- 1 -

FORM 1.997. CIVIL COVER SHEET

The civil cover sheet and the information contained in it neither replace nor supplement the filing

and service of pleadings or other documents as required by law. This form must be filed by the 

plaintiff or petitioner with the Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting uniform data pursuant 

to section 25.075, Florida Statutes. (See instructions for completion.)

I. CASE STYLE

IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

ARLETTE TEBELE

Plaintiff Case #

Judge

vs.

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

Defendant

II. AMOUNT OF CLAIM

Please indicate the estimated amount of the claim, rounded to the nearest dollar. The estimated amount of 

the claim is requested for data collection and clerical processing purposes only. The amount of the claim

shall not be used for any other purpose. 

 ☐ $8,000 or less

☐ $8,001 - $30,000

☐ $30,001- $50,000

☐ $50,001- $75,000

☒ $75,001 - $100,000

☐ over $100,000.00

III. TYPE OF CASE (If the case fits more than one type of case, select the most 

definitive category.) If the most descriptive label is a subcategory (is indented under a broader 

category), place an x on both the main category and subcategory lines.

Filing # 143393921 E-Filed 02/07/2022 11:12:00 AM

"Exhibit A"

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 1 of 84
- 2 -

CIRCUIT CIVIL

☐ Condominium

☐ Contracts and indebtedness

☐ Eminent domain

☐ Auto negligence

☒ Negligence—other

☐ Business governance

☐ Business torts

☐ Environmental/Toxic tort

☐ Third party indemnification

☐ Construction defect

☐ Mass tort

☐ Negligent security

☐ Nursing home negligence

☒ Premises liability—commercial

☐ Premises liability—residential

☐ Products liability

 ☐ Real Property/Mortgage foreclosure

☐ Commercial foreclosure

☐ Homestead residential foreclosure

☐ Non-homestead residential foreclosure

☐ Other real property actions

☐Professional malpractice

☐ Malpractice—business

☐ Malpractice—medical

☐ Malpractice—other professional

☐ Other

☐ Antitrust/Trade regulation

☐ Business transactions

☐ Constitutional challenge—statute or ordinance

☐ Constitutional challenge—proposed amendment

☐ Corporate trusts

☐ Discrimination—employment or other

☐ Insurance claims

☐ Intellectual property

☐ Libel/Slander

☐ Shareholder derivative action

☐ Securities litigation

☐ Trade secrets

☐ Trust litigation

COUNTY CIVIL

☐ Small Claims up to $8,000

☐ Civil

☐ Real property/Mortgage foreclosure 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 2 of 84
- 3 -

☐ Replevins

☐ Evictions

☐ Residential Evictions

☐ Non-residential Evictions

☐ Other civil (non-monetary)

COMPLEX BUSINESS COURT

This action is appropriate for assignment to Complex Business Court as delineated and mandated by the

Administrative Order. Yes ☐ No ☒

IV. REMEDIES SOUGHT (check all that apply):

☒ Monetary;

☐ Nonmonetary declaratory or injunctive relief;

☐ Punitive

V. NUMBER OF CAUSES OF ACTION: [ ]

(Specify)

2

VI. IS THIS CASE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT?

☐ yes

☒ no

VII. HAS NOTICE OF ANY KNOWN RELATED CASE BEEN FILED?

☒ no

☐ yes If “yes,” list all related cases by name, case number, and court.

VIII. IS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT?

☒ yes

☐ no

I CERTIFY that the information I have provided in this cover sheet is accurate to the best of

my knowledge and belief, and that I have read and will comply with the requirements of

Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425.

Signature: s/ Jonah M Wolfson Fla. Bar # 498130

Attorney or party (Bar # if attorney)

Jonah M Wolfson 02/07/2022

(type or print name) Date

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 3 of 84
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO.

ARLETTE TEBELE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION, and JOHN

DOE as manager.

Defendant.

 /

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, and hereby sues, Defendants and alleges as follows:

1. This is an action for damages in excess of thirty thousand ($30,000.00) 

dollars yet is uncertain whether it exceeds $75,000.

2. The Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County and, at all times material 

hereto, was and is sui juris.

3. The Defendant is a Foreign Profit Corporation and is subject to the 

jurisdiction of this Court. 

4. The Defendant JOHN DOE is a resident of Miami-Dade County and is 

subject to the jurisdiction of this court.

DEFENDANT COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION COUNT I –

NEGLIGENCE

5. The Plaintiff incorporates all of the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-

4 above as if fully set forth herein. 

Filing # 143393921 E-Filed 02/07/2022 11:12:00 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 4 of 84
6. On or about January 26th, 2021, the Defendant COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION owned, maintained, and/or operated the Costco located at or near14800 

Sole Mia Way, North Miami, FL 33181 which is hereinafter referred to as “the premises”. 

7. At that time and place, the Plaintiff went onto said premises as a business 

invitee and thereupon was caused to be injured by slipping on blueberries because of the 

Defendant’s negligent acts. 

8. Defendant by or through its agents or servants (the negligence of which they 

are liable for), negligently caused Plaintiff to fall by performing or failing to perform one 

or more of the following acts:

A. By carelessly and negligently failing to maintain the grounds on its premises in 

a reasonably safe condition, Defendant created a dangerous condition, to wit: a hazard to 

patrons who were ambulating on said premises, including, specifically, the Plaintiff; and

B. By failing to correct a dangerous condition of which it knew or should have 

known by the use of reasonable care, to wit: a hazard to patrons who were ambulating on 

said premises, including, specifically, the Plaintiff; and

C. By negligently failing to warn the Plaintiff of a dangerous condition (a hazard to 

patrons who were ambulating on said premises) concerning which Defendant had, or 

should have had, greater knowledge than that of the Plaintiff.

D. Defendant created a dangerous condition, to wit: a hazard to patrons who were 

ambulating on said premises, including, specifically, the Plaintiff;

E. The condition occurred with such regularity that Defendant knew or should have 

known of its existence.

9. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s commission of one or more 

of the negligent acts or omissions set forth above in 7(A-E), as aforesaid, the Plaintiff, 

suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 5 of 84
anguish, aggravation and/or acceleration of pre-existing condition(s), loss of capacity for 

the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, 

loss of earnings, and the loss of ability to earn money in the past and in the future. The 

losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiff will suffer the losses 

in the future. 

DEFENDANT JOHN DOE COUNT II NEGLIGENCE

10. The Plaintiff readopts and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1-9, as if they were fully set forth herein and further alleges:

11. At all times material hereto, Defendant JOHN DOE, the manager of the premises 

identified in paragraph 6, was in control of and responsible for managing the 

premises’s safety and operations.

12. At that time and place, the Plaintiff went onto said premises as a business invitee 

and thereupon was caused to be injured by slipping and falling because of the 

Defendant’s negligent acts. 

13. The Defendant, JOHN DOE, as manager of the premises, owed to the Plaintiff a 

duty of reasonable care to maintain the premises in a condition reasonably safe for 

their intended uses and free from all conditions which could render them 

dangerous and unsafe for the Plaintiff, or present an unreasonable risk of harm to 

her, in her lawful use of the same.

14. As such, at all material times, said manager owed a duty of reasonable care to 

maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for the safety of business 

invitees on the premises.

15. The aforesaid manager’s duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe 

condition included reasonable efforts to keep the premises free from safety 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 6 of 84
hazards that might foreseeably give rise to loss, injury, or damage.

16. Further, being in control of the aforedescribed premises in or around the area with 

the safety hazard in the aforesaid premises, Defendant, JOHN DOE, owed a duty 

to the Plaintiff, and other business invitees on the premises, to exercise reasonable 

care to maintain the aforesaid premises in such manner as to avoid injury or 

damages to business invitees, such as Plaintiff, as a result of any safety hazard in 

said premises.

17. Defendant JOHN DOE by or through its agents or servants (the negligence of 

which they are liable for), negligently caused Plaintiff to slip and fall by 

performing or failing to perform one or more of the following acts:

A. By carelessly and negligently failing to maintain the grounds on its 

premises in a reasonably safe condition, Defendant created a dangerous condition, 

to wit: a hazard to patrons who were ambulating on said premises, including, 

specifically, the Plaintiff; and

B. By failing to correct a dangerous condition of which it knew or should 

have known by the use of reasonable care, to wit: a hazard to patrons who were 

ambulating on said premises, including, specifically, the Plaintiff; and

C. By negligently failing to warn the Plaintiff of a dangerous condition (a 

hazard to patrons who were ambulating on said premises) concerning which 

Defendant had, or should have had, greater knowledge than that of the Plaintiff.

D. Defendant created a dangerous condition, to wit: a hazard to patrons who 

were ambulating on said premises, including, specifically, the Plaintiff;

E. The condition occurred with such regularity that Defendant knew or 

should have known of its existence.

 18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s commission of one or more of the 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 7 of 84
negligent acts or omissions set forth above in 17(A-E), as aforesaid, the Plaintiff, suffered 

bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, 

aggravation and/or acceleration of pre-existing condition(s), loss of capacity for the 

enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss 

of earnings, and the loss of ability to earn money in the past and in the future. The losses 

are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the 

future. 

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment for damages against the Defendant

costs of this action, and such other further equitable and legal relief as this Court may deem 

appropriate, and furthermore demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right by jury.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment for damages against the Defendant

costs of this action, and such other further equitable and legal relief as this Court may deem 

appropriate, and furthermore demand trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right by jury.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing was served together with a Request for 

Production, Interrogatories, and Summons. 

WOLFSON LAW FIRM, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

3399 S.W. 3rd Avenue

Miami, FL 33145

Telephone (305) 285-1115

Facsimile (305) 285-1608

eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com

/s/ Jay Dermer 

By: ________________________

 JAY DERMER, ESQ.

 FLA. BAR NO.0115443

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 8 of 84
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO. 

ARLETTE TEBELE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION, and JOHN

DOE as manager.

Defendant.

 /

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF’S

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT

Plaintiff, by and through the undersigned counsel, files this Notice of Service of 

Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories together with the Complaint, to be answered by 

Defendant, in writing and under oath, within 45 days of service of same. 

 WOLFSON LAW FIRM, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

3399 S.W. 3rd Avenue

Miami, FL 33145

Telephone (305) 285-1115

Facsimile (305) 285-1608

eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com

/s/ Jay Dermer 

By: ________________________

 JAY DERMER, ESQ.

 FLA. BAR NO.0115443

Filing # 143393921 E-Filed 02/07/2022 11:12:00 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 9 of 84
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT

1. What is the name and address of the person answering these Interrogatories, and if 

applicable, the person's official position or relationship with the party to whom the 

Interrogatories are directed?

2. What is the name and address of the manager of the Defendant’s premises on the 

date in question as described in the Complaint

3. Describe any and all policies of insurance which you contend cover or may cover 

you or your company and/or the Defendant for the allegations set forth in Plaintiff's 

Complaint, providing:

a. the name of the insurer;

b. number of the policy;

c. the effective dates of the policy;

d. the available limits of liability; and

e. the name and address of the custodian of the policy.

4. Do you dispute that the accident occurred on the date alleged and at or near the 

place alleged in the Complaint? If so, please set forth what you claim to be the correct date 

and state exactly where said accident occurred.

5. Please set forth the name and address of any and all individual(s), partnership(s) 

and/or corporation(s) who, on the date of the incident herein, owned the premises where 

the incident alleged in the complaint occurred. 

6. Please set forth the name and address of any and all individual(s), partnership(s) 

and/or corporation(s) who, on the date of the incident herein, maintained the premises 

where the incident alleged in the complaint occurred. Please also state under what 

authority or agreement any individual(s), partnership and/or corporation listed in this 

answer maintained said premises.

7. Please set forth the name and address of any and all individual(s), partnership(s) 

and/or corporation(s) who, on the date of the incident herein, controlled and/or operated 

the premises where the incident alleged in the complaint occurred. Please also state under 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 10 of 84
what authority or agreement any individual(s), partnership and/or corporation listed in this 

answer controlled and/or operated said premises.

8. Please set forth the name and address of any and all individual(s), partnership(s), 

and/or corporation(s) whose was/were responsible for the safety of the premises where the 

incident in this case occurred on the date of the incident in this case.

9. Describe in detail each act or omission on the part of any party to this lawsuit or 

any other person or entity that you contend constituted negligence that was a contributing 

legal cause of the incident in question.

10. State the facts upon which you rely for each Affirmative Defense in your Answer.

11. List the names and addresses of all persons who are believed or known by you, 

your agents or attorneys to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit, 

and specify the subject matter about which the witness has knowledge.

12. Have you heard or do you know about any statement or remark made by or on 

behalf of any party of this lawsuit, other than yourself, concerning any issue in this lawsuit? 

If so, state the name and address of each such person who made the statement or statements, 

the name and address of each person who heard it and the date, time, place and substance 

of each statement.

13. State the name and address of every person known to you, your agents or attorneys 

who has knowledge about, or possession, custody or control of any model, plat, map, 

drawing, motion picture, videotape, or photograph pertaining to any fact or issue involved 

in this controversy; and describe as to each, what such person has, the name and address 

of the person who took or prepared it, and the date it was taken or prepared.

14. Has this Defendant been sued under its correct name? If not, please state the correct 

name and explain your answer so that service may be properly obtained.

15. Please state whether or not you have a copy of any statement which the Plaintiff 

has previously made concerning this action or its subject matter and which is in your 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 11 of 84
possession, custody, or control. If so, please provide a copy of that statement to Plaintiff's 

counsel.

(For the purpose of this question, statement previously made includes: [1] written 

statement signed or otherwise adopted or proved by the person making it, [2] stenographic, 

mechanical, electrical or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially 

verbatim recital of an oral statement by the person making it and contemporaneously 

recorded.)

16. State whether you or your attorneys or anyone on your behalf conducted any 

surveillance on the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter and, if so, please state the name 

and address of any and all persons who have conducted said surveillance. Also, please set 

forth the dates and times of any surveillance taken.

17. State the names and addresses of all agents, servants, employees, representatives 

or others who investigated the subject incident on your behalf.

18. State the names, present residence addresses and telephone numbers of all persons 

known to you or your attorneys to have been eyewitnesses to the accident described in the 

Complaint.

19. State the names, exact addresses and telephone numbers of all persons known to 

you or your attorneys who were at the scene or near the scene of the accident described in 

the Complaint at or near the time of the subject accident, and who have personal knowledge 

concerning the occurrence thereof, although not eyewitness thereto.

20. If any of the Defendants, agents, servants and/or employees were notified that the 

Plaintiff had sustained an injury, please state when said notice was received, the name and 

address of the person receiving said notice, said person’s employment capacity, and the 

name and address and employment capacity, if any, of the person from whom said notice 

was received.

21. If any person known to the Defendant inspected the area where the Plaintiff was 

injured after the Plaintiff’s accident, please state the name and address of the person 

inspecting said area, the time and date of said inspection, the employment capacity, if any, 

of said person, and the condition that said person determined to exist by said inspection.

22. Please state whether or not inspection was made of the area where the Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 12 of 84
allegedly was injured within a period of 1 (one) year prior to the time of the accident and, 

if so, please state the name and address of the person or persons performing said inspection, 

the times or frequencies of said inspections, whether or not said inspection revealed any 

defect or condition to be present, and the name and address of the person performing said 

inspection.

23. Please state whether or not at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was either 

impliedly or expressly invited onto the Defendant’s premises.

24. Please identify with detail and set forth the name and address of the custodian of 

any and all rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and directives that pertain to the 

operation, maintenance, control, management of the premises upon which the incident in 

the complaint is alleged to have occurred.

25. Please identify with detail and set forth the name and address of the custodian of 

any and all rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and directives that pertain to the actions 

of any and all employees or independent contractors that have come on the premises where 

the incident alleged in the complain occurred within the last five (5) years. 

26. Please set forth the name and address of each and every employee or contractor 

that has come on the premises set forth in the complaint to do work of any kind and was 

paid directly or indirectly by the Defendant within the past five (5) years and specify the 

reason he, she, or it came on the premises. 

27. Were there cameras close to where the Plaintiff fell that were pointed to the area 

where he/she fell?

a. If so, please state whether or not these cameras captured the Plaintiff’s fall. If 

the cameras did not capture the Plaintiff’s fall, please indicate why they did 

not. If the cameras did capture his/her fall, please set forth the name and 

address of the custodian of said video.

b. If the video was destroyed, please state the name and address of who did so 

and the date and time and address of where and when it was done. 

28. Did you or did anyone on your behalf perform any type of surveillance on the 

Plaintiff? If so, when and where?

29. Do you contend that any other person, firm, or corporation had the responsibility to 

maintain the area at or near where the Plaintiff claims to have fallen in the Complaint? If so, 

please state the name and address of any such person, firm, or corporation.

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 13 of 84
___________________________________

STATE OF FLORIDA )

) SS:

COUNTY OF )

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared, 

____________________________ who is well known to me or who has produced 

____________________________ as identification, deposes and states that the foregoing 

matters are truthful and correct to the best of her knowledge and belief.

___________________________

 

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED

before me this _________ day

of ________________, 20____

________________________

Notary Public

My Commission Expires:

_________________________

Commission No.

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 14 of 84
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO. 

ARLETTE TEBELE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION, and JOHN

DOE as manager.

Defendant.

 /

NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE 2.516 AND DESIGNATION OF E-MAIL ADDRESS(ES)

The undersigned counsel for Plaintiff, hereby files this Notice of Compliance with 

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 2.516(b)(1) and designates the following e-mail 

recipient(s) upon which any and all documents to be filed with the Court in the above 

captioned case shall be served to:

Primary address: eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com

Secondary address: jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of this Notice of Designation of Email Address(es) was 

served together with a copy of the Summons, Complaint, Interrogatories and Request for 

Production.

 WOLFSON LAW FIRM, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

3399 S.W. 3rd Avenue

Miami, FL 33145

Telephone (305) 285-1115

Facsimile (305) 285-1608

eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com

/s/ Jay Dermer 

By: ________________________

 JAY DERMER, ESQ.

 FLA. BAR NO.0115443

Filing # 143393921 E-Filed 02/07/2022 11:12:00 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 15 of 84
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO. 

ARLETTE TEBELE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION, and JOHN

DOE as manager.

Defendant.

 /

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR COPIES

Plaintiff, by and through the undersigned counsel, files this Request for Copies of all documents 

produced in response to any subpoena issued in this cause of action. Any charges exceeding $100 

must be approved by the undersigned counsel in advance. Parties are hereby placed on notice that 

any copies of records not produced or invoiced, that the Plaintiff reserves the right to object to the 

use of those records for any purpose. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of this Request was served together with a copy of the Summons, 

Complaint, and initial discovery.

 WOLFSON LAW FIRM, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

3399 S.W. 3rd Avenue

Miami, FL 33145

Telephone (305) 285-1115

Facsimile (305) 285-1608

eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com

/s/ Jay Dermer 

By: ________________________

 JAY DERMER, ESQ.

 FLA. BAR NO.0115443

Filing # 143393921 E-Filed 02/07/2022 11:12:00 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 16 of 84
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO. 

ARLETTE TEBELE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION, and JOHN

DOE as manager.

Defendant.

 /

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT 

The Plaintiff, by and through the undersigned attorney and pursuant to Florida 

Rule of Civil Procedure of 1.350, requests the Defendant, to produce the following items 

at the undersigned counsel's office within 45 days from the date of service of this 

Request to Produce together with the Complaint.

1. Any indemnity agreements between the Defendant and any non-party 

which is relevant to the accident and injuries which form the basis of this action.

2. Any and all photographs in possession or control of the Defendant or 

their agents of the scene of the accident.

3. Any and all expert reports which have been obtained from any expert. If 

a report has not been prepared, the preparation of a report is hereby requested.

4. Any and all insurance agreements or policies under which any person or 

entity providing insurance to the Defendant may be liable for part or all of a judgment 

which may be rendered in this action. 

5. Copies of any and all statements previously made by the Plaintiff or 

Defendant concerning the subject matter of this action, including any written statements, 

signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the Plaintiff, and any stenographic, 

mechanical, electrical or other type of recording or any transcription thereof made by 

the Plaintiff hereto and contemporaneously recorded. 

6. Any and all photographs relevant to the issues herein.

Filing # 143393921 E-Filed 02/07/2022 11:12:00 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 17 of 84
7. Any and all sweep and/or inspection reports of any kind concerning the 

floors of the entire store where the alleged incident occurred, from the day of the 

incident described in the complaint.

8. Any and all video and/or photographic evidence, whether in digital, film, 

computer or any other format of any kind that depicts any part of the incident described 

in the complaint.

9. Any and all video and/or photographic evidence, whether in digital, film, 

computer or any other format of any kind that depicts the Plaintiff in any way on the 

date of the incident described in the complaint.

10. Any and all video and/or photographic evidence, whether in digital, film, 

computer or any other format of any kind that depicts any part of the subject store, on 

the date of the incident described in the complaint.

11. Any and all incident reports with everything redacted except for the 

names and addresses of any person who filled out said report or who was at or near the 

incident described in the complaint at or near the time of the incident described in the 

complaint.

12. Any and all rosters and or schedules showing the employees who were 

working on the day of the incident described in the complaint.

13. Any and all written or otherwise recorded materials provided to any 

employee that was working for Defendant on the day of the incident that were given to 

that employee during any training he or she received during his or her entire tenure at 

employed by the Defendant.

14. Any and all written or otherwise recorded materials provided to any 

employee that was employed with Defendant on the day of the incident. 

15. Any and all written or otherwise recorded rules, policies, and procedures 

provided to any employee of Defendant within the last 10 years. 

16. Any and all written or otherwise recorded rules, policies, and procedures 

provided to any employee at the subject store within the past 5 years.

17. Any and all written or otherwise recorded information provided to any 

employee at the subject store within the past 5 years. 

18. Any and all licenses held by any employee of Defendant.

19. Any and all rules that any employees of Defendant had to follow on the 

date of the incident. 

20. Any and all rules that any employees of Defendant were given in the past 

10 years. 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 18 of 84
21. Any and all policies that any employees of Defendant were given in the 

past 10 years.

22. Any and all procedures that any employees of Defendant were given in 

the past 10 years. 

23. Any and all agreements with any companies that may be responsible 

for the maintenance of the subject property.

24. Any and all management agreements. 

25. Any and all code violations received by Defendant in the last 5 years.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

That a true and correct copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the 

Defendant together with the Summons, Complaint, and Interrogatories.

 WOLFSON LAW FIRM, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff

3399 S.W. 3rd Avenue

Miami, FL 33145

Telephone (305) 285-1115

Facsimile (305) 285-1608

eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com

/s/ Jay Dermer 

By: ________________________

 JAY DERMER, ESQ.

 FLA. BAR NO.0115443

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 19 of 84
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

ARLETTE TEBELE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION, and JOHN

DOE as manager.

Defendant.

 /

CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS

THE STATE OF FLORIDA;

To All and Singular the Sheriffs of State:

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to serve this Summons, a copy of the Complaint on 

the Defendant pursuant to F.S. 48.193 and 48.194:

BY SERVING: COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

 Registered Agent Name & Address

 C T CORPORATION SYSTEM

 1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD

 PLANTATION, FL 33324

Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the Complaint or Petition on the 

Plaintiff’s attorney, to wit: WOLFSON LAW FIRM, LLP, whose address is 3399 S.W. 

3rd Avenue, Miami, FL 33145, Telephone number (305) 285-1115, within 20 days after 

service of this Summons on that Defendant exclusive of the day of service, and to file the 

original of the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either before service on the Plaintiff’s 

attorney or immediately thereafter. If a Defendant fails to do so, a default will be entered 

against the Defendant for the relief demanded in the Complaint or Petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of this Court on _______________________, 20__.

Clerk of said Court

By: __________________________

Filing # 143473555 E-Filed 02/08/2022 09:32:11 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 20 of 84
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

ARLETTE TEBELE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION, and JOHN

DOE as manager.

Defendant.

 /

CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS

THE STATE OF FLORIDA;

To All and Singular the Sheriffs of State:

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to serve this Summons, a copy of the Complaint on 

the Defendant pursuant to F.S. 48.193 and 48.194:

BY SERVING: COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

 Registered Agent Name & Address

 C T CORPORATION SYSTEM

 1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD

 PLANTATION, FL 33324

Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the Complaint or Petition on the 

Plaintiff’s attorney, to wit: WOLFSON LAW FIRM, LLP, whose address is 3399 S.W. 

3rd Avenue, Miami, FL 33145, Telephone number (305) 285-1115, within 20 days after 

service of this Summons on that Defendant exclusive of the day of service, and to file the 

original of the defenses with the Clerk of this Court either before service on the Plaintiff’s 

attorney or immediately thereafter. If a Defendant fails to do so, a default will be entered 

against the Defendant for the relief demanded in the Complaint or Petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of this Court on _______________________, 20__.

Clerk of said Court

By: __________________________

Filing # 143473555 E-Filed 02/08/2022 09:32:11 AM

2/10/2022

Harvey Ruvin,

Clerk of Courts

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 21 of 84
Filing # 144090950 E-Filed 02/17/2022 09:14:53 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 22 of 84
Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 23 of 84
104576-12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION and JOHN DOE as 

manager,

 Defendants.

____________________________/

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION’S

DESIGNATION OF E-MAIL ADDRESSES PURSUANT TO RULE 2.516

Attorneys for Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, hereby designate, 

pursuant to Rule 2.516, the following e-mail addresses for the purpose of service of all 

documents required to be served pursuant to Rule 2.516 in this proceeding:

Primary E-Mail Address: miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com**

**THIS EMAIL ADDRESS IS FOR SERVICE OF PLEADINGS ONLY

Secondary E-Mail Address: jbaca@wickersmith.com

Additional E-Mail Address: jperez1@wickersmith.com

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida 

ePortal to: Jay Dermer, Esquire, (eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com; jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com);

on March 7, 2022.

/s/ Jaime J. Baca 

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 113859

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A.

Attorneys for COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 800

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Phone: (305) 448-3939

Fax: (305) 441-1745

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com

Filing # 145237946 E-Filed 03/07/2022 10:34:49 PM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 24 of 84
104576-12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION and JOHN DOE 

as manager,

 Defendants.

____________________________/

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION’S

NOTICE OF SERVING INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF

Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, propounds General Personal 

Injury Interrogatories and Healthcare Interrogatories to Plaintiff, ARLETTE TEBELE, to be 

responded to within the time and manner prescribed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340.

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that the signed original of this facesheet has been electronically 

served via Florida ePortal, and that an original of the interrogatories along with a copy of this 

facesheet have been furnished to Jay Dermer, Esquire, (eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com; 

jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com) by e-mail on March 7, 2022.

/s/ Jaime J. Baca 

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 113859

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A.

Attorneys for COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 800

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Phone: (305) 448-3939

Fax: (305) 441-1745

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com

Filing # 145237946 E-Filed 03/07/2022 10:34:49 PM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 25 of 84
104576-12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION and JOHN DOE as 

manager,

 Defendants.

____________________________/

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION’S

REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO PLAINTIFF

Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P., Rule 1.370, the Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION, requests the Plaintiff, ARLETTE TEBELE, to admit or deny each of the 

following:

1. Plaintiff(s) received or is entitled to receive benefits from a collateral source, as 

defined by Florida Statute 627.7372 or Florida Statute 768.76, for medical bills alleged to have 

been incurred as a result of the incident described in the Complaint. 

2. Plaintiff(s) received or is entitled to receive benefits from a collateral source as 

defined by Florida Statute 627.7372 or Florida Statute 768.76, for loss of wages or income alleged 

to have been sustained as a result of the incident described in the Complaint.

3. Plaintiff(s) received or is entitled to receive benefits pursuant to personal or group 

health insurance policy, for medical bills alleged to have been incurred as a result of the incident 

described in the Complaint. 

Filing # 145237946 E-Filed 03/07/2022 10:34:49 PM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 26 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

2

4. Plaintiff(s) received or is entitled to receive benefits pursuant to a personal or group 

wage continuation plan or policy, for loss of wages or income alleged to have been sustained as a 

result of the incident described in the Complaint.

5. Plaintiff(s) did not sustain a permanent injury within a reasonable degree of medical 

probability other than scarring or disfigurement as a result of the subject accident.

6. Plaintiff(s) did not sustain significant and permanent scarring or disfigurement as a 

result of the subject accident.

7. Plaintiff(s) did not sustain significant and permanent loss of an important bodily 

function as a result of the subject accident.

8. Plaintiff(s) received or is entitled to receive benefits pursuant to a personal or group 

wage continuation plan or policy, for loss of wages or income alleged to have been sustained as a 

result of the incident described in the Complaint.

9. Plaintiff(s) did not inspect his/her surroundings immediately before the subject 

incident. 

10. Plaintiff(s) did not inspect the floor surrounding his/her immediately before the 

subject accident.

11. Plaintiff(s) failure to inspect his/her surroundings immediately before the subject 

incident contributed to the subject incident. 

12. Plaintiff(s) failure to inspect the floor surrounding his/her immediately before the 

subject incident contributed to the subject incident. 

13. Plaintiff(s) footwear contributed to the subject accident. 

14. Plaintiff(s) own negligence contributed to the subject incident. 

15. The sole cause of the subject incident is due to the negligence of Plaintiff(s).

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 27 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida 

ePortal to: Jay Dermer, Esquire, (eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com; jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com) on 

March 7, 2022.

/s/ Jaime J. Baca

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 113859

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A.

Attorneys for COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 800

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Phone: (305) 448-3939

Fax: (305) 441-1745

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 28 of 84
104576-12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION and JOHN DOE as 

manager,

 Defendants.

____________________________/

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION’S

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF

PURSUANT to Rule 1.350, Fla. R. Civ. P., the Plaintiff, ARLETTE TEBELE, is hereby 

requested to produce to the Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, in the time 

required by Rule 1.350, at the offices of the undersigned counsel, the following:

1. Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms for the past five years including 

individual and joint tax returns. 

2. Federal Income Tax Returns for the past five years filed for any business or 

corporation that the Plaintiff has or had an ownership or financial interest.

3. A complete copy of the front and back sides of any and all health insurance cards 

or any type of insurance benefit card.

4. A color copy of the front and back of your driver’s license.

5. Any and all notices of claim, loss, or injury submitted by you or on your behalf to 

the Defendant(s) or its/their insurance carrier(s).

6. A color copy of all pages contained within your passport, including the front and 

back sides of the cover.

7. All medical bills, doctor bills, hospital bills, drug bills, nursing bills, ambulance 

bills, and bills for similar expenses incurred as a result of and related to the injuries 

which are or may be the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Filing # 145237946 E-Filed 03/07/2022 10:34:49 PM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 29 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

2

8. All repair bills, and repair estimates or documents evidencing property damage 

incurred or being claimed as a result of the accident or incident which is the subject 

matter of the complaint.

9. Laser color copies of any and all photographs in the possession of the Plaintiff(s), 

Plaintiff(s)’ attorneys, investigators, agents, servants, or employees which are in 

any manner related to the subject matter of this lawsuit, specifically including but 

not limited to all photographs of the parties, or the scene of the subject accident or 

incident. If none in your possession, but the item(s) exist, please so state, including 

the name and address of the party who maintains possession.

10. Laser copies of all photographs depicting any change in the physical appearance of 

the Plaintiff(s) that was allegedly caused by the act or acts of the Defendants.

11. Any and all videos in the possession of the Plaintiff(s), Plaintiff(s)’ attorneys, 

investigators, agents, servants, or employees which are in any manner related to the 

subject matter of this lawsuit, specifically including but not limited to all videos, 

videos or “day in the life” videos of the parties, or the scene of the subject accident 

or incident. If none in your possession, but the item(s) exist, please so state, 

including the name and address of the party who maintains possession.

12. All medical reports received by the Plaintiff(s), Plaintiff(s)’ attorneys, 

investigators, agents, servants, or employees, from doctors, physicians or anyone 

else who has examined or rendered treatment to the Plaintiff(s), for injuries incurred 

as a result of the accident or incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit.

13. All medical and hospital records for the Plaintiff for the past five years.

14. All letters of protection issued to each and every treating physician.

15. All documentary evidence of benefits or payments made to the Plaintiff(s) or on 

Plaintiff(s) behalf pursuant to Florida Statute.

16. All documents reflecting payments made to Plaintiff(s) or on their behalf, as a result 

of the incident and/or damages that are the subject of this case by the following:

A. The United States Social Security Act; any Federal State or Local Disability 

Act; any other public programs providing medical benefits or payment for 

medical expenses, disability or other similar benefits.

B. Any health, sickness or disability income insurance or other similar 

insurance benefits.

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 30 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

3

C. Any contract or agreements of any group, organization, partnership or 

corporation to provide, pay for or reimburse costs of hospital, medical or 

other health care services.

D. Any contractual or voluntary wage continuation plan provided by any 

employers or the Plaintiff(s) or any other system intended to provide wages 

during any period of alleged disability of the Plaintiff(s).

E. Any other collateral source whatsoever providing compensation as a result 

of the damages incurred as a result of the incident or incidents which are the 

subject of this claim.

17. Any audio recordings that are in any manner related to the subject matter of this 

lawsuit.

18. All statements made by this Defendant, its agents or employees, that are in the 

possession or control of Plaintiff(s) or Plaintiff(s)’ attorneys, servants, employees 

or agents regarding the incident complained of or in any way relating to the issues 

raised by the Complaint. 

19. All reports received from any experts the Plaintiff(s) intend to call at the time of 

trial and copies of all documents the experts have reviewed in preparation for 

rendering any opinions in this case.

20. All documents that the experts have reviewed in arriving at their opinions in this 

case. (This request only relates to experts Plaintiff(s) intend to call at trial to testify.)

21. All other documents in the possession or control of the Plaintiff(s) that support the 

Plaintiff(s)’ claims that the Defendants are liable for the damages being claimed in 

this case.

22. Any and all notices of intent to collect damages from the tort-feasor directed 

towards any provider of collateral source payments pursuant to Florida Statute 

§768.76(6). Please also include proof that the notice was sent by certified or 

registered mail.

23. Any statements from providers of collateral source payments that assert a right to 

subrogation or reimbursement pursuant to Florida Statute §768.76(7).

24. Any correspondence sent to or received by the Plaintiff(s) from any Defendant. 

This request does not include any correspondence with any attorneys and is strictly 

limited to any correspondence between the named parties in this litigation.

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 31 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

4

25. The Plaintiff’s Social Security Personal Earnings and Benefits Statement. In the 

alternative, sign and return the enclosed authorization for records.

26. Any and all settlement agreements and releases with any individual or corporation 

that in any way relate to or arise out of the allegations that are the subject of this 

litigation.

27. Attached is an Authorization for the release of your Prescription Profile from 

Publix. Please execute it and return with your response.

28. Any and all statements obtained from any person pertaining to the allegations in 

the Complaint.

29. All notes, text messages, and emails written by the Plaintiff(s) prior to the retention 

of counsel that relate to the allegations or subject matter of the Complaint.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida 

ePortal to: Jay Dermer, Esquire, (eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com; jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com) on

March 7, 2022.

/s/ Jaime J. Baca 

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 113859

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A.

Attorneys for COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 800

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Phone: (305) 448-3939

Fax: (305) 441-1745

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 32 of 84
Form SSA-7050-F4 (02-2021) Page 2 of 4

REQUEST FOR SOCIAL SECURITY EARNING INFORMATION 

1. Provide your name as it appears on your most recent Social Security card or the name of the individual whose 

 earnings you are requesting. 

First Name: Middle Initial:

Last Name:

Social Security Number (SSN) One SSN per request

Date of Birth: Date of Death:

Other Name(s) Used 

Maiden Name

2. What kind of earnings information do you need? (Choose ONE of the following types of earnings or SSA must return 

this request.)

Itemized Statement of Earnings $92.00

(Includes the names and addresses of employers)

If you check this box, tell us why you need this 

information below.

Year(s) Requested: to

Year(s) Requested: to

Check this box if you want the earnings 

information CERTIFIED for an additional 

$30.00 fee.

Certified Yearly Totals of Earnings $30.00

(Does not include the names and addresses of 

employers)Yearly earnings totals are FREE to the public if you 

do not require certification. To obtain FREE yearly totals of 

earnings, visit our website at www.ssa.gov/myaccount.

Year(s) Requested: to

Year(s) Requested: to

3. If you would like this information sent to someone else, please fill in the information below.

I authorize the Social Security Administration to release the earnings information to:

Name

Address State

City ZIP Code

4. I am the individual to whom the record pertains (or a person authorized to sign on behalf of that individual). 

 I declare under penalty of perjury that I have examined all the information on this form, and on any accompanying 

statements or forms, and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Signature AND Printed Name of Individual or Legal Guardian SSA must receive this form within 120 days 

from the date signed

Date

Relationship (if applicable, you must attach proof) Daytime Phone:

Address State

City ZIP Code

Witnesses must sign this form ONLY if the above signature is by marked (X). If signed by mark (X), two witnesses to the 

signing who know the signee must sign below and provide their full addresses. Please print the signee's name next to the 

mark (X) on the signature line above. 

1. Signature of Witness

Address (Number and Street, City, State and ZIP Code)

2. Signature of Witness

Address (Number and Street, City, State and ZIP Code)

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 33 of 84
104576-12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION and JOHN DOE as 

manager,

 Defendants.

____________________________/

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION’S

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

WITH INCORPORATED MOTION TO STRIKE AS TO COUNT I PARAGRAPH 8(A)

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION (“Costco”), by and through the 

undersigned counsel, hereby files its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint, 

and states as follows: 

ANSWER

1. COSTCO denies the allegations in paragraphs 1, 3, 8, (B) – (E), and 9 of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint and demands strict proof thereof. 

2. COSTCO denies the allegations as phrased in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint 

and demands strict proof thereof.

3. COSTCO is without knowledge as to paragraphs 2, 4, and 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint 

and therefore, denies same and demands strict proof thereof.

4. COSTCO denies each and every allegation of Plaintiff’s Complaint not specifically 

and expressly admitted herein.

Filing # 145215334 E-Filed 03/07/2022 04:01:56 PM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 34 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

- 2 -

5. As to Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint, a response is not required from COSTCO 

as the Count is directed to Defendant, John Doe. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Costco affirmatively alleges Plaintiff was negligent, which was a legal cause of 

Plaintiff’s own losses, injuries, or damages, and Plaintiff’s negligence bars recovery or, in the 

alternative, reduces any recovery in accordance with the principles of comparative negligence.

2. Costco affirmatively alleges this action is controlled by Florida Statutes section 

768.0755 and Costco is entitled to all rights, remedies, and prescriptions set forth therein. 

3. Costco affirmative alleges Costco did not have actual or constructive knowledge of 

the alleged dangerous condition or defect and, therefore, Costco is not liable for Plaintiff’s losses, 

injuries, or damages. 

4. Costco affirmatively alleges the alleged dangerous condition or defect was known 

or open and obvious to Plaintiff and, therefore, Costco is not liable for Plaintiff’s losses, injuries, 

or damages. 

5. Costco affirmatively alleges Plaintiff knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care 

should have known, of the alleged dangerous condition and voluntarily chose to remain exposed 

to, or assumed the risk associated with, the alleged dangerous condition and, therefore, Costco is 

not liable for Plaintiff’s losses, injuries, or damages. 

6. Costco affirmatively alleges Plaintiff failed to observe and follow warnings or 

instructions regarding the alleged dangerous condition and, therefore, Costco is not liable for 

Plaintiff’s losses, injuries, or damages. 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 35 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

- 3 -

7. Costco affirmatively alleges, pursuant to Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 

1993) and Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, Inc., 678 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1996), Plaintiff’s 

losses, injuries, or damages were caused by a third party that was not within Costco’s care, custody, 

or control and, therefore, Costco is not liable for the third party’s negligence. 

8. Costco affirmatively alleges Costco’s negligence, if any, was not the legal cause of 

Plaintiffs’ losses, injuries, or damages.

9. Costco affirmatively alleges Plaintiff’s losses, injuries, or damages were caused by 

an intervening and superseding cause. 

10. Costco affirmatively alleges Plaintiff failed to mitigate damages and, therefore, 

Plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages that could have been mitigated.

11. Costco affirmatively alleges Plaintiff’s medical expenses incurred are unrelated, 

exaggerated, and unreasonable.

12. Costco affirmatively alleges Plaintiff’s claims for loss of wages or earning capacity 

are unrelated, exaggerated, and unreasonable.

13. Costco affirmatively alleges Plaintiff received, or was entitled to, collateral source 

benefits and, pursuant to Florida Statutes § 768.76, Costco is entitled to a setoff to the extent of 

the value of all collateral source benefits paid, or payable, to or on behalf of Plaintiff.

14. Costco affirmatively alleges Plaintiff’s medical expenses incurred are limited to the 

amount paid or owed to Plaintiff’s health care provider and not the amount charged by the health 

care provider.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Costco hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right by a jury.

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 36 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

- 4 -

DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION’S, MOTION TO STRIKE 

PLAINTIFF’S MODE OF OPERATION ALLEGATION IN PARAGRAPH 8 OF 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION (“Costco”), by and through its 

undersigned attorney, moves this Honorable Court for an entry of an Order striking Plaintiff’s 

Mode of Operation allegation listed in Paragraph 8 (A) of the Plaintiff’s Complaint and as grounds 

therefore states as follows: 

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. This is a negligence action wherein Plaintiff alleges that she slipped and fell on 

blueberries on Costco’s premises on January 26, 2021. As such, Plaintiff’s negligence claim is 

governed by section 768.0755, Florida Statutes (2010).1

2. Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges, among other things, that Costco

carelessly and negligently failed to maintain the grounds on its premises in a reasonably safe 

condition and Defendant created the dangerous condition. See Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶8 (A). 

3. Costco moves to strike Plaintiff’s Mode of Operation allegation listed in Paragraph 

8, as the particular allegations are immaterial and impertinent as set forth in Rule 1.140, Florida

Rules ofCivil Procedure and related authority.

4. Plaintiff’s Mode of Operation allegation should be stricken as the negligent mode

ofoperation theory has been abrogated by the enactment of section 768.0755, Florida Statutes.

I. Section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, Abolishes the Cause of Action for Negligent 

Mode of Operation 

 

1 The law therefore requires the Plaintiff to prove, as part of her prima facie case, that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the 

dangerous condition and that the defendant had the opportunity to take action to remedy the dangerous condition. See Fla. Stat. §768.0755 

(emphasis added).

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 37 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

- 5 -

Plaintiff has improperly alleged a “mode of operation” argument which was abrogated by 

the enactment of section 768.0755, Florida Statutes. In Florida, the “negligent mode of operation” 

rule was first developed through common law and later codified by the Legislature in 2002 with 

the enactment of Section 768.0710(2), which utilized the phrase “reasonable care in the 

maintenance, inspection, repair, warning, or mode of operation of the business premise” when 

describing possible ways that a premise owner could potentially face in negligence actions 

involving transitory foreign substances.2 However, on July 1, 2010, Section 768.0755 was enacted 

and became the new standard in Florida regarding a plaintiff’s burden of proof in slip and fall cases 

involving foreign transitory substances. In enacting Section 768.0755, the Legislature did two 

things: (1) it repealed Section 768.0710 and (2) it established a new burden of proof in slip and 

fall cases. Relevant portion of Section 768.0755 reads: 

(1) If a person slips and falls on a transitory foreign substance in a business 

establishment, the injured person must prove that the business establishment had 

actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken 

action to remedy it. Constructive knowledge may be proven by circumstantial 

evidence showing that:

(a) The dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise 

of ordinary care, the business establishment should have known of the condition; 

or

(b) The condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.

Under this current statutory scheme, a person who slips and falls on a foreign transitory 

substance in a business establishment “must prove that the business establishment had actual or 

constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action to remedy it.”

Moreover, under the current statutory scheme, the Legislature omitted the phrase “reasonable care 

 

2 A “transitory foreign substance” has been defined by the Florida Supreme Court as “any liquid or solid substance, item, or object 

located where it does not belong.” Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So.2d 315, 317 (Fla. 2011).

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 38 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

- 6 -

in the maintenance, inspection, repair, warning, or mode of operation of the business premise”

from the statute entirely. Pembroke Lakes Mall Ltd. v. McGruder, 137 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2014). The Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal directly confronted the issue and provided 

some insightful precedent in Pembroke Lakes Mall, Ltd. v. McGruder, 137 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2014). Comparing the language of Florida’s 2002 and 2010 premises liability statutes, the 

Fourth District noted that the 2002 version allowed a plaintiff to succeed in a slip-and-fall case by 

showing the business acted negligently in its mode of operation. Proof of actual or constructive 

notice of a specific condition was not required. The 2010 statute, on the other hand, “does not 

contain any language regarding the owner’s negligent maintenance, inspection, repair, warning, or 

mode of operation.” Because the 2010 statute explicitly requires proof of actual or constructive 

notice and the language regarding mode of operation has been removed, the Fourth District 

concluded that the same prevailing plaintiff under the 2002 statute would be unable to assert a 

cause of action based on negligent mode of operation under the 2010 statute.

Under the old statute, a plaintiff could succeed in a slip and fall case by showing “the 

business premises acted negligently by failing to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance, 

inspection, repair, warning, or mode of operation of the business premises,” without showing the 

business had actual or constructive knowledge of the transitory foreign substance. Under the new 

statute, however, the same plaintiff would be unable to successfully assert such a cause of action, 

no matter how persuasive or compelling the evidence the plaintiff had in support of the claim.

In April 2015, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida evaluated 

the continued viability of the negligent mode of operation rule following the Legislature’s 

enactment of Section 768.0755. See Woodman v. Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc., 6:14-cvCase 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 39 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

- 7 -

2025-Orl-40TBS; 2015 WL 1836941 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2015) (applying Florida substantive 

law). Specifically, in Woodman, the Defendant filed a Motion to Strike a count in Plaintiff’s 

Complaint for negligent mode of operation on the grounds that the theory no longer served as a 

basis for liability in slip and fall cases given the requirement in Section 768.0755 that Plaintiffs 

prove actual or constructive knowledge. After conducting a detailed analysis of the statute, as 

compared with its repealed counterpart, and implementing various canons of statutory 

construction, the Woodman Court concluded that “[s]ection 768.0755 has clearly eliminated the 

mode of operation theory as a basis for recovery in slip-and-fall cases and Plaintiff may not pursue 

her claim on this basis.” Woodman, 2015 WL 1836941 at *3. The Woodman Court recognized that 

the plain language of subsection (1) requires, without exception, proof of actual or constructive 

knowledge as a necessary element of a slip and fall claim. Id. at *2 (citing Pembroke Lakes Mall 

Ltd. v. McGruder, 137 So.3d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (explaining how this section reinserts the 

knowledge element into slip and fall claims)). This, coupled with the fact that the term “mode of 

operation” has now been excluded from Section 768.0755, makes it apparent that the Legislature 

must have intended to preclude Plaintiffs from invoking the mode of operation theory in slip and 

fall cases. Id. at *2-3.

In Sanchez v, ERMC v. America, LLC, the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of Florida once again reached the identical conclusion reached in Woodman when asked 

to consider whether a plaintiff's negligent mode of operation claim could survive a motion to 

dismiss. Sanchez v. ERMC v. America, LLC, 2:16-cv-851-FtM-99CM, 2017 WL 417129 (M.D. 

Fla. Jan. 31, 2017) (applying Florida substantive law). In Sanchez, the plaintiff brought a premises 

liability action against the owner and operator of a mall for negligence arising out of a slip and fall 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 40 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

- 8 -

incident that occurred near the entrance to one of the mall's stores. The plaintiff alleged that she 

slipped and fell on a “slippery substance,” sustaining serious injury. Id. at *1. The defendant 

moved to dismiss Counts II and IV of the Amended Complaint. Id. The defendants argued that 

section 768.0755 eliminates the mode of operation theory, the plaintiff argued that the statute 

preserved the cause of action. Id. at *4. In rejecting the plaintiff's position, and granting the 

defendant's motion to dismiss Counts II and IV of the Amended Complaint, the Sanchez Court 

concluded that the negligent mode of operation theory has been abrogated:

The Court agrees that the plain language of subsection (1) requires proof of actual 

or constructive knowledge of the transitory foreign substance. In enacting Fla. Stat. 

§768.0755, the Florida legislature specifically repealed the language of Fla. Stat. 

768.0710, which had allowed a plaintiff to establish a claim for relief by showing 

a negligent mode of operation without the showing of actual or constructive 

knowledge. In interpreting §768.0755, this Court must “strive to effectuate the 

legislature's intent” beginning with the plain language of the statute. Plaintiff's 

argument that her negligent mode of operation claim survives under subsection (2) 

of the statute is not supported. The statute eliminated a statutory cause of action, 

but preserved only common law claims. 

Id. 

The legislature’s decision to omit the “mode of operation language” is indicative that the 

legislature intent was to preclude plaintiffs from invoking the mode of operation theory in slipand-fall cases arising in business premises. The basic canons of statutory construction lend further 

support to this line of reasoning. See Capella v. City of Gainesville, 377 So. 2d 658, 660 (Fla. 

1979). In Capella, the Florida Supreme Court considered the effect of the Legislature's decision 

to omit certain language from revised legislation, and relied on the canon that, “[w]hen the 

legislature amends a statute by omitting words, we presume it intends the statute to have a different 

meaning than that accorded it before the amendment.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 41 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

- 9 -

Similarly, in McGruder, supra, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, after directly 

comparing the language of both the 2002 and 2010 premises liability statutes, pointed out how, 

unlike its predecessor, the current statute “does not contain any language regarding the owner's 

negligent maintenance, inspection, repair, warning, or mode of operation.” McGruder, 137 So.2d 

at 424. Because the current statute explicitly requires proof of actual or constructive notice, and 

the language regarding mode of operation has been removed, the McGruder Court noted that the 

same plaintiff would not be able to assert a cause of action based on negligent mode of operation 

under section 768.0755. Id. at 426. 

Consequently, section, 768.0755, Florida Statutes, requires the Plaintiff to prove that 

Costco had actual or constructive notice of the transitory foreign substance and should have taken 

action to correct it. Moreover, section 768.0755, Florida Statutes, precludes Plaintiff from 

attempting to establish liability by demonstrating that Costco’s mode of operation of the premises 

was negligent. Plaintiff is attempting to revert back to the previous standard in section 

768.0710(2)(2002), which the Fourth District Court of Appeals as well as a federal court applying 

Florida substantive law have rejected time and time again. Thus, Plaintiff’s allegation related to 

Costco’s mode of operation must be stricken. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, respectfully 

request that this Honorable Court strike any and all mode of operation allegations from the 

Plaintiff’s Complaint and for all other relief this court deems just and proper. 

(Certificate of Service to Follow)

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 42 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

- 10 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida 

ePortal to: Jay Dermer, Esquire, (eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com; jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com) on 

March 7, 2022. 

/s/ Jaime J. Baca 

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 113859

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A.

Attorneys for COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 800

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Phone: (305) 448-3939

Fax: (305) 441-1745

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 43 of 84
104576-12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION and JOHN DOE as 

manager,

 Defendants.

____________________________/

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

COMES NOW the Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, by and 

through the undersigned attorneys, and files this Motion for Extension of Time to respond to 

Plaintiff, ARLETTE TEBELE’s First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production served 

with the Complaint, and as grounds therefore states the following:

1. Plaintiff propounded First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production with 

the Complaint on February 14, 2022.

2. Defendant is unable to respond to the above referenced discovery within the time 

provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. This Defendant will need additional time within which to respond to the above 

discovery.

4. Rule 1.090(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Court may 

allow a longer time within which to respond to the above referenced discovery.

5. This Motion is not being made to delay discovery and upon completion of 

Defendant’s investigation, a response will be promptly filed with the Court.

Filing # 146806242 E-Filed 03/31/2022 01:38:49 PM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 44 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

2

WHEREFORE, Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, requests this 

Honorable Court to allow an additional thirty (30) days within which to respond to the above 

referenced discovery.

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida 

ePortal to: Jay Dermer, Esquire, (eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com; jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com)

on March 31, 2022.

/s/ Jaime J. Baca 

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 113859

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A.

Attorneys for COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 800

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Phone: (305) 448-3939

Fax: (305) 441-1745

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 45 of 84
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 2022-002291-CA-01

SECTION: CA21

JUDGE: David C. Miller

ARLETTE TEBELE

Plaintiff(s)

vs.

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

Defendant(s)

____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF, ARLETTE TEBELE’S FIRST SET OF

INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION SERVED WITH THE

COMPLAINT

This case came up for review and the Court having considered Defendant's Motion for Extension

of Time to respond to Plaintiff, ARLETTE TEBELE’s First Set of Interrogatories and Request

for Production served with the Complaint (filed 3/31/22) and being duly advised, it is;

Ordered and Adjudged that the Motion is Granted.

Defendant shall fully and completely respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests on or before April

29, 2022.

This deadline may not be extended by agreement and the mere filing

of a Motion to Extend this deadline will NOT toll the time to fully

comply with this Order. The failure to timely respond/answer the

subject discovery will result in the waiver of objections, the

imposition of a daily monetary fine of $500.00 per day plus attorney’s

fees as may be appropriate. The party seeking the discovery shall

bring any violation of this deadline to the Court's attention as soon as

reasonably possible.

Case No: 2022-002291-CA-01 Page 1 of 2

Filing # 147725958 E-Filed 04/14/2022 03:10:55 PM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 46 of 84
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 14th day of April,

2022.

2022-002291-CA-01 04-14-2022 2:56 PM

Hon. David C. Miller

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Electronically Signed

No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION

CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT

Electronically Served:

Jaime J Baca, miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com

Jaime J Baca, JBaca@wickersmith.com

Jaime J Baca, jperez1@wickersmith.com

Jay Dermer, Esq, jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com

Jonah M Wolfson, eservice@wolfsonlawfirm.com

Physically Served:

Case No: 2022-002291-CA-01 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 47 of 84
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL

CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CASE NO: 2022-002291-CA-01

SECTION: CA21

JUDGE: David C. Miller

ARLETTE TEBELE

Plaintiff(s)

vs.

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

Defendant(s)

____________________________/

INCOMPLETE CASE SCHEDULING/MANAGEMENT ORDER

 THIS CAUSE came before the Court to review and do case management. Based on the

review of the file, and pursuant to Rule 2.545, Fla. R. Jud. Admin., the Parties, with the

Court’s assistance, if necessary, will establish a Completed Case

Scheduling/Management Order. Therefore, it is;

 ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

The Parties shall determine and complete the CASE SCHEDULE below, to

extent they can agree on one or all of the To-Dos in this matter and set the

Deadlines for as many as can be agreed on. If there is/are any Deadlines for the

Parties To-Dos that cannot be agreed on, the Plaintiff’s Counsel shall set a

hearing if necessary for the Court to decide the Deadlines. 

1.

The Plaintiff’s Counsel shall file the entire completed

Scheduling/Management Order as a Completed Case

Scheduling/Management Order through Court Map for execution and

rendering by the Court within 60 days of the entry of the Order. The

Plaintiff’s Counsel will bear the burden of ensuring this Order is complied with

and the entire scheduling/management order with completed table of to dos and

deadlines is filed, but that will not determine who may be ultimately responsible for

any lack of compliance with this Order.

2.

The Parties shall strictly comply with the deadlines in the Schedule (which shall

supersede any contrary or different Trial Order Deadline) and should expect that

the case will be tried during the anticipated trial period specified, without

continuances. The parties cannot agree to extend the deadlines and cannot agree

to waive any portion of the provisions of this Order. If your case does not go to

Trial, it will most probably be sent to Non-Binding Arbitration.

3.

Case No: 2022-002291-CA-01 Page 1 of 5

Filing # 147726045 E-Filed 04/14/2022 03:11:25 PM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 48 of 84
Procedural Requirements: In addition to strict adherence to the Florida Rules of

Civil Procedure and the Administrative Orders of the Court, the parties will be

required to strictly comply with the Completed Case Scheduling/Management

Order. 

4.

The parties may not agree to extend any of the deadlines contained in the

Completed Case Scheduling/Management Order. Deadlines may only be

altered by the Court where the interests of justice so require, upon prompt motion,

notice and hearing.

5.

The following To-Dos and Deadlines are to be determined by Agreement of

the Parties, filled in, and returned to the Court for execution and rendering

OR the Court will determine and fill in such To-Dos and Deadlines:

6.

CASE SCHEDULE

CASE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

Duty to Communicate: Prior to filing any Motion, counsel shall confer with each

other directly in good faith, not through staff, to attempt to narrow or resolve

issues. “In good faith” means you are professional and temperate in your

communications, you return phone calls and emails in a timely manner, and you do

not set unreasonable deadlines for responses.

7.

Scheduling of Hearings: Motions filed (other than dispositive motions or those

requiring testimony) must be noticed for hearing on the first available motion

calendar. The Court may rule upon the Motions on the papers filed for the Court's

review.

8.

Case No: 2022-002291-CA-01 Page 2 of 5

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 49 of 84
Compelling Discovery where there has been no response: The parties are to

comply with Administrative Order 06-09 when moving to compel production of

propounded discovery. These Motions shall be submitted via CourtMAP with

supporting documents and shall not be placed on Motion Calendar.

9.

Motions for Protective Order: Motions for Protective Order must be filed as

soon as the grounds are known. Counsel should be coordinating deposition

dates for specific parties/witnesses and have a duty to confer regarding any

issues that would be the subject of a motion for protective order prior to

scheduling the deposition. The filing of the motion must not be delayed until

immediately prior to the scheduled deposition. A motion for protective order does

not automatically stay the deposition and the deposition shall proceed unless an

order granting the motion is entered by the Court.

10.

Motions for Extension: All Motions for Extension of Time SHALL BE SET TO

BE HEARD WITHIN 7 DAYS OF THE MOTION BEING FILED and the Motion

must state with specificity the reason why Extension is needed, the anticipated

deadline for completion, and any extraordinary or compelling reasons to grant

relief. The Court may rule upon submission of the Motion without a hearing. All

Motions for Extension of Time must be preceded by a meet and confer with

opposing counsel and absent agreement, be set for hearing immediately upon

filing. Counsel should be prepared to respond promptly if the Motion is Denied. 

The failure to timely set the Motion for Extension to be heard will be deemed

a waiver of any attempt to get an Extension.

11.

Dispositive Motions: Motions which may dispose of specific issues, portions of

the case or the entire case should be filed and set for hearing as soon as

possible. Parties wishing to pursue a dispositive motion should target the

essential discovery promptly. Parties should confer to assure necessary

discovery is scheduled to be completed and will be completed prior to a special

set hearing date. Last minute cancellations are NOT ALLOWED.

12.

Amendment of Pleadings: Motions to amend should be filed so as not to affect

the date of trial. Although the Court recognizes the rule of liberality with regard to

amendment of pleadings, liberality declines with an approaching trial date unless

the amendment involves newly discovered information not previously available.

Review your pleadings for necessary amendment(s) early, not as part of lastminute trial preparation.

13.

Objections: If objections to written discovery involve the phrasing of the request

or time frame of any discovery request, these objections may not be extended

even if the parties agree and are due at the time the initial response is due. 

Failure to timely file these objections shall be deemed an express waiver of

the objection. Parties shall comply with the “Duty to Communicate” above, prior

to setting timely made objections for hearing.

14.

Documents made available for inspection and copying: If discovery

responses provide that the documents are available for inspection and copying at

a mutually convenient time and place, the responding party shall immediately

15.

Case No: 2022-002291-CA-01 Page 3 of 5

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 50 of 84
(within 48 hours) provide three alternative dates and times that the documents are

available for inspection and copying. All of the dates shall be within ten (10)

days. Failure to provide the dates and times shall constitute a failure to respond

to discovery. Review shall occur within fifteen (15) days of the response, absent

extraordinary circumstances. Examples of “extraordinary circumstances” include

a sole practitioner in trial on another case, a medical emergency, prepaid

vacation, and a death in the family.

Privilege Logs: Privilege logs are due at the time of the response and may not

be reserved to be provided later. Privilege logs must specifically identify the

document in accordance with Rule 1.280(b)(6), Fla.R.Civ.P, AND The item must

at least be described by Author, primarily Recipient and all those copied,

date, nature of document, and the same information as to all attachments

printed out or opened in records for view.

16.

The failure to timely provide the privilege log will result in the waiver of the

privilege. This procedure requires preparation of a privilege log with respect to all

documents, electronically stored information, things and oral communications

withheld on the basis of a claim of privilege or work product except the following: 

written and oral communications between a party and their counsel after

commencement of the action and work product material created after

commencement of the action and solely kept between them and staff, experts,

etc.

17.

Parties are instructed that where they believe that the divulgence of the logging

information would necessarily cause disclosure of the allegedly privileged information,

they must identify that the item exists and that in camera review by the court will be

sought. However, if the Court determines that there is nothing inherent in the divulgence

of the existence of the document or the logging information required that would violate

privilege, the Court will impose sanctions for any in camera request determined to be

frivolous. In camera requests by the party claiming the privilege must be

signed by both the requesting attorney and the client, to assure that all are

aware of the request and the consequences.

Expert Disclosure: Parties should furnish opposing counsel with the names and

addresses of all expert witness under Rule 1.390(a) to be called at trial and all

information regarding expert testimony that is required by Rule 1.280(b)(5). Each

party is limited to one expert per specialty. No other expert testimony should be

permitted at trial. Information furnished pursuant to this paragraph should be

timely filed.

18.

Depositions: The parties are ordered to block time now for necessary

depositions to be set in this case Expert deposition time should be coordinated

and blocked as soon as experts are known to ensure compliance with this

schedule. Depositions may commence at any time. Refer to the above

regarding motions for protective order.

19.

Witness and Exhibit Lists: The parties shall timely exchange their witness and

exhibit lists. The lists shall include complete proper names and addresses. If

counsel chooses to list their bar address as the witness’ address, counsel is

deemed to have agreed to produce the witness voluntarily as they have withheld

20.

Case No: 2022-002291-CA-01 Page 4 of 5

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 51 of 84
the information necessary for a witness subpoena, and counsel will be

responsible for assuring that witness’ presence at trial.

Mediation: Parties must mediate by the Court’s deadline. The parties are

responsible for assuring that they have all the necessary information to value their

position prior to mediation. If the parties fail to mediate before the mediation

deadline, sanctions will be imposed by the Court. Failure to Mediate will not

constitute just cause for a Trial Continuance.

21.

22. “Frustrated Lawyer/Pro-Se Rule”

Please see the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County Division

21 website – for assistance scheduling anything the other(s) in the file are

making difficult.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami-Dade County, Florida on this 14th day of April,

2022.

2022-002291-CA-01 04-14-2022 2:57 PM

Hon. David C. Miller

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Electronically Signed

No Further Judicial Action Required on THIS MOTION

CLERK TO RECLOSE CASE IF POST JUDGMENT

Electronically Served:

Jaime J Baca, miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com

Jaime J Baca, JBaca@wickersmith.com

Jaime J Baca, jperez1@wickersmith.com

Jay Dermer, Esq, jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com

Jonah M Wolfson, eservice@wolfsonlawfirm.com

Physically Served:

Case No: 2022-002291-CA-01 Page 5 of 5

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 52 of 84
104576-12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION 

and JOHN DOE as manager,

 Defendants.

____________________________/

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorneys will take the deposition of:

NAME: ARLETTE TEBELE 

DATE AND TIME: JUNE 3, 2022 AT 10:00 A.M.

PLACE: VIA ZOOM

upon oral examination before VERITEXT, Notary Public, or any other Notary Public or other officer authorized 

by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral examination will continue from day to day until 

completed. The deposition is being taken for the purpose of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes 

as are permitted under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in such cases.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida ePortal to: Jay 

Dermer, Esquire, (eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com; jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com); on this 21st day of April, 2022.

/s/ Jaime J. Baca 

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 113859

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A.

Attorneys for COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard

Suite 800

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Phone: (305) 448-3939

Fax: (305) 441-1745

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com

In accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, persons with disabilities needing a special 

accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the undersigned attorney’s secretary at 

the address and phone number given above not later than seven (7) days prior to the proceeding. If hearing 

impaired, (TDD) 1-800-955-8770 via Florida Relay Service.

Filing # 148111522 E-Filed 04/21/2022 10:58:13 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 53 of 84
104576-12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION and JOHN DOE as 

manager,

 Defendants.

____________________________/

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned will be absent from the jurisdiction 

and unavailable during these dates:

APRIL 18- APRIL 25, 2022

MAY 2- MAY 6, 2022

MAY 16- MAY 20, 2022

JULY 4- JULY 8, 2022

AUGUST 22- AUGUST 26, 2022

NOVEMBER 21- NOVEMBER 25, 2022

The undersigned respectfully requests that no Motions, hearings, mediations, depositions, 

or trials be scheduled and/or set during these time periods. 

The filing and service of this Notice shall constitute a notice to all parties that the 

undersigned will move forward for appropriate relief, including a motion to be excused or 

continue, as appropriate.

Filing # 148181733 E-Filed 04/22/2022 08:28:56 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 54 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida 

ePortal to: Jay Dermer, Esquire, (eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com; jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com); on 

this 22

nd day of April, 2022.

/s/ Jaime J. Baca 

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 113859

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A.

Attorneys for COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard

Suite 800

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Phone: (305) 448-3939

Fax: (305) 441-1745

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 55 of 84
104576-12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION and JOHN DOE as 

manager,

 Defendants.

_________________________/

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

DEFENDANT, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION’S

NOTICE OF SERVING ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Verified Answers to the Interrogatories propounded to, 

Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, by Plaintiff, ARLETTE TEBELE with 

the Complaint, have been furnished via e-mail to: all counsel of record on date shown below.

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida

ePortal to: Jay Dermer, Esquire, (eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com; jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com) on

April 27, 2022.

/s/ Jaime J. Baca 

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 113859

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A.

Attorneys for COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 800

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Phone: (305) 448-3939

Fax: (305) 441-1745

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com

Filing # 148462812 E-Filed 04/27/2022 09:41:01 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 56 of 84
104576-12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION and JOHN DOE as 

manager,

 Defendants.

____________________________/

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, by and through the undersigned 

attorneys, and pursuant to the applicable Fla. R. Civ. P., responds to Plaintiff’s Request for 

Production served with Plaintiff’s Complaint as follows:

1. Any indemnity agreements between the Defendant and any non-party which is

relevant to the accident and injuries which form the basis of this action. 

Response: None. 

2. Any and all photographs in possession or control of the Defendant or their agents 

of the scene of the accident. 

Response: In accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Costco 

Wholesale Corporation provides the following privilege log: 

Date Description Privilege

01/26/21 One (1) photograph taken 

after incident by Costco 

employee. 

work product; prepared in 

anticipation of litigation

Defense counsel is in possession of the listed item. No other photographs are 

known to exist. Discovery is ongoing. 

Filing # 148462812 E-Filed 04/27/2022 09:41:01 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 57 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

2

3. Any and all expert reports which have been obtained from any expert. If a report 

has not been prepared, the prepared of a report is hereby requested. 

Response: None. 

4. Any and all insurance agreements or policies under which any person or entity 

providing insurance to the Defendant may be liable for part or all of a judgment 

which may be rendered in this action. 

Response: None. 

5. Copies of any and all statements previously made by the Plaintiff or Defendant

concerning the subject matter of this action, including any written statements, 

signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the Plaintiff, and any stenographic, 

mechanical, electrical or other type of recording or any transcription thereof made 

by the Plaintiff hereto and contemporaneously recorded. 

Response: See attached Member First Report of Incident signed by Plaintiff. 

No other statements. 

6. Any and all photographs relevant to the issues herein. 

Response: In accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Costco 

Wholesale Corporation provides the following privilege log: 

Date Description Privilege

01/26/21 One (1) photograph taken 

after incident by Costco 

employee. 

work product; prepared in 

anticipation of litigation

Defense counsel is in possession of the listed item. No other photographs are 

known to exist. Discovery is ongoing. 

7. Any and all sweep and/or inspection reports of any kind concerning the floors of 

the entire store where the alleged incident occurred, from the date of the incident 

described in the complaint. 

Response: Daily Floor-Walk/ Safety Inspection for January 26, 2021, will be 

produced pursuant to a signed confidentiality agreement. 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 58 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

3

8. Any and all video and/or photographic evidence, whether in digital, film, computer 

or any other format of any kind that depicts any part of the incident described in the 

complaint. 

Response: Defense counsel is in possession of the store camera video preserved 

for the subject incident and requests the Court exercise its discretion to control 

the time of discovery and require the production of the store camera video 

after Plaintiff’s deposition and pursuant to a signed confidentiality agreement. 

See Judith McClure vs. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 124 So. 3d 998 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2013). In accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Costco 

Wholesale Corporation provides the following privilege log: 

Date Description Privilege

01/26/21 One (1) photograph taken 

after incident by Costco 

employee. 

work product; prepared in 

anticipation of litigation

Defense counsel is in possession of the listed item. No other photographs are 

known to exist. Discovery is ongoing. 

9. Any and all video and/or photographic evidence, whether in digital, film, computer 

or any other format of any kind that depicts the Plaintiff in any way on the date of 

the incident described in the complaint.

Response: See response to #8. 

10. Any and all video and/or photographic evidence, whether in digital, film, computer 

or any other format of any kind that depicts any part of the subject store, on the date 

of the incident described in the complaint. 

Response: See response to #8.

11. Any and all incident reports with everything redacted except for the names and 

addresses of any person who filled out said report or who was at or near the incident 

described in the complaint at or near the time of the incident described in the 

complaint. 

Response: On January 26, 2021, Plaintiff completed a Member First Report of 

Incident Form, which is attached hereto. In accordance with the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, Costco Wholesale Corporation provides the following 

privilege log:

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 59 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

4

Date Description Privilege

1/26/21 Privileged & Confidential 

Warehouse Incident 

Report completed by 

Larry Roberts

work product; prepared in 

anticipation of litigation

Defense counsel is in possession of the listed items.

12. Any and all rosters and/or schedules showing the employees who were working on 

the day of the incident described in the complaint. 

Response: Objection. Irrelevant, vague, overbroad, not limited in time and 

scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence. 

13. Any and all written or otherwise recorded materials provided to any employee that 

was working for Defendant on the day of the incident that were given to that 

employee during any training he or she received during his or her entire tenure at 

employed by the Defendant. 

Response: Objection. Irrelevant, vague, overbroad, not limited in time and 

scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.

14. Any and all written or otherwise recorded materials provided to any employee that 

was employed with Defendant on the day of the incident. 

Response: Objection. Irrelevant, vague, overbroad, not limited in time and 

scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.

15. Any and all written or otherwise recorded rules, policies and procedures provided 

to any employee of Defendant within the last 10 years. 

Response: Objection. Irrelevant, vague, overbroad, not limited in time and 

scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 60 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

5

16. Any and all written or otherwise recorded rules, policies and procedures provided 

to any employee at the subject store within the past 5 years. 

Response: Objection. Irrelevant, vague, overbroad, not limited in time and 

scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.

17. Any and all written or otherwise recorded information provided to any employee at 

the subject store within the past 5 years. 

Response: Objection. Irrelevant, vague, overbroad, not limited in time and 

scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.

18. Any and all licenses held by any employee of Defendant. 

Response: Objection. Irrelevant, vague, overbroad, not limited in time and 

scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.

19. Any and all rules that any employees of Defendant had to follow on the date of the 

incident. 

Response: Objection. Irrelevant, vague, overbroad, not limited in time and 

scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.

20. Any and all rules that any employees of Defendant were given in the past 10 years. 

Response: Objection. Irrelevant, vague, overbroad, not limited in time and 

scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.

21. Any and all policies that any employees of Defendant were given in the past 10 

years. 

Response: Objection. Irrelevant, vague, overbroad, not limited in time and 

scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 61 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

6

22. Any and all procedures that any employees of Defendant were given in the past 10 

years. 

Response: Objection. Irrelevant, vague, overbroad, not limited in time and 

scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.

23. Any and all agreements with any companies that may be responsible for the 

maintenance of the subject property. 

Response: Objection. Irrelevant, vague, overbroad, not limited in time and 

scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.

24. Any and all management agreements. 

Response: None. 

25. Any and all code violations received by the Defendant in the last 5 years. 

Response: Objection. Irrelevant, vague, overbroad, not limited in time and 

scope and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 

evidence.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida 

ePortal to: Jay Dermer, Esquire, (eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com; jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com) on

April 27, 2022.

/s/ Jaime J. Baca 

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 113859

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A.

Attorneys for COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 800

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Phone: (305) 448-3939

Fax: (305) 441-1745

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 62 of 84
104576-12

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ARLETTE TEBELE, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION 

and JOHN DOE as manager, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________/ 

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION 

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01 

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorneys have cancelled the deposition of Plaintiff, 

Arlette Tebele, which was scheduled to take place on Friday, June 3, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., via zoom. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida ePortal to: Jay 

Dermer, Esquire, (eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com; jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com); on this 2nd day of June, 2022. 

/s/ Jaime J. Baca 

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire 

Florida Bar No. 113859 

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A. 

Attorneys for COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION 

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard 

Suite 800 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Phone: (305) 448-3939 

Fax: (305) 441-1745 

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com 

Filing # 150714517 E-Filed 06/02/2022 10:27:36 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 63 of 84
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 11TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

 

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiffs,

 vs. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION and JOHN

DOE as manager.

 Defendant.

___________________________/

NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT’S

INTERROGATORIES

Plaintiff gives Notice of Filing her Answers to Defendant’s Interrogatories.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served this 2nd day

of June, 2022 to: Jaime J. Baca, Esq Attorney for Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION located at WICKER SMITH O’HARA MCCOY & FORD P.A. 2800 Ponce de 

Leon Boulevard, Suite 800, Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305)-448-3939 at 

jbaca@wickersmith.com and jperez1@wickersmith.com

WOLFSON LAW FIRM, LLP

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

3399 Southwest 3rd Avenue

Miami, Florida 33145

(305) 285-1115 - Telephone

(305) 285-1608 – Facsimile

Eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com

jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com

/s/ Jay Dermer

By: __________________________

JAY J. DERMER

 FL BAR NO. 0115443

Filing # 150727319 E-Filed 06/02/2022 11:55:04 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 64 of 84
IN THE CIRCUIT OF THE 11TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE

CORPORATION, and JOHN

DOE as manager.

 Defendant

________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

1. Objection as to relevance as Plaintiff is not making a claim for lost wages, nor loss of 

earning capacity.

2. Objection as to relevance as Plaintiff is not making a claim for lost wages, nor loss of 

earning capacity. 

3. Attached.

4. Attached.

5. Attached.

6. Attached if in Plaintiff’s possession.

7. Attached.

8. None.

9. Attached if in Plaintiff’s possession. 

10. Attached if in Plaintiff’s possession. 

11. None.

12. Attached.

13. Attached if in Plaintiff’s possession. 

14. Attached.

15. Attached.

16. Will provide any and all liens upon receipt. 

17. None. Discovery is ongoing. 

18. None. Discovery is ongoing. 

Filing # 150762212 E-Filed 06/02/2022 03:59:40 PM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 65 of 84
19. Attached as to hybrid experts. Discovery is ongoing. 

20. Attached as to hybrid experts, undetermined as to others. Discovery is ongoing.

21. Attached. 

22. Attached.

23. Attached. 

24. None.

25. See signed authorization form. 

26. None.

27. Attached. 

28. Attached. 

29. None in Plaintiff’s possession. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was emailed on this 2nd day of 

June 2022 to: Jaime J. Baca, Esq, Attorney for Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION located at WICKER SMITH O’HARA MCCOY AND FORD, P.A. 2800 Ponce 

de Leon Boulevard Suite 800 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305)-448-3939 at 

jbaca@wickersmith.com and jperez1@wickersmith.com

WOLFSON LAW FIRM, LLP

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

3399 SW 3rd Avenue

Miami, Florida 33145

(305)-285-1115 – Telephone

(305)-285-1608 – Facsimile

Eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com

/s/ Jay Dermer

By:_________________________

JAY J. DERMER

FLA BAR NO. 0115443

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 66 of 84
IN THE CIRCUIT OF THE 11TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE

CORPORATION, and JOHN

DOE as manager.

 Defendant

________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION

1. Admit. 

2. Deny.

3. Admit. 

4. Deny.

5. Deny.

6. Admit.

7. Deny.

8. Deny.

9. Deny.

10. Deny.

11. Deny

12. Deny.

13. Deny.

14. Deny.

15. Deny.

16. Deny.

Filing # 150762212 E-Filed 06/02/2022 03:59:40 PM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 67 of 84
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was emailed on this 2nd day of 

June 2022 to: Jaime J. Baca, Esq, Attorney for Defendant COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATON located at WICKER SMITH O’HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A. 2800 Ponce de 

Leon Boulevard Suite 800 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305)-448-3939 at 

jbaca@wickersmith.com and jperez1@wickersmith.com

WOLFSON LAW FIRM, LLP

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

3399 SW 3rd Avenue

Miami, Florida 33145

(305)-285-1115 – Telephone

(305)-285-1608 – Facsimile

Eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com

/s/ Jay Dermer

By:_________________________

JAY J. DERMER

FLA BAR NO. 0115443

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 68 of 84
104576-12 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 

ARLETTE TEBELE, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION and JOHN DOE as 

manager, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________/ 

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION 

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01 

RE-NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorneys will take the deposition of: 

NAME: ARLETTE TEBELE 

DATE AND TIME: JULY 22, 2022 AT 10:00 A.M. 

PLACE: VIA ZOOM 

upon oral examination before VERITEXT, Notary Public, or any other Notary Public or other 

officer authorized by law to take depositions in the State of Florida. The oral examination will 

continue from day to day until completed. The deposition is being taken for the purpose of 

discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the Florida Rules of 

Civil Procedure in such cases. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida 

ePortal to: Jay Dermer, Esquire, (eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com; jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com; 

mtforrester@wolfsonlawfirm.com; Raisa@wolfsonlawfirm.com); on this 13th day of June, 2022. 

/s/ Jaime J. Baca 

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire 

Florida Bar No. 113859 

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A. 

Attorneys for COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION 

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard 

Suite 800 

Filing # 151356593 E-Filed 06/13/2022 11:41:55 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 69 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01 

- 2 - 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Phone: (305) 448-3939 

Fax: (305) 441-1745 

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com 

In accordance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, persons with disabilities needing a 

special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the undersigned 

attorney’s secretary at the address and phone number given above not later than seven (7) 

days prior to the proceeding. If hearing impaired, (TDD) 1-800-955-8770 via Florida Relay 

Service. 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 70 of 84
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

ARLETTE TEBELE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION, and JOHN

DOE as manager.

Defendant.

 /

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF VIDEO 

Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned counsel, files Motion to Compel Production of 

Video and states that, in response to discovery requests and interrogatories, the Defendant has 

admitted to possessing video that may be relevant to this matter. The Defendant has not produced 

the video and requested this Court to exercise its discretion to control discovery and to require 

production of the video only after the Plaintiff’s deposition is taken. The Plaintiff respectfully 

requests this Court to compel the Defendant to produce prior to Plaintiff’s deposition and states as 

follows in support of said motion:

1. Plaintiff filed a Request to Produce with his Complaint. 

2. Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Request to Produce with Objections.

3. In response to Plaintiff’s Request to Produce Number 8, the Defendant objected to 

producing the video depicting the incident prior to Plaintiff’s deposition.

Filing # 151784962 E-Filed 06/20/2022 10:45:47 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 71 of 84
4. At the present time there are several leading cases on the issue of the timing of 

production of videos from both the 3rd DCA and the 4th DCA. 

5. In Target v. Vogel, 41 So3d 962 (4DCA 2010), the lower court granted the 

plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of the videos and photographs. The Fourth DCA 

distinguished the videos of the actual incident from surveillance videos taken during the pendency 

of a claim. It stated:

The video in this case was not protected work product, prepared “to 

aid counsel in trying the case.” Id. Rather, it was a video of the 

accident itself, discoverable evidence under the Rules of Civil 

Procedure, which are designed “to prevent the use of surprise, 

trickery, bluff and legal gymnastics.” Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 

236 So. 2d 108, 111 (Fla. 1970).

The Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari and Target was required to 

produce the video and photographs before the plaintiff’s deposition.

6. The second case on this issue is McClure v. Publix, 124 So3d 998 (4DCA 2013). 

In this case, the Fourth DCA addressed the same issue but from an opposite perspective because 

the trial court denied the plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production and Publix was allowed to 

withhold the video until after the Plaintiff was deposed. In short, the Fourth held that there was no 

abuse of discretion by the trial court and therefore it would not disturb the lower court’s ruling. 

Judge Warner dissented in a lengthy and well-reasoned dissent which is incorporated herein by 

reference but not repeated in the interests of judicial economy.

7. There is a third case which is instructive on this issue. In Ivelisse CabezudoVazquez v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D99a (Case No. 18-80469-CVMiddlebrooks – July 27, 2018), the Court ruled upon the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant 

to Produce Video Footage Capturing the Subject Incident, which is basically the same issue the 

instant case and motion. The Court held that the work product privilege did not protect from 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 72 of 84
disclosure and, more importantly, ruled:

Delaying production of videos until after plaintiff's deposition is not 

appropriate where there appears to be little, if any, prejudice to 

defendant if plaintiff is permitted to view the video to refresh his

recollection prior to his deposition and, moreover, primary 

evidentiary value of videos predominates over impeachment value. 

Where primary evidentiary value of videos is proof of facts 

surrounding the incident underlying the litigation, courts have 

routinely denied any attempts to delay disclosure until after a 

plaintiff's deposition.

The Court concluded with finding that the Plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable attorneys’ 

fee and costs because the Defendant’s work product privilege objection was not justified, and the 

Defendant was not substantially justified in refusing to produce the video until after the deposition 

of the Plaintiff.

8. In addition, in Muzaffar v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 941 F.Supp.2d 1373 (S.D. Fla. 

Apr. 25, 2013), the court required production of the video prior to the plaintiff's deposition. It 

catalogued a considerable number of Florida circuit court cases which rejected delaying the 

production of security surveillance until after the plaintiff's deposition. It is clear that in Florida 

the vast weight of authority rejects the withholding of security video until after the plaintiff's 

deposition is taken, unless specific factual circumstances in a particular case provide for a contrary 

result.

9. See also, Business Telecommunications Services, Inc. v. Elena Madrigal, Case no. 

3D18-2106, (Fla. 3rd DCA 2019), where in the appellant, Business Telecommunications Services, 

Inc was ordered by the trial court to turn over a surveillance video in advance of the deposition of 

the plaintiff in a personal injury case and the 3rd DCA refused to reverse the trial court’s order. 

10. Setting aside policy considerations, the main point in the instant case is whether 

there is any justification for this Court to exercise its broad discretion to alter the timing of the 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 73 of 84
production of the video. It is respectfully suggested that there is no reason for this Court to allow 

Costco Wholesale Corporation to withhold the video until after the Plaintiff’s deposition.

11. The instant case is distinguishable from the legal position Defendant is taking 

because:

a. That the Plaintiff does not have any photographs or videos relevant to any of the 

issues in this case;

b. That the Defendant, its employees, agents and attorney(s) seem to have access to 

the video in advance of their testimony, argument and/or evaluation of the claim;

c. That the video in question is not a surveillance tape taken during the pendency of 

the claim but rather the primary evidentiary value of the video is proof of the underlying facts 

surrounding the incident; 

d. The Plaintiff has a real concern and fear that he will not receive a fair trial and risks 

being unnecessarily ambushed, embarrassed, tricked or bluffed by the experienced defense 

attorney who, if he has his way, will have the added but unnecessary advantage of studying the 

video frame by frame before his deposition.

e. The Plaintiff has asserted or will assert in his answers to interrogatories specific 

facts as to how the accident occurred. Thus, he will be under oath already concerning the 

mechanics of the incident. 

12. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant’s objection should be overruled and 

the request to exercise discretion to allow Defendant to withhold the video until after the Plaintiff’s 

deposition should likewise be declined.

13. The Defendant should be ordered to produce the video prior to the Plaintiff’s 

deposition. 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 74 of 84
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to grant this Motion to Compel, 

Overrule the Defendant’s Objection, and for such other and further relief as this Court might deem 

appropriate.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was emailed on this 20 day of 

June 2022 to: Jaime J. Baca, Esq, Attorney for Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION located at WICKER SMITH O’HARA MCCOY AND FORD, P.A. 2800 Ponce 

de Leon Boulevard Suite 800 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305)-448-3939 at 

jbaca@wickersmith.com and jperez1@wickersmith.com

WOLFSON LAW FIRM, LLP

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

3399 SW 3rd Avenue

Miami, Florida 33145

(305)-285-1115 – Telephone

(305)-285-1608 – Facsimile

Eservice6@wolfsonlawfirm.com

By:___/s//Matthew Forrester____

MATTHEW FORRESTER

FLA BAR NO. 1032144

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 75 of 84
104576-12 JJB/ldc

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE

COUNTY, FLORIDA

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

and JOHN DOE as manager,

 Defendants.

____________________________/

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

NOTICE OF PRODUCTION FROM NON-PARTY

YOU ARE NOTIFIED that after 10 days from the date of service of this notice, if service is by

delivery or email, or 15 days from the date of service if service is by mail, and if no objection is received

from any party, the undersigned will issue or apply to the clerk of this court for issuance of the attached

subpoenas directed to:

United Healthcare of Florida, Inc.

c/o C T Corporation System, Registered Agent

1200 South Pine Island Road

Plantation, FL 33324

Singer Health Center

9727 NE 2nd Avenue

Miami Shores, FL 33138

MSPRC Liability

P.O. Box 138832

Oklahoma City, OK 73113

Optum, Inc.

11000 Optum Circle, MN102-0300

Eden Prairie, MN 55344

CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

c/o CT Corporation System

1200 S. Pine Island Rd.

Plantation, FL 33324

Filing # 154631563 E-Filed 08/03/2022 04:23:27 PM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 76 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.

c/o Chief Financial Officer

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Touch of Health Rehab, Inc.

17070 Collins Avenue, Suite #524

Sunny Isles Beach, FL 33160

Central Park Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, P.C.

200 Madison Avenue

New York, NY 10016

Kenneth Hodor, M.D., P.A.

Orthopaedic and Hand Surgery

2925 Aventura Blvd, Suite 102

Aventura, FL 33180

AARP Inc. - Registered Agent

c/o C T Corporation System

1200 S. Pine Island Road

Plantation, FL 33324

A1 Imaging Centers, LLC Aventura

20880 Dixie Highway

Miami, FL 33180

Mount Sinai Medical Center

Attn: Radiology Department

4300 Alton Road

Miami Beach, FL 33140

Mount Sinai Medical Center

Attn: Billing Department

4300 Alton Road

Miami Beach, FL 33140

Mount Sinai Medical Center

Attn: Medical Records Department

4300 Alton Road, Suite 2300

Miami Beach, FL 33140

Walgreens Pharmacy

c/o Corporation Service Company

1201 Hays Street

Tallahassee, FL 32301

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 77 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

who are not parties and whose addresses are indicated on the attached subpoenas, to produce the items listed

at the time and place specified in the subpoena.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida ePortal to:

Jay Dermer, Esquire, eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com; jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com; on this 03 day of July,

2022.

/s/ Jaime J. Baca

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 113859

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A.

Attorneys for COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard

Suite 800

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Phone: (305) 448-3939

Fax: (305) 441-1745

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 78 of 84
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

ARLETTE TEBELE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION, and JOHN

DOE as manager.

Defendant.

 /

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF OFFER OF JUDGMENT 

PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 768.79 AND 

PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO F.R.C.P. 1.442

Plaintiff, ARLETTE TEBELE, pursuant to Rule 1.442, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 

and Section 768.79, Florida Statutes, hereby gives Notice of serving a Proposal for 

Settlement/Offer of Judgment, upon the Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was emailed on this 

15th day of August 2022 to: Jaime J. Baca, Esq, Attorney for Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION located at Wicker Smith O’hara Mccoy And Ford, P.A. 2800 Ponce de Leon 

Boulevard Suite 800 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305)-448-3939 at 

jbaca@wickersmith.com and jperez1@wickersmith.com

WOLFSON & LEON

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

3399 SW 3rd Avenue

Miami, Florida 33145

(305)-285-1115 – Telephone

(305)-285-1608 – Facsimile

Eservice6@wolfsonlawfirm.com

By:___/s//Matthew Forrester____

MATTHEW FORRESTER

FLA BAR NO. 1032144

Filing # 155324163 E-Filed 08/15/2022 01:54:17 PM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 79 of 84
104576-12 JJB/ldc

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,

FLORIDA

ARLETTE TEBELE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION and

JOHN DOE as manager,

 Defendants.

____________________________/

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION

CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

CERTIFICATE OF NON-OBJECTION

TO: The Clerk of the Court

Pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure a Notice of Production from Non-Party was served

upon counsel for all parties, including the Plaintiff(s), ARLETTE TEBELE. Plaintiff and all other parties are

aware that these records have been requested and no objections have been made to the production of the records

as delineated in the attached Subpoena Duces Tecum without deposition directed to you. The information is

being subpoenaed for disclosure in the course of a lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff. This Certificate of NonObjection complies with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.351(c), in that this Defendant has made a good faith

attempt to provide written notice to the Plaintiff which included sufficient information about the records being

requested and allowed the Plaintiff sufficient time under the Rules to raise an objection. The time for any

objections has expired and no objections were filed by any party to the Notices of Production from Non-Party

filed by this Defendant and directed to:

United Healthcare of Florida, Inc.

c/o C T Corporation System, Registered Agent

1200 South Pine Island Road

Plantation, FL 33324

Singer Health Center

9727 NE 2nd Avenue

Miami Shores, FL 33138

MSPRC Liability

P.O. Box 138832

Oklahoma City, OK 73113

Filing # 155743338 E-Filed 08/19/2022 05:12:35 PM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 80 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

 Optum, Inc.

11000 Optum Circle, MN102-0300

Eden Prairie, MN 55344

CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

c/o CT Corporation System

1200 S. Pine Island Rd.

Plantation, FL 33324

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.

c/o Chief Financial Officer

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Touch of Health Rehab, Inc.

17070 Collins Avenue, Suite #524

Sunny Isles Beach, FL 33160

Central Park Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, P.C.

200 Madison Avenue

New York, NY 10016

Kenneth Hodor, M.D., P.A.

Orthopaedic and Hand Surgery

2925 Aventura Blvd, Suite 102

Aventura, FL 33180

AARP Inc. - Registered Agent

c/o C T Corporation System

1200 S. Pine Island Road

Plantation, FL 33324

A1 Imaging Centers, LLC Aventura

20880 Dixie Highway

Miami, FL 33180

Mount Sinai Medical Center

Attn: Radiology Department

4300 Alton Road

Miami Beach, FL 33140

Mount Sinai Medical Center

Attn: Billing Department

4300 Alton Road

Miami Beach, FL 33140

Mount Sinai Medical Center

Attn: Medical Records Department

4300 Alton Road, Suite 2300

Miami Beach, FL 33140

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 81 of 84
CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01

Walgreens Pharmacy

c/o Corporation Service Company

1201 Hays Street

Tallahassee, FL 32301

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida ePortal to: Jay

Dermer, Esquire, eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com; jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com; on this 19 day of August, 2022.

/s/ Jaime J. Baca

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire

Florida Bar No. 113859

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A.

Attorneys for COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard

Suite 800

Coral Gables, FL 33134

Phone: (305) 448-3939

Fax: (305) 441-1745

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 82 of 84
104576-12 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMIDADE, FLORIDA 

ARLETTE TEBELE, 

Plaintiff, 

VS. 

COSTCO WHOLESALE 

CORPORATION and JOHN DOE as 

manager, 

Defendants, 

____________________________/ 

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION 

CASE NO. CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01 

NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned will be absent from the jurisdiction 

and unavailable during these dates: 

SEPTEMBER 28- SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 

NOVEMBER 21- DECEMBER 06, 2022 

DECEMBER 20, 2022- JANUARY 10, 2023 

The undersigned respectfully requests that no Motions, hearings, mediations, depositions, 

or trials be scheduled and/or set during these time periods. 

The filing and service of this Notice shall constitute a notice to all parties that the 

undersigned will move forward for appropriate relief, including a motion to be excused or 

continue, as appropriate. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been electronically served via Florida 

ePortal to: Jay Dermer, Esquire, (eservice3@wolfsonlawfirm.com ; jay@wolfsonlawfirm.com; ) ; on this 12th

day of September, 2022. 

Filing # 157186016 E-Filed 09/12/2022 10:59:27 AM Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 83 of 84
 CASE NO. 2022-002291-CA-01 

2 

/s/ Jaime J. Baca 

Jaime J. Baca, Esquire 

Florida Bar No. 113859 

WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY & FORD, P.A. 

Attorneys for BULK EXPRESS TRANSPORT, INC. 

2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard 

Suite 800 

Coral Gables, FL 33134 

Phone: (305) 448-3939 

Fax: (305) 441-1745 

miacrtpleadings@wickersmith.com 

Case 1:22-cv-22927-KMW Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 84 of 84