UCO Complaint






MYRON SOLOMON and GERARD KARPF, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED CIVIC ORGANIZATION, INC. a Florida
Not-For-Profit Corporation,

 Defendant.

____________________________________________/

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY

CASE NO.

50 2013CA002708XXXXIVIB AH

DIVISION

CLASS REPRESENTATION





PLAINTIFFS’ AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
WITHDRAW ITS MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION



Plaintiff, MYRON SOLOMON, on behalf of Plaintiffs, hereby files this
Affidavit in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion To Withdraw Its Motion to Compel
Arbitration and allege as follows:

1. This is a proposed class action for both damages in excess of $15,000,
and for equitable relief.

2. Further, this is an action for: (i) a court-ordered inspection and copying
of the records demanded pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 617.1604; (ii) court-ordered notice and due
process in connection with the constitution and meetings of a Board of Inquiry to be established
pursuant to UCO’s By-Laws Article XI (E) (“Board of Inquiry”) in connection with a petition


filed January 18, 2013 calling for the removal of UCO President David Israel (“Petition”); (iii)
court-ordered notice and due process in connection with any recommendations of the Board of
Inquiry to UCO’s Delegate Assembly; and, (iv) and, court-ordered notice and due process in
connection with any action by the Delegate Assembly in connection with the Petition.

3. On February 15, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their complaint herein.

4. On or about March 13, 2013, Defendant, UNITED CIVIC
ORGANIZATION, INC. (“UCO”), a Florida Not-For-Profit Corporation, by its attorney, Karen
M. Nissen, Esq., of Vernis & Bowling of Palm Beach, P.A., filed its Motion to Compel
Mediation and Motion for Enlargement Time (“Defendants’ Mediation Motion”).

5. By letter dated March 27, 2013 (Ex. A), Plaintiffs advised Defendants’
counsel as follows:

We are in receipt of your Motion To Compel Arbitration and
Motion For Enlargement of Time to Respond to Complaint
returnable April 3, 2013. We consent to same on the condition that
Defendant bear the cost of mediation; your time to answer shall be
due fifteen (15) days after completion of the mediation.



6. Plaintiffs based their response upon Fla. Stat. §44.102, which provides in
relevant part as follows:

44.102 Court-ordered mediation.—



(2) A court, under rules adopted by the Supreme Court:



(a) Must, upon request of one party, refer to mediation any filed
civil action for monetary damages, provided the requesting party is
willing and able to pay the costs of the mediation or the costs can
be equitably divided between the parties . . .



7. The original return date of Defendant’s Mediation Motion was April 3,
2013, which date was adjourned at Defendant’s request to April 11, 2013.

8. On April 11, 2013, Plaintiffs appeared before the Court in a timely


manner, yet, Ms. Karen Nisen, counsel for Defendant was not present when the calendar began
to be called, and eventually signed in. When Plaintiffs’ case was finally called, the Court was
unable to hear it, and adjourned the case subject to a date to be agreed upon by the parties.

9. Upon the adjournment, Ms. Nissen and plaintiffs agreed to a new hearing
date of April 16, 2013, which date was confirmed by Ms. Nissen. Shortly thereafter, without
conferring with, or notice to, Plaintiffs, on April 11, 2013 counsel for Defendant’s filed its
Notice of Withdrawal of its Motion to Compel Mediation. (“Defendants’ Withdrawal Motion”)

10. Plaintiffs submit that either: (i) Defendant’s Mediation Motion, or (ii)
Defendant’ Withdrawal Motion were filed in bad faith, and such “jerking around” tactics,
together with counsel’s disregard of pro se Plaintiffs’ time and inconvenience necessitated by
multiple appearances, must not be condoned, as the effect of counsel for Defendant’s
gamesmanship is to unjustly delay the progress of the case, and its design would appear to be to
frustrate Plaintiffs.

11. Lastly, upon telephoning Ms. Nissen’s office on April 15, 2013 to
determine whether the hearing in this case scheduled for April 16, 2013 was going forward, I
was informed that it was not. Yet, Defendant’s counsel failed to notify Plaintiffs of such change
in schedule, again demonstrating their lack of consideration for Plaintiffs’ time.

12. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court either: (i) find
Defendants in default for failure to timely submit an answer; or, (ii) strike Defendant’s
Withdrawal Motion pursuant to Rule 1.150 as a Sham Pleading, grant Defendant’s Mediation
Motion, and require that Defendant pay the costs of the mediation as required under to Fla. Stat.
§ 44.102(2), together with such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.










EXHIBIT A






GERALD KARPF

Unit 327 Windsor O

Century Village,

West Palm Beach, FL 33417

(561) 684-1487

wishman1177@gmail.com





VIA EMAIL to KNissen@Florida-Law.com



 March 27, 2013

Ms. Karen M. Nissen, Esq.

Vernis & Bowling of Palm Beach, P.A.

884 U.S. Highway One

North Palm Beach, FL 33408



 Re: Solomon and Karpf v. United Civic Organization

 Case No. 50 2013CA0027008XXXXMB AH



Dear Ms. Nissen:



 We are in receipt of your Motion To Compel Arbitration and Motion For
Enlargement of Time to Respond to Complaint returnable April 3, 2013. We consent to same on
the condition that Defendant bear the cost of mediation; your time to answer shall be due fifteen
(15) days after completion of the mediation.



 Kindly advise.

 Very truly yours,



 Gerald Karpf

 Co-Plaintiff












Unit 327 Windsor 0
Century Village,
West Palm Beach, FL 33417
(561) 684-1487
wishman1177@gmail.com

VIA EMAIL to KNissen@Florida-Law.com GERARD KARPF


March 27, 2013

Ms. Karen M. Nissen, Esq.

Vernis & Bowling of Palm Beach, P.A.

884 U.S. Highway One

North Palm Beach, FL 33408

Re:      Solomon and Karpf v. United Civic Organization

Case No. 50 2013CA0027008XXXXMB AH

Dear Ms. Nissen:


We are in receipt of your Motion To Compel Arbitration and Motion For Enlargement of Time to Respond to Complaint returnable April 3, 2013. We consent to same on the condition that Defendant bear the cost of mediation; your time to answer shall be due fifteen (15) days after completion of the mediation.


`Kindly advise.
Very truly yours,
) C,
Gerard Karpf Co-Plaintiff




Click here to see the entire complaint


click here to see updates

3 comments:

  1. Dumb and Dumberer

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete