9:22-cv-81908-1c R

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SO UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLOIUDA

W EST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO .9:22-CV-81908-% R

M ARC M .DULCIO,

Plaintiff,

V.

EN V IRO N M ENTA L PRO TECTIO N

A GEN CY,etal.,

befendants.

/

?

FILED BY D.C.

JLL â62223 '

ANGELAE.NOBLE

CLERK US DIST.CX

s.D.oFFFI-â.-.w.RB.

RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO GPIPROPERTIES,INC.'S

MOTIONTO DISM ISS(ECF.86)

Datedthis5th day ofJuly,2023

*

By:

M arcM .Dulcio*ProSeLitigant

M arcM .Dulcio

70N .E.131Ststreet

NorthM iami,FL 33161

Celphone:(561)371-7649

MarcDulcio@llotmail.coin

Case 9:22-cv-81908-RLR Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 1 of 12
9:22-cv-81908-1V 11.

M isnum berineofParazraphs:

AsIwascompilingtheSAC inalignmentwiththisHonorableCourtsorder(ECF.74)at

severalrandom intervals1encotmtered issueswith theauto-ntlmbersystem within myM icrosoft

W ord 2007 program,itwould eitherswitch to;rom an nllm erals,alphabetletters,orsimply a

nllmberthatwasnotsequentiallycorrect.Inthoseinstances,Iwouldmanually insertthecorrect

sequentialnumberfortheparagraph.AfterIcompletedtheSAC Ireviewedtheallegations,claim s

forrelief,andthesequentialnllmberingoftheparagraphs.OnJune1St,2023,imm ediatelypriorto

theprintingoftheSAC 1decidedtodeletethe14defendants(paragraphs11-24)whowereno

longerapartytothesuit.Asaresultofthislast-m inutecorrection/changethenumberingscheme

oftheSAC wascompromisedcausing(1)duplicateparagraphnumbers(notalegations),(2)

ntlm beredparagraphstoconvertfrom nllm bersto eitherrom annum erals,oralphabeticalletters,

and (3)random nlmbersthatare completely outofsequentialorderwith itssurrounding

paragraphs.Inm extremely embarassed bythism isstep and apologizeto thisHonorableCourt,

AI,L defendantsandtheirrespectivelegalcotmselformakingsucham istake.DespitetheûtGeneral

FactualAllegation''sectionoftheSAC comm encingwithparagraphm lmber25insteadof11;the

fu11allegationsectionissequentiallyintactandisproperlyreferencedineachcount.

TheNllmberincDeficienciesareasfollows:

Onpage5insteadoftt....Alegations''staMingwithparagraphllitcommenceswithparagraph251.

Onpage28insteadoflGcount111''startingwithparagraph 144itcommenceswithparagraph97.

Onpage30betweenparagraph107,andparagraph109isaparagraphnumbered144insteadof108.

4.) Onpage31insteadofGscountIV''startingwithparagraph115itcommenceswithparagraph145.

Onpage34afterparagraph165exists2separateparagraphslabeled154.

IhaveattachedthecorrectedversionoftheSAC tothisdocument.(Exhibit$çA'9)

lAherparagraph10thenumberingjumpstoparagraph25therefore,paragraphs11-24aremissing.

1

Case 9:22-cv-81908-RLR Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 2 of 12
9:22-cv-81908-1V R

M Y RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO

GPIPR O PERTIES,INC.'S M O TIO N TO DISM ISS

..IL TH IS COURT IM CKSSUBJECT m TTER JUM SDICTION

OVER PLAIN TIFF SATTEM PTED CIM IM S''

GPIProperties,Inc.MotiontoDismiss(Section2,pages2-5)

fW.Plaintff'sAtemptedClaimsAzainstGroundwaterProtection

LackFederalSubiectM atterJurisdiction''

GP1Properties,Inc.MotiontoDismiss(Section2(A),page2)

GP1Properties,lnc.(hereinafter,ûçGPI'')alegesCount11ofmy SAC tûtacksFederal

SubjectMatterJudsdiction'',andinsupportofthisassertionstates'.(1)myclaim againstGPIçtis

notsubstantively viableasamatteroflaw,butevenifitwere,itconstitm esastate1aw claim by

oneFlorida citizen againstanother'',(2)tGplaintiffhasasserted noviablebasisforfederal

jurisdictionoverhisattemptedclaim againstthisDefendanf',theseassertionsfailforthefolowing

reasons;

(1)ff...isnotsubstantivelvviableasamaterof/Jw...''

GPlcommencestheirargumentwith theblank assertion my claim sagainstthem Gçisnot

substantivelyviableasamatteroflaw''yetfailstoprovideasubstantivestatementtosupportthis

assertion.Nonetheless,m yclaim againstGPlisabsolutelyviableasam atteroflaw,statelaw2to

beprecise.GPI,second assertioninsupportoftheparentassertion3ismyclaim againstGP1isG1a

state1aw claim by oneFloddacitizenagainstanother'',whilethisassertionisundeniably afact,

GPIhasfailedtochalengemyinvocationof28U.S.C.j1367(a)whichgrantsthisHonorable

Courtwith Supplem enGlJudsdiction overthe state1aw claim swithin my SAC which sharea

comm onnucleusofoperativefacts,evidence,anddefendantstoaclaim thisHonorableCourthave

diversity,andsubjectmatterjurisdiction(namely;Cotmts1,111,andV).

2Fla.Stat.Chapter376.313(3)

JLacksFederalSubjectMaterJurisdiction

Case 9:22-cv-81908-RLR Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 3 of 12
9:22-cv-81908-Rl-R

(2)''Plaintiffhasassertednoviablebasisforfederall'urisdiction....''

GPIarguesçplaintifhasassertednoviablebasisforfederaljurisdictionoverhisattempted

claim againstthisDefendant''thisassertion appearstobean attempton thepartofGPIto split

hairs.Ihaveproperlyalegedtheexistenceofdiversityjurisdictionbyvirtueof;(1)thediversity

in citizenship between m yselfand Arcadisin tandem with the amotmtin controversy being in

excessof$75,000.Lastly,1haveproperlyallegedthecombinedactionsofGPI,andArcadiscaused

thedischargeorotherconditionofpollution attheLSC-PIM tsite.Therefore,creatingacommon

nucleusofoperativefacts,witnesses,evidence,anddefendantswithatleastone(1)claimbywllich

thefederalcourthasjurisdictionover.

In-conclusionofSection(A)

Forthe foregoing reasonsGPIM otion to Dismisson thegrotmdsthisHonorable Court

ltacksSubjectMatterjurisdiction''lacksinsubstanceandabovealpersuasion.Therefore,itis

with theutmostrespectIrequestthisHonorableCourtto DENY with preiudice orin the

altemativeDENY GPlMotiontoDismissonthegrotmdsofthisHonorableCourtEtacksSubject

Matterjurisdiction''

#.ThisCourtLJckçJurisdictionPursuanttotheEleventhAmendment.

GP1Properties,Inc.MotiontoDismiss(Section2(B),page3)

InSection2(B)ofGPlMotiontoDismiss,GPIarguesitisentitledtoEleventhAmendment

Imm unitybyvirtueofArcadisentitlem enttoEleventhAmendm entIm mtmity,andin supportof

thisassertionoffers;(1)caselaw from S.K v.futheranServicesFlorida,1nc.,4claiming1;a

subcontractorcanalsobeentitledtoEleventhAmendmentimmtmity'',(2)tltotheextentArcadis

qualifiesasastateagentsubjecttoEleventhAmendmentsovereignimmunity,(...)suchimmunity

42018WL2100122(M D.Fla.2018)

Case 9:22-cv-81908-RLR Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 4 of 12
9:22-cv-81908-R1.R

alsoextendstoGrotmdw aterProtection'',GPIargum entsin supportofthisassertion failforthe

followingreasons;

(1)S.K v.futheranServicesFlorida.Inc..claiming

rW subcontractorcanalsobeentitledtoEleventhAmendmentimmunitv''

ln supportofGPlargumentforitsentitlem entto Eleventh Am endmentImm tmity,GPI

offersitsownanalysisoftheûcopinion and Order''bytheHonorableJudgeJohnE.Steeleswho

(forthepuposeofentertainingtheargumentbeingpresented)consideredthepossibilityofa

Subcontractorbeing entitledtoSovereignimmunity;

'Defendantsargue,however,thataprivatecn/ff.pmaybeconsideredan''armoftheState''

f itsatisAes thesameEleventhAmendmentstandardsused to determinewhethera

governmentalca/f/yisan''arm oftheState.''TheSupremeCourthasnotaddressedthe

questionofwhetheraprivatecn/ïrycanbean ''arm oftheState'inthiscontext.F/le

EleventhCircuitononeoccasionfoundthataprivateen/f/.vwtu anarmoftheStateunder

theEleventhAmendment,ShandsTeaching Hosp.(ê Clinics,Inc.vBeechSt.Corp.,208

AJJ1308(11thCir.200% butthatcaseappliedatestwhichhassincebeenabrogatei

SeeLakev.Shelton,840F3d1334,1337(11thCir.2016)''

.G.K.v.LutheranScrvâ..Fla..Inc..6

PriortotheapplicationoftheM anderstesttheHonorableJudgeJolm E.Steelestates;

''Forpurposesofthismotiononly,theCourtassumesthatitispossibleforaprivateezifj/.y

tobeanJrvloftheStateundertheEleventhAmendment,andthereforenotbea'person''

within themeaning ofJ 1983.Thequestion thereforebecomeswhetherplaint# has

plausiblypledthattheprivatecontractorCNSF/CCC and theprivatesubcontractorLSF

are'persons''withinthemeaning0.f#1983.Asdiscussedlater,theCourtfurtherAndsthat

itisnotpossibleforanemployeeofaprivateea/frysuedinhisorherindividualcapacity

tobeanarm oftheState.''

-S.K.v.Lutherans'crvs'.Fla..lnc..7

JCaseNo..2:l7-cv-691-FtM-99MRk1

6CaseNo:2:17-cw69l-FtM-99MRM 12-13(M D.Fla.Mtzy'.7,2018)

7CaseNo:2:17-cv-691-FtM-99MRM 13(M D.Fla.A'Jcy.7,2018)

4

Case 9:22-cv-81908-RLR Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 5 of 12
!

9:22-cv-81908-% R

Therefore,itisaxiom aticbasedontheGûopinion andOrder''oftheHonorableJudgeJolm

E.SteelestatementpriortotheapplicationoftheM anderstestthatthecourtdoesnotbelieveitis

possibleforaprivateentitytobean t'Arm oftheState''tmdertheEleventhAmendment,andis

onlyconsideringthepossibilityforthepup oseofthatmotiononly.Ultimately,attheendofthe

applicationofthetestboththeContractorandtheSubcontractorfailedtoqualifyasan ê'Arm of

!

theState''withprongsone(1),andfour(4)leaninginthedirectionof''NotanArm oftheState'',

andprongstwo(2),andthree(3)beinginconclusiveduetotheneedforthefactualrecordtofurther

develop.Lastly,theHonorableJudgeJolm E.Steelestates;

.'Itisdefendants'burdentoshowthattheMandersfactorsweighintheir

favor.M llerv.AdvantageBehs ioralHealthSys.,8''

- S.K.v.futherans'crvuç.Fla..1nc..9

TothispointloGPIhasfailedtosuffkientlyaswellaspersuasivelyshow thattheM anders

testweighsintheirfavor.

(2)''totheextentArcadisqualiflesasastateagentsubiecttoEleventhAmendment

sovereiznfzzlpil/affv,f...lsuchimmunitvalsoextendstoGroundwaterProtection''

GPIarguesitisentitledtoSovereignlmm unityprotediontothesam edegreeasO cadis,

theseassertionsfailforal1theobviousreasons',(1)Arcadisasacontractorisnotentitledto

Sovereign lmmtmity,(2)GPIasasubcontractorpossessasignitkantly lesserentitlementto

SovereignImmtmity,(3)thisHonorableCourthasalreadyelectedtoallow thefacttzalrecordto

furtherdevelop priorto making a determination,

M anderstest.

and (4)ArcadisandGP1failtosatisfythe

In-conclusionofSection(B)

8677#:App%556,559(11thCir.2017)

9CaseNo.

.

2..17-o=691-FtM-99MRM 14(M D.Fla.Mtzy.7,2018)

10Figurativelyandliteraly

Case 9:22-cv-81908-RLR Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 6 of 12
9:22-cv-81908-Rl-R

Forthe foregoing reasonsGPIM otion to Dismisson thegrolmdsthisHonorable Court

çtacksSubjectMatterjurisdiction''duetoGPIhavingSovereignImmunitylacksinsubstanceand

aboveal1persuasion.Therefore,itiswith theutmostrespectIrequestthisHonorable Courtto

DENY with preiudiceorinthealternativeDENY GP1MotiontoDismissonthegroundsof

ûlsovereignImmtmity''

fC.EvenifPlaintiff'sClaim FallsWithintheWaiverofSovereiznImmunitv.

HeH asFailedtoComplvW ithStatutorvPresuitNoticeRequirements''

GPIProperties,Inc.MotiontoDismiss(Section2(C),page3)

GPIarguestçshould thisCourtdetermine Flodda'sW aiverofSovereign Im mtmity Act

appliesto permitPlaintifrsattempted claim thefailureto subm ittheclaim totheDepartmentof

FinancialServicesisneverthelessafailuretocom plywiththeconditionprecedenttoassertingthe

claim''andinsupportofthisassertionGP1states;(1)GW owheredoesPlaintiffacknowledgethe

sovereign immunity issues,and hisboilep late recitation in paragraph 1thatGW LL conditions

precedenthasgsic)occurredorbeenperformed''isinsuftkienttoallegecomplianeewiththe

presuitnoticerequirementsofj768.28'5,(2)çuponintbrmationandbelief,Plaintiffhasfailedto

notifytheDepartmentofFinancialServicesofhisimpendingclaim'',theseassertionsfailforone

simpleyetbasicreason;(1)Iwasnotrequiredto,noneoftheassertedclaimscontainedwithinmy

SAC arebroughtpursuanttoFla.Stat.Chapter768.28.Therefore,thistwo(2)andahalfpage

tirade ism isguided and tmforhmately m isinformed,yetifapplicable m ay havebeen the m ost

persuasiveargumentprovidedbyGPI,butunfortmatelyitisnot(applicable).

OutofanAbtmdanceofCaution:

ContrarytotheassertionsofGPI;(1)lhisboilerplaterecitationinparagraph1thatIALL

conditionsprecedenthasgsic)occurredorbeenperfonued'''7and(2)çuponinformationandbelief,

PlaintiffhasfailedtonotifytheDepm mentofFinancialServicesofbisim pendingclaim ''. Per

theFed.R.Civ.P.Rule9(c)titledûçconditionPrecedent''itstates;

Case 9:22-cv-81908-RLR Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 7 of 12
9:22-cv-81908-1V R.

.vnpleadingconditionsprecedent,itsuy cestoalegegeneraly

thatalconditionsprecedenthaveoccurredorbeenpelformedBut

when denying thata condition precedenthas occurred or been

performe4 Jplrlymustdosowithparticularity.''

-Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule9(c)

Pertheaforem entionedrulelhavesatisfiedthepleadingrequirementtosurviveapleadingstagemotiontodismiss.GPIfurtheraleges''Uponinformationandbelief'Ihavefailedto''not#

theDepartmentofFinancialServicesof(my.limpendingclaim''thisassertioniscategoricaly

false,andasm entionedpreviously isnotapplicabletothecurrentassortmentofclaim s.

In-conclusionofsection(C)

Fortheforegoing reasonsGPIM otion toDismissonthegrotmdsIhavefailedto satisfy

pre-suitrequirem entslack foundation and aboveallpersuasion.Therefore,itisw iththeutmost

respectlrequestthisHonorableCourttoDENY withpreiudiceorinthealtemativeDENY GP1

M otiontoDism issonthegrotmdsofçFailtlretoPerform ConditionPrecedenf'.

''IIL PLAIM IFF 'SSECOND AM ENDED COM PM INTISA SH OTGUN PLEADING

THATISIM PERM ISSIBLE UNDER THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCED URE AND ISSO

CON VOLUTED THATDEFENDANTCANNOTPROPERLFFWWM F A RESPONSE.''

GP1Properties,Inc.MotiontoDismiss(Section3,page5-7)

GPlarguesmySAC isanlmperm issibleShotgtm Pleadingandinsupportofthisassertion;

(1)tGadoptsSectionV ofArcadis'sMotiontoDismissgDE77at15q'',(2)claim çitEisjimpossible

todiscernthefacmalalegationsintendedtorelateto''GPI,and(3)providesasummaryofthe

facmalallegationsectionofthecomplaint.Thisoverallargum entisbaselessandisacleardilatory

tacticbyGP1tostymiethislegalprocess.

'VailuretocomplywiththerequirementsofRule10#)isnotgrtpzfrl#fxjc./

fordismissalofthecomplaintorstrikingtheanswer.Instea4 thecourt,

upona motion oronitsown,may orderJptzr/.pto amend thepleadingso

astocomplywiththeprovisionsofRule10+)''/'

111Jltzveatemptedtopndsimilaritysituatedcaseswithinthiscircuit,butwJlunsuccessful.

Case 9:22-cv-81908-RLR Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 8 of 12
9:22-cv-81908-1V R

PleaseSee.e.g..3&1Co.v.Glasslz

(1)'fc#tpr.çSection VofArcadis'sM otiontoDismissJD'# 77at151''

GP1adoptsûtArcadis'SectionV ofArcadis'sMotiontoDismissgDE77at15j''tosupport

theirclaim ofmy SAC being an ImpennissibleShotgunPleading.Forthepup oseofnotbeing

redundantIwillalso adoptand incorporate my responseto Arcadisaforementioned section of

Azcadis'M otiontoDism issasifstatedfullyasaresponsetoGP1plagiarizedargtlm ent.

(2)claim ''it/2J'7impossibletodiscernthefactualallezationsintendedtorelateto''GP1

: GPIarguesitisG1im possibleto discernthefactualallegationsintendedtorelateto''GPI

,

thenimm ediatelyoutlinesa1lthefactualallegationsintendedtorelatetoGPI.Asm entionedabove

thesearedilatorytacticsbeingem ployedbyGPIwiththisiterationpossessingasubstantialam otmt

ofcrass,willfulignoranceand/ornaivete.

''Theallezationsidentifiedaspartoftheattenptedclaim againstthisDqfendant(Count1I)''

GPIarguestheclaimswithinmy SAC againstGP1ççareconfusing atbest,andappearto

notsupportanyclaim againstGroundwaterProtection'',andinsupportofthisarglmentstates;(1)

Gçplaintiffrecitesthatparagraphs1-3,9,25-36and91-105relatetoCountI1.(DE75,!126q'',(2)

Gçparagraphs 91-105 allegenotice in July 2022 to non-parties,followed by arambling esoteric

discussionofgroundpollution''GPlhasartfullycreatedanargllm entrisen outofwho1e-c1othdue

toaninabilitytodefenditselfagainstthem eritsofthecomplaint.

Paragraphs25to 36outlinesapreviousrem ediation eventinvolvingthesamebad actors

(Arcadis,GPI,and Earth-l-ech)causingthe same damages,asaresultofthe samewilf'ul

misconduct/negligence,andnotbeingwillingtoredresstheinjluies/damagestheycaused.

12917So.26190,92-94(Miss.20053,'Harold'sAutoParts,Inc.v.Mangialardi,889So.261493,494-95(Miss.2004)

8

Case 9:22-cv-81908-RLR Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 9 of 12
9:22-cv-81908-1V 1.

Paragraph91-105(if1mayquoteGPI)atGesotericdiscussion''maybeincomprehensible

to GP1'slegalcounselbutnotGPI.The language,plzrasing,charts,and diagrnmsareindustry

standardandprovidesGP1withsufficientteclm icalnoticeoftheclaim againstthem.

êlfthecomplaintcontainssuy cient'factualcontent''toallow f'//lccourtto#rtzw

thereasonablein#rencethatthede#ndantisliableforthemisconductalege4''

theplaint hasmetitsburdenofstatingaclaim with yacialplausibility.''

-lqbal.556U S.at678

In-conclusionofSection1I1

GPIattemptstoargueitlackssuftk ientnoticeoftheclaim againstthem andthelegalbasis

forrelief,yetGPlalso m akesclearin theirintrodudory statementthey tmderstand thisaction

consistsofsix(6)CountswithonlyCotmt11beingagainstGPlandthatCotmt11isaStrictLiability

claim pursuanttoFla.Stat.Chapter376,anddoesnotdisputeGPI'sinvolvem entin thealleged

m onitoringwelldevelopm entinsteadwasmeticuloustom akezeromention ofthetwells''aswell

asçldrillinf'.Therefore,itiswiththeutmostrespectlrequestthisHonorableCourttoDENYwith

preiudice or in the alternative DENY GPI M otion to Dism iss on the grounds ofbeing an

çlmpermissibleShotgunPleadinf'.

G rand Conclusion

Asaresultoftheforegoingresolutionofarguments,IhllmblyrequestthisHonorableCourt

to(DENY with prejudice,orin-the-alternativeDENY)a1lGP1Properties,Inc.'Motion to

Dismiss,orin-the-altem ativetheM otionsthisCourtdeem sfit.

9

Case 9:22-cv-81908-RLR Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 10 of 12
9:22-cv-81908-1V R

CERTIFICATE OF COM PLIANCE W ITH RULE 11(b)

1,M arcM .DulciocertifythisfilingisinaccordancewithFederalRuleofCivilProcedure

Rule11(b)13,andtherefore(1)notbeingpresentedforanyimproperpurpose,suchastoharass,

causellnnecessarydelay,orneedlesslyincreasethecostoflitigation(2)theclaimts),defensets),

andotherlegalcontentionts)arewarrantedbyexisting1aw orbyanonfrivolousargumentfor

l ding modifying exten , , orreversingexisting law orforesàblishing new law,(3)thefactual

contentionts)haveevidentiarysupportor,ifspecificalysoidentified,willlikelyhaveevidentiary

supportafterareasonableopportunityforf'urtherinvestigationordiscovery;and(4)thedenialsof

factualcontentionts)arewarrantedontheevidenceor,ifspeciticalysoidentified,arereasonably

basedonbelieforalackofinformation.

By:

arcM D ulcio @ProSeLitigant

13FRCPRule11(b)RepresentationstotheCourt.Bypresentingtothecourtapleading,writtenmotion,orother

paper-whetherbysigning,hling,submitting,orlateradvocatingit-anattorneyorunrepresentedpartycert6es

thattothebestoftheperson'sknowledge,information,andbeliefformedajteraninquiryreasonableunderthe

circumstances.

10

Case 9:22-cv-81908-RLR Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 11 of 12
9:22-cv-81908-11,R

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1hereby certifythatonJuly 5th2023,lm anually filedtheforegoing docllmentwiththeClerkof

Cotu'tlocatedin W estPalm Beach,FL.Ialsocertifythattheforegoingdocllm entisbeingserved

thisday on a11colm selofrecordidentifiedon theattached ServiceListinthem annerspecified,

eitherviatransmission ofNoticesofElectronicFiling generated by CM /ECF orin aome other

authodzed mnnnerforthosecounselorpartieswho arenotauthorized toreceiveelectronically

NoticesofFiling.

arcM .Dtllcio

SERW CE LIST

DarlielC.Johnson(FBN 522880)

Email:djohnson@carltonfields.com

CarltonFields,P.A.

200 S.OrangeAvenue

Suite1000

Orlando,FL 32801

Telephone:(407)849-0300

Facsimile:(407)648-9099

CounselforDefendantGPIProperties,lnc.U .S.,Inc

CHRISTOPHER J.W HITELOCK

FloridaBarNo.067539

W HITELOCK & A SSOCIATES,P.A .

300SoutheastTllirteenth Street

FortLauderdale,Florida33316

PhoneNo.:(954)463-2001

FacsimileNo.:(954)463-0410

Colm selforFDEp-Defendants

BryanKyleM orlev(FBN 21898)

Foley& M ansfield,PLLP

1462ndStN Suite105

SaintPetersbtzrg,Florida33701

Telephone:727-214-2011

CounselforEarthTechDrilling,Inc.

EdwardSamuelPolk(FBN 239860)

COLE,SCOTT & KISSANE,P.A

9150 SouthDadelandBoulevard,

Suite1400 P.O.Box569015

M iami,Florida33256

Telephone:(305)350-5338

CounselforDefendantGPlProperties,

Inc

11

Case 9:22-cv-81908-RLR Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 12 of 12