substantially undermined because the Defendant
prevented the Plaintiff testing for mold. In circumstances where the lost evidence was under the sole control
of the party against whom the evidence might have been used to effect, and where the lost evidence is in
fact critical to prove the other party's claim, an adverse inference instruction may be necessary to achieve
justice in the jury's determination of the case. Adamson, 325 So. 3d at 898, Am. Hosp’y Mgmt. 904 So. 2d
at 551.
Conclusion
For these reasons, Plaintiff, BENJAMIN MAGGIO, respectfully requests that this Honorable
Court provide the following Florida Standard Jury Instruction to the jury (instruction 301.11a.):
If you find that Defendants FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY BOARD OF
TRUSTEES and/or C-BB MANAGEMENT, LLC, lost, destroyed, altered, concealed, or
otherwise caused evidence to be unavailable, while they were within their possession,
custody, or control; and this evidence would have been material in deciding the disputed
issues in this case; then you may, but are not required to, infer that this evidence would
have been unfavorable to the Defendants. You may consider this, together with the other
evidence, in determining the issues of the case.
5
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff, BENJAMIN MAGGIO, respectfully requests
that this Honorable Court grant his Motion for Adverse Inference Duc to Spoliation, instruct the jury as
specified above, and grant any such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was sent by electronic
e-service on Susan V. Warner, Esq., susan.warner@fisherbroyles.com, 1221 Brickcll Avenue, Suite 900,
Miami, FL 33131
Atty for C-BB Management, LLC, and Thomas Gibbons, Esq.,
TGibbons@rubintonlaw.com. 3801 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 300, Hollywood, FL 33021, Atty for FAU
Board of Trustees, this 28th day of October 2022.
SHAHADY & WURTENBERGER, P.A.
7900 Peters Road, Suite B-200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324
(954) 376-5958 Telephone
(954) 206-0188 Facsimile
Attorneysfor Plaintiff
Shahadv_
By:
/s/John J.
John J. Shahady, Esq.,
Fla. Bar No. 998990
JShahadv@swlawyers.law
dambra@swlawvcrs. law (legal assist.)
6
Preview
Filing # 160217826 E-Filed 10/28/2022 04:38:20 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA BENJAMIN MAGGIO, CASE NO. 50-2019-CA-015230XXXXMB Plaintiff, vs. FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and C-BB MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants. / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE DUE TO SPOLIATION Plaintiff, BENJAMIN MAGGIO (“Plaintiff”) by and through undersigned counsel, files this Motion for Sanctions and/or Adverse Inference Due to Spoliation and states: FACTS Plaintiff, Benjamin Maggio has sued the Defendants FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY (“FAU”) and C-BB MANAGEMENT, LLC’s (“C-BB”) for damages as it relates to toxic mold at Glades Park Towers located at 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431, which was Plaintiff’s dormitory at FAU. C-BB was responsible for maintenance of the Glades Park Towers. Plaintiff was a student and attended classes at FAU for the 2017 - 2018 school term. On or about October 2017, as a result of a leak in the dorm room directly above the Plaintiff, Plaintiff noticed mold emanating from the ceiling and walls in his shower. Plaintiff contacted FAU to report the mold issue in his dorm room on two occasions, but nothing was done. In January 2018, the Plaintiff again complained about mold in the dorm room. The Defendants dispatched a janitor who allegedly cleaned the mold. In February 2018, Plaintiff’s mother became aware of the mold issue in the dorm room and immediately contacted FAU to address this problem. C-BB was responsible for maintenance of the Glades Park Towers dormitory. Defendants then dispatched a maintenance crew to the dorm room. Instead of fixing the leak and properly remediating the mold, the maintenance crew only cleaned the mold and painted over *** FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK. 10/28/2022 04:38:20 PM *** it. In March 2018, there was another complaint about leaking water in the shower area of the dorm room. Mold was removed with bleach. Because this was the third work order referencing mold, C-BB’s representative testified that these complaints were of a serious nature that needed immediate assessment. However, no mold assessment was done. In April 2018, the mold returned to the same place. At that time, the Plaintiff’s mother again called FAU and complained on mold in the dorm room. In response, the Defendants found a leak in the bathroom of the dorm room immediately above the Plaintiff’s dorm room. Once the leak was fixed, the Defendants removed the “tainted” ceiling in the Plaintiff’s dorm room. While C-BB reported this to FAU as a complaint of a serious nature, this crucial evidence was not retained by the Defendants. There was no protocol by C- BB to retain the tainted ceiling to test it for mold. Instead, C-BB simply disposed of the tainted evidence. As a result of the Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff meets criteria for Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome due to exposure to mold and inflammagens found in Water Damaged Buildings(CIRS- WDB). CIRS-WDB is a multi-system, multi-symptom illness that can cause significant disability. Symptoms include neurological, visual, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, respiratory, dermatological, hormonal urinary, and metabolic issues. Attached is a letter from Benjamin’s doctor, explaining that Benjamin meets criteria for Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome due to exposure to mold and inflammagens found in Water Damaged Buildings(CIRS-WDB). CIRS-WDB is a multi-system, multi- symptom illness that can cause significant disability. Symptoms include neurological, visual, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, respiratory, dermatological, hormonal urinary, and metabolic issues. Ben falls into the 25% of the population who is genetically at risk for the development of CIRS upon exposure to water damaged buildings. SPOLIATION I. Spoliation Standard Under Florida Law The Florida Supreme Court has held that spoliation occurs when a party, which reasonably anticipates litigation, loses, discards, alters, or destroys pertinent evidence. Further, the loss, discarding, destruction, or alteration need not be intentional—mere negligence suffices: 2 Even in the absence of a legal duty, though, the spoliation of evidence results in an adverse inference against the party that discarded or destroyed the evidence. As this Court explained in Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 908 So. 2d 342, 346 (Fla. 2005), Florida courts may impose sanctions, including striking pleadings, against a party that intentionally lost, misplaced, or destroyed evidence, and a jury could infer under such circumstances that the evidence would have contained indications of liability. If the evidence was negligently destroyed, a rebuttable presumption of liability may arise. Id. at 347. In other words, as recognized by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, “an adverse inference may arise in any situation where potentially self-damaging evidence is in the possession of a party and that party either loses or destroys the evidence.” Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777, 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Martino v. Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., 835 So. 2d 1251, 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), approved, 908 So. 2d 342); see also Nationwide Lift Trucks, Inc. v. Smith, 832 So. 2d 824, 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (stating that “[c]ases in which evidence has been destroyed, either inadvertently or intentionally, are discovery violations” that may be subject to sanctions). League of Women Voters of Fla. v. Detzner , 172 So. 3d 363, 391 (Fla. 2015) (emphasis added). Florida law thus authorizes the imposition of sanctions for both intentional and negligent spoliation—and adverse-inference jury instructions are among the least severe sanctions available. See Detzner, 172 So. 3d at 391; Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777, 780-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“In cases involving negligent spoliation, courts prefer to utilize adverse evidentiary inferences and adverse presumptions during trial to address the lack of evidence. In cases involving intentional spoliation, courts more often strike pleadings or enter default judgments.”). The following elements apply when determining whether spoliation exists which warrants the imposition of a leveling mechanism: “1) whether the evidence existed at one time, 2) whether the spoliator had a duty to preserve the evidence, and 3) whether the evidence was critical to an opposing party being able to prove its prima facie case or a defense.” Golden Yachts, 920 So. 2d at 781. However, regarding the second element (the existence of a duty to preserve the evidence), the Florida Supreme Court clarified in 2015 that “[e]ven in the absence of a legal duty, . . . the spoliation of evidence results in an adverse inference against the party that discarded or destroyed the evidence .” Detzner, 172 So. 3d at 391 (emphasis added). As such, a party can be sanctioned for spoliation of evidence even if it does not have an affirmative duty to preserve the evidence. Id.; see also Adamson v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 325 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (holding that an adverse inference instruction is 3 appropriate even in the absence of a duty to preserve). Applicable here, the standard adverse-inference jury instruction—which, again, is a lesser spoliation sanction—provides: If you find that: (Name of party) [lost] [destroyed] [mutilated] [altered] [concealed] or otherwise caused the (describe evidence) to be unavailable, while it was within [his] [her] [its] possession, custody, or control; and the (describe evidence) would have been material in deciding the disputed issues in this case; then you may, but are not required to, infer that this evidence would have been unfavorable to (name of party). You may consider this, together with the other evidence, in determining the issues of the case. Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civil) 301.11a; see also Golden Yachts, 920 So. 2d at 780-81 (“In cases involving negligent spoliation, courts prefer to utilize adverse evidentiary inferences and adverse presumptions during trial to address the lack of evidence.”); Am. Hosp’y Mgmt. Co. v. Hettiger, 904 So. 2d 547, 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (describing an appropriate adverse-inference instruction as permitting the jury “to infer that the evidence would have been unfavorable to” the spoliator). Here, as explained below, the circumstances surrounding Defendants’ spoliation of critical evidence, and the prejudicial impact that the spoliation has had on the Plaintiff, warrant the remedy of an adverse inference as provided under Florida Standard Jury Instruction 301.11a. II. Florida Precedent Entitles Defendant to an Adverse-Inference Jury Instruction A. Element 1: The Tainted Drywall Was in the Defendant’s Possession First, it is undisputed that the evidence at issue here – namely, the “tainted” ceiling in the Plaintiff’s dorm room, was in the exclusive possession of FAU and C-BB. Thus, the first element is met. B. Element 2: Defendant Knowingly Discarded this Critical Evidence, Despite a Duty Not To Under Florida law, including Florida Supreme Court precedent, FAU and C-BB were under a duty to preserve this evidence. See, e.g., Detzner, 172 So. 3d at 391 (explaining that “Florida courts have . . . found a duty to preserve evidence in other circumstances when a party should reasonably foresee litigation”); St. Mary's Hospital Inc. v. Brinson, 685 So. 2d 33, 34-5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(recognizing that a hospital destroyed a vaporizer could have reasonably foreseen plaintiffs future lawsuit against vaporizer's manufacturer); Torres v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 762 So. 2d 1014, 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (Harris, J., 4 concurring) (“If one knows that he, she, or it is about to become involved in a civil action, this alone should be sufficient special circumstances to impose a duty of care to preserve such evidence in such potential party’s possession that a reasonable person would foresee is material to that action. But even if FAU and C-BB did not have such a duty, which they did, Plaintiff is still entitled to an adverse inference because such relief is appropriate even in the absence of duty. As explained by the Florida Supreme Court, “an adverse inference may arise in any situation where potentially self-damaging evidence is in the possession of a party and that party either loses or destroys the evidence.” Detzner, 172 So. 3d at 391 (quoting Golden Yachts, 920 So. 2d at 781). Thus, even if the Court declines to find an affirmative duty, FAU and C-BB’s destruction of key evidence still entitles Plaintiff to an adverse inference. C. Element 3: The Evidence Was Critical to the Plaintiff Finally, FAU and C-BB’s spoliation of evidence ultimately deprived the Plaintiff of critical mold inspection that would have confirmed Plaintiff’s contention that there was toxic mold in the dorm room. Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute this action has been substantially undermined because the Defendant prevented the Plaintiff testing for mold. In circumstances where the lost evidence was under the sole control of the party against whom the evidence might have been used to effect, and where the lost evidence is in fact critical to prove the other party's claim, an adverse inference instruction may be necessary to achieve justice in the jury's determination of the case. Adamson, 325 So. 3d at 898, Am. Hosp’y Mgmt. 904 So. 2d at 551. Conclusion For these reasons, Plaintiff, BENJAMIN MAGGIO, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court provide the following Florida Standard Jury Instruction to the jury (instruction 301.11a.): If you find that Defendants FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES and/or C-BB MANAGEMENT, LLC, lost, destroyed, altered, concealed, or otherwise caused evidence to be unavailable, while they were within their possession, custody, or control; and this evidence would have been material in deciding the disputed issues in this case; then you may, but are not required to, infer that this evidence would have been unfavorable to the Defendants. You may consider this, together with the other evidence, in determining the issues of the case. 5 WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff, BENJAMIN MAGGIO, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant his Motion for Adverse Inference Duc to Spoliation, instruct the jury as specified above, and grant any such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was sent by electronic e-service on Susan V. Warner, Esq., susan.warner@fisherbroyles.com, 1221 Brickcll Avenue, Suite 900, Miami, FL 33131 Atty for C-BB Management, LLC, and Thomas Gibbons, Esq., TGibbons@rubintonlaw.com. 3801 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 300, Hollywood, FL 33021, Atty for FAU Board of Trustees, this 28th day of October 2022. SHAHADY & WURTENBERGER, P.A. 7900 Peters Road, Suite B-200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324 (954) 376-5958 Telephone (954) 206-0188 Facsimile Attorneysfor Plaintiff Shahadv_ By: /s/John J. John J. Shahady, Esq., Fla. Bar No. 998990 JShahadv@swlawyers.law dambra@swlawvcrs. law (legal assist.) 6