SRIPLAW

CALIFORNIA ◆GEORGIA ◆FLORIDA ◆TENNESSEE ◆NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-23699-RKA

DAVID GORDON OPPENHEIMER,, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PANDA IDX, LLC,

Defendant.

DECLARATION OF ANGELA NIEVES IN SUPPORT OF 

PLAINTIFF DAVID OPPENHEIMER’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws 

of the United States that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief:

1. I, ANGELA NIEVES, am an attorney for Plaintiff David Gordon Oppenheimer in 

the above-entitled action.

2. I am an associate at SRIPLAW, P.A. (“SRIPLAW”). I joined SRIPLAW in August 

2021, and this firm assumed representation of Oppenheimer for the filing of the current matter.

3. I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth herein.

4. I sincerely apologize to the Court for having failed to attend the status conference 

scheduled by the Court on Monday, December 19, 2022. 

5. There was an issue with our court filings management system, which ultimately led 

to an oversight that eventually caused our firm missing the hearing.

6. Our firm is experienced in litigating matters in federal court, and has set up a multilevel system to ensure that notices that arrive through the CM/ECF system from courts across the 

country are received, considered, and managed by the attorneys of record on each case. 

Case 1:22-cv-23699-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2022 Page 1 of 4
2

SRIPLAW

CALIFORNIA ◆GEORGIA ◆FLORIDA ◆TENNESSEE ◆NEW YORK

7. SRIPLAW’s first review of CM/ECF notices is the email delivered directly to 

attorneys and paralegals, where they can access any filed documents by following links in the 

emails to the online docket and the electronically filed documents. 

8. Second, SRIPLAW uses a system called Docketbird, which manages PACERgenerated emails to track the issuance of all new court filings. When a filing is docketed by the 

court, Docketbird automatically downloads the corresponding order or filing, generates an email 

with the description of the court transaction, attaches the order or filing, and sends the email to any 

prearranged email addresses. Attorneys and paralegals assigned to a case receive all Docketbird 

emails concerning that case. Paralegals docket any deadlines accordingly in the corresponding case 

file for all assigned attorneys and staffers to see.

9. Finally, SRIPLAW employs a third layer of review. When a Docketbird email is 

generated, an SRIPLAW staffer posts it to a shared messaging board for SRIPLAW paralegals to 

review, confirm which emails correspond to their assigned cases, and docket any deadlines not 

already docketed in the corresponding case file. 

10. On December 12, 2022, when the Court’s Order scheduling the status conference 

was docketed, the email received from the CM/ECF system referenced this case in the subject line. 

However, the body of the email first noticed a separate case, Jimenez v. Jackson Health System

(flsd-1:2021-cv-23829), and an order entered at DE 19 (Order Scheduling Video Status 

Conferences). A true and correct screenshot of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

11. SRIPLAW does not represent any party in Jimenez. 

12. In the aforementioned email, underneath the Jimenez case and order details, next 

appeared the name and case number for the instant action, and DE 13 Order Scheduling Video 

Status Conferences. 

13. This email formatting caused Docketbird to pull the order corresponding to the 

Jimenez case details and automatically generate and send out an email referencing only the Jimenez

case. The Docketbird email SRIPLAW counsel and paralegals received did not reference the 

Oppenheimer case in the subject line, in the attachments file name preview, or in the body of the 

Case 1:22-cv-23699-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2022 Page 2 of 4
3

SRIPLAW

CALIFORNIA ◆GEORGIA ◆FLORIDA ◆TENNESSEE ◆NEW YORK

email. A true and correct screenshot of the email is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The email 

referenced the Jimenez case in both the subject line and the body. The only attachment is the 

Court’s Order in that case entered at DE 19. 

14. As a consequence, SRIPLAW attorneys and paralegals, despite diligently checking 

for incoming emails alerting to new docket entries in their cases, failed to note that the email 

received on December 12, 2022 referencing Jimenez v. Jackson Health System also corresponded 

to the instant action. 

15. The Docketbird system failed to alert recipients to discrepancies or potential 

problems in the CM/ECF notice email received, and automatically generated and delivered an 

email to SRIPLAW attorneys and paralegals who did not recognize the case as one of their own.

16. When an SRIPLAW staffer subsequently posted the Docketbird email to the 

paralegal message board, it did not contain any reference to the present matter, as none existed in

the Docketbird message. As a consequence, the status conference date went uncalendared to any 

attorney, and SRIPLAW failed to appear on behalf of its client at the status conference.

17. The firm’s three levels of safeguards failed due to unique circumstances this firm 

has not encountered before. 

18. SRIPLAW carefully reviewed its process with respect to receiving and docketing 

new court filings, and immediately implemented measures to ensure this never happens again. 

Effectively immediately, a designated SRIPLAW staffer is reviewing every new court filing and 

ensuring each and every notice and docket entry is claimed timely by assigned personnel, or 

accounted for if unclaimed for some reason. The same SRIPLAW staffer will investigate any 

unclaimed court filings and work with an attorney in order to determine whether further action by 

the firm is warranted. 

19. SRIPLAW is confident this additional fourth level of review, together with the ones 

already in place, will prevent any new court filings from going unnoticed.

Case 1:22-cv-23699-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2022 Page 3 of 4
4

SRIPLAW

CALIFORNIA ◆GEORGIA ◆FLORIDA ◆TENNESSEE ◆NEW YORK

20. These errors were unfortunate and one-off oversights. There was no malicious 

intent or knowledge involved with the errors. SRIPLAW strives to represent our clients 

responsibly.

21. This is the first time in my practice that this type of error has occurred. I will ensure 

that it is the last.

22. I assure the Court that errors such as these serious ones will not happen again. 

SRIPLAW promises to be more vigilant to avoid making mistakes like this that waste the Court’s 

time. 

23. I ask the court to please accept my apologies. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 

December 23, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

Angela M. Nieves

ANGELA M. NIEVES

Case 1:22-cv-23699-RKA Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/23/2022 Page 4 of 4