Court filing
RESPONSE to Motion re 74 MOTION for Leave to File re 52 First MOTION for Protective… — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 75)
Summary
Plaintiff Sport & Wheat CPA PA's response regarding Synovus Bank's motion for leave to file a reply (ECF No. 74), dated July 6, 2020, in Sport & Wheat CPA PA v. ServisFirst Bank Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-5425-TKW-HTC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The response states that Sport & Wheat conditionally consented to the reply during a Loc. R. 7.1(B) conference, provided it is limited to whether Synovus can be obligated to pay Sport & Wheat's attorney fees on the motion. It says Sport & Wheat does not consent to a reply raising new issues and that Synovus declined to include this position in its certificate, citing Ex. A. The response adds that Sport & Wheat offered to resolve the dispute by withdrawing both Synovus's motion and its fee request, and calls the motion moot. It is signed by counsel from Levin, Papantonio and from Wirt & Wirt, P.A.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
SPORT & WHEAT CPA PA,
a Florida corporation, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated
businesses and individuals,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:20-cv-5425-TKW-HTC
v.
SERVISFIRST BANK INC., et al.,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF SPORT & WHEAT’S RESPONSE REGARDING
SYNOVUS BANK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY
(ECF No. 74)
Sport & Wheat conditionally consented to Synovus’s motion for leave to file
a reply today during a conference under Loc. R. 7.1(B). Sport & Wheat asked
Synovus to include this response in its Rule 7.1(B) certificate:
Sport & Wheat stated as follows: It consents to Synovus
filing a reply, so long as the reply is limited to just the
issue of whether Synovus can be obligated to pay Sport &
Wheat’s attorney fees in connection with this motion.
Sport & Wheat does not consent to a reply that raises new
issues, injects irrelevant material, or is inflammatory.
Synovus refused to pass that message to the Court, calling it “divisive,” Ex.
A, so Sport & Wheat is stating it here. If Synovus will limit itself to truly new issues
that haven’t already been briefed, then there is no reason to object to a reply.
1
During the call, Sport & Wheat also offered—again—to have the parties try
to amicably resolve this dispute by taking down both Synovus’s motion and Sport &
Wheat’s request for attorney fees. Synovus refused that as well. (Ex. A.)
Sport & Wheat is acting respectfully and is trying to resolve disputes in good
faith without taxing the Court. This entire motion was and is moot, and Sport &
Wheat wants the Court to know it is not the party pressing the issue.
Dated: July 6, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ William F. Cash III
Virginia M. Buchanan
(Fla. Bar No. 793116)
Matthew D. Schultz (Fla. Bar No. 640328)
William F. Cash III (Fla. Bar No. 68443)
LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS,
MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR,
P.A.
316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: 850-435-7059
Email: bcash@levinlaw.com
2
/s/ John S. Wirt
John S. Wirt, Esq. (Fla. Bar No. 117640)
Pamela Cocalas Wirt, Esq. (Fla. Bar No.
109576)
WIRT & WIRT, P.A.
5 Calhoun Ave, Suite 306
Destin, FL 32541
Tel: 847-323-4082
Fax: 314-431-6920
jwirt@wirtlawfirm.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
3
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flnd.190491.75.0.pdf
- Size
- 82,437 bytes
- SHA-256
- 00442c4f79fc72942a363799f79ef392f7e3d4443655b3c2f288fa3336baa03e
- Original
- No public link identified.