LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 

6701 SUNSET DRIVE, SUITE 101, MIAMI, FL, 33143 • TELEPHONE (305) 665-9211

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Miami Division

Case No.: 1:20-cv-22603-GOODMAN

[CONSENT]

Erik Chavez, individually, and on behalf of 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Grill Enterprises, LLC, a Florida limited 

liability company, d/b/a “Los Parrilleros” and 

“Parrilleros Tavern”, and; 

Ruben Sierra, individually, 

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO “DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION” [ECF NO. 148] 

Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, submit the instant Response to 

“Defendants’ Motion for Clarification” [ECF No. 148], as follows: 

REQUEST FOR HEARING

In accordance with Local Rule 7.1(b)(2), Plaintiffs respectfully request a hearing on this 

matter because there are looming deadlines established by the Court, including 4:00 p.m. today

and the close of business on Monday (May 1st), regarding neutral statements and proposed jury 

instructions and verdict form. Plaintiffs estimate a hearing would last approximately 15 minutes. 

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

1. The pretrial conference in this case occurred only two days ago (April 26th) and 

there was no suggestion or reason to believe that any party did not understand what was required 

by the trial order. Following the pretrial conference, the Court memorialized all matters discussed 

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 149 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 1 of 5
2 

and required that the parties complete various tasks, to include the preparation of jury instructions

and a neutral statement of claims and defenses.

2. Almost immediately following the conclusion of the pretrial conference, 

undersigned counsel received a stream of at least 10 emails from one of the lawyers for the 

Defendants, all of them accusing undersigned counsel of making “false accusations” and none of 

them addressing the specific tasks required by the Court as a result of the pretrial conference, to 

which we now must memorialize are exceptions and communicate our umbrage to the same. 

Plaintiffs believe that all of the above is done to create unnecessary burdens and expenses, and to 

cause delay. 

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

3. Defendants seek not to “clarify” the Court’s pretrial conference Orders, but rather 

to retroactively allow them to disregard the clear dictates of those Orders, which are unambiguous 

and consistent. Indeed, the original Scheduling Order [ECF No. 42, p. 3], as prepared by the late 

Judge Cooke is substantively identical (with respect to jury instructions) to the Court’s recent 

Order Specially Setting Civil Jury Trial . . . [ECF No. 130, pp. 2-3]. Indeed, no ambiguity in the 

Court’s Order is identified in the Motion. 

4. A final form of jury instructions was already previously prepared and filed in the 

record when this case was originally set for trial before the late Judge Cooke. See ECF No. 84. 

That originally-filed set of proposed jury instructions presented jury instructions in the required 

format, distinguishing between agreed instructions, Plaintiffs’ instructions, and Defendants’ 

instructions. It also included respective competing verdict forms.

5. Yesterday (April 27th), undersigned counsel received from counsel for Defendants 

what he suggests should be the new starting point for jury instructions. However, this draft

(attached as Exhibit 1) does not conform to the current trial order, and while purporting to have 

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 149 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 2 of 5
3

used the original set as a starting point, effectively obliterates the original set of instructions by 

wholesale deletion of agreed instructions and Plaintiffs’ proposed instructions in favor of 

“proposed” hybrid instructions. A perfect illustration of the chaos is reflected in the draft proposed 

jury instruction #24 at p. 56 of the attached Exhibit 1. In this proposed instruction, the Defendants 

both proposes an altered version of a previous instruction and objects to it, while striking the 

previous Plaintiffs proposed instruction in its entirety (See ECF No. 84, pp. 45-48). It is not clear 

whether the starting point is the prior Plaintiffs’ proposed instruction or the Defendants’ proposed 

instructions, since both of those are no longer provided. This is especially egregious since it is 

clear that there is not an agreement on this instruction anymore. Defendants essentially exclude 

both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ prior competing instructions in favor of a single proposed 

instruction which Defendants then object to.

6. The vast majority of the new instructions proposed by Defendants are neither 

agreed instructions, Defendants’ instructions, or Plaintiffs’ instructions, but rather complex, 

altered versions of previous instructions that had either been agreed to or submitted as Plaintiffs’

proposed instructions, which Defendants now refer to as a “proposed instruction” without leaving 

a trace of the previous instructions.

7. Thus, Defendants’ revised version of the originally-submitted jury instructions 

now includes mostly “hybrid” instructions which quixotically includes deletions of portions of the 

prior drafts, insertions of prior drafts, and then partial italicization and/or partial boldfacing as if 

to describe, for both parties, the portion of the proposed instruction which each party objects to. 

Defendants then provide objections to the very instruction proposed by them as neither a Plaintiffs’

or Defendants’ instruction. 

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 149 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 3 of 5
4 

8. In short, Defendants seek not to clarify the Court’s clear and unambiguous orders, 

but rather to permit them to obliterate work already accomplished and to instead allow them to 

follow alternative procedures which, they say, are followed “in other Courts”. However, no 

reference to any other Court order is made, so Plaintiffs do not know what “custom” the 

Defendants are referring to or why they are asking to deviate from the Court orders in this case, 

which were previously followed without controversy. 

JOINT PROPOSED NEUTRAL STATEMENT 

9. Similarly, with respect to the required “neutral statement of claim and defenses,” 

Plaintiffs submitted an original to both counsels for the Defendants on Wednesday, April 26th at 

5:36 p.m., to which Plaintiffs received a response the same day at 9:57 p.m. Plaintiffs then made 

revisions and returned them to both opposing counsels on Thursday, April 27th at 4:47 p.m. Then, 

Defendants responded April 27th at 7:56 p.m. with a draft which appears to be working from a 

different draft than the one provided to them three hours before. 

10. The Motion for Clarification filed by Defendants is an attempt to buy time by 

creating chaos and wasting the energy and resources of the Plaintiffs so that the Court will continue 

to trial without their having to even request a continuance. The Defendants’ refusal and failure to 

follow the trial order is materially prejudicial to the Plaintiffs.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny the Motion for 

Clarification and, rather, compel the Defendants to abide by the clear language of the trial order in 

this case, which the parties have already previously followed, and that the Court award such further 

relief as the Court may deem meet and proper. 

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 149 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 4 of 5
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 28, 2023 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court via CM/ECF and served on the parties listed in the 

Service List below in the manner indicated therein.

Anthony F. Sanchez, P.A. Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101

Miami, Florida 33143

Tel.: 305-665-9211

By: /s/ Anthony F. Sanchez

Anthony F. Sanchez

Florida Bar No.789925

afs@laborlawfla.com

SERVICE LIST

Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 789925 

afs@laborlawfla.com 

faz@laborlawfla.com 

Counsel for Plaintiffs

ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.

6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101 

Miami, Florida 33143 

Tel: 305-665-9211 

Todd W. Shulby, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 068365 

tshulby@shulbylaw.com

llangford@shulbylaw.com 

Counsel for Defendants 

TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.

1792 Bell Tower Lane

Weston, Florida 33326 

Tel: 954-530-2236 

Fax: 954-530-6628 

Via Notice of Electronic Filing

Brian H. Pollock, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 174742 

brian@fairlawattorney.com

Co-Counsel for Defendants 

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770 

Coral Gables, Florida 33146 

Tel: 305-230-4884 

Via Notice of Electronic Filing

Case 1:20-cv-22603-JG Document 149 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2023 Page 5 of 5