Judges Quickly Realize The Attorney is Clueless

[00:00:00]uh you argue that sanctions would be inappropriate because um you have a valid argument for the extension of the law and in such a case uh sanctions under 57105 would be inappropriate. Is there somewhere in this brief where you ask us to extend the state of the law to incorporate your facts?

[00:00:22]>> I'm not understanding the question.

[00:00:25]>> Is there any part of your argument section, Mr. Rams that you can point to and say this made an argument.

[00:00:31]>> No. No. The the the argument section um recites certain case law.

[00:00:37]>> Um >> so do you agree your argument section included no argument of any kind?

[00:00:44]>> Uh yes. I mean a sec for page 17 where we give a summary of the argument.

[00:00:50]Council, I'm a little surprised that you say you didn't understand we'd be discussing your brief today when the order to show cause specifically said the hearing was about your brief.

[00:01:00]>> Um, respectfully, your honor, I thought that the hearing was with regard to the fact that I did not provide a response to um the June 18th um show cause order.

[00:01:10]>> The order to show cause says why sanctions should not be imposed against him pursuant to Florida rule of appel procedure 9.41A 41A for quote filing a brief that was frivolous or in bad faith.

[00:01:21]>> You're about to watch one of the craziest oral arguments I've ever seen because this lawyer who's facing sanctions from the court is just so bad, so unprepared, so clueless. Here we go.

[00:01:35]Hi, I am mentor lawyer and in this video we are covering the show cause hearing at the sixth district court of appeal in Florida against Miami attorney Jerome Ramsarin. An attorney who still practices law in Florida but who prior to this hearing already had two ethics issues with the Florida bar. More on that later and it is shocking. Remarin's performance at this hearing uh in which the appellet judges were considering imposing sanctions against him is jaw-dropping and not in a good way.

[00:02:05]These judges quickly realize that this lawyer is completely clueless. We will let you watch this entertaining hearing first and then we will tell you what happened to attorney Ramsaround in that case, what the court did after this hearing. We will also tell you about the two misconduct cases listed on the Florida Bar page for attorney Ramsaran. Okay, here we go.

[00:02:32]Are you serious?

[00:02:39]>> All right, I think that we have everyone now um from the waiting room. Good morning to everyone. We are here for a special session of the sixth district court of appeal in case number 6D232601 foreman electric services inc versus LSQ funding group LC. At the outset it does look like we have more people than were required to be here. So I'll just ask everyone who is not Mr. Ranserin um to go ahead and introduce yourselves.

[00:03:13]Good morning. Kevin Fowler for LSQ funding group LC.

[00:03:18]All >> right. Good morning, ma'am.

[00:03:21]>> Good morning. I a stenographer with Veritex Court Reporting.

[00:03:24]>> Okay. And just so everyone knows um we are being livereamed on YouTube this morning. I don't know um who hired a court reporter.

[00:03:34]>> Uh that was my office, your honor.

[00:03:36]>> Okay. Are you aware, sir, that we are being livereamed this morning? I was not, but that's that's fine.

[00:03:43]>> Okay. Do you wish to keep your court reporter here?

[00:03:47]>> Um I I I've never dealt with live streaming if it's all the same to the court. Um I you know I it I would like to have the court reporter tag along.

[00:04:00]Okay.

[00:04:01]Ma'am, if you'll just stay muted throughout the proceedings, um I'll go ahead and allow that this morning. My name is uh Patra Brownley.

[00:04:09]I'm going to be the presiding judge this morning. I'm joined today by my two colleagues, the Honorable Keith White and the Honorable Joshua Mai. We are here today on an order to show cause as to why sanctions including attorneys fees and costs incurred by the Appal Council Jerome Ramsarin personally pursuant to both Florida rule of appellet procedure 9.410A 410A as well as section 571051B of the Florida statutes. Sir, am I pronouncing your name correctly?

[00:04:43]>> You are, your honor. Yes. Ramsaran.

[00:04:46]>> Ramsaran.

[00:04:47]Okay. Thank you for that. Um, let's see.

[00:04:50]So, I will note at the outset that um the appellant foreman and electric services, Inc. previously filed a response to our show cause order. Um, and we received that back in June. On Friday, we received both an amended response as well as a verified response from council. We have reviewed all of those documents. It's my understanding, sir, that through those documents, you wish to inform us that that original response that we um believed, frankly, pursuant to language in the response that it was filed solely on behalf of your client was actually filed um on behalf of both of you. So, and I will allow you to flesh this out for us a little bit further and I'll certainly allow you um to tell us anything that you would like um in response to our show cause order. But before we get to that, um what I intend to do is to have me and my colleagues ask you some preliminary questions to sort of frame this so that um you know we have sufficient background here.

[00:05:55]All right. So sir, what I'd like to start with is could you please tell us how long you have been practicing law?

[00:06:02]>> This this month makes my 10th year in practice.

[00:06:06]>> What area of the law do you primarily practice?

[00:06:09]>> Um I primarily practice um what I like to call consumer protection mostly. Um so we do I'll break that down. We do a lot of um homeowners insurance claims here in the state of Florida. We've do personal injury um actions against banks, lender institutions on behalf of consumers. Um we um we have in the last year or two begun working with um more more in the commercial space in the realm of uh government contracting. Um we've been dabbling here and there. Thus our involvement in this case.

[00:06:45]Okay.

[00:06:46]>> And how many appeals throughout that practice have you handled?

[00:06:52]Maybe more than 10, less than 20.

[00:06:54]>> More than 10 appeals.

[00:06:56]>> More than 10.

[00:06:56]>> For how long? How many years have you been practicing appellet law?

[00:07:00]>> Um, I probably been engaged in the uh appellet circuit. I mean, as far as filing appeals um I mean I don't want to say anything incorrect, but I believe at least with for the last five years, if not more.

[00:07:15]>> And are you handling these appeals by yourself or is there anyone who's assisting you?

[00:07:20]Um, at the time of this case, there was um someone assisting me. Um, there um a longtime parillegal um and former former attorney named uh Tracy Tracy Long.

[00:07:34]>> Okay. But you're primary on your appellet cases. Is that correct?

[00:07:38]>> Correct.

[00:07:39]>> Okay. And sir, um have you reviewed all of the Florida rules of appellet procedure? I >> I'm fairly familiar with them. I won't say I I know them all inside and out, but I mean I know how to, you know, um use my resources as needed and to try to comply with the rules as necessary.

[00:07:59]>> Okay. So, what I want to do um is start with the contents of your initial brief because pursuant to our show cause order, there are two bases for fees. One of which is rule 9.410A 410A um which is our the sanctions rule under the Florida rule of appellet procedure that provides that the court on its own motion may impose sanctions for any violation of these rules or for filing any preceding motion brief or other document that is frivolous or in bad faith. So, I want to get to the briefing portion of that rule. When and I believe that this was um raised by the Apple in their previous uh motion for sanctions under 57105.

[00:08:40]When I look to the argument portion of your initial brief, what I find are a plethora of citations to sort of um I want to say boilerplate or well settled uh rules of law that I don't believe either party contends aren't applicable here, but that's just a sort of broad rule. There's no argument with regard to any of those citations. And so can you tell me about that and why there is no analysis in the argument section of the brief? And I'll tell you why I'm >> asking you that is because under rule 9.210B5 of the Florida rules of appellet procedure, that rule requires an argument with regard to each issue that you intend to raise on appeal.

[00:09:25]>> Um, if I may, may I pull up the initial brief?

[00:09:29]>> Yes.

[00:09:29]>> I wasn't aware we'd be talking about it today. Give me a moment. Let me grab that.

[00:09:43]The initial area the initial or the amended?

[00:09:50]>> The amended initial brief.

[00:09:52]>> Understood. Okay.

[00:09:57]So, as I go through the brief, I note we have our statement of facts and we I'm looking for the section that you're specifically referring to.

[00:10:06]I'll tell you why I'm saying this too, council. In addition to the rules, it strikes me that the Apple argued in their motion, which isn't before us today. Um, but it's the same reaction, frankly, that I had when reviewing the brief, is how would the Apple know what arguments to respond to if you were si simply setting forth well settled points of law?

[00:10:31]I I I see your honor and and I do believe we do flesh this out a little better in our probably our responses to their uh motions for sanctions. But um I I do note that even within this that um we do take the position that see let make sure I'm saying this correctly that this is not long I'm looking at this quickly so bear with me.

[00:10:59]>> Council, I'm a little surprised that you say you didn't understand we'd be discussing your brief today when the order to show cause specifically said the hearing was about your brief.

[00:11:08]Um, respectfully, your honor, I thought the the hearing was with regard to the fact that I did not provide a response to um the June 18th um show cause order.

[00:11:18]>> The order to show cause says why sanctions should not be imposed against him pursuant to Florida rule of appel procedure 9.41A for quote filing a brief that was frivolous or in bad faith.

[00:11:30]>> I I thought it was for failing to respond to your order that show cause at to that is is exact issue. Um maybe I'm misunderstood. But um with that being said, I do believe we take the position within the brief that um we there there is an issue of fact created in these in these documents that we uh presented to the to the lower tribunal here.

[00:11:52]specifically the fact that um that that this case arises from a um a standard subcontract agreement essentially between um our client and a third party named Halaron.

[00:12:06]uh Howeron ultimately um sold its um its invoices or line items to another company um well LSQ in this instance and LSQ ultimately um we we take the position that L that by by virtue of that invoice purchase agreement and the language within that and and a subsequent action that LSQ in which LSQ in which sued LSQ and where and where LSQ answered pursuant to his answers and affirmed defenses that there is a um cognisible and um judicial judicial issue of fact in this case over over whether or not we are a third uh third party beneficiary to um to their invoice purchase agreement.

[00:12:54]>> Council, can you tell me two things?

[00:12:56]Number one, is um that the affir the answer and affirmative defense is filed in the other action in our record on appeal. Ye. Yes, your honor. Part of the record on appeal. Well, may not maybe not part of the record on appeal, but there via the appendix.

[00:13:13]>> Why is that proper under the rule?

[00:13:16]>> Well, I I don't want to say again, your honor, I'm not certain. Um I I believe it could be part of the record on the table because we it was part of our third amended uh our motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and which a lot of those allegations were put forth. But I do know for certain that they were put into the appendix. But would you agree with me? Is there some rule of appellet procedure in your mind that would allow you to insert items into an appendix to an amended initial brief that were not included in the record on appeal?

[00:13:47]>> Um, not that I know of, your honor, but I believe these were put into the record into the record on appeal or at least in the lower tribunal. The only >> That's what I'm trying to get clarification on.

[00:13:54]>> I see. The only reason we would we would not or we would file the appendix in a case like that um frankly is if we put it into the record and the record of appeal didn't produce those items afterwards which could have been the case as well meaning that those items were not made part of the record although they were filed in the lower tribunal.

[00:14:16]>> Okay. Well, would you agree with me that the rules of of procedure on in the appellet court require you to have documents that you're going to site for purposes of the appeal in the record on appeal, not just filed in the lower tribunal? We don't we don't have that before us. I guess this brings me back to the original point, which is if maybe there is something um that would support an argument that you're now making about third party beneficiaries. And I am wondering what is happening with the argument section of this brief such that it's this is raised in here and such that the apple would have notice that that is your argument that you're relying on the answer and affirmative defenses raised in the other action and can you show me in this brief where the apple would be put on notice of that and not simply I mean I know that that was a part of your argument in response to the show cause order that's separate in my mind because that's far later.

[00:15:16]>> Understood.

[00:15:27]Paragraphs 8 9 10 11 >> of what document?

[00:15:36]>> Uh of the amended initial brief. 8 9 10 11 12.

[00:15:40]>> What page are you on council?

[00:15:42]>> Four. Three and four. Okay. Sorry. This is just about the argument section.

[00:15:47]>> I see. Council, you seem you there's two different issues here and I think we're trying to get you to address one and you're addressing the other. So, there's the merits of your claim and whether or not um you all had an argument you could have made that wasn't frivolous. Okay.

[00:16:05]Then separate from the merits, there's you complying with your obligations as appellants counsel to put those arguments into a brief. So before we get to the kind of merits of whether or not you could have had a claim, right, and whether or not the trial court did in fact heir, you had some basis to to dispute that, I think the issue is you wholly failed to articulate an argument in your brief, even assuming you had one. There's just no argument at all.

[00:16:37]The argument section that you have labeled argument is just kind of a cut and paste from various rules and cases with no explanation whatsoever how any of those authorities, you know, make an argument why why they would why the trial court would have aired according to those authorities.

[00:16:54]There was just no attempt, no serious attempt to meet your appellet burden.

[00:16:59]So, it's not really the merits of your claim we're at at this point. Although, I I looked at them and it it does seem the claims were frivolous. At least, it's hard to it's hard to completely evaluate what argument. Just looking at the record, it's very hard to see how you could have made a meritorious argument. But, we're not even there yet because we're just talking about the contents of your brief and the complete failure to include an argument section and to comply with rule 9.210 requiring you to set forth arguments on each point of appeal. You had two points of appeal.

[00:17:29]There was no argument section. There was nothing in your argument section to support or put forth an argument on those two points of appeal. Do you see the distinction I'm making?

[00:17:38]>> I do. I do, your honor. I see it's more um I guess substantive as what's in the brief itself.

[00:17:45]Let me see.

[00:17:47]And I'll tell you I did in terms of the order show I did just look again and the the the you had the order to show cause explicitly said this was about your brief and the show and the hearing order that we entered setting this hearing said this is why s the hearing is about why sanctions should not be entered for the reasons stated in the show cause order. So everything you were put on notice of today explicitly said the brief understood your honor. I mistook that. U I I I thought the court was upset with me for not um directly responding to the uh June 18th order. Let's see.

[00:18:42]All I can offer the court is this that the argu that the case law that we cite goes to the arguments that were made and albeit they were not made in the argument section that were made in an earlier section but they go to the heart of those arguments that I that I referenced earlier. Um, see here on page Is there any part of your argument section, Mr. Rams, that you can point to and say this made an argument?

[00:19:39]>> No. No. The the the argument section um recites certain case law. Um, >> so do you agree your argument section included no argument of any kind?

[00:19:52]Uh, >> yes. I mean, except for page 17 where we give a summary of the argument, >> council, in your response um to the show cause order, it's not in your personal response. Um, it was in the one filed on behalf of your client. uh you argue that sanctions would be inappropriate because um you have a valid argument for the extension of the law and in such a case uh sanctions under 57105 would be inappropriate. Is there somewhere in this brief where you ask us to extend the state of the law to incorporate your facts?

[00:20:32]I'm not understand the question.

[00:20:33]>> Is there any argument in your initial brief for the extension of the application of the legal authority that would presently govern this lawsuit?

[00:20:45]I mean, we we cite we cite the areas of the law that we believe support why the court should have um uh what was incorrect in denying our motion to um amend the third to admit the third amended complaint and why they were incorrect as to u dismissing the action with prejudice. I mean I believe those um recitations stand for that proposition. Um let's see wh >> which part of the argument section did you explain why the trial court aired in dismissing the second amendment complaint or denying leave on the third denying leave to file the third amendment complaint.

[00:21:24]>> That would have been in the earlier section where we recite kind of the history of the case.

[00:21:28]>> Okay. So you you had a you had a statement of case and facts that says trial court dismissed it and then you have an argument section that says nothing or doesn't the argument.

[00:21:39]>> Yeah. I I I think about apology. Sorry.

[00:21:43]>> Which part of the brief would you say explained or provided some type of argument as to why the trial court aired?

[00:21:53]>> I would say the the section that comes before the summary of the argument. We kind of put our our arguments within that area and um in response to the facts, put them forth. We kind of take position at that.

[00:22:05]>> Council, is it your understanding of the Florida rules of appellet procedure that you are permitted to make argument in the factual background section of your initial brief?

[00:22:16]>> Um, no, your honor, but I didn't think it would be inappropriate to do so. I I mean, this was >> to put argument in the facts section.

[00:22:27]Um well I I mean we we we did put the arguments there as we put as we set forth the facts. We stated our position on those facts and I believe that what follows supports those positions.

[00:22:47]Council, do you agree that the trial court's order comes to us with a presumption of correctness?

[00:22:59]>> Um, I I Yes, your honor. I never thought about it, but yes.

[00:23:07]And so I share what's I think clearly been articulated by my colleagues in what we were struggling with is if we have a trial court renders an order and it carries with it a presumption of correctness and then it comes up to us and we have a brief that contains no argument. We have that brief based on things that are outside the record contrary to the rules. And we also have an absence of a transcript when the order that is presumably correct specifically says for the reason stated on the record it was >> dismissed.

[00:23:59]So >> explain to me how explain to me how that all of that taken together would be a good faith appeal.

[00:24:12]>> Well, in this case, your honor, the the um the Lord tribunal did not give um did not articulate reasons. We say that within the recitation facts section. Did not give reasons or find his >> order says that but his order says that he stated it at the hearing.

[00:24:29]Uh, >> Judge Falcone wrote, "One moment, please." Judge Falcone wrote, "For the reasons stated on the record, LSQ's motion to dismiss is granted.

[00:24:44]Foreman's second amended complaint is dismissed as to LSQ with prejudice. For the reasons stated on the record, Foreman's motion for leave to amend is denied as amendment would be feudal.

[00:24:58]But your honor, in this case, there was no um transcript or anything of that nature in this case, and we have no record of what was stated at that hearing.

[00:25:07]>> Council, it's your burden to demonstrate that the trial court aired in dismissing the complaint. Is that correct?

[00:25:14]>> Yes.

[00:25:18]>> Okay. Okay. So, I think this goes back to Judge White's question, which I interrupted when you stated that the trial judge did something to the effect of he did not put something on the record or he did not state it at the hearing. Let's call it state at the hearing. There doesn't seem to be a record.

[00:25:34]>> He Well, my my only point was that the order did not include the findings from that hearing >> or did not include the reason. So, you're saying he did state it at he did state it at the hearing orally, but he just he did not put it in the written order.

[00:25:48]>> I mean, as I sit here before you today, I can't even recall if he did or not, you know. Um, we we felt the reason we we filed the appeal is we felt we we didn't we weren't given a good reason as to why it was dismissed.

[00:26:00]Is there something under Florida law that requires the trial court in this sort of action given the claims that were raised in this particular case to make affirmative findings when dismissing the case with prejudice?

[00:26:14]>> I I was under the impression that the trial court has that responsibility >> a final judgement >> based on what authority were you under that impression?

[00:26:24]>> Um I I as I sit here before you I don't know it.

[00:26:29]Wouldn't that have been something important to determine before you filed an appeal?

[00:26:35]>> Respectfully, I didn't know that this was in that this was going to be an issue in in this in this type of regard.

[00:26:41]I we filed >> you just said that you you just said that you thought the trial court aired by not putting written findings in an order and then I asked you from where and you said I don't know. So, if you're going to if you filing an appeal thinking that the trial court aired based on not including written findings in an order, isn't that something you should look into and determine you're right about or have some legal basis to think before filing an appeal and having us spend resources on it, the opposing party spend resources on it that could have been spent on a meritorious appeal?

[00:27:26]I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm not think I don't think I'm understanding the the question.

[00:27:32]>> You told me council that the trial court aired by not putting written findings in the order.

[00:27:40]>> Yes.

[00:27:41]>> Correct.

[00:27:42]>> Correct.

[00:27:42]>> Okay. Then I asked you why you thought that like from what authority? And you said I don't know of any.

[00:27:50]And so what I'm saying is if you're going to file an appeal thinking that something was an error, shouldn't you have some reason or legal authority to think it was an error before you file the appeal?

[00:28:07]>> Well, I I believe we do address that on page five of um in the statement of facts.

[00:28:15]We we state that the trial lower trial tribunal did not articulate any specific deficiencies.

[00:28:20]Council, you're council, you're not you're that's not the question I asked you. I'm not asking you whether you said he didn't articulate reasons. I'm saying whether you had any legal authority to show that he needed to articulate reasons.

[00:28:34]>> No, but respectfully, that's not an issue that we raised in this complaint.

[00:28:39]>> I mean, or in this um this appeal.

[00:28:41]>> Well, you you just told me that's you just told me that your argument section, your argument is within your statement of facts.

[00:28:49]That's what's in your statement of facts. And then you tell me that um you just told me a few minutes ago, the three of us, that the trial court you believe aired by not including written findings in his order.

[00:29:08]Do you see why the absence of any argument in your argument section would make it hard for us to figure out what your argument is?

[00:29:17]I I I'm I'm starting to see, you know, the struggle you guys have had with this >> council in the I'm going to get back to a question I asked before that um wasn't clear.

[00:29:32]In your response to the show cause order, your um my understanding from reviewing the response and it's the latest response is that uh 57105 sanctions would be inappropriate in this case because quote the appellant believed it was asserting a good faith argument for the extension of existing law based on such cases and then you quote cases.

[00:29:58]So, is there somewhere in this brief, and maybe for some reason it would be in this back section, but is there somewhere in this brief where you could tell me that there is a good faith argument made for the extension of existing law?

[00:30:14]>> Um, yes, within the argument section, which you guys say is a recitation of law. Let me pull it up. council, if you think there's some part of your argument section that is not just copying and pasting various, you know, items of law, please point it out to us because we're not characterizing it that way. That's in fact what it is. That's not our interpretation.

[00:30:37]That's that's exactly what it is.

[00:30:39]There's not a word of argument in the argument section. There is just copying and pasting from various rules and cases with no explanation of any kind how any of those authorities apply to this case or demonstrate that the trial court committed error under the facts of this case.

[00:31:04]If I'm you you said well that's how we characterize it. If we're miscarrying it, misar mischaracterizing it or characterizing it incorrectly, feel free to point us to the section of the argument se the page of the argument section that you think does contain argument.

[00:31:18]>> Um, I'm looking right now. I mean, I just pulled it up. Page 23. Refusing to allow an amendment is abuse at the trial court's discretion unless it clearly appears that allowing such amendment with presidency of both party. The privilege of amend has been abused or amendment will be futile.

[00:31:31]>> Okay. So, so copying and pasting authority, we got that.

[00:31:35]Yes, but again that relates to earlier arguments made in the uh in the brief, not necessarily within that quote unquote argument section, but relates back to other sections where we take a position that we should have been allowed to amend.

[00:31:54]>> Is there but there's nowhere it strikes me that there's nowhere in the brief where it says why you should get an opportunity to amend. For example, Judge Falcone aired in finding X, Y, and Z and then walking through the factors that lean toward permitting a party to amend.

[00:32:13]There's no moment where you say why he aired. Maybe he got futility wrong. Um, it just strikes me that there is nothing, at least at a minimum, not in the argument section, that tells us why he aired. Where is the demonstration of error which it's your burden to do?

[00:32:35]Your burden to satisfy rather um I mean he he gave no reason as to why amendment should be disallowed in the case.

[00:32:45]>> Council I get there is a place in your statement of facts where you say he didn't give a reason. Okay.

[00:32:54]But in order for that to constitute an argument, we would need kind of some kind of match between a statement of facts and law and then applying that law to facts, right? That's how arguments work. So for instance, there's nothing in your argument section giving us any law saying he needed to give facts and then saying, "Hey, look, in my statement of facts section, I pointed out that he didn't give those and that's what the order says. It's missing those facts.

[00:33:22]here's the law that says he was required to give those findings or reasons.

[00:33:26]Therefore, he aired.

[00:33:29]Do you see how that kind of thing is fully missing?

[00:33:32]>> Absolutely. And and yes, we don't have that cadence of an argument, but I believe those pieces are there. It just >> is there is there a piece where you give us some authority for the proposition that he needed to state findings in his in his written order?

[00:33:44]>> Let me pull back up to 20 page 23. I thought I saw something there. council.

[00:33:49]There's not because you he doesn't that's not a thing.

[00:33:54]>> Well, um we we we we all >> judges ruling on a motion to dismiss are not required to make written findings in their order. You won't find that because it doesn't exist in the state of Florida. That's not a thing we do here.

[00:34:08]>> Well, I understand. But there's a case we k Jean D and Katherine T. MacArthur.

[00:34:14]Um, ordinarily dismissal prejudice should not be ordered without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend defective pleading unless it's apparent that the pleading cannot be amended to state a cause of action. No such find was made that this was >> he found it was feudal council. He he made an express finding of futility.

[00:34:30]Judge Falcone did in his written order dismissing the operative pleading.

[00:34:37]>> But that's exactly what we're arguing against. We're arguing that this is not futile. Maybe he just misunderstood our cause of action.

[00:34:43]what we were trying to do.

[00:34:45]>> But how do we how do we know he misunderstood it when he referenced and judge me is correct?

[00:34:52]He doesn't have to make written findings in the order he says which is presumably correct because it's in his written order. He says I gave my reasons. You're not suggesting that in the absence of a transcript that you satisfy your burden just by saying that a judge actually did not state reasons on the record.

[00:35:14]>> Not at all. No, no, no, not at all.

[00:35:17]We're just saying we're our only position is that we I mean, yes, he made he he made the finding that there that the that it was deficient, but we're our position is that it's not and therefore that's that's why we were trying to amend the complaint. But we believe the amended complaint we put before the court satisfied those deficiencies.

[00:35:41]>> Uh council, let me ask you about um I'm a little puzzled about your your filing this amended response that Judge Brownley referred to that you filed um on the 25th of of this month amending your prior response.

[00:35:58]And it starts out it says appellent form in electric services and undersigned counsel. That was one of your amendments because as had been pointed out it didn't appear to us that you would have filed it on your own behalf in addition to your client. So you corrected that.

[00:36:18]And then but on the last page however your signature line it says underneath your signature block attorney for appellent contractor litigation financing LLC.

[00:36:32]>> I copy pasted that signature block.

[00:36:34]Apologies.

[00:36:36]>> Okay. So is that's just a typographical error or does contractor have some interest in this case?

[00:36:44]>> No. Not at all. Okay.

[00:36:47]Council, did you proofread the brief before you filed it?

[00:36:51]>> Um, this brief. Yes.

[00:36:53]>> Okay.

[00:36:56]>> Because there's there's a lot of things in here that are like um even in the statement of facts. Um either obvious misstatements or otherwise mistaken. You tell us there's a US District Court for the Western District of Florida that obviously doesn't exist. You make a lot of statements about like at all material times there too. But then you make a statement that kind of by its nature cannot be done at all material times there too. Like something that happened on a specific date like you said like at all material times there too the parties entered into a contract or at all material times there too a particular pleading was filed. Um things that by their nature don't happen at all material times there too that happen at a specific point. So that kind of made it hard for us to even follow the statement of facts because it just a lot large parts of it were nonsensical.

[00:37:48]>> I see the reason we put that um that um um that statement in at all material times we're trying to you know point the court to the pertinent facts that upon which we're we're basing our arguments.

[00:38:03]But what I'm saying is when you say at all material times there too for numerous statements and it wasn't just once or twice it was a much and then what follows is something that by its nature doesn't happen at all material times there too. Right? So like if you say at all material times there too someone had a duty right that's the kind of thing that can happen over a period of time and it can make sense to say that duty existed at all material times there too. When you say at all material times there too they filed an answer or at all material times there too you know someone file someone entered into a contract those are things that by their nature happen on a particular date they don't happen at all material times there too by their very nature and you kind of did that throughout the brief throughout the statement of facts section >> I see I I I use that to state that at all times you know that are material to his action. You know, Foreman did enter into a contract. I'm I'm looking at right now. I'm looking where I see that on page eight. Um, you know, for example, where we say all at all times material here too, Foreman submitted the fifth invoice to Howeron for materials and labor.

[00:39:11]>> That's what I'm saying. Can you submit an invoice at all material times throughout a dispute or do you submit an invoice at a particular time?

[00:39:21]well, at a particular time, but in reference to this act to this action, what we're trying to say here that we're trying to say that this is, you know, this is a pertinent fact and and maybe there's a better way I should have said that, but that that's what we're trying to say by by way of that introductory remark.

[00:39:40]council, if if we were to conclude that this um brief was frivolous or in bad faith, what do you believe the appropriate sanction would be?

[00:39:56]I mean, I would ask this court not to um monetarily pen penalize us. Um I I I don't know what other sanctions or options are available. This is the first time I find myself in a situation like this. Council, after hearing from us, do you think the brief had any merit?

[00:40:14]>> Not your claims, but the brief. I >> I I believe the brief has merit, but I I think it could have been written much better. And albeit I I didn't write this necessarily, I I it was my responsibility and I oversaw it and I filed it. Um with that said, >> who who did write it?

[00:40:29]>> My my assistant. He I I he prepared it.

[00:40:33]I I looked it over. I I I granted it what didn't follow the standard of our argument our argument standards but I thought it made sense.

[00:40:42]>> Is your assistant a lawyer?

[00:40:44]>> Uh he he was a lawyer at one point in time.

[00:40:48]>> Okay. Well, is he is a disbarred lawyer?

[00:40:51]>> No, not at all. He um retired.

[00:40:56]>> Council, um I hear you say that you thought that the brief made sense. Did it I guess at that time did you were you aware that it did not comply with the Florida rules of appellet procedure neither with regard to the appendix the record the factual background statement or the argument section >> with regard to those procedural components probably not in all candidness probably not um as to the argument I was confident that our argument was meritorious but you know procedurally We we were feeling our way around correcting some of those items as we had to make amendments.

[00:41:40]>> I don't understand that point. You mean with regard to the amended initial brief?

[00:41:43]>> Yes. The court directed us that advises that we um we filed something incorrect.

[00:41:48]I can't rightly remember at this point in time, but >> it was the initial brief.

[00:41:51]>> Yes. And we went back and we had to do something to fix it. Why was the um amended initial brief filed uh so far out of time after our order?

[00:42:04]>> Um your your honor to be honest with you, we just been having and it's not just with this court. We've been having trouble getting these notifications. Um >> you don't get them via email.

[00:42:14]>> It had they have not been coming to us via email. We've been getting them via mail. Some of them come in the mail and you know I'd have my assistants you know pull up run through our emails or spam and we can't find those initial because they don't come through the normal channels. They come through something else something like um in the sixth circuit especially something some kind of mail.

[00:42:35]>> What do you mean by the sixth circuit?

[00:42:37]You mean the trial court?

[00:42:39]>> No no the sixth district. I apologize.

[00:42:40]The sixth district they especially come some in a different manner than we're used to. I forget what it's called.

[00:42:46]something case mail or something like that the orders come through and they have been going through our spam folder for a period of time these case mails um and ultimately they they haven't been coming through the e- filing portal which is typically how we get orders and other and other um and not not not saying you guys are wrong or we're right or anything like that that we overlooked that we didn't realize that these notifications were coming through something called case mail rather than through the e e- filing portal Do you think that's something you should bring to our attention? I >> I believe we did. We um we notified whoever when we when we realized we were filing late, we we spoke to the clerk or whomever and we were instructed to simply file at that time.

[00:43:36]>> I think maybe what you're referencing is the fact that trial courts that you get served with items in trial courts in a different manner than you do with appellet courts. That's true. But even the third district like an order will come through um the e- filing portal, not necessarily through this email um platform that is coming through on the sixth district court of appeals.

[00:43:56]>> Council, is this the first time you've ever practiced before the sixth district court of appeals?

[00:44:00]>> Yes. Yes. Not my first time in Orange County trial court, but yes, before the sixth district. The first time.

[00:44:08]Was there any moment where you tell us, let's see, the um order requiring an amended initial brief states that the appendix to the initial brief does not comply with Florida rule of appellet procedure 9.220C.

[00:44:22]It wasn't bookmarked and to file a corrected appendix within 10 days and um it well after 10 days that gets filed.

[00:44:33]So, did you ever tell us the reason that you were filing out of time or ask us to accept something as timely filed or anything to that effect?

[00:44:42]>> No, I did not, your honor. I did not file anything um requesting that be taken in or anything like anything of that nature at that time.

[00:44:51]>> Right. And council, when I look at the appendix that was filed, >> well, let me make sure that I'm on the right one here. Yeah.

[00:45:04]Did you do an appendix to the amended?

[00:45:06]Yeah, you just call it you don't call it amended, but you'd call it um appendix.

[00:45:12]So it has the same name as the original one. Okay. So in it you site or you include rather the subcontract agreement with Howeron Power LLC. Is that included in the record on appeal?

[00:45:26]>> I believe it is, your honor. Let me double check.

[00:45:32]We're going to go through all five items. So you might want to pull up that record. The appendix is >> if you're going to do an appendix to the initial brief. Certainly it ha and bring our attention to documents those documents by uh in accordance with the rules have to be included in the record on appeal or else it would not be proper for us to view it.

[00:45:51]>> Understood.

[00:46:26]We're just looking at the index to the record on appeal right now.

[00:46:32]This appeal we see that the motion to amend statement of claims third is part of the index. Um, if that's the case, I I I I would represent that the third amended complaint with the attachments are before the record.

[00:46:53]>> Sorry. You mean the subcontract agreement is included in the record as an exhibit to that document >> to the third? Yes.

[00:47:00]>> Okay. What about the Texas case?

[00:47:02]>> Um, I believe that's also in the in the third amended complaint. I'm not though.

[00:47:08]And and forgive me, I'm having trouble pulling up my my copy of the record. All I have is the um the uh index for the moment, but I we we make this is the third amended complaint is where we make those arguments to try to um to address the deficiencies that the uh appel brought up in the lower tri and the lower court. So that's where we try to make our arguments and and it's honestly it's by virtue of that the existence of that document why we believe that the the case was incorrectly um denied with prejudice.

[00:47:45]>> Okay. So with regard to all the documents included in the appendix, the notice of removal, the second amended complaint, obviously that would be included I would think in the record and then the settlement agreement and release. All of those are included in the record on appeal.

[00:48:01]>> I I as I all I have is the index, but I believe so. Yes.

[00:48:05]>> Council, the Texas case, without going through every single page is 63 pages of documents in your appendix. The third amended complaint in the record with all attachments is only 57 pages.

[00:48:22]So it's not without going through each page, it's not possible all those documents are attached to the third amended complaint.

[00:48:30]>> Okay.

[00:48:33]No, I see what you're saying. I mean, I I know for a fact we do mention it within the the third. So, so the so the question Judge Brownley asked is are the documents in your appendix are all of them in the record on appeal or are there some that are not?

[00:48:52]>> I mean, I'll have to say I don't know because >> was that something you were required to verify before filing the appendix?

[00:49:04]>> Um, yes.

[00:49:06]>> Okay.

[00:49:10]But whether it's in there or not, at least as to the an their answer in affirmed defenses, LSQs, um we do cite to that case and reference that case expressly.

[00:49:22]>> Council, is it is it appropriate under the rules of appellet procedure for you to give us documents outside the record?

[00:49:31]>> No.

[00:49:38]Okay.

[00:49:40]All right. Um, Judge White, Judge Mice, do you have any further questions um for appellants council?

[00:49:49]>> No.

[00:49:50]>> Mr. Ram Sarin, sorry.

[00:49:53]Sorry, Judge White. Excuse me. Mr. Ram Sarin, is there anything any final point, anything that you want to tell us um in an effort to avoid sanctions in this case either under the rule or under the provision of the statute that we cited and given what you've heard today?

[00:50:10]>> I mean, I can say at least pursuant to 57105, I believe that we've cited some cases that bear similarities to our own.

[00:50:18]Um I would argue that the cases what we site to were actually weaker than our own. Um because our case actually has is supported by facts and evidence. Um I uh uh particularity comes to mind is a trucking case. I have a lot of documents open right now on my on my laptop. Um um in that case we're at a trucking both cases involved um decisions where a lower tribunal dismissed the um the party's actions with prejudice and the coretted trucking matter. The appell uh disparaged the appellent's efforts to assert a claim for breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary and argued that the appellant was once more asserting its claim it claims and amend its complaint following prior dismissal.

[00:51:09]Um in this case, LSQ is arguing that the invoice purchase agreement doesn't create a contractual duty to discharge senior leans in the case. Um it I I >> it says authorized, right?

[00:51:23]>> I'm sorry.

[00:51:25]Go ahead, council.

[00:51:27]>> I'm I'm sorry. What were you saying? We Alice, >> you were making the argument um that they were required to pay off the leans and the contract >> they were that they were arguing the contract >> council. Excuse me.

[00:51:39]>> Sorry. Sorry.

[00:51:40]>> The contract specifically says the word authorized rather than obligated.

[00:51:45]Correct.

[00:51:46]>> Yes, your honor. of course, but we but we believe that by virtue of the invoice purchase agreement, their response and their answer and affirmed defenses um a and our and our and our subcontract agreement taken as a whole, it could construe a um a situation where we have a third party uh beneficiary relationship under a contract. um by virtue of the fact that and I I think I break this down a little better here. Um viewing LSQ's third affirmative defense in conjunction with paragraph 11 of the invoice purchase agreement appellent contended and continues to attend contend and the third amended complaint that there's sufficient basis to assert a cause of action for breach of contract against a third party beneficiary stated differently. LSQ made prior representations that LSQ and Howleron came to a meeting of the minds at the time of forming the invoice purchase agreement whereby LSQ agreed at the behest of Howalaron to pay all monies owed to certain contractors including former electric services and if that was proven true that may be sufficient to demonstrate the language contained in paragraph 11 of the invoice purchase agreement was and I won't use the word at all times but that it was intended for the primary benefit of formal electric But council, if if I could ask you, sort of circling back, do you understand that we could find just for the sake of argument, we could find that maybe you made a nonfrivolous argument before the trial court. But that brings us back here with the rules and the requirements of an actual argument in the brief. the requirement that prohibits you from providing us with documents outside the record and your failure to provide a transcript which would perhaps show us or the you're you're aware that the rule also allows you in the absence of a actual transcript to work with Appal Council to reconstruct the record before the trial court. Are you aware of that under the appellet rules?

[00:54:05]>> No, I am now. Thank you.

[00:54:08]>> Um, and so tell me how your cases, which of your cases, and I looked at all of them. I don't recall seeing a case that dealt with an issue of whether an appeal is frivolous. Which, which cases do you believe would support your request that we not sanction you for a frivolous appeal?

[00:54:30]>> Understood. I did not I don't believe I cited to anything of that nature, your honor, in my um in my response. Um >> would you like to make any sort of argument or response as to why we shouldn't sanction you for a frivolous appeal?

[00:54:45]>> Yes, your honor. I mean, I I would I would argue that at least as far as the amended brief and and granted, you know, I I I'm we have been fully briefed on the deficiencies and and the problems with that document as of now, but I would argue that although out of place, um the conclusions, the arguments, the um support, legal precedent, I believe all the components are there um to make those proper arguments. We we we we give a recitation of the facts. Then we we provide our conclusions or our our position rather on those following that recitation of the facts. And then what follows from there is support that's intended to support our position or argument.

[00:55:35]And I I I agree that it's not necessarily the way I would have drafted it or preferred it to be drafted, but I um at the time I looked at it, the time I read it, I did not acknowledge or appreciate um um well, I guess that that this type of issue could ensue or that it could be construed as frivolous.

[00:56:03]>> All right. Thank you, council.

[00:56:05]>> Judge M. Anything further?

[00:56:08]>> Okay. All right. Mr. Fowler, I know that you've been present with us today. We set this for a show cause hearing uh suante. There was no request for this. I understand that your client did a separate um request for sanctions under 57105 um that solely uh requested sanctions against appellant rather than appellants council. Um, so at this point, I guess to put it um in a not so eloquent way, I'm wondering if you have a dog in this fight. We're not trying to ignore you, but we're here on our order today. So, um, you know, unless there's something pressing um that you think needs to be brought to our attention.

[00:56:50]>> There's not, your honor. Thank you.

[00:56:52]>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fowler. All right, Mr. Ramirean, anything further, sir, before we adjourn today?

[00:56:58]Um, nothing that comes to mind, your honor.

[00:57:03]>> Okay. All right. Um, All right. Thank you for your presentation. We will issue an order on today's hearing. As of now, we're adjourned.

[00:57:11]>> Thank you.

[00:57:13]>> So, the court issued sanctions against attorney Ram Sarin. We will read the court's order to you shortly. However, let us first tell you about the two prior ethics cases against Mr. Rams Saurin. Both cases were resolved via a deal with the Florida Bar back in 2022 as minor misconduct for which he was admonished. That minor misconduct presumably involved Mr. Ramzaran sending ADA demands against two small businesses on behalf of an organization that represents the blind and then being unable to show proof that he ever represented such an organization. If those allegations are true, the resolution of the of the two cases as minor misconduct seems shocking. If this guy was sending demand letters about business websites not being uh accessible to the blind, seeking money from these businesses, but then not representing them, what was he doing pocketing the money? Did he ever succeed? It seems that the the Florida bar went too soft on this lawyer. So now, let us read to you the order from the court in this case. By order of the court, this cause came before the court on October 28th, 2024 on the order to show cause directed to appellence council Jerome Ramsearan Esquire. Upon its review of the case, this court suponte ordered attorney Ramaran to show cause why sanctions, including attorneys fees and costs incurred by appell in defending this appeal, should not be imposed against him personally under Florida rule of appellet procedure 9.410 A for filing a brief that was frivolous or in bad faith and pursuant to section 57.1051. 1051B Florida statutes. Appellant filed a response to the show cause order on June 28th, 2024. This court then set the show cause order for hearing and on October 25th, 2024, attorney Ramsaren filed an amended response to order to show cause dated June 18th, 2024, as well as council's verified response to order to show cause um sick order dated October 7th, 2024. Attorney Ramsarin appeared at the show cause hearing on October 28th, 2024. answered the court's questions and responded to the order to show cause.

[00:59:27]Despite council's statements at the hearing that he has reviewed the Florida rules of appellet procedure and participated in more than 10, but fewer than 20 appeals, council's answers to this court's questions consistently revealed an unfamiliarity with the rules of procedure and appellet practice in general. In particular, attorney Ramaron demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the briefing requirements, the record on appeal, and the burden his client faced as the appellant. The court finds this particularly concerning given the fact that attorney Remaron appears to regularly practice for Florida's uh district courts of appeal. Consequently, um within 30 days of the date of this order, Jerome Ramsearan shall complete two continuing legal education classes available immediately on the Florida Bars website.

[01:00:15]One, basic appellet practice 2023 and two, practicing before Florida's 6th district court of appeal. Differences and similarities, attorney Ramsaran shall file proof of completion of these two classes on or before December 1st, 2024. Next, having carefully considered council's statements at the show cause hearing and having reviewed the responses to the show cause order as well as all other documents filed in this case, the kuoski finds sanctions in the form of attorneys fees are appropriate. Rule 9.410A 410A provides that the court may impose sanctions for any violation of these rules or for the filing of any proceeding, motion, brief or other document that is frivolous. Section 57.151B similarly provides for sanctions when the application of the existing law to material facts does not support a claim or defense and a finding under that section is tantamount to a conclusion that the claim was frivolous when filed or later became frivolous. Frivolous for our purposes means an appeal is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. An appeal which lacks a factual basis or well-grounded legal argument will be considered devoid of merit. This appeal was frivolous. Not only are any arguments that can be gleaned from the brief not supported by the application of thenexisting law to the material facts, but the amended initial brief failed to comply with the Florida rules of appellet procedure. Indeed, as Appelli noted in its motion for sanctions, the argument section of Foreman's brief contains only citations to general legal principles, making it nearly impossible for Appell to even craft a coherent response.

[01:02:24]We agree the argument section contains essentially no argument and certainly did not contain argument with regard to each issue as required by Florida rule of appellet procedure 9.210B5 2110 B5. And although appellants response to the show cause order asserts that at the time of filing the initial and amended briefs, the appellent believed it was asserting a good faith argument for the extension of existing law. No argument for the extension of existing law appears in appellants's amended initial brief. Importantly, it was council for appellent rather than appellent itself, who was responsible for preparing an initial brief that complied with the Florida rules of appellent procedure and who should have known appellants's claims were not supported by the application of then existing law to the material facts. In fact, when sanctions are deemed appropriate under section 57.1051b, monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party like appellent. In light of the foregoing, we order Jerome Ramzeron Esquire to pay a pelle the reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Appell in defending this appeal. We remand this case to the lower court to determine the reasonable amount of such fees to be paid in full by attorney Ramsaron.

[01:03:32]>> Thank you for watching today's deep dive. If you found this case interesting or have any thoughts, feel free to leave a comment below. Remember, this community thrives on smart and respectful discussion. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and hit the bell to stay on track with our new case videos.

[01:03:48]We cover new details, court hearings, interviews, interrogations, and more.

[01:03:53]This is Maya with Deep Dive True Crime and Mentor Lawyer Justice Network and I'll see you all in the next video.