1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Audley Brown, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

 ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-22434

Florida Power & Light Company, )

Briggs & Stratton Corporation, )

Generac Power Systems, Inc. )

)

Defendants. )

________________________________ )

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, 

INC.’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 11

The Plaintiff, Audley Brown (hereinafter, “Plaintiff, Audley Brown”), by and 

through his undersigned legal counsel, files this Response to Defendant Generac Power 

Systems, Inc.’s (hereinafter, “Generac” or “Defendant Generac”) Motion For Sanctions 

Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

The Plaintiff, Audley Brown and his undersigned legal counsel conducted a 

reasonable investigation before filing the Complaint, and in good faith believe there are 

valid claims against Defendant Generac. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, Audley Brown and 

his undersigned legal counsel respectfully request that the Court deny Defendant Generac 

Power Systems, Inc.’s Motion, and deny sanctions against the Plaintiff, Audley Brown

and his undersigned legal counsel.

The Plaintiff, Audley Brown sued Generac, claiming that Generac’s generator 

products infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,998,961 (“the ’961 patent”), which is titled 

“PORTABLE BATTERY CHARGER”. 

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 1 of 17
2

The Complaint stated:

“13. On information and belief, Defendants also do business in manufacturing

and/or distributing and/or selling of portable battery chargers.

14. On information and belief, and without Plaintiff’s authorization,

Defendants have made, used, offered to sell, sold, and/or imported into the United States

products having the assembly and components claimed in the ’961 Patent ... 

16. On information and belief, Defendant Generac’s infringing portable

battery chargers include a portable battery charger identified, as least, as “Generac Gas

Power Charger”.”

Research on Generac’s products was performed to identify portable battery 

chargers. The accused Generac products in the Complaint were labeled as “Generac Gas 

Power Charger”, whereby undersigned legal counsel Albert Bordas performed a proper 

pre-suit investigation, being a Patent Infringement Analysis, completed on September 16, 

2019. Please see Exhibit 1, the Patent Infringement Analysis; and please see Exhibit 1A, 

Patent Infringement Analysis date / time stamped as created on: Monday, September 16, 

2019 at 3:53 PM. [See Declaration of Albert Bordas (“Bordas Decl.”), ¶4 and 5.] An 

email dated Monday, September 16, 2019 at 4:01 PM comprising the Patent Infringement 

Analysis was sent to Plaintiff, Audley Brown and Lead Counsel Manotti Jenkins. Please 

see Exhibit 1B. [See Declaration of Albert Bordas (“Bordas Decl.”), ¶6.]

In addition, the undersigned legal counsel Albert Bordas performed a proper presuit investigation, being a Generac Claim Chart, completed on November 22, 2019. 

Please see Exhibit 2; and please see Exhibit 2A, Generac Claim Chart date / time stamped 

as created on: Friday, November 22, 2019 at 3:29 PM. [See Declaration of Albert Bordas 

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 2 of 17
3

(“Bordas Decl.”), ¶7 and 8.]. An email dated Friday, November 22, 2019 at 4:38 PM 

comprising the Generac Claim Chart was sent to Plaintiff, Audley Brown and Lead 

Counsel Manotti Jenkins. Please see Exhibit 2B. [See Declaration of Albert Bordas 

(“Bordas Decl.”), ¶9.]

The Patent Infringement Analysis of Exhibit 1, and the Generac Claim Chart of 

Exhibit 2, were completed comparing the ’961 patent to Generac’s products as seen in the 

link https://www.zoro.com/b/GENERAC/

Said link comprises at least these relevant models:

GENERAC 5500W Gas Portable Generator 120/240VAC Recoil; Zoro #:

G3696856; Mfr #: 5939. Please see Exhibits 3 and 3A. [See Declaration of Albert Bordas 

(“Bordas Decl.”), ¶10.]

GENERAC 15000W Gas Portable Generator 120/240VAC Electric; Zoro #:

G8530751; Mfr #: 5734 (in Owner’s Manual language specifically stating, “This 

generator has the capability of recharging a discharged 12 Volt automotive or utility style 

storage battery.”). Please see Exhibits 4 and 4A. [See Declaration of Albert Bordas 

(“Bordas Decl.”), ¶11.]; and

GENERAC 17500W Gas Portable Generator 120/240VAC Electric; Zoro #: 

G8530767; Mfr #: 5735. Please see Exhibits 5 and 5A. [See Declaration of Albert Bordas 

(“Bordas Decl.”), ¶12.]

After analyzing and discussing the Patent Infringement Analysis completed on 

September 16, 2019, and the Generac Claim Chart completed on November 22, 2019, the 

Plaintiff, Audley Brown and his undersigned legal counsel in good faith believed there 

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 3 of 17
4

were valid claims against Defendant Generac and therefore proceeded with the 

Complaint filing on June 12, 2020.

Plaintiff’s ’961 Patent was a valid, enforceable US patent. Once awarded by the 

US Patent and Trademark Office, Plaintiff’s ’961 Patent was never re-examined, nor was 

it ever invalidated.

During the life of Plaintiff’s ’961 Patent, Defendant Generac never attempted to 

challenge it, and never petitioned the US Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine it 

for any reason, including to try to invalidate it.

In it’s Motion, Generac presents that “none of its generator products are capable 

of infringing the ’961 patent because they cannot jump-start a disabled vehicle. In fact, 

Generac’s publicly available product manuals explain clearly that its generator products 

“can not [sic] be used to crank an engine having a discharged battery.””

Generac jumped to this conclusion without understanding the ’961 patent and 

how Plaintiff, Audley Brown’s invention works. 

Generac also jumped to this conclusion without any discovery in the case.

In addition, Generac also jumped to this conclusion without the benefit of a 

Markman hearing. A Markman hearing is a pretrial hearing in a U.S. District Court 

during which a judge examines evidence from all parties on the appropriate meanings of 

relevant key words used in a patent claim, when patent infringement is alleged by a 

plaintiff. It is also known as a "Claim Construction Hearing".

Holding a Markman hearing in patent infringement cases has been common 

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 4 of 17
5

practice since the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1996 case of Markman v. Westview 

Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), found that the language of a patent is a matter of 

law for a judge to decide, not a matter of fact for a jury to decide. Markman hearings are 

important, because the court determines patent infringement cases by the interpretation of 

claims. Furthermore, Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place 

before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a 

motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for 

summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but 

before jury selection. The evidence considered in a Markman hearing falls into two 

categories: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic evidence consists of the patent documentation 

and any prosecution history of the patent. Extrinsic evidence is testimony, expert opinion, 

or other unwritten sources; extrinsic evidence may not contradict intrinsic evidence.

The Plaintiff’s position is that at least some of Generac’s portable generator 

products are capable of charging an automotive battery, which may then jump start a 

vehicle, and fall within the scope of the awarded claims of the ’961 Patent.

Referring to the ’961 patent, in the Specification it states “In use, the present 

invention would eliminate the need to remove a dead or weak battery to have it 

recharged or tracking down someone for a jump-start. There would be no need to call a 

service station for assistance since the recharging could be completed right on the spot by 

the vehicle owner. By simply connecting the cables 32 and starting the motor, electricity 

would be produced by the alternator for direct transfer to the dead battery for 

recharging.” Please see Exhibit 6, the’961 patent, Column 4, Lines 11 – 18. 

Plaintiff’s lawsuit and filing of the Complaint was reasonable having performed 

the proper pre-suit investigation, being the development of the Patent Infringement 

Analysis and the Generac Claim Chart.

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 5 of 17
6

Plaintiff, Audley Brown and his undersigned legal counsel respectfully request

that the Court deny Defendant Generac Power Systems, Inc.’s Motion and deny sanctions 

against the Plaintiff, Audley Brown and his undersigned legal counsel; and that 

Defendant Generac and its counsel be required, jointly and severally, to reimburse 

Plaintiff for his attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred in connection with defending 

against this baseless Motion.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff, Audley Brown filed a patent application at the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office on Feb. 4, 1999. Said patent application was awarded as the ’961 

patent on December 7, 1999. A file history of the ’961 patent clearly shows that no prior 

art was cited against the ’961 patent. Please see Exhibit 7, file history of the ’961 patent.

The file history of the ’961 patent also clearly shows that Plaintiff’s ’961 Patent 

was never re-examined, nor was it ever invalidated. 

The file history of the ’961 patent also shows that Defendant Generac never 

attempted to challenge it or petition the US Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine it 

for any reason.

The file history of the ’961 patent also shows that Amendments were not required 

to overcome cited art. This is because the US Patent Examiner did not reject Plaintiff, 

Audley Brown’s patent application with any prior art.

On March 13, 2016, undersigned legal counsel Manotti Jenkins, sent Generac a 

demand letter, which enclosed a copy of the ’961 patent, and stated that Generac’s 

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 6 of 17
7

generator products infringed Claim 2, and insisted that Generac cease production of its 

generator products until it had entered a license for the ’961 patent. [Leach Decl., Ex. C.].

Specifically, Brown’s demand letter stated that Generac’s products “operate within the 

language of at least Claim 2 of the ’961 Patent, in that they can be used to ‘jump-start

an engine of a disabled vehicle’ . . . .” [Id. (emphasis added).]

For infringement to exist, a claim (any claim) of a patent must read on an alleged 

infringing article. To read on an article, each element of the claim must find 

correspondence in an element or structure in the alleged infringing article. Thus, the 

elements claimed in the patent must be individually analyzed. 

Besides literal infringement, there is the doctrine of equivalents. Festo Corp. v. 

Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), was a United States 

Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law that examined the relationship between 

the doctrine of equivalents (which holds that a patent can be infringed by something that 

is not literally falling within the scope of the claims because a somewhat insubstantial 

feature or element has been substituted) and the doctrine of prosecution history 

estoppel (which holds that a party who makes a change to a patent application to 

accommodate the requirements of patent law cannot claim indirect infringement of an 

element that was narrowed by that change).

Furthermore, the case Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 

Ltd. held that any patent application amendment made for patentability purposes that 

narrows the scope of the patent is subject to prosecution history estoppel. The Supreme

Court held that an amendment creates a presumption that estoppel bars such a claim, but 

that presumption is rebuttable. In order to rebut the presumption, a patentee "must show 

that at the time of the amendment one skilled in the art could not reasonably be expected 

to have drafted a claim that would have literally encompassed the alleged equivalent." 

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 7 of 17
8

The Court further held that not only is the burden on the patentee to show that an 

amendment was not made for the purpose of patentability, but he or she must also show 

that the amendment does not surrender the particular element.

Examination of the File Wrapper for the ’961 patent Application shows that no

amendments were made to the initial claims that contained language specifically at issue.

Therefore, Plaintiff, Audley Brown may claim infringement via the doctrine of 

equivalents in addition to literal infringement.

Since the ’961 patent taught “In use, the present invention would eliminate the 

need to remove a dead or weak battery to have it recharged or tracking down someone 

for a jump-start. There would be no need to call a service station for assistance since the 

recharging could be completed right on the spot by the vehicle owner. By simply 

connecting the cables 32 and starting the motor, electricity would be produced by the 

alternator for direct transfer to the dead battery for recharging.”, it is Plaintiff’s position 

that Generac’s portable generators can produce enough output to charge a battery to then 

jump-start a disabled vehicle. 

For the above stated reasons stated, Plaintiff in good faith believes there are valid 

claims against Defendant Generac.

ARGUMENT

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure imposes an affirmative duty upon 

counsel to conduct a reasonable investigation of the facts before filing papers with the 

court and the Plaintiff, Audley Brown and his undersigned legal counsel have done so.

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 8 of 17
9

In its Motion, Generac presents “In this Circuit:

Rule 11 sanctions are proper “(1) when a party files a pleading that has no reasonable 

factual basis; (2) when the party files a pleading that is based on a legal theory that has no 

reasonable chance of success and that cannot be advanced as a reasonable argument to 

change existing law; and (3) when the party files a pleading in bad faith for an improper 

purpose.”

Spolter v. Sun Trust Bank, 403 F. App’x 387, 389 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Jones v. Int’l 

Riding Helmets, Ltd., 49 F.3d 692, 694 (11th Cir. 1995)); see also Baker v. Alderman, 

158 F.3d 516, 524 (11th Cir. 1998).”

Generac has failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff, Audley Brown filed a pleading 

that has no reasonable factual basis. 

Plaintiff, Audley Brown filed a patent application at the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office on Feb. 4, 1999. Said patent application was awarded as the ’961 

patent on December 7, 1999. A file history of the ’961 patent clearly shows that no prior 

art was cited against the ’961 patent. Plaintiff’s ’961 Patent was a valid, enforceable US 

patent. Once awarded by the US Patent and Trademark Office, Plaintiff’s ’961 Patent was 

never re-examined, nor was it ever invalidated. During the life of Plaintiff’s ’961 Patent, 

Defendant Generac never attempted to challenge it, and never petitioned the US Patent 

and Trademark Office to re-examine it for any reason, including to try to invalidate it.

The accused Generac products in the Complaint were labeled as “Generac Gas 

Power Charger” as seen in the link https://www.zoro.com/b/GENERAC/ and pictured in 

Exhibit 1; and more specifically at least those seen in Exhibits 3, 4, and 5.

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 9 of 17
10

Undersigned legal counsel Albert Bordas performed a proper pre-suit 

investigation, being the Patent Infringement Analysis completed on September 16, 2019, 

and the Generac Claim Chart completed on November 22, 2019. Since the ’961 patent 

taught “In use, the present invention would eliminate the need to remove a dead or weak 

battery to have it recharged or tracking down someone for a jump-start. There would be 

no need to call a service station for assistance since the recharging could be completed 

right on the spot by the vehicle owner. By simply connecting the cables 32 and starting 

the motor, electricity would be produced by the alternator for direct transfer to the dead 

battery for recharging.”, Plaintiff filed the Complaint with reasonable factual basis. 

Generac has failed to demonstrate that when Plaintiff, Audley Brown filed the 

Complaint, that it was based on a legal theory that had no reasonable chance of success 

and that could not be advanced as a reasonable argument to change existing law.

Again, Plaintiff, Audley Brown’s Patent was a valid, enforceable US patent. Once 

awarded, Plaintiff’s ’961 Patent was never re-examined, nor was it ever invalidated. 

During the life of Plaintiff’s ’961 Patent, Defendant Generac never attempted to 

challenge it, and never petitioned the US Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine it 

for any reason. Examination of the File Wrapper for the ’961 patent Application shows 

that no amendments were made to the initial claims that contained language specifically 

at issue. Therefore, Plaintiff, Audley Brown may claim infringement via the doctrine of 

equivalents in addition to literal infringement.

Undersigned legal counsel Albert Bordas performed the proper pre-suit 

investigation, being the Patent Infringement Analysis completed on September 16, 2019, 

and the Generac Claim Chart completed on November 22, 2019 identifying Generac’s 

portable generators capable of recharging vehicle batteries to then jump-start the vehicle.

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 10 of 17
11

Plaintiff, Audley Brown filed the Complaint based on a legal theory that he had a 

reasonable chance of success and that could be advanced as a reasonable argument to 

change existing law, since the ’961 Patent was enforceable, never invalidated, and when 

compared to the accused Generac products in the Complaint labeled as “Generac Gas 

Power Charger” as seen in the link https://www.zoro.com/b/GENERAC/ and pictured in 

Exhibit 1, came within the scope of at least claim 2 of the ’961 Patent.

Generac has failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff, Audley Brown filed the 

Complaint in bad faith for an improper purpose. Plaintiff, Audley Brown was the owner 

of the ’961 Patent. A Patent confers “the right to exclude others from making, using, 

offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the 

invention into the United States” and its territories and possessions for which the term of 

the patent shall be generally 20 years from the date on which the application for the 

patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to 

an earlier filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c), from the date of the 

earliest such application was filed, and subject to the payment of maintenance fees as 

provided by law.

After analyzing and discussing the Patent Infringement Analysis completed on 

September 16, 2019, and the Generac Claim Chart completed on November 22, 2019, the 

Plaintiff, Audley Brown and his undersigned legal counsel in good faith believed there 

were valid claims against Defendant Generac and therefore proceeded with the 

Complaint filing on June 12, 2020. Plaintiff, Audley Brown filed the Complaint for a 

proper purpose and therefore within reasonableness under the circumstances.

Generac has failed to demonstrate that undersigned legal counsel failed to make a

reasonable inquiry. Undersigned legal counsel Albert Bordas performed a proper pre-suit 

investigation, being the Patent Infringement Analysis completed on September 16, 2019, 

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 11 of 17
12

and the Generac Claim Chart, completed on November 22, 2019. Please see Exhibit 8, 

Bordas Declaration. 

The Complaint was not objectively frivolous, and undersigned legal counsel who

signed the pleadings determined them to not be frivolous as Generac’s accused devices 

were compared with the construed patent claims. The Complaint met the required 

standard as it identified Generac’s accused devices and labeled them as Generac Gas 

Power Chargers as pictured the Patent Infringement Analysis in Exhibit 1.

Generac’s unilateral interpretation of “jumpstarting” is incorrect. Generac’s 

interpretation of “jumpstarting” i) failed to take into consideration understanding the ’961 

patent and how Plaintiff, Audley Brown’s invention works; ii) failed to take into 

consideration discovery in the case since no discovery was served; and iii) failed to take 

into consideration a Markman hearing since no Markman hearing occurred.

The very purpose of the Markman hearing is for the court to determine patent 

infringement cases by the interpretation of claims, while noting that Plaintiff, Audley 

Brown could claim infringement via literal infringement in addition to the doctrine of 

equivalents, which holds that a patent can be infringed by something that is not literally 

falling within the scope of the claims because a somewhat insubstantial feature or 

element has been substituted.

Generac’s position that it provided product brochures that invalidated the ’961 

patent is not understood. The United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded the 

’961 patent on Feb. 4, 1999. The file history of the ’961 patent clearly shows that no 

prior art was cited against the ’961 patent to reject it. Please see Exhibit 7, file history of 

the ’961 patent. The file history of the ’961 patent also clearly shows that Plaintiff’s ’961 

Patent was never re-examined, nor was it ever invalidated. The file history of the ’961 

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 12 of 17
13

patent also shows that Defendant Generac never attempted to challenge it or petition the 

US Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine it for any reason. The file history of the 

’961 patent also shows that Amendments were not required to overcome cited art. This is 

because the US Patent Examiner did not reject Plaintiff, Audley Brown’s patent 

application with any prior art.

Plaintiff, Audley Brown and his undersigned legal counsel did not willfully and 

deliberately violate Rule 11 and thus should not be sanctioned.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff, Audley Brown and his undersigned legal 

counsel respectfully request that the Court deny Defendant Generac Power Systems, 

Inc.’s Motion For Sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and deny sanctions against the 

Plaintiff, Audley Brown and his undersigned legal counsel; and that Defendant Generac

and its counsel be required, jointly and severally, to reimburse Plaintiff for his attorney’s 

fees and other expenses incurred in connection with defending against this baseless 

Motion.

Date: September 8, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Albert Bordas

Albert Bordas, Esq.

ALBERT BORDAS, P.A.

5975 Sunset Drive, Suite 705

Miami, Florida 33143

(305) 669-9848 (Tel.)

(305) 669-9851 (Fax)

albert@bordasiplaw.com

FL Bar No. 330220

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 13 of 17
14

/s/ Manotti L. Jenkins

Manotti L. Jenkins, Esq.

LAW OFFICES OF MANOTTI L. JENKINS, 

LTD.

150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2800

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 208-9537 (Tel.)

(872) 228-8153 (Fax.)

MJ@mljlawoffices.com

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 14 of 17
15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 8, 2020, the foregoing document, and the 

Declaration of Albert Bordas were served on all counsel of record identified on the 

attached Service List, via electronic mail on and via filing with CM/ECF.

/s/ Albert Bordas

Albert Bordas, Esq.

ALBERT BORDAS, P.A.

5975 Sunset Drive, Suite 705

Miami, Florida 33143

(305) 669-9848 (Tel.)

(305) 669-9851 (Fax)

albert@bordasiplaw.com

FL Bar No. 330220

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 15 of 17
16

SERVICE LIST

Audley Brown v. Florida Power & Light Company, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:20-CV-22434-MARTINEZ-OTAZO-REYES

Service via CM/ECF:

MERCHANT & GOULD P.C.

Thomas Leach

Thomas J. Leach*

E-mail: tleach@merchantgould.com

Michael A. Erbele*

E-mail: merbele@merchantgould.com

150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2200

Minneapolis, MN 55402

Telephone: (612) 332-5300

* Admitted pro hac vice

And

LOTT & FISCHER, PL

Ury Fischer

Florida Bar No. 048534

E-mail: ufischer@lottfischer.com

255 Aragon Avenue, Third Floor

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Telephone: (305) 448-7089

Attorneys for Defendant Generac Power Systems, Inc.

HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC

John P. Shanahan

E-mail: jshannahan@hansenreynolds.com

Thomas S. Reynolds II

E-mail: treynolds@hansenreynolds.com

Joseph J. Jacobi

E-mail: jjacobi@hansenreynolds.com

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 16 of 17
17

Jeremy Adelson

E-mail: jadelson@hansenreynolds.com

301 N. Broadway, Suite 400

Milwaukee, WI 53202-2660

Telephone: (414) 455-7676

Attorneys for Briggs & Stratton Corporation

Case 1:20-cv-22434-JEM Document 32 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2020 Page 17 of 17