1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-cv-22318-KMW

KANAYO DERHEM and

MOJTABA E. KOOSEJ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BAY HOUSE MIAMI CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION, CHARLES BRUMSTED,

JR., JAMES PINKERT, JOSHUA PAUL, 

ALEJANDRO ENRIQUE UTRERA BADENES, 

JONATHAN FERREIRA, KW PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, and JOSE VIDAL, 

Defendants.

______________________________________/

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO AMEND PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION 

IN LIMINE 

Defendants, BAY HOUSE MIAMI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. (the 

“Association”), CHARLES BRUMSTED, JR. (“Brumsted”), JAMES PINKERT (“Pinkert”), 

JOSHUA PAUL (“Paul”), ALEJANDRO ENRIQUE UTRERA BADENES (“Utrera”), 

JONATHAN FERREIRA, (“Ferreira”), KW PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC (“KWP”) and 

JOSE VIDAL (“Vidal”) (collectively referred to hereinafter as “Defendants”), by and through their

undersigned counsel, file this Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend 

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine and Motion to Strike Motion in Limine 

[D.E. 267] (“Motion”), and in support thereof state as follows:

1. On October 3, 2022, Defendants filed their Joint Motion in Limine [DE 255].

2. On October 17, 2022, Plaintiffs, through their then-current counsel, filed their 

Response to Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine and Motion to Strike Motion in Limine [DE 267].

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 1 of 6
2

3. On October 19, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel moved to withdraw [DE 270].

4. On October 24, 2022, Defendants filed their Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to 

Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine [DE 272], and on October 28, 2022, Defendants filed their 

Joint response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Motion in Limine [DE 277].

5. On October 25, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel’s Motion to Withdraw was granted [DE 

275]. 

6. On October 31, 2022, Plaintiff, Kanayo Derhem filed “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave 

to Amend [D.E.267] Plaintiffs’ Response to Defense’s [D.E. 255].” Therein, Plaintiff Kanayo 

Derhem, who is not a licensed attorney, requested on her behalf and on behalf of Plaintiff Mojtaba 

Koosej, leave to amend Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Joint Motion in Limine on the basis 

that her counsel had withdrawn and “unresolved deficiencies [are] still present within prior 

counsel’s response.”

7. This Court was abundantly clear at the in-person hearing held on October 4, 2022, 

that no further extensions or opportunities to correct prior filings would be given. This Honorable 

Court stated:

This case is now two years old and there has been a history of issues; starting with 

failure to perfect service, extensions of time, counsel withdrawing and new counsel 

being brough into the case. . . So let me be crystal clear. If what you file is not 

consonant with the rules, there will be no further opportunity to correct it. So this 

is it; period, end of sentence and end of discussion . . . There has been a complete 

and utter disregard for the Court’s orders and deadlines in this case. And I know 

that I am repeating myself, but that will not be the future of the case or there will 

be consequences. . . So the schedule that the Court lays out will be it. There will be 

no other schedule or extension of time or filing a day late and saying, as it were, 

the dog ate the homework. . . 

(Emphasis added.) See Transcript of proceedings held Oct. 4, 2022, attached hereto and fully 

incorporated herein as Exhibit “A.”

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 2 of 6
3

8. Additionally, the Defendants have been unduly burdened by reviewing multiple

iterations of Plaintiffs’ filings. For example, between September 6, 2022 and October 14, 2022, 

Plaintiffs filed sixteen (16) separate filings in response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment. See DE 224, 225, 226, 227, 230, 231, 235, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 262, 263, 264, and 

266. 

9. Defendants were therefore forced to unnecessarily incur legal fees reviewing these 

numerous filings, which were not brief. By way of non-exhaustive illustration, DE 238 is 660 

pages in length; DE 239 is 293 pages in length; DE 240 is 587 pages in length, and DE 241 is 734 

pages in length.

10. Now, despite the admonishment given by this Honorable Court at the hearing on 

October 4, 2022, which Kanayo Derhem attended in-person, Plaintiff Derhem filed the instant 

Motion for Leave to Amend without even identifying good cause for the amendment other than to 

say that “unresolved deficiencies” exist within the Response. 

11. Defendants’ Motion in Limine was filed on October 3, 2022, and it has been fully 

briefed in that the Response and Reply have also been filed. To allow such an amendment at this 

stage of the litigation after multiple opportunities have been afforded for Plaintiffs to get it right, 

so to speak, further delays this matter to Defendants’ detriment and hinders ultimate resolution.

12. Finally, it appears that Plaintiff Kanayo Derhem is attempting to represent the 

interests of Plaintiff, Mojtaba Koosej in this matter despite that Kanayo Derhem is not a licensed 

attorney. Rule 11(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., requires that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other 

paper must be signed . . . by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” 

13. Here, both Plaintiffs presently are pro-se by virtue of prior counsel’s withdrawal. 

However, Plaintiff Derhem has filed multiple documents, including the subject Motion for Leave 

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 3 of 6
4

to Amend, on behalf of both herself and Koosej despite that none of these filings are signed by 

Koosej.

14. Derhem cannot as a matter of law file Court documents on behalf of Koosej. See 

Moultrie Chevrolet v. Tifton Suzuki, Inc., 2009 WL 10674963, at *1 (M.D. Ga. 2009), Wright v. 

Divurgent LLC, 2015 WL 13778309, at *1 (N.D. Ga. 2015). Defendants therefore request that the 

Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Motion in Limine be treated as 

having been filed on behalf of Plaintiff, Kanayo Derhem only.

15. In conclusion, it is respectfully requested that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Leave to Amend Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine.

WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request this 

Honorable Court deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ 

Joint Motion in Limine and Motion to Strike Motion in Limine and grant such other and further 

relief as is deemed just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

VERNIS & BOWLING OF MIAMI, P.A.

1680 N.E. 135th Street

Miami, FL 33181

Tel: 305-895-3035

Fax: 305-892-1260 

By: /s/ Evelyn Greenstone Kammet

Evelyn Greenstone Kammet, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 0044060

egreenstone@florida-law.com 

egkfiling@florida-law.com 

Mark Erdman, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 116175

merdman@florida-law.com 

yordaz@florida-law.com 

Counsel for Defendants, Bay House Miami 

Condominium Association, Inc., James Pinkert, 

Joshua Paul, Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 4 of 6
5

and

BOYD RICHARDS PARKER & 

COLONNELLI, P.L.

100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 2600

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel: (786) 425-1045

Fax: (786) 425-3905

By: /s/Craig J. Shankman

Craig J. Shankman, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 111766

cshankman@boydlawgroup.com

William T. Leveille, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1003883

wleveille@boydlawgroup.com

ServiceMia@boydlawgroup.com

Counsel for Charles Brumsted, Jr.

and

MARSHAL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, 

COLEMAN & GOGGIN

2400 E. Commercial Blvd., Suite 1100

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308

Tel: (954) 847-4920

Fax: (954) 627-6640

By: /s/ Jeannie A. Leibegott

Jeannie A. Leibegott, Esq.

Joelle J. Vogel, Esq.

jaleibegott@mdwcg.com

jjvogel@mdwcg.com

mdlincoff@mdwcg.com

Counsel to Defendant, KW Property Management, 

LLC, Jose Vidal and Jonathan Ferreira

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 5 of 6
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via CM/ECF on 

November 2nd 2022 on all counsel or parties of record on the attached Service List and U.S. 

Mail/Electronic Mail to:

Kanayo Derhem 

Mojtaba E. Koosej

600 N.E. 27 Street, #2605

Miami, Florida 33137

Kho.Derhem@gmail.com

mkoosej@gmail.com

SERVICE LIST

Kanayo Derhem 

Mojtaba E. Koosej

600 N.E. 27 Street, #2605

Miami, Florida 33137

Kho.Derhem@gmail.com

mkoosej@gmail.com

Jeannie A. Leibegott, Esq. Craig Shankman, Esq.

Joelle J. Vogel, Esq. Boyd Richards Parker & Colonnelli, P.L.

Marshal, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 2600

2400 E. Commercial Blvd., Suite 1100 Miami, Florida 33131

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 cshankman@boydlawgroup.com

jaleibegott@mdwcg.com Counsel to Defendant, Charles Brumsted

jjvogel@mdwcg.com

mdlincoff@mdwcg.com

Counsel to Defendant, KW Property Management,

LLC, Jose Vidal and Jonathan Ferreira

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 6 of 6