Adelman et al v. Boy Scouts of America et al

Filing 312

MOTION for Leave to File BSA and SFC's Second Amended Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint by Boy Scouts of America, The South Florida Council Inc., Boy Scouts of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Franz, Kevin)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Miami Division
Howard Adelman and Judith Sclawy,
as Co-Personal Representatives of
The Estate of Michael Sclawy-Adelman,
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-22236-ASG
Plaintiffs,
District Ct. Judge: Alan S. Gold
vs.
Boy Scouts of America, et al.

Magistrate Judge: Jonathan Goodman

Defendants.
________________________/
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND SOUTH FLORIDA COUNCIL’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO AMEND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
COMES NOW, Defendants, Boy Scouts of America (“BSA”), and South Florida Council,
(“SFC”), by and through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant Local Rules 7.1(a) and 15.1 and
Federal Rules 15(a)(2) and 16, move for leave to amend their respective Answers and Second Amended
Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and state as follows:1
1. This is a wrongful death/negligence action stemming from an incident that occurred on May 9,
2009 when Michael Sclawy-Adelman died while taking part in a 20-mile hike.
2. BSA and SFC’s initial Affirmative Defenses filed in July of 2010 included the following defense:
For its sixth affirmative defense, Defendant affirmatively avers that any alleged
damages were the result of negligence on the part of Third Parties who were not
under the care, custody or control of Defendant, and therefore the Plaintiffs are
unable to recover as against this Defendant. [D.E. 3,4].
3. Both Defendants seek leave to amend their affirmative defenses to specifically name Pediatric
Associates as a Fabre Defendant.
4. Before Michael Sclawy-Adelman was allowed to take part in the subject hike, a medical clearance
form was required to be filled out by Michael’s primary care physician. Dr. Jeffrey Fliegenspan,
Michael’s pediatrician who worked at Pediatric Associates, executed the “Class-3” form on May
1

SFC’s proposed Answer and Second Amended Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is attached hereto
as Exhibit “A.” BSA’s proposed Answer and Second Amended Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is
attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”
1

17, 2008, which permitted Michael to participate in all activities for a period of one year. See Form
attached as Exhibit “C.”
5. Defendants assert that Michael Sclawy-Adelman should not have been permitted to take part in all
outdoor activities due to his poor physical condition. Michael’s primary care physicians, Pediatric
Associates, knew more about his physical condition from a medical standpoint than did anyone
else. Despite knowledge that Michael was obese, tachycardic and that his physical conditioning
may have been indicative of diminished cardiac capacity, his pediatrician signed the medical
authorization form.
6. Based on recent analysis done by expert witnesses, Defendants believe Pediatric Associates is
contributorily negligent and at fault for some or all of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages by medically
clearing Michael despite numerous red flags as to his physical well-being. BSA and SFC seeks to
assert the following Fabre affirmative defense:
For its fifteenth affirmative defense, Defendant affirmatively avers that any
alleged damages were the result of negligence on the part of the Pediatric
Associates (which authorized Michael Sclawy-Adelman to participate in all
outdoor activities), and which was not under the care, custody or control of
Defendant; and therefore, the Plaintiffs are unable to recover in whole or in
part as against this Defendant. See Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla.
1993).
7. The “Order Setting Pretrial and Trial Dates, Referring Discovery Motions, Directing Parties to
Mediation, and Establishing Pretrial Dates and Procedures” indicated that all non-dispositive
pretrial motions (including motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15) shall be filed by December 3, 2010.
[D.E. 39].
8. There exists good cause for seeking leave to amend to specifically name this Fabre defendant at
this time despite the deadlines imposed by the scheduling order.

2

MEMORANDUM OF LAW
A movant must show good cause to amend a scheduling order. F.R.C.P. 16(b); Sosa v. Airprint
Systems, Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998). To establish good cause, the movant must show
that the deadline could not have been “met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.”
Sosa 133 F.3d at Id.

Delay alone, however, is an insufficient reason to deny a motion to amend under

Rule 16 analysis. See Olsen v. Regions Bank, 2010 WL 2594288 at *3 (M.D.Tenn.); see also
Mercantile Trust Co. Nat. Assoc. v. Gulf Tex Brokerage, Inc., 542 F.2d 1010, 1012 (8th Cir. 1976).
Once a movant establishes good cause, a court will then consider whether the amendment is proper
under Rule 15(a). Sosa 133 F.3d at 1419; Vazquez v. LCM Investment Group, Inc., 2006 WL
4835922 at *2 (M.D.Fla.).

Rule 15 states in pertinent part: “[A] party may amend its pleading only

with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when
justice so requires.” F.R.C.P. 15(a)(2) (emphasis added).
The decision whether to grant leave to amend is committed to the sound discretion
of the trial court. Best Canvas Products & Supplies, Inc. v. Ploof Truck Lines, Inc.,
713 F.2d 618 (11th Cir.1983). However, “ ‘[d]iscretion’ may be a misleading term,
for rule 15(a) severely restricts the judge's freedom, directing that leave to amend
‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’ ” Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Investment
Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 597 (5th Cir.1981). This policy of Rule 15(a) in liberally
permitting amendments to facilitate determination of claims on the merits
circumscribes the exercise of the trial court's discretion; thus, “[u]nless there is a
substantial reason to deny leave to amend, the discretion of the district court is not
broad enough to permit denial.” Id. at 598.
Espey v. Wainwright, 734 F.2d 748, 759 (11th Cir. 1994).

A. GOOD CAUSE UNDER RULE 16
Good cause exists for this Court to allow Defendants to name Pediatric Associates as a Fabre
defendant. The deadline to amend pleadings was December 3, 2010. However, the deposition of Dr.
Ronald Bullard, Michael’s pediatrician at Pediatric Associates, was not concluded until April of 2011.
It was during Dr. Bullard’s testimony that Defendants first became aware of the extent of Michael’s
health issues. The deadline to amend pleadings “could not have been met” by December of 2010;
3

rather, the first substantial evidence showing the potential negligence of Pediatric Associates was first
complied in April of 2011. Sosa 133 F.3d at 1418.
However, it was not until the expert witnesses Defendants retained in various medical fields
were able to synthesize Michael’s medical records and the testimony of Michael’s pediatrician, that
Defendants felt comfortable naming Pediatric Associates as a Fabre Defendant. More specifically, not
until this past month, upon discussion with medical experts, could Defendants sufficiently link
Michael’s physical issues, as noted by his pediatricians, with his cause of death. It is only now that
Defendants feel medically supported in asserting that Pediatric Associates is comparatively at fault for
Michael’s death by improperly clearing him for all physical activities.

PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATES
Before any boy scout is permitted to participate in scouting physical activities, the scout’s
physician is required to sign a document called “Personal Health Medical Record Form—Class 3.”
This form indicates that a licensed health-care practitioner has evaluated the scout and approves him
for either (1) Hiking and camping; (2) Water activities; (3) Competitive Sports and/or (4) All activities.
Once the Class 3 form is filled out, it is effective for one year.
Dr. Jeffrey Fliegenspan, employed at Pediatric Associates, was Michael’s pediatrician for many
years. In 2009, Dr. Ronald Bullard took over as Michael’s primary care pediatrician. Dr. Fliegenspan
filled out a Class 3 Form (Exhibit “C”) approving Michael Sclawy-Adelman for “All activities” on
May 17, 2008. Based on that form, Michael was allowed to participate in the subject hike on May 9,
2009.
Dr. Bullard’s testimony, and the records in his possession, show that Michael was
approximately 5 foot 6 inches and weighed approximately 221 pounds on March 27, 2009. See
deposition of Dr. Ronald Bullard (March 17th) at pp. 19-20, ll. 21-2 and Michael Sclawy-Adelman’s
Growth Chart (exhibit #1 thereto) attached as Composite Exhibit “D.” He was “off the chart for
4

weight.” Dr. Bullard at pp. 24-25, ll. 20-8. His medical records revealed a resting heart rate of 114.
Dr. Bullard at p. 34, ll. 19-25. Dr. Bullard testified that Michael was “significantly overweight” to the
point of being “obese” for his age. Dr. Bullard at pp. 23-27, ll. 15-25; pp. 30-31, ll. 21-3 and Exhibit
#4 to deposition of Dr. Bullard at p. 2 (records for Michael Sclawy-Adelman) and Exhibit # 5 at p. 2.2
Michael’s Body Mass Index (“BMI”) was recorded at 31 in May of 2008 and 35 in March of 2009.
Dr. Bullard at pp. 78-80, ll. 1-1. Dr. Bullard testified that a BMI greater than 30 is considered obese.
Dr. Bullard at p. 75, ll. 22-24. Michael had been on weight watchers for quite some time and needed
to work on his dietary intake. Dr. Bullard at p. 23, ll. 15-19, p. 48, ll. 19-23. Based on Michael’s vital
statistics, Dr. Manfred Borges, the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner for the District 20 Medical
Examiner’s Office who examined Michael’s body, testified that Michael was not in any physical
condition to hike 20 miles. See Deposition of Dr. Borges at p. 46, ll. 3-10; pp. 88-89, ll. 11-7 attached
as Exhibit “E.”
Despite these physical red flags, Dr. Fliegenspan gave Michael carte blanche to participate in
All outdoor activities including the hike in question. Dr. Bullard testified that no physicians office
would know more about Michael’s physical limitations other than Pediatric Associates. Dr. Bullard
(April 14th deposition) at p. 6, ll. 4-7 attached as Exhibit “F.”
Even with the testimony from Dr. Bullard, however, the evidence in this case as to cause of
death came primarily from Michael’s death certificate, which listed death as probable heat stroke. It
was not until Defendants retained medical experts who examined the deposition of Dr. Bullard and the
medical records provided by Pediatric Associates, that opinions were definitively formed that
Michael’s cause of death was not from heat stroke.

2

Dr. Bullard’s deposition was taken in two parts (March 17th and April 14th). Exhibits 1-3 are attached to the March 17th
transcript (Exhibit “D” to this Motion) and exhibits 4-12 are attached to the April 14th transcript (Exhibit “F” to this
Motion.)
5

PURPORTED EXPERT OPINIONS
While the parties are not required to exchange expert reports until the end of this month, it is
anticipated that Defendants’ medical experts will testify that the cause of death was either from a
sudden cardiac event or a sudden central nervous system failure such as a spontaneous intracerebral
hemorrhage. Under these explanations, and given Michael’s physical examination results, Defendants
assert that Pediatric Associates was at fault for clearing Michael medically for all outdoor activities.
Dr. James V. Hillman, a board certified medical doctor in Pediatrics, Emergency Medicine and
Medical Toxicology, states that, based on Michael’s documented physical deficiencies, Michael’s
pediatricians should never have medically cleared Michael to participate in all outdoor activities. In
fact, by signing the Class-3 form without addressing Michael’s significant health-related issues, Dr.
Fliegenspan breached a standard of care. See Affidavit of Dr. Hillman attached as Exhibit “G.” The
following anticipated testimony shows that Michael should not have been cleared for the subject hike:


Several exacerbating and/or contributing factors would have resulted in congestive heart failure
including. Michael was 5’6” tall and 221 pounds, which constituted a BMI of 36 as of March
2009. His body habitus and physical conditioning may have been indicative of diminished
cardiac capacity and reserve. Additionally, hypertension was documented in his pediatrician’s
medical records. Hypertension can result in cardiac enlargement and diminished cardiac
function and output. In the records from Michael’s last encounter with his Pediatrician, on
March 27, 2009, the notation concerning Michael’s cardiovascular risk is recorded in that
medical record as “negative.” This “negative” cardiovascular risk notation is in spite of a body
weight of 221 and a height of 66 inches, which results in a BMI of 35.7, which is consistent
with the definition of clinical obesity. The records also noted elevated blood cholesterol and
elevated systolic blood pressure. Given these facts, a “negative” cardiovascular risk was not
warranted. There is no documentation of any attempted intervention in regard to medically
addressing these findings. Some diagnostic modalities that a treating physician might consider
would be: nutritional counseling, lipid profile studies, cardiovascular evaluation either by
referral to a Cardiologist or by having a chest X-ray (for cardiac size and lung pathology), an
EKG and echocardiogram performed. Therapeutic interventions may then be appropriate to
minimize cardiovascular risk. See Affidavit of Dr. Hillman.



Michael’s medical records indicate hypercholesterolemia (as high as 264mg/dl) and tachycardia
of 114 bpm on two separate occasions prior to the hike. The reason for the tachycardia was
never addressed by his physicians, no blood sugar results were obtained, and a glucose
tolerance test or hemoglobin Alc level was never done. Sudden cardiovascular deaths in
adolescents, particularly associated with exercise, are often attributable to hypertrophic
6

cardiomyopathy, coronary artery abnormalities (e.g. fibromuscular dysplasia), and myocarditis
among other acquired and congenital abnormalities.


Michael’s weight exceeded the 95th percentile on every routine examination for the 5 years
prior to his death and his blood pressure was 138/84 (pre-hypertensive range for adolescents
and young adults) at his last visit to his pediatrician on March 27, 2009. According to the
testimony of Dr. Bullard, it was likely that Dr. Fliegenspan advised Michael to join a formal
weight reduction program, but there is no evidence that he did so. Laboratory studies done on
various routine visits demonstrated an elevated screening cholesterol level. This combination
constitutes the elements of “metabolic syndrome,” which predicts an increased risk of
cardiovascular disease, and events such as heart attack and stroke in adulthood. Michael’s
respiratory rate was elevated at 18/minute during his March 27, 2009 visit where his resting
pulse rate was documented as 114 bpm. The chronicity of the pulse rate observation is attested
to by the presence of the same elevation of his heart rate at the time of his prior visit on May
13, 2008.
Persistently elevated heart rates are consistent with various pre-existing
cardiovascular and metabolic disorders. However, no workup specific for cardiac or vascular
diseases, such as electrocardiograms or echocardiograms were done at any time after the
elevated pulse rate was notice by Pediatric Associates. The combination of some features of
Michael’s routine medical examinations in the period of time prior to his death suggest the
possibility of a pre-existing cardiovascular disorder, such as cardiomyopathy.
Defendants have good cause for seeking leave to amend at this time. As indicated, Dr.

Bullard’s testimony was not completed until April of 2011. Moreover, Defendants could not – in good
faith – point the finger at Pediatric Associates without significant medical expert witness support that
Michael’s cause of death was not heat-related, but rather, potentially related to cardiac or central
nervous system failure. As such, a medical examination by his pediatricians should have raised red
flags concerning his physical well-being.

However, Defendants could not properly evaluate the

possible negligence of Pediatric Associates until it retained expert medical witnesses to evaluate the
medical records created by Pediatric Associates and the testimony given by Drs. Bullard, Borges and
Hearn. See Eisai Co., LTD v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 445 (D. NJ 2007) (Fifteen month
delay in amending affirmative defense did not result in undue delay where party needed to fully
synthesize information available to them prior to moving for leave to amend). Now, Defendants
possess information to support the conclusion that the cause of death was either from a sudden cardiac
event or a sudden central nervous system failure such as a spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage.
Under either of those circumstances, Pediatric Associates was negligent in allowing Michael to
7

participate in all scouting activities, because Michael’s documented physical limitations would likely
lead to his cause of death. Based on Michael’s vital statistics, the Class—3 form never should have
been filled out authorizing Michael to participate in all scouting activities. See Affidavit of Dr.
Hillman.
Due to the complex and uncertain nature of the cause of death in this wrongful death action,
Defendants could not have met the December 2010 deadline. Defendants have established good cause
for extending the deadline to amend its affirmative defense to add Pediatric Associates as a Fabre nonparty.

B. RULE 15 – LEAVE TO AMEND
Unless there is undue delay, bad faith, futility, a dilatory motive or prejudice to the opposing
party, “the leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’” Allapattah Services, Inc. v.
Exxon Corp., 61 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1333 (S.D.Fla. 1999) (internal citations omitted).
In the case sub judice there is no reason to deny Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend their
Affirmative Defenses to add Pediatric Associates as a Fabre defendant, which may be contributorily
negligent. See F.R.C.P. 8(c); see also Tomlinson v. Landers, Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1456449 (M.D.Fla.)
(granting leave to amend affirmative defenses to add specifically named Fabre defendants); Kay’s
Custom Drapes, Inc. v. Garrote, 920 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that the trial court
abused its discretion by denying defendant’s motion for leave to amend to assert a Fabre defense).
This situation is similar to that in Walters v. Altec Indust., Inc., 2003 WL 22012046 (M.D.Fla.).
There, Defendants moved for leave to amend an affirmative defense to specifically name a Fabre
defendant. Id. at *1. The Motion for leave came 15 months after the Court entered its scheduling
order, which did not set a specific deadline for amending pleadings, but referenced a disfavor of the
same. Id. Defendants asserted that, “‘as result of an overall evaluation of the existing evidence and
discovery’ it should be allowed to add the now specifically identified Fabre non-parties.” Id. at *2.
8

While that Court notes that 16(b) did not govern its decision on the motion for leave, it gives no
indication that a different ruling would have resulted. In granting the motion for leave, the Court noted
that Plaintiff was placed on notice that Defendants may name Fabre defendants based on the initial
answer and expert disclosures. Id. at *2. Moreover, the Court recognized that Florida law allows fault
to be apportioned among all “potentially negligent parties.” Id.
In the present matter, Defendants concede that leave for amend is sought 9 months after the
original deadline. However, there is no prejudice to the Plaintiffs, who are certainly aware that
causation is one of, if not the biggest issue in this case.

See [D.E. 260, 284 (Blood Testing

Motion/Order)]. Plaintiff is aware that Defendants claim non-parties are at fault for Michael’s death.
See Initial Affirmative Defense number 6, supra. Defendants’ expert witness disclosure also put
Plaintiffs on notice that cause of death would be challenged. Defendants collectively listed Dr. Charles
Wetli (former Chief Medical Examiner), Dr. Robert Myerburg (Professor in the Departments of
Medicine and Physiology, and the American Heart Association Chair in Cardiovascular Research at
the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine) and Dr. James Hillman (board certified medical
doctor in Pediatrics, Emergency Medicine and Medical Toxicology). Plaintiff is also aware that
Michael’s pre-existing physical condition and aptitude to complete a 20-mile hike was questioned by
Defendants.

See BSA’s response to Third Request for Production attached as Exhibit “H”

(documents in support of affirmative defense that death was caused by pre-existing or unrelated
medical conditions, including Michael’s own statement [at pg. 12] regarding his “weakest component
of physical fitness”). Thus, there is no prejudice to Plaintiffs, since they were clearly put on notice
early on that cause of death would be at issue. As a result of the overall existing discovery and expert
witness opinions, Defendants seek leave to amend to name Pediatric Associates as a Fabre non-party.
As the third party contributory negligence defense has already been asserted (and as Plaintiff is
already aware the medical issues surrounding Michael Sclawy-Adelman’s physical fitness) there is no
9

prejudice to permitting this requested amendment. Conversely, Defendants would be prejudiced if
leave to amend in this case was denied, since generally, “ . . . when a party fails to raise an affirmative
defense in the pleadings, that party waives its right to raise the issue at trial.” Hassan v. U.S. Postal
Service, 842 F.2d 260 (11th Cir. 1988).
Moreover, Defendants are not even asserting a “new” affirmative defense; rather, Defendants
are clarifying an existing one by specifically naming Pediatric Associates as a Fabre defendant. In
Kohler v. Johnson Controls-Hill, LLC, Slip Copy 2009 WL 152899 (M.D.Fla.), Defendant moved for
leave to amend its affirmative defense to specifically name a Fabre defendant. Id. at *1. Plaintiffs
argued they were prejudiced by the late amendment, which represented an “entirely new” affirmative
defense. Id. The Court disagreed finding that the Fabre defense is not entirely new, since it was
alleged in the original answer and affirmative defenses. Id. at *2. The only new part was specifically
naming the Fabre party, which Defendant is required to do “any time before trial.”

Id. at *1;

Fla.Stat.Ann. §768.81(3)(a). As in Kohler, Defendants here “placed Plaintiffs on fair notice regarding
Defendant’s intention to assert a Fabre defense.” Kohler 2009 WL 152899 at *2. Defendants here
simply seek to identify the originally asserted Fabre defendants pursuant to §768.81. See Id.
In fact, at least one court has allowed a defendant to name a Fabre defendant at trial. In
Mirabilis Ventures, Inc. v. Rachlin Cohen & Holtz, LLP, Slip Copy 2011 WL 2292167 at *4
(M.D.Fla.), Defendants sought to introduce evidence as to the fault of non-parties at trial. Plaintiff
objected claiming that Defendants did not properly plead comparative fault as an affirmative defense.
Id. That Court disagreed. Defendants’ affirmative defense alleged that (unidentified) third parties
over whom Defendants had no control contributed to Plaintiff’s damages. Id. The Court found that
the identity of the unnamed parties was known to the Plaintiffs prior to trial and knew that Defendants
sought to impose fault on said nonparties. As such, the Court found that Defendants’ pleadings were
sufficient to permit them to assert a comparative negligence defense at trial. Id.
10

CONCLUSION
Under Rule 16, Defendants have good cause for seeking leave to amend its Fabre affirmative
defense. Defendants did not know the severity of Michael Sclawy-Adelman’s lack of physical wellbeing until mid-April of 2011 following the deposition of his pediatrician, Dr. Bullard. Defendants did
not have sufficient medical support to link his physical problems to his death until medical experts
synthesized Dr. Bullard’s deposition, Michael’s medical records and the circumstances surrounding his
death to opine that Michael’s death was not heat-related. Thus, until this month, the deadline to amend
pleadings could not have been met.
Under Rule 15, there is no undue delay, bad faith, futility, a dilatory motive or prejudice in
permitting BSA and SFC to identify Pediatric Associates as a Fabre Defendant based on the reasons
listed above.

Finally, Pediatric Associates is a proper Fabre Defendant.

Pediatric Associates

medically cleared Michael Sclawy-Adelman to participate in all scouting activities, including the 20mile hike when Pediatric Associates should have known that his physical condition was poor and that
serious injury or death could result given his physical limitations.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, SFC and BSA, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
GRANT leave for Defendants to file the attached proposed pleadings (Exhibits A and B), and deem the
same filed as of the date of the Court’s Order, and for such other relief as this Court deems necessary
and just.
By:____s/Kevin D. Franz_____
William. S. Reese Esq.
Florida Bar No. 187183
[e-mail]
Kevin D. Franz, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 015243
[e-mail]
LANE, REESE, SUMMERS, ENNIS &
PERDOMO, P.A.
2600 Douglas Road
Douglas Centre, Suite 304
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: [phone];
Fax: [phone]
11

CERTIFICATION OF GOOD FAITH
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) and Judge Goodman’s internal procedures, counsel for the
movant has conferred with counsel for the Plaintiffs telephonically in a good faith effort to resolve the
issues raised in the motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel does not agree to the requested relief.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was sent October 13, 2011 to:
Robert D. Peltz, Esq, Ira H. Leesfield, Esq., LEESFIELD & PARTNERS, P.A., 2350 South Dixie
Highway, Miami, FL, 33133; Eric Kleinman, Esq., Kleinman & Arrizabalaga, P.A., 150 SE 2nd
Avenue, Suite 1105, Miami, FL 33131; Greg Gaebe, Esq., Devang Desai, Esq., Gaebe, Mullen
Antonelli, Esco & DiMatteo, 420 S. Dixie Highway, Third Floor, Coral Gables, FL, 33146; Ubaldo J.
Perez, Jr., Esq., LAW OFFICES OF UBALDO J. PEREZ, JR., P.A., 8181 NW 154th Street, Suite 210,
Miami Lakes, FL 33016.
By:____s/Kevin D. Franz__________
William. S. Reese Esq.
Florida Bar No. 187183
[e-mail]
Kevin D. Franz, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 015243
[e-mail]
LANE, REESE, SUMMERS, ENNIS &
PERDOMO, P.A.
2600 Douglas Road
Douglas Centre, Suite 304
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: [phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants, Boy Scouts of
America and The South Florida Council, Inc.

12