UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

WALTER J. STANTON III, ESQ.,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO: 1:20-cv-21829-DPG

BERKLEY ASSURANCE COMPANY,

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, 

RAYMOND STAFFORD, BYRUM W. 

TEEKELL and JUDSON GRAY TEEKELL,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

BERKLEY ASSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION TO TRANSFER AND 

CONSOLIDATE THIS ACTION WITH THE FIRST FILED ACTION

Defendant, BERKLEY ASSURANCE COMPANY (“Berkley and/or BAC”), pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2) and in the interest of judicial and litigant economy, 

moves to transfer this action to the Western District of Louisiana where it can be consolidated 

with the first filed action in the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Louisiana, Case No. 17-0262 (“Louisiana Action”), and in support states:

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE LOUISIANA ACTION

Between February 10, 2017 and September 27, 2022, RAYMOND STAFFORD 

(“Stafford”), WALTER J. STANTON (“Stanton”), Berkley, and NATIONAL UNION FIRE 

INSURANCE COMPANY (“AIG”), fully and extensively litigated the Louisiana Action. Like 

here, the issue was whether Berkley owed coverage for three related lawsuits against Stanton.

Essentially, Stafford sued Stanton for damages from a failed investment in David deBerardinis’s 

Case 1:20-cv-21829-DPG Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 1 of 14
Page 2

(“deBerardinis”) alleged fuel trading business. Stafford alleged that Stanton convinced him to 

invest in deBerardinis’s “risk free” investment, which turned out to be an $80,000,000 Ponzi 

scheme. Ultimately, it was exposed as a sham and Stafford was swindled out of millions of 

dollars.

As a result of the scheme, two other lawsuits were filed against deBerardinis, his entities, 

and Stanton. One action, PlainsCapital Bank v. FR III Funding, LLC, was filed in the District 

Court of Dallas, Texas, Case No. DC-16-07601 (“PlainsCapital action”). A second action, Byrum 

W. Teekell, et. al. v. Walter J. Stanton, et. al., was filed in the First Judicial District, Caddo 

Parrish, Louisiana, Case Number 599295-A (“Teekell action”). 

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA (“AIG”) issued a Professional 

Liability insurance policy to Stanton, Policy Number 019585111-02, effective January 9, 2016 to 

January 9, 2017. On December 14, 2016, Stanton reported the PlainsCapital action to National 

Union as a notice of a potential claim against him based on his involvement with deBerardinis 

and his entities. AIG correctly determined the PlainsCapital, Teekell, and Stafford actions are 

related and agreed to defend and indemnify Stanton.1

Berkley issued subsequent claims made and reported Professional Liability insurance 

policies to Stanton. Berkley agreed to investigate under a complete reservation of rights and later 

denied coverage.

In the Louisiana Action, after extensive discovery, Berkley moved for final summary 

judgment against Stafford and Stanton on grounds that Stafford’s lawsuit was related to the 

PlainsCapital action and Teekell action, both of which were first made during AIG’s policy

1 AIG settled the Stafford action and PlainsCapital action, just not Teekell.

Case 1:20-cv-21829-DPG Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 2 of 14
Page 3

period. Berkley also argued it did not owe coverage because prior to the inception of the Berkley 

policies, Stanton could reasonably foresee a claim might be made against him based on his 

intimate relationship with deBerardinis.

Before a ruling was issued on Berkley’s dispositive motion, Stanton filed this duplicative 

action (“Second-filed Florida Action”). Berkley moved to dismiss the Second-filed Florida 

Action, but the motion was filed in the Louisiana Action. (DE 159.) In reaction, Stanton moved 

to dismiss the Louisiana Action. (DE 162.) On 03/01/2021, the court in the Louisiana Action 

denied both motions. (DE 237.) The district court explained it could not dismiss the Second-filed 

Florida Action. Instead, “the proper course of action is ordinarily for the second-filed court to 

transfer the case to the first-filed court. The first-filed court can then decide whether the second 

filed suit must be dismissed, stayed, or transferred and consolidated.” (Id., at 4.)

Since Berkley did not file a motion to transfer in the Second-filed Florida Action, the 

court was not able at the time to dismiss or transfer the Florida Action.

After nearly five years of litigation, on 09/27/2022, the district court in the Louisiana 

Action granted Berkley’s motion for summary judgment and entered Final Judgment in its favor.

(DE 293.)

Berkley moved to reopen the second-filed Florida action and to dismiss it. (DE 33.) On 

03/27/2024, this Court denied Berkley’s motion to dismiss, but it lifted the stay. (DE 57.)

Consistent with Chief Judge Hicks’ Order from the Louisiana Action, Berkley moves to 

transfer the Second-filed Florida Action to the Western District of Louisiana and to consolidate it 

with the first-filed Louisiana Action. That district court is fully familiar with the related lawsuits 

against Stanton and the coverage issues under AIG’s policy and Berkley’s policies, having 

Case 1:20-cv-21829-DPG Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 3 of 14
Page 4

already decided the threshold coverage issues. Moreover, Chief Judge Hicks presided over the 

criminal action in involving deBerardinis. The first-filed rule also weighs in favor of a transfer

and consolidation.

ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY

Standard For Transfer

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) authorizes a civil action be transferred to another district “[f]or the 

convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” The statute gives courts 

discretion to decide whether to transfer “according to an individualized, case-by-case 

consideration of convenience and fairness.” Clinton v. Sec. Benefit Life Ins., No. 19-24803, 2020 

WL 6120565, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 29, 2020). In deciding whether to transfer, courts embark on 

a two-part inquiry: “(1) whether the action might have been brought in the proposed transferee 

court and (2) whether various factors are satisfied so as to determine if a transfer to a more 

convenient forum is justified.” Id. (citing Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., 136 

F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1281 (S.D. Fla. 2001)). 

The various factors include:

(1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and 

the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; 

(4) the locus of operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel the 

attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) a 

forum's familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded a plaintiff's 

choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the 

totality of the circumstances.

Id. (citing Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 (11th Cir. 2005)). “[W]here the 

operative facts underlying the cause of action did not occur within the forum chosen by the 

Plaintiff, the choice of forum is entitled to less consideration.” Trace-Wilco, Inc. v. Symantec 

Case 1:20-cv-21829-DPG Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 4 of 14
Page 5

Corp., No. 08-80877-Civ, 2009 WL 455432, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2009).

Standard for Consolidation

Rule 42 provides that “[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of law or 

fact, the court may... (2) consolidate the actions....” “This rule is a codification of a trial court’s 

inherent managerial power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of 

time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 

776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). The Eleventh Circuit has identified 

factors for courts to consider when determining whether to consolidate lawsuits, including:

(1) the risk of prejudice in allowing the matters to proceed separately, (2) the 

potential for confusion of facts or legal issues, (3) the risk of inconsistent verdicts, 

(4) the burden on parties, witnesses, and the court, and (5) the length of time and 

relative expense involved in conducting a single trial or multiple trials.

Blitz Telecom Consulting, LLC v. Peerless Network, Inc., 727 F. App’x 562, 570 (11th Cir. 

2018).

A. Part One of the Inquiry Favors Transfer to the Western District of Louisiana.

This duplicative action could have easily been filed in the Western District of Louisiana

and consolidated with the Louisiana Action. The Louisiana Action included AIG, Berkley, 

Stanton, and Stafford as parties. Stanton moved to dismiss the Louisiana Action for improper 

venue, but the motion was denied. The Louisiana Court concluded that venue in the Western

District of Louisiana was appropriate. (DE 62.) The court cited to an affidavit provided by 

Stafford detailing the substantial part of the events that occurred in the Western District of 

Louisiana, including Stanton’s frequent travel to Shreveport and Stanton’s role as the Secretary 

of deBerardinis’s entity FR III ASC, LLC, located in Louisiana. Id., at 8-11.

Stanton was at the helm of the failed investment by soliciting Stafford as an 

Case 1:20-cv-21829-DPG Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 5 of 14
Page 6

investor and orchestrating the drafting and execution of the necessary documents. 

Each step involved communications by Stanton to individuals within the Western 

District of Louisiana.

Id. at 12. Additionally, the Teekell defendants are citizens of Louisiana, which further shows that 

this action could have been brought in the Western District of Louisiana, including as a 

crossclaim against AIG and Berkley and third-party complaint against the Teekell parties in the 

Louisiana Action. (DE 1, ¶8-9.) Accordingly, Part One of the inquiry weighs in favor of transfer 

to the Western District of Louisiana.

B. The Factors Under Part Two Favor Transfer to the Western District of 

Louisiana.

Transfer of this action to the Western District of Louisiana would be more convenient

and in the interest of justice. 

Factor 1 – the convenience of the witnesses, and Factor 5 – process to compel witnesses. 

“The most important factor in passing on a motion to transfer under § 1404(a) is the convenience 

of the witnesses.” Clinton v. Security Life Ins., No. 19-24803, 2020 WL 6120565, at *4 (S.D. 

Fla. June 29, 2020).

Some of the witnesses that will be deposed or subpoenaed include deBerardinis, 

a resident of Louisiana who is also serving his criminal sentence in Oakdale, Louisiana. 

deBerardinis’s company, FR, is incorporated in Louisiana. The Teekell parties, which are 

residents of Louisiana. PlainsCapital Bank is in Texas and the Guarantors in the PlainsCapital 

Action are in Texas, which is geographically closer to Louisiana than Florida. Todd Muslow and 

Neil Umhafer are residents of Shreveport. FR III ASC, LLC is also believed to be incorporated 

in Louisiana. All these witnesses are expected to have information relevant to Berkley’s prior 

knowledge, claims made, lack of professional legal services coverage defenses, as well as the 

Case 1:20-cv-21829-DPG Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 6 of 14
Page 7

rescission count. These key witnesses are also expected to have information relevant to the 

Investment Advisor Exclusion. If this Court declines to transfer this action, that will substantially 

reduce the opportunity to evaluate live testimony. The convenience of witnesses weighs strongly 

in favor of transfer. See Palm v. Taurus Int’l Mfg., Inc., No. 21cv23489, 2022 WL 18776091, at 

*3 (S.D. Fla. April 27, 2022); Soliman v. Daimler AG, No. 6:09cv00947, 2010 WL 11506980, at 

*6 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2010) (motion to transfer granted because several key witnesses lived in 

the transferor forum).

The Western District of Louisiana would be able to compel witnesses to appear for 

deposition as the witness would be located within 100 miles of where they reside or are located 

in Louisiana. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2). But this Court cannot. To the extent other witnesses 

could be deposed remotely, that too “tips in favor of transfer.” Clinton, 2020 WL 6120565, at *4.

Factors 1 and 5 accordingly weigh in favor of a transfer to the Western District of Louisiana 

where this action can then be consolidated with the Louisiana Action.

Factor 2 – the location of documents and sources of proof. Berkley will serve a request 

for production for documents relevant to its rescission count, the prior knowledge, claims made, 

lack of professional services coverage defenses, and the exclusions asserted in its counterclaim

on the Teekell defendants and subpoenas to non-parties Muslow, Umhafer, FR, FR III, 

deBerardinis all of which will likely be located in Louisiana. Subpoenas will also be issued to 

PlainsCapital Bank and the Guarantors in that action. It is anticipated that those records are 

located in Texas, which again is closer to Louisiana than Florida. While Stanton’s records might 

be located in Florida where his law firm Carney Stanton is located, that alone does not weigh in 

favor of denying a transfer. This factor weighs in favor of transfer.

Case 1:20-cv-21829-DPG Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 7 of 14
Page 8

Factor 3 – the convenience of the parties. The Louisiana parties include the Teekell

defendants and Stafford. Berkley is an Arizona corporation, which is closer to Louisiana than 

Florida. Berkley also has local counsel in Louisiana. Stanton is from Florida, but he too had 

Louisiana counsel representing him in the Louisiana action. Accordingly, this factor weighs in 

favor of a transfer because it concerns the appearance of parties and their counsel at court. See 

Trinity Christian Ctr. v. New Frontier Media, Inc., 761 F. Supp. 2d 1322, 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2010); 

see also Am. Spirit & Cheer v. Varsity Brands, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03088, 2020 WL 81158, at *13

(N.D. Ga. Oct. 27, 2020) (the convenience of the parties factor “can favor transfer if the 

transferee district is home to several parties and the transferor court is home to few or none.”).

Factor 4 – the locus of operative facts. “To determine the locus of operative facts, courts 

look to where the events from which the claim arises occurred.” Costello v. Home Depot U.S.A., 

Inc., 888 F. Supp. 2d 258, 268 (D. Conn. 2012). deBerardinis and his companies, including FR 

and FR III are alleged to have committed the $80 Million Ponzi scheme from Louisiana. Several 

Louisiana investors were damaged by the Ponzi scheme and Stanton’s role as an investment 

advisor/solicitor for deBerardinis including the Teekell parties. Moreover, the court in the 

Louisiana Action concluded that Staton had substantial contacts with Louisiana too, including 

negotiating loans, promissory notes, and other agreements for deBerardinis’s fake oil trading 

business. Since the location of operative facts is a “key factor in determining a motion to transfer 

venue,” this Court should find that Factor 4 weighs in favor of a transfer. See Clinton, 2020 WL 

6120565, at *5 (citing Harvard v. Inch, 408 F. Supp. 3d 1255, 1262 (N.D. Fla. 2019)).

Factor 6 – relative means of the parties. Berkley and Stanton litigated for nearly five 

years in the Louisiana Action (repeat in procedural history somewhere). Stanton is able to litigate 

Case 1:20-cv-21829-DPG Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 8 of 14
Page 9

this duplicative action in the Western District of Louisiana. Stanton has been practicing law for 

over 43 years. There is no reason to believe he lacks the means to hire counsel in Louisiana,

especially because the hourly rates are lower than in Miami. Litigating in Louisiana will also be 

more affordable for the Teekell parties and for Stafford as they reside in Louisiana. This factor 

weighs in favor of transfer.

Factor 7 – the forum’s familiarity with the applicable law. This factor “is one of the least 

important factors in determining a motion to transfer, especially where no complex questions of 

foreign law are involved.” Posven, C.A. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 405 

(S.D.N.Y. 2004). There is a false conflict and, regardless, a district court in the Western District 

of Louisiana can easily apply Florida law to interpret Berkley’s policy and find it does not owe 

coverage for the Teekell and PlainsCapital claims against Stanton. If necessary, it can also apply 

Florida law to determine that AIG’s policy covers the Teekell claim. AIG already settled and 

defended Stanton against the PlainsCapital action so that issue is moot. “[D]istrict courts often 

have little trouble applying the law of other states.” Trans Am Worldwide, LLC v. JP Superior 

Sols., LLC, 2018 WL 3090394, at *10 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2018). Indeed, the court in the 

Louisiana Action applied Florida law and granted Berkley’s motion for summary judgment. (DE 

293.) This factor weighs in favor of a transfer.

Factor 8 – plaintiff’s choice of forum. This second-filed action is the product of forum 

shopping by Stanton. Williams v. Bowman, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

Stanton filed this action after losing several motions and an appeal in the Louisiana Action. 

Accordingly, this Court should ignore Stanton’s choice of forum because it is outweighed by 

other considerations. See SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A., 382 

Case 1:20-cv-21829-DPG Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 9 of 14
Page 10

F.3d 1097, 1101 (11th Cir. 2004) (noting that plaintiffs’ choice of forum can be disregarded if 

the “balance is strongly in favor of the defendant.”).

Further, “when the conduct at issue did not occur in plaintiff's chosen forum, courts also 

give less deference to a plaintiff's desired forum.” Clinton, 2020 WL 6120565, at *8 (citing

Rowles v. Hammermill Paper Co., Inc., 689 F. Supp. 494, 496 (E.D. Pa. 1988) (noting that a 

“plaintiff's choice of forum merits less deference when none of the conduct complained of 

occurred in plaintiff's selected forum”). As detailed above, the conduct giving rise to the three 

related claims against Stanton occurred in Louisiana. That is where deBerardinis orchestrated the 

massive Ponzi scheme from. Louisiana is also where Stanton traveled to meet deBerardinis, 

Stafford, and other potential investors he was actively soliciting at the time. Factor 8 weighs in 

favor of a transfer to the Western District of Louisiana.

Factor 9 – trial efficiency and the interest of justice. This factor turns on “administrative 

difficulties flowing from court congestion, the local interest in having localized controversies 

decided at home, the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws or application of 

foreign law, and the unfairness in imposing jury duty on citizens in an unrelated forum.” 

Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., 2016 WL 1546427, at *7 

(S.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2016). The Southern District of Florida “has one of the busiest dockets in the 

country...” Clinton, 2020 WL 6120565, at *9. It will therefore be more efficient for the coverage 

dispute to be decided in the Western District of Louisiana and to ultimately have this action 

consolidated with the first filed Louisiana Action. After all, Louisiana has an undeniable interest 

in deciding coverage for the related claims against Stanton, as they all involve deBerardinis’s 

massive Ponzi scheme, and financial harm to several Louisiana residents such as the Teekells.

Case 1:20-cv-21829-DPG Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 10 of 14
Page 11

Further, there is no conflict of law problem because Berkley’s policies were issued and delivered 

in Florida. The Western District of Louisiana will apply Florida law in determining whether 

Berkley owes coverage. This is exactly what Chief Judge Hicks did in the Louisiana action.

The interest of justice tips in favor of a transfer. Stanton filed this action after litigating 

for years against Berkley in the Louisiana Action. The issues and parties are similar to the issues 

and parties in this action. Stanton should not be allowed to shop around for what he perceives to 

be a friendlier court than the Western District of Louisiana. 

All the factors accordingly favor a transfer to the Western District of Louisiana. The 

Court should grant Berkley’s motion under Section 1404(a). See, e.g., Louisiana Generating, 

LLC v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., No. 10-516, 2011 WL 443948 (M.D. La. Sept, 22, 2011) (holding that 

transfer from New York to Louisiana was proper because parties, witnesses, and evidence were 

located in Louisiana).

C. The Factors Favor Consolidation of this Duplicative Action With the firstfiled Louisiana Action.

The nearly-perfect overlap between the Louisiana Action and this Second-filed Florida 

Action is undeniable. AIG, Berkley, Stafford, and Stanton were parties in the Louisiana action. 

The issue was whether Berkley owed coverage for Stafford’s claim against Stanton, which is 

related to the PlainsCapital claim that was first made during AIG’s policy period, not Berkley’s. 

The common questions of fact and law weigh in favor of consolidation. 

Factor 1 – prejudice in proceeding separately, and Factor 3 – risk of inconsistent verdicts,

favor consolidation. The court in the Louisiana Action already made findings of fact and entered 

final summary judgment in Berkley’s favor on the duty to defend and duty to indemnify against 

Stafford’s claim. There is no way for this Court to reconcile that ruling with a conclusion that 

Case 1:20-cv-21829-DPG Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 11 of 14
Page 12

Berkley somehow owes coverage for the Teekell claim or PlainsCapital claim when those claims 

are also related and accordingly first made before Berkley’s policies incepted. In other words, 

there is a risk of inconsistent verdicts unless this action is consolidated with the Louisiana 

Action. 

Berkley and Stafford would suffer great prejudice in having to relitigate issues, facts, and 

law they spent 5 years litigating in the Louisiana Action. By way of example, Stanton refused to 

answer discovery insisting he did not have to produce documents to Berkley or testify because it

implicated his “attorney-client privilege” with deBerardinis, the man that fleeced $80 Million

from investors and lenders, and under the work-product doctrine. Berkley was able to overcome 

those arguments because Stanton was acting as investment advisor not as a lawyer. Berkley also 

relied on the crime fraud exception and a substantial need for the evidence. (DE 134; DE 135.)

It would be against litigant and judicial economy to have to relitigate these issues and 

others. Instead, the Florida Action should be consolidated with the Louisiana Action, limited 

discovery should be allowed followed by supplemental motions for summary judgment.

Accordingly, Factors 1 and 3 weigh in favor of consolidation of these duplicative actions.

Factor 2 – confusion of facts or legal issues. The question of coverage is a legal issue, so

this factor is neutral. “[T]here are far fewer reservations about consolidating these two actions 

for a bench trial than if they were to proceed before a jury. Consumer Fin. Protection v. Ocwen 

Fin. Corp., No. 9:17cv80496, 2020 WL 2569319, at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2020).

Factor 4 – the burden on parties, witnesses, and the court and Factor 5 – the length of 

time and expense in conducting a separate trial, favor consolidation. Berkley, Stanton, and 

Stafford spent several years litigating discovery issues in the Louisiana action. Berkley spent a 

Case 1:20-cv-21829-DPG Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 12 of 14
Page 13

significant amount of time and resources tracking down relevant documents from several nonparties. Thousands of documents were produced in response to Berkley’s subpoenas and requests 

for production. It would be unfair for Berkley, the key witnesses, and Stafford to have to start 

discovery all over in this action. It took five years for the Louisiana Action to be resolved. 

Berkley, AIG, and Stafford should not have to spend another round of resources and effort

litigating the same issues in this copycat lawsuit.

The Eleventh Circuit has “encouraged trial judges to make good use of Rule 42(a) ... in 

order to expedite the trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion....” Consumer 

Fin., 2020 WL 2569319, at *4 (citing Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 

1495 (11th Cir. 1985)). Accordingly, this Court should allow consolidation of the Florida Action

with the Louisiana Action.

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons articulated in this motion, the Court should transfer this action to the 

Western District of Louisiana so Chief Judge Hicks can determine whether to consolidate it with 

the first-filed Louisiana action.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/MICHELE A. VARGAS

SINA BAHADORAN

Florida Bar No. 523364

Sina.Bahadoran@Clydeco.us

MICHELE A. VARGAS

Florida Bar No. 686395

Michele.Vargas@Clydeco.us

CLYDE & CO US LLP

1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600

Miami, Florida 33131

T: 305.446.2646

Case 1:20-cv-21829-DPG Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 13 of 14
Page 14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 8, 2024, this document was filed via the CM/ECF 

system. I further certify that I am unaware of any non-CM/ECF participants.

Case 1:20-cv-21829-DPG Document 60 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2024 Page 14 of 14