1 

MIAMI 9373333.1 84482/88966

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

BROWARD DIVISION 

IN RE: 

SEVEN STARS ON THE HUDSON CASE NO: 20-19106-SMG 

CORPORATION, d/b/a ROCKIN’JUMP 

 Debtor, 

_______________________________________/ 

SEVEN STARS ON THE HUDSON ADVERSARY NO.: 19-01230-SMG 

CORPORATION, d/b/a ROCKIN’JUMP 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MDG POWERLINE HOLDINGS, LLC, 

and XBK MANAGEMENT LLC, d/b/a 

XTREME ACTION PARK, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

DEFENDANT MDG POWERLINE HOLDINGS, LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR PRODUCTION 

Defendant MDG POWERLINE HOLDINGS, LLC (“MDG Powerline”), by and through 

undersigned counsel, hereby submits its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Shorten Time for 

Production [ECF No. 295], and states as follows: 

BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff Seven Stars on the Hudson Corporation (“Seven Stars”) just will not take yes for 

an answer. 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 299 Filed 04/07/22 Page 1 of 14
2 

MIAMI 9373333.1 84482/88966

 Seven weeks ago, MDG Powerline submitted its Verified Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and 

Nontaxable Costs. See ECF No. 258 (the “Fee Motion”). In the Fee Motion, which was verified 

by undersigned counsel Jay Sakalo, MDG Powerline sought to recover $343,518.00 in legal fees 

incurred by MDG Powerline in defending this action. Id. at 13. In support of the Fee Motion, 

undersigned co-counsel Scott Hiaasen submitted a sworn declaration stating under oath that “MDG 

Powerline incurred attorneys’ and paralegal fees from Coffey Burlington in the total amount of 

$329,398.50” through January 31, 2022. Id., Ex. 3. Attached to this declaration are what Mr. 

Hiaasen described, again under oath, as “contemporaneous billing records showing the specific 

tasks performed by each attorney and paralegal involved in the case through the Final Judgment 

entered on January 31, 2022” and “contemporaneous billing records showing the specific tasks 

performed in the preparation of MDG Powerline’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and its Bill of 

Costs.” Id., Exs. 3, 3D & 3F. 

 On March 25, 2022, Seven Stars filed its Response to the Fee Motion. See ECF No. 294. 

Significantly, Seven Stars does not contest MDG Powerline’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees and 

nontaxable costs, and it does not dispute the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged by MDG 

Powerline’s counsel. The only objections raised by Seven Stars in its Response are its complaints 

that counsel’s billing records reflect “block billing” and that certain time entries are either 

excessive or for administrative tasks. Id. Based on these objections, Seven Stars has requested an 

“across the board” reduction of MDG Powerline’s attorneys’ fees by one-third. Thus, Seven Stars 

conceded in its Response that MDG Powerline was entitled to recover two-thirds of its attorneys’ 

fees, and the only potential remaining contested issue to be decided by the Court was how much 

of its remaining fees (above and beyond two-thirds) are recoverable. 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 299 Filed 04/07/22 Page 2 of 14
3 

MIAMI 9373333.1 84482/88966

 After reviewing Seven Stars’ Response, MDG Powerline determined that, in the interest of 

avoiding the cost of additional litigation on fees, it would not contest Seven Stars’ request for a 

one-third “across the board” reduction of its fee application. Undersigned counsel then reached 

out to Seven Stars’ counsel to inform him and his client that MDG Powerline was not opposing 

the requested fee reduction, and to ask if they would agree to the joint submission of an Agreed 

Order and Judgment on attorneys’ fees. 

 In response to this proposal, Seven Stars raised a new issue that was not raised anywhere 

in its Response. Seven Stars claimed for the first time that it believed that MDG Powerline had 

not in fact incurred the attorneys’ fees and costs referenced in the Fee Motion, and that the 

undersigned counsel instead received “a fixed retainer amount.”1

 See Exhibit A, attached. In 

essence, Seven Stars was asserting that the verified Fee Motion and Mr. Hiaasen’s declaration 

were false, and that the billing records attached to the Fee Motion and declaration were fraudulent. 

 Mr. Sakalo repeatedly assured Seven Stars’ counsel as an officer of the Court (and as the 

counsel who verified the Fee Motion under penalty of perjury) that MDG Powerline’s counsel in 

this matter were not on a “fixed retainer,” that the representation was a “purely hourly” 

engagement, that MDG the billing records attached to the Fee Motion were genuine, and that the 

fees sought in the Fee Motion had actually been incurred. See Exhibit B. 

                                                             1 This whole needless episode appears to arise from a misunderstanding of a conversation 

between Seven Stars’ principal, Jens Berding, and one of MDG Powerline’s principals, who 

apparently made reference to another law firm on retainer that MDG Powerline considered 

utilizing as counsel (but ultimately did not) in discussing a separate eviction action now pending 

in Broward Circuit Court. Mr. Sakalo explained this misunderstanding to Seven Stars’ counsel, 

but this has not dissuaded Seven Stars from pursuing discovery or this Motion. 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 299 Filed 04/07/22 Page 3 of 14
4 

MIAMI 9373333.1 84482/88966

 But this was not good enough for Seven Stars: It then served MDG Powerline with 

discovery requests demanding “any and all retainer agreements,”2

 along with “any and all invoices 

or bills reflecting” MDG Powerline’s legal expenses – which of course were previously attached 

to MDG Powerline’s Fee Motion and served to Seven Stars.3 See ECF No. 295 at 8; see also ECF 

No. 258, Exs. 3D & 3F. These discovery requests were followed minutes later by Plaintiff’s 

Motion to expedite discovery.4

 Surely the irony of the situation is not lost on the Court: After accepting a 33 percent 

reduction of its attorneys’ fees in an effort to avoid the additional cost of a protracted fee dispute, 

MDG Powerline is nevertheless getting dragged into needless litigate over its fees – and, to add 

insult to injury, it has been served with additional discovery on attorneys’ fees. 

 The Court should put a stop to Seven Stars’ gamesmanship once and for all and deny its 

Motion, quash its discovery requests, and enter Final Judgment in favor of MDG Powerline as 

requested in its Reply in Support of its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. 

                                                             2 While MDG Powerline has an agreement with Bilzin Sumberg for representation in the 

bankruptcy proceedings (at an hourly rate), it does not have a retainer agreement with Coffey 

Burlington, which billed for most of the fees in the Fee Motion. 3 Due to a software billing issue, Bilzin Sumberg’s billing records were not attached to the 

Fee Motion. On April 6, 2022, Bilzin Sumberg’s billing records in the adversary proceeding were 

filed with the Court. See ECF No. 298. Thus, all billing records supporting MDG Powerline’s Fee 

Motion have now been provided to Seven Stars. 4 Seven Stars has also demanded “documents that evidence payment by MDG Powerline 

Holdings, LLC or for its benefit and which payment was made to its legal counsel.” ECF No. 295 

at 12. This discovery request is wholly inappropriate. The amount that MDG Powerline has paid 

to its counsel to date is irrelevant to MDG Powerline’s entitlement to recover fees from Seven 

Stars (which, again, is uncontested). See, e.g., Alhassid v. Bank of America, N.A., 2015 WL 

11110557, at *7 n.5 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2015) (noting that “[t]o the extent that Plaintiff has not yet 

paid her attorney, Plaintiff’s affidavit serves as evidence of the liability owed to [counsel] at the 

conclusion of the proceedings”); Key West Tourist Dev. Ass’n v. Zazzle, Inc., 2013 WL 12248141, 

at *6 n.15 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2013) (entering order awarding attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff though 

Plaintiff “has not yet paid” counsel’s fees). 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 299 Filed 04/07/22 Page 4 of 14
5 

MIAMI 9373333.1 84482/88966

ARGUMENT 

 As a threshold matter, Seven Stars’ Motion should be denied because there is literally no 

contested issue before the Court, as MDG Powerline has agreed to the one-third reduction of its 

attorneys’ fees requested by Seven Stars – a request that Seven Stars has not withdrawn, despite 

its sudden and untimely demand for discovery on the attorneys’ fee issue. With no contested issue 

before the Court, Seven Stars has no need for any additional discovery, and its Motion should be 

denied. 

 Attorneys’ fees motions are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, which is applicable in this 

adversary proceeding pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7058. As stated in the comments to the Rule, 

“on rare occasion, the court may determine that discovery under Rules 26-37 would be useful to 

the parties.” Comment Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 (emphasis added). This is not one of those occasions. 

 It is well established that a “request for attorney's fees should not result in a second major 

litigation.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). For these reasons, courts commonly 

decline to allow parties to propound additional discovery to address a motion for attorneys’ fees. 

See, e.g., Wachovia Bank v. Tien, 2015 WL 10911506, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2015) (denying 

additional discovery on fees because it “would result in a second major litigation and further 

prolong this already lengthy proceeding”); Silver v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 2014 WL 12167305, 

at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2014) (noting that “discovery related to attorney’s fees is not necessary 

or usual in federal court” and denying motion to compel discovery prior to ruling on attorneys’ 

fees). In this case, the “second major litigation” that Seven Stars apparently seeks to initiate is 

particularly pointless, because – this bears repeating – there is no contested issue regarding 

attorneys’ fees pending before the Court. 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 299 Filed 04/07/22 Page 5 of 14
6 

MIAMI 9373333.1 84482/88966

 As discussed above, Seven Stars did not dispute MDG Powerline’s entitlement to 

attorneys’ fees in its Response to the Fee Motion, nor did it challenge the veracity of the Fee 

Motion or the attached sworn declaration, or the authenticity of the billing records attached to the 

Fee Motion. See ECF No. 294. Thus, Seven Stars has waived any potential objections on these 

grounds based on its failure to timely raise them. See, e.g., Aqua Massage Int’l, Inc. v. Licht, 2005 

WL 8136511, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2005) (defendant waived objections to specific amount of 

attorneys’ fees by failing to raise them in response to fee motion); Tropical Paradise Resorts, LLC 

v. JBSHBM, LLC, 2021 WL 2024424, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 21, 2021) (“it is well established that 

arguments that are not raised are waived”). If Seven Stars really believed that MDG Powerline’s 

counsel was attempting to mislead the Court with fraudulent billing records and false declarations, 

it should have said so in response to the Fee Motion. Having failed to do so, Seven Stars cannot 

be heard to complain now – after MDG Powerline agreed to reduce its fees by the amount Seven 

Stars has requested. 

 In sum, there is simply no reason for this Court to even allow discovery – let alone 

expedited discovery – in this matter. Seven Stars’ substantive claims have been defeated at 

summary judgment, and MDG Powerline’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees is undisputed. The 

parties have agreed on the amount of fees that MDG Powerline may recover. There is no contested 

issue before the Court. Seven Stars is simply attempting to manufacture an issue in a transparent 

attempt to delay or avoid a judgment awarding MDG Powerline its attorneys’ fees. The Court 

should put a stop to Seven Stars’ games. Seven Stars’ Motion to Shorten Time for Production 

[ECF No. 295] should be denied, the discovery requests should be quashed, and the Court should 

enter the proposed Judgment attached to MDG Powerline’s Reply in Support of its Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees. 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 299 Filed 04/07/22 Page 6 of 14
7 

MIAMI 9373333.1 84482/88966

Dated: April 7, 2022. Respectfully submitted, 

 BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA 

 PRICE & AXELROD LLP 

 1450 Brickell Avenue, 23rd Floor 

 Miami, Florida 33131 

 (305) 374-7580 

 By: /s/ Jay M. Sakalo 

 Jay M. Sakalo 

 Fla. Bar No. 156310 

 and 

COFFEY BURLINGTON, P.L. 

2601 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse One 

Miami, Florida 33133 

Tel: 305-858-2900 

Fax: 305-858-5261 

By: ___s/Scott Hiaasen__________ 

Susan E. Raffanello, Florida Bar No. 676446 

sraffanello@coffeyburlington.com 

Scott A. Hiaasen, Florida Bar No.: 103318 

shiaasen@coffeyburlington.com 

lmaltz@coffeyburlington.com 

lperez@coffeyburlington.com 

service@coffeyburlington.com

Counsel for Defendant MDG Powerline 

Holdings, LLC 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 299 Filed 04/07/22 Page 7 of 14
8 

MIAMI 9373333.1 84482/88966

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by Notice of 

Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF, on April 7, 2022, on all counsel or parties of record on 

the below/attached Service List. 

___s/Jay Sakalo__________ 

 

Service List 

Kathleen A. Daly, Esq. 

Counsel for Debtor/Plaintiff 

Law Office of Kathleen A. Daly, P.A. 

515 North Flagler Drive 

Suite P300 

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 

Tel: 561-293-8514 

kdaly@kadalylaw.com 

Gary Brookmyer, Esq. 

Counsel for Debtor/Plaintiff 

Brookmyer, Hochman, Probst 

& Jonas, P.A. 

800 Village Square Crossing 

Suite 201 

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 

Tel: 561-624-2110 

gary@brookmyerlaw.com

Kai Jacobs, Esq. 

Counsel for XBK Management LLC

Kai Jacobs, P.A. 

2222 Ponce de Leon Blvd. 

Coral Gables, Florida 33134 

Tel: 305-768-9846 

kj@sflblg.com

assistant@sflblg.com 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 299 Filed 04/07/22 Page 8 of 14
9 

MIAMI 9373333.1 84482/88966

EXHIBIT A 

 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 299 Filed 04/07/22 Page 9 of 14
1

BSBPA eService

From: Jay M. Sakalo

Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 5:41 PM

To: Gary Brookmyer

Cc: Scott A. Hiaasen

Subject: RE: Seven Stars [IMAN-MIAMI.FID1341003]

Gary – 

As an officer of the court, I can represent and confirm the legal representations are pure hourly 

matters in accordance with sworn affidavits signed by our firm and Coffey Burlington. 

Thank you, 

Jay 

Jay M. Sakalo

Practice Group Leader, Corporate, Finance & 

Restructuring

Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP

1450 Brickell Avenue, 23rd Floor 

Miami, Florida 33131

www.bilzin.com

Tel 305.375.6156

Cell 786.247.1666

Direct Fax 305.351.2253

jsakalo@bilzin.com

From: Gary Brookmyer <gary@brookmyerlaw.com>  

Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 2:34 PM

To: Jay M. Sakalo <jsakalo@bilzin.com>

Subject: Seven Stars

Client questions whether MDG pays hourly or has a fixed retainer amount. He has heard the 

latter and before committing to anything, he would like to see the Retainer Agreement. Please 

advise. 

AS OF JANUARY 28, 2021, OUR NEW ADDRESS IS 

Gary Brookmyer, Esq.  

Brookmyer, Hochman, Probst & Jonas, P.A.  

800 Village Square Crossing

Suite 201

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 299 Filed 04/07/22 Page 10 of 14
2

CAUTION: Please be aware of the increase in cybercrime and fraud. Bilzin Sumberg personnel will not 

ordinarily provide wire transfer or other payment instructions by email relating to the payment of Bilzin 

Sumberg invoices or advance fee deposits. Although payment instructions may be provided by email in 

connection with client matters such as closings, please contact us to obtain verbal verification prior to initiating 

any payments. 

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or 

authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any 

information contained in this message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by 

reply e-mail or reply to info@bilzin.com, and delete the message. Thank you very much. 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 299 Filed 04/07/22 Page 11 of 14
10 

MIAMI 9373333.1 84482/88966

EXHIBIT B 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 299 Filed 04/07/22 Page 12 of 14
1

BSBPA eService

From: Jay M. Sakalo

Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 10:07 AM

To: Gary Brookmyer

Cc: Scott A. Hiaasen

Subject: RE: MDG Powerline [IMAN-MIAMI.FID1341003]

Gary – 

The invoices were attached to the fee motion. Again, I am representing to you this engagement is 

nothing but a pure hourly payment and there is no fixed retainer. 

As for the fees sought, both Coffey Burlington’s fees and Bilzin Sumberg’s fees relate to the 

adversary proceeding and none of them have been paid by the debtor/tenant at any time. The 

payment in the bankruptcy case was a cure amount under the lease and included bankruptcy-only 

(not adversary proceeding) fees. 

We intend to file a response accepting the 2/3 proposal in your objection to the fee 

motion. However, it would be simpler for everyone if we did so with an agreed order. 

Jay 

Jay M. Sakalo

Practice Group Leader, Corporate, Finance & 

Restructuring

Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP

1450 Brickell Avenue, 23rd Floor 

Miami, Florida 33131

www.bilzin.com

Tel 305.375.6156

Cell 786.247.1666

Direct Fax 305.351.2253

jsakalo@bilzin.com

From: Gary Brookmyer <gary@brookmyerlaw.com>  

Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 10:36 AM

To: Jay M. Sakalo <jsakalo@bilzin.com>

Subject: MDG Powerline

Jay: My client would still like to see the Retainer Agreement and invoices. He advises that Mr. 

Dezer informed him that your firm was on a fixed retainer and he needs some evidence to the 

contrary. My client further advises that about $20,000 was paid in rental late fees but then (after 

payment was made to your firm) was forgiven. Were these funds applied to any outstanding 

balance owed to your firm and accounted for? 

AS OF JANUARY 28, 2021, OUR NEW ADDRESS IS 

Gary Brookmyer, Esq.  

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 299 Filed 04/07/22 Page 13 of 14
2

Brookmyer, Hochman, Probst & Jonas, P.A.  

800 Village Square Crossing

Suite 201

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

CAUTION: Please be aware of the increase in cybercrime and fraud. Bilzin Sumberg personnel will not 

ordinarily provide wire transfer or other payment instructions by email relating to the payment of Bilzin 

Sumberg invoices or advance fee deposits. Although payment instructions may be provided by email in 

connection with client matters such as closings, please contact us to obtain verbal verification prior to initiating 

any payments. 

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or 

authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any 

information contained in this message. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by 

reply e-mail or reply to info@bilzin.com, and delete the message. Thank you very much. 

Case 19-01230-SMG Doc 299 Filed 04/07/22 Page 14 of 14