EXHIBIT A

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 1 of 42
1 

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT 

This Settlement and Release Agreement (“Agreement”) is made by, between, and among 

OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, as successor-in-interest to OFFICE DEPOT, INC. (“Office Depot”), on 

the one hand, and JRS HEALTH SERVICES, LLC (“JRS”), RICHARD FALCHA (“Falcha”), 

JEFFREY BISHOP, (“Bishop”), and STUART MILLER (“Miller”) on the other hand. Office 

Depot, JRS, Falcha, Bishop, and Miller are each referred to as a “Party” to this Agreement and 

collectively referred to as the “Parties” to this Agreement. 

RECITALS 

WHEREAS, on May 22, 2020, Office Depot and JRS entered into a Trade Vendor 

Purchase Agreement (“TVA”) and Addendum to TVA; and 

WHEREAS, on August 26, 2020, Office Depot and JRS entered into an additional 

Addendum to Trade Vendor Purchasing Agreement for Glove Purchases (the “Glove 

Addendum”); and 

WHEREAS, on July 1, 2020, pursuant to the TVA and Addendum to TVA, Office Depot 

submitted a purchase order for 300,000 boxes of Hartalega Gloveon Coats Nitrile Powder Free 

Examination Gloves (the “Hartalega Gloves”), for a total purchase price of $2,751,000.00; and 

WHEREAS, on July 2, 2020, Office Depot paid to JRS the sum of $1,375,000.00 toward 

the purchase of the Hartalega Gloves; and 

WHEREAS, on August 26, 2020, pursuant to the TVA and Glove Addendum, Office 

Depot submitted a purchase order for 2,960,000 boxes of 100 Count Intco Synguard Powder Free 

Nitrile Examination Gloves manufactured by Shandong Intco Medical Products Co Ltd (the “Intco 

Gloves”), for a total purchase price of $23,976,000.00; and 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 2 of 42
2 

WHEREAS, on August 27, 2020, Office Depot paid to JRS an initial deposit of 

$10,500,000.00 as partial payment toward the purchase of the Intco Gloves; and 

WHEREAS, a dispute has arisen between the Parties regarding their respective 

performances under the TVA, and the Hartalega and Intco Gloves have not been delivered to 

Office Depot; and 

WHEREAS, on October 28, 2020, JRS returned $1,370,000.00 to Office Depot; and 

WHEREAS, on November 3, 2020, Office Depot advised JRS that it was cancelling its 

orders and demanded a return of all remaining amounts paid to JRS; and 

WHEREAS, on January 15, 2021, Office Depot filed a lawsuit against JRS, Falcha, and 

Bishop in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, 

styled Office Depot, LLC, as successor-in-interest to Office Depot, Inc. v. JRS Health Services, 

LLC, Richard Falcha, and Jeffrey Bishop, Case No. 50-2021-CA-000631 XXXX MB (the “State 

Court Lawsuit”); and 

WHEREAS, on March 2, 2021, Office Depot filed an adversary complaint against Miller 

in the bankruptcy proceeding filed by Miller presently pending in the United States Bankruptcy 

Court, Southern District of Florida, styled In re Stuart Roy Miller, Case No. 20-22497-EPK, with 

the adversary proceeding styled Office Depot, LLC v. Stuart Roy Miller, Adv. Proc. No. 21-01074-

EPK (the “Adversary Proceeding”); and 

WHEREAS, in the State Court Lawsuit and the Adversary Proceeding, Office Depot 

alleged it was entitled to a return of funds in the amount of $10,505,000.00 plus a penalty equal to 

10% of the total price of the cancelled products, in the amount of $2,397,600.00; and 

WHEREAS, there is a bona fide dispute between the Parties as to the Parties’ respective 

claims against each other; and 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 3 of 42
3 

WHEREAS, in the State Court Lawsuit and the Adversary Proceeding, Office Depot 

alleged that Falcha, Bishop, and/or Miller were individually liable for the damages claimed; and 

WHEREAS, JRS, Falcha, Bishop, and Miller represent and warrant that, after Office 

Depot provided the $10,500,000.00 deposit pursuant to the TVA and subsequent addenda, 

$10,350,000.00 of that deposit was provided to suppliers in Asia pursuant to those same 

documents, in an effort to purchase product to be supplied to Office Depot, with the remaining 

$150,000.00 retained for shipping expenses; and 

WHEREAS, JRS, Falcha, Bishop, and Miller represent and warrant that JRS is now in a 

position to sell product that was secured with Office Depot funds; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to settle the State Court Lawsuit, the Adversary 

Proceeding, and any other claims, whether known or unknown, arising out of, relating to, or in any 

way connected with the subject matter of the TVA and subsequent addenda or otherwise, that have 

been made or ever could have been made occurring at any time prior to and including the Effective 

Date of this Agreement; 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises herein stated and other valuable 

consideration by each, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties 

agree as follows: 

AGREEMENT 

1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are regarded by the Parties as true and correct, are 

expressly incorporated by reference into this Agreement, and shall be considered a material term 

and condition of this Agreement. 

2. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date that the last 

Party has executed this Agreement, and that date shall be the “Effective Date” as referred to herein. 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 4 of 42
4 

3. Settlement of All Claims. This Agreement settles and resolves all disputes, 

disagreements, claims, and conflicts between the Parties including, but not limited to, all claims 

that were or could have been asserted or brought by the Parties arising out of or relating to the 

TVA, the Glove Addendum, and any subsequent addenda, as well as all claims that were or could 

have been asserted or brought by the Parties relating to any conduct or event occurring at any time 

prior to and including the Effective Date of this Agreement, including but not limited to all claims 

that were or could have been asserted in the State Court Lawsuit or the Adversary Proceeding. 

4. Payment and Performance. 

(a) In consideration for the release and dismissal of the State Court Lawsuit and 

the Adversary Proceeding, with prejudice, JRS shall pay Office Depot a 

total of EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($8,000,000.00) 

(the “Settlement Amount”) as follows: 

i. JRS shall pay Office Depot ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND 

DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($150,000.00) no later than five (5) 

business days after the Effective Date of this Agreement. 

ii. JRS shall pay Office Depot SEVEN MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED 

FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS 

($7,850,000.00) on or before June 21, 2021. 

(b) The payments of the Settlement Amount set forth in section 4(a) above shall 

be paid by wire transfer into the account designated by Office Depot. Office 

Depot shall provide JRS with wire instructions upon execution of the 

Settlement Agreement by all Parties. 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 5 of 42
5 

(c) No later than five business days after the Effective Date of this Agreement, 

Office Depot shall file a motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking 

dismissal of the Adversary Proceeding, with prejudice, in the form of the 

joint motion attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and submit to the Bankruptcy 

Court an order of dismissal in the form of the order attached hereto as 

Exhibit 2. The dismissal of the Adversary Proceeding is contingent upon 

approval of this Agreement by the Bankruptcy Court as it pertains to Miller, 

with the Bankruptcy Court retaining jurisdiction to enter a nondischargeable final judgment against Miller in the event of JRS’s default, as 

set forth in section 5 below. 

(d) No later than five business days after payment in full of the Settlement 

Amount by JRS and receipt of same by Office Depot, Office Depot shall 

file a stipulation of dismissal of the State Court Lawsuit, with prejudice, in 

the form of the stipulation attached hereto as Exhibit 3, and submit to the 

State Court an order of dismissal in the form of the order attached hereto as 

Exhibit 4. 

5. Default by JRS. If JRS fails to make any payment under this Agreement as set forth 

in section 4(a) above, Office Depot shall provide notice to JRS of its default(s). If JRS fails to 

cure any default within five business days of such notice, Office Depot shall be entitled to: 

(a) The entry of a consent final judgment in the State Court Lawsuit against 

JRS, Falcha, and Bishop, jointly and severally, in the amount of TEN 

MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS 

($10,500,000.00), less any amounts previously paid by JRS toward the 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 6 of 42
6 

Settlement Amount (“Consent Final Judgment”). The motion for entry of a 

Consent Final Judgment in the State Court Lawsuit shall be in the form of 

the motion attached hereto as Exhibit 5, and the Consent Final Judgment 

shall be in the form of the order attached hereto as Exhibit 6. 

(b) The entry of a non-dischargeable final judgment in the Adversary 

Proceeding against Miller adjudicating Miller jointly and severally liable 

for the amount of the Consent Final Judgment in the State Court Lawsuit 

along with JRS, Falcha, and Bishop. The motion to enforce this Agreement 

and for entry of the non-dischargeable final judgment in the Adversary 

Proceeding shall be in the form of the motion attached hereto as Exhibit 7, 

and the final judgment shall be in the form of the order attached hereto as 

Exhibit 8. 

6. Mutual Release of Claims. 

(a) Upon JRS’s performance of its obligations set forth in section 4 of this 

Agreement, Office Depot and its representatives, predecessors, successors, 

beneficiaries, agents and assigns, hereby release, acquit, waive, satisfy and 

forever discharge JRS, Falcha, Bishop, and Miller and their administrators, 

directors, officers, shareholders, agents, present and former employees, 

representatives, servants, insurers, attorneys, affiliates, predecessors, 

successors and assigns, of and from any and all claims, demands, 

obligations, damages, actions, causes of actions, suits, debts, dues, sums of 

money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, covenants, contracts, 

controversies, agreements, promises, variances, trespasses, damages, 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 7 of 42
7 

judgments, executions and demands, direct or indirect, in law or in equity, 

which Office Depot and its representatives, predecessors, successors, 

beneficiaries, agents and assigns, ever had, now have, or hereafter can, shall 

or may have, against JRS, Falcha, Bishop, and Miller and their 

administrators, directors, officers, shareholders, agents, present and former 

employees, representatives, servants, insurers, attorneys, affiliates, 

predecessors, successors and assigns, for any cause whatsoever, from the 

beginning of the world through the Effective Date of this Agreement, 

including but not limited to all claims arising out of, relating to, or in any 

way connected with the subject matter of the TVA, the Glove Addendum, 

and any subsequent addenda and all claims alleged or that could have been 

alleged in the State Court Lawsuit or the Adversary Proceeding. 

(b) Upon Office Depot’s performance of its obligations set forth in section 4 of 

this Agreement, JRS, Falcha, Bishop, and Miller and their representatives, 

predecessors, successors, beneficiaries, agents and assigns, hereby release, 

acquit, waive, satisfy and forever discharge Office Depot and its 

administrators, directors, officers, shareholders, agents, present and former 

employees, representatives, servants, insurers, attorneys, affiliates, 

predecessors, successors and assigns, of and from any and all claims, 

demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of actions, suits, debts, 

dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, bonds, bills, specialties, 

covenants, contracts, controversies, agreements, promises, variances, 

trespasses, damages, judgments, executions and demands, direct or indirect, 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 8 of 42
8 

in law or in equity, which JRS, Falcha, Bishop, and Miller and their 

representatives, predecessors, successors, beneficiaries, agents and assigns, 

ever had, now have, or hereafter can, shall or may have, against Office 

Depot and its administrators, directors, officers, shareholders, agents, 

present and former employees, representatives, servants, insurers, attorneys, 

affiliates, predecessors, successors and assigns, for any cause whatsoever, 

from the beginning of the world through the Effective Date of this 

Agreement, including but not limited to all claims arising out of, relating to, 

or in any way connected with the subject matter of the TVA, the Glove 

Addendum, and any subsequent addenda and all claims alleged or that could 

have been alleged in the State Court Lawsuit or the Adversary Proceeding. 

7. Fees and Costs. Each Party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees in 

connection with the State Court Lawsuit and Adversary Proceeding. Notwithstanding the 

foregoing, if any Party files a motion or action to enforce the terms of this Agreement, including 

but not limited to the motions set forth in section 5 above or an action in aid of execution of any 

judgment entered, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to an award of its attorneys’ fees, expenses, 

and costs incurred in enforcing this Agreement. 

8. Notice. Any notice required by this Agreement shall be sent via FedEx next day 

delivery and email on the individuals set forth below. Notice shall be effective as of the later of 

1) the date and time located on the email sent to the above email addresses or 2) the date and time 

provided in the FedEx delivery confirmation. 

(a) If to Office Depot: 

Kimberly J. Freedman 

Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 9 of 42
9 

One Biscayne Tower, 21st Floor 

2 South Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: 305.373.9400 

kimberly.freedman@nelsonmullins.com 

and 

Fred M. Wood, Jr. 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough 

One Wells Fargo Center 

301 South College Street, 23rd Floor 

Charlotte, NC 28202 

Telephone: 704.417.3059 

fred.wood@nelsonmullins.com 

(b) If to JRS, Falcha, Bishop, and/or Miller: 

Anthony R. McClure 

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP 

9132 Strada Place, Third Floor 

Naples, Florida 34108 

Telephone: 239.593.2900 

amcclure@porterwright.com 

and 

Theodore R. Walters 

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP 

9132 Strada Place, Third Floor 

Naples, Florida 34108 

Telephone: 239.593.2900 

twalters@porterwright.com 

and 

Sara K. White 

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP 

9132 Strada Place, Third Floor 

Naples, Florida 34108 

Telephone: 239.593.2900 

swhite@porterwright.com 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 10 of 42
10 

9. Confidentiality. The Parties agree that the terms and provisions of this Agreement, 

including the amount of the consideration and discussions surrounding the making of the 

Agreement, are and shall remain confidential, and they agree not to disclose them to any other 

person, or in any manner notify, provide, publish, publicize, disclose, disseminate, or in any way 

make known to a third person, organization, or entity, except: 

(a) To a Party’s spouse; 

(b) To a Party’s attorney; 

(c) As required by sections 4(c) and 5(b) above for purposes of seeking 

dismissal of the Adversary Proceeding, and, in the event of JRS’s default, 

seeking the entry of the non-dischargeable judgment against Miller, in 

which case the Agreement shall be made available to the Bankruptcy Court 

for review and approval, to the Bankruptcy Trustee, and to other creditors 

and interested parties in Bankruptcy Case No. 20-22497 to the extent 

required by law or otherwise ordered by the Bankruptcy Court. The Parties 

expressly acknowledge that this Agreement shall be filed on the docket in 

the Adversary Proceeding and in Bankruptcy Case No. 20-22497, for 

purposes of obtaining necessary Court approval of the Agreement and to 

effectuate the dismissal of the Adversary Proceeding against Miller. The 

Parties expressly agree that filing the Agreement on the bankruptcy docket 

for these purposes does not violate this confidentiality provision. Further, 

the Parties expressly agree that the draft motions, order, and judgment at 

Exhibits 1, 2, 7, and 8 of this Agreement do not violate this confidentiality 

provision and that such draft motions, order, and judgment may be filed on 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 11 of 42
11 

the docket in the Adversary Proceeding and Bankruptcy Case No. 20-22497 

as necessary to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement; 

(d) In connection with a motion or action to enforce this Agreement, including 

but not limited to the filings addressed in section 5 above; 

(e) As may be required in connection with preparing and filing tax returns, 

financial statements or disclosures, any company audit, or for other 

regulatory purposes; 

(f) As may be required by the order of a court of competent jurisdiction or law 

enforcement; and 

(g) As otherwise required by law, such as, but not limited to, a subpoena, or 

any disclosure requirement in any way related to the public or private 

companies. 

10. Non-Disparagement. The Parties agree, as a material term of this Agreement, to 

immediately cease any conduct, and to refrain from any conduct in the future which impugns the 

quality, reputation, integrity, or character of any other Party to this Agreement or any other Party’s 

products, services, or employees. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties shall be permitted to 

respond truthfully to inquiries made of the Parties so stating that “the matter was settled.” 

The Parties shall also be permitted to respond truthfully to inquiries made of the Parties, if 

the Parties are served with a subpoena or other legal process in the context of a legal action or if 

the Parties are required to testify in a government administrative action or make any disclosure 

required by law in connection with any requirement for public or private companies; responding 

truthfully in such scenarios will not be considered a breach of this Agreement. If a Party believes 

that another Party has not responded truthfully, then the accusatory Party bears the burden of 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 12 of 42
12 

proving that the accused Party did not respond truthfully. The Parties further agree that any 

violation of this non-disparagement provision may be redressed by means of injunctive relief and 

specific performance, in addition to any other remedies provided by law for breach of the 

Agreement or otherwise. 

11. No Admissions. The Parties understand and agree that this Agreement is a 

compromise of disputed claims, and that the execution of this Agreement is not to be construed as 

an admission of liability by any Party. All Parties expressly deny any such liability. 

12. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall 

be deemed an original. All counterparts shall together constitute one and the same document. For 

purposes of execution, a document signed and transmitted by email or facsimile shall be treated as 

an original. 

13. Cooperation. The Parties agree they will sign and deliver any documents or do 

anything else necessary in the future to make the provisions and intent of this Agreement effective 

without receiving further consideration. 

14. Waiver. The failure of any Party at any time to require full compliance with the 

strict terms of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any Party’s right to fully enforce any 

term or provision within this Agreement or to pursue any remedy allowable by law for any breach 

of this Agreement. This Agreement and any provision within this Agreement may only be waived 

by a writing signed by the waiving Party. 

15. Advice of Counsel/Acknowledgement. The Parties warrant and represent that this 

Agreement was signed only after due consideration by each Party and in consultation with, or the 

opportunity to consult with, their respective counsel, and that no Party was fraudulently induced, 

coerced, or intimidated to sign this Agreement. The Parties further warrant and represent that they 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 13 of 42
13 

have each carefully read and understand the terms and effect of this Agreement and all documents 

executed, to be executed, and to be filed with or entered by the State Court and Bankruptcy Court 

in connection herewith. 

16. Authority. Each of the Parties to this Agreement represents, warrants, and affirms 

that the signatory on behalf of each Party is fully authorized to sign for and bind that Party and its 

or their beneficiaries, if any, and the signatory for each Party hereby represents, warrants, and 

affirms that they have executed and delivered this Agreement with full capacity and intent to bind 

that Party hereby. 

17. Survival and Benefits. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the 

benefit of the Parties’ officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, representatives, 

attorneys, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, general or limited partners or members heirs, executors, 

administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns. 

18. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is an integrated agreement and represents the 

entire and final understanding of the Parties relative to the subject matter described herein and 

supersedes all prior or contemporaneous negotiations, correspondence, conversation, agreements, 

or understandings applicable to the matters contained herein. The Parties agree that there are no 

commitments, agreements, representations, or understandings concerning the subject matter of the 

Agreement that are not contained in this Agreement. No other communications (written or oral) 

or documents, including correspondence between counsel, shall be construed as a part of or 

interpretation of this Agreement. 

19. No Oral Modification. This Agreement may not be altered, amended, modified, or 

rescinded in any way except by written instrument duly executed by the Parties. 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 14 of 42
14 

20. Headings. The headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes 

only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 

21. No Presumption of Authorship. The Parties acknowledge, represent, and agree that 

each Party has been afforded a full opportunity to and has negotiated the terms of this Agreement. 

No Party, or counsel to any Party, shall be deemed the drafter of this Agreement. 

22. Severability. The Parties understand and agree that if any term, condition, or other 

provision contained in this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be 

invalid or unenforceable in any manner, all other terms, conditions, and provisions within the 

Agreement shall be unaffected by such invalidity or unenforceability and shall remain in full force 

and effect. 

23. Governing Law. The substantive law of Florida governs every aspect of this 

Agreement. The Federal and State courts located in Palm Beach County, Florida, including to the 

extent applicable and provided by law the Federal Bankruptcy Court located in Palm Beach 

County, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes arising out of or relating to any aspect 

of this Agreement, including the enforcement, performance, or interpretation of same. 

[SIGNATURE BLOCKS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 15 of 42
Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 16 of 42
Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 17 of 42
Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 18 of 42
Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 19 of 42
1 

Exhibit 1 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM DIVISION 

In re: 

STUART ROY MILLER, Case No.: 20-22497-EPK 

Debtor. Chapter 11 

__________________________/ 

MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

BETWEEN OFFICE DEPOT, LLC AND STUART ROY MILLER 

Office Depot, LLC, as successor in interest to Office Depot, Inc. ("Office Depot"), pursuant 

to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), respectfully requests that the Court approve a 

proposed settlement agreement between with JRS Health Services, LLC ("JRS"), Richard Falcha 

("Falcha"), Jeffrey Bishop ("Bishop") and Stuart Roy Miller ("Miller" or the "Debtor"), with respect 

to Office Depot and the Debtor. In support of these requests Office Debtor states: 

BACKGROUND 

1. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the United States 

Bankruptcy Code on November 13, 2020. ECF No. 1. 

2. The case was converted to chapter 7 on March 8, 2021, and Michael Bakst has been 

appointed as the chapter 7 trustee. ECF Nos. 87 and 88. 

A. Office Depot's Claims. 

3. Office Depot is a nationwide retail office supplier and creditor, and is also a creditor 

of the Debtor. 

4. Specifically, Office Depot and JRS were parties to a May 2020 trade vendor 

purchase agreement (as amended, the "TVA"), pursuant to which Office Depot was to purchase 

gloves and other supplies from JRS. In July and August 2020, Office Depot submitted purchase 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 20 of 42
2 

Exhibit 1 

orders to JRS under the TVA, and paid JRS a total of $11,875,000.00 towards its purchase orders. 

5. The products purchased by Office Depot have not been delivered, and a dispute 

arose between the parties regarding their performances under the TVA. 

6. On October 28, 2020 JRS returned $1,370,000.00 to Office Depot. However, on 

January 15, 2021 Office Depot sued JRS and two of its members, Falcha and Bishop, in the Circuit 

Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 50-2021-

CA-000631 XXXX MB (the "State Court Lawsuit"). On March 2, 2021 Office Depot filed an 

adversary complaint against the Debtor, who also was a member of JRS, in this bankruptcy case, 

Adv. Proc. No. 21-01074-EPK (the "Adversary Proceeding"). Through the Adversary Proceeding, 

Office Depot seeks to liquidate its claims against the Debtor and deem them non-dischargeable 

under 11 U.S.C. § 523. 

B. The Proposed Settlement. 

7. A bona fide dispute exists between the parties regarding the TVA and amounts 

owed thereunder. 

8. The parties wish to settle the State Court Lawsuit, Adversary Proceeding, and any 

other claims related to the subject matter of the TVA and amounts owing thereunder. Following 

settlement discussions the parties have prepared a proposed settlement agreement (the 

"Agreement"). A copy of the Agreement is attached as EXHIBIT "A". 

9. The material terms of the Agreement, as it pertains to Debtor, are as follows:1

ù JRS shall pay Office Depot a sum certain (the “Settlement Amount”) 

through two installments. 

ù Office Depot shall file a motion with this Court seeking to dismiss the 

Adversary Proceeding with prejudice; provided, however, that the dismissal 

1 Settlement terms are summarized herein for convenience purposes only. Interested parties are 

encouraged to read and review the Settlement in its entirety. To any extent the terms of the Settlement 

conflict with this motion, the Settlement shall control.

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 21 of 42
3 

Exhibit 1 

is contingent upon approval of the Agreement by this Court as it pertains to 

the Debtor, and the Court retaining jurisdiction to enter a non-dischargeable 

final judgment in the event of a default by JRS. 

ù Upon payment of the Settlement Amount in full by JRS, Office Depot shall 

file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice in the State Court Lawsuit. 

ù In the event JRS fails to make any payment under the Agreement, and fails 

to cure after notice, Office Depot shall be entitled to: (a) entry of a consent 

final judgment in the State Court Lawsuit against JRS, Falcha and Bishop, 

jointly and severally, in the amount of $10,500,000.00 less any amounts 

paid on the Settlement Amount, and (b) entry of a non-dischargeable 

judgment against the Debtor in the Adversary Proceeding, which holds him 

jointly and severally liable, with JRS, Falcha and Bishop, for the amount of 

the consent judgment in the State Court Lawsuit. 

ù Upon full performance by JRS and payment of the Settlement Amount in 

full, the parties shall exchange general releases. 

ù Subject to various exceptions, including being filed in this bankruptcy case 

for Court approval, the Agreement is confidential. 

10. Office Depot requests that the Court approve the Settlement with respect to Office 

Depot and the Debtor for purposes of resolving this Adversary Proceeding. 

ARGUMENT 

By its terms, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9019, which governs proposed settlements, is limited to 

motions filed by estate representatives such as trustees or debtors in possession. See Fed. R. Bankr. 

P. 9019(a). The Debtor is no longer the representative of his bankruptcy estate. As such, Fed. R. 

Bankr. P. 9019 does not apply to the Agreement. See In re McKay, 443 B.R. 511, 522–23 (Bankr. 

D. Ark. 2010) (settlement between creditor and chapter 7 debtor was not governed by Rule 9019 

and did not require court approval) (citing cases). 

Rather, Office Depot seeks approval of the settlement and the ultimate dismissal of the 

Adversary Proceeding through Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Rule 41(a)(2), which applies in adversary 

proceedings and contested matters through Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7041 and 9014, states in relevant part 

that "an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 22 of 42
4 

Exhibit 1 

court considers proper." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Given the phrase "on terms that the court 

considers proper," a court analyzing Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal request "must exercise its broad 

equitable discretion . . . to weigh the relevant equities and do justice between the parties . . . 

attaching such conditions to the dismissal as are adeemed appropriate." McCants v. Ford Motor 

Co., Inc., 781 F.2d 855, 857 (11th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). Dismissal on a Rule 41(a)(2) 

motion "is within the sound discretion of the district court, and its order may be reviewed only for 

an abuse of discretion." Id.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has determined that district courts may retain ancillary 

jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements if provided in a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal order: 

If the parties wish to provide for the court's enforcement of a 

dismissal-producing settlement agreement, they can seek to do so. 

When the dismissal is pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(2), which specifies that the action "shall not be dismissed at 

the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such 

terms and conditions as the court deems proper," the parties' 

compliance with the terms of the settlement contract (or the court's 

"retention of jurisdiction" over the settlement contract) may, in the 

court's discretion, be one of the terms set forth in the order. Even 

when, as occurred here, the dismissal is pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(1)(ii) (which does not by its terms empower a district court to 

attach conditions to the parties' stipulation of dismissal) we think the 

court is authorized to embody the settlement contract in its dismissal 

order or, what has the same effect, retain jurisdiction over the 

settlement contract) if the parties agree. 

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994) 

(emphasis removed). 

The Court should exercise its discretion to approve the Agreement with respect to the 

Debtor and Office Depot, which will result in the dismissal of the Adversary Proceeding, while 

retaining jurisdiction to enter a default judgment against the Debtor. The Agreement is the result 

of extensive, good faith negotiations between the parties. Its approval will resolve two cases, the 

State Court Lawsuit and Adversary Proceeding, that otherwise will be heavily litigated for a 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 23 of 42
5 

Exhibit 1 

substantial period of time. Approval of the Agreement conserves the resources of the parties, 

promotes judicial economy and does not prejudice any interested party. 

Finally, to the extent Rule 41(a)(2) dismissals are not approved, it is often because the 

parties have not placed temporal or other limits on jurisdiction in the event of a default. See Brass 

Smith, LLC v. RPI Indus., Inc., 827 F.Supp.2d 377, 383 (D. N.J. 2011) ("The difficulty with the 

parties' proposed language is that there are no temporal or other limits to the Court's jurisdiction 

over the settlement agreement."). The issues in Brass Smith are not present here, because the 

parties simply request that the Court retain jurisdiction to enter a default judgment against Debtor 

in the event JRS defaults in paying the Settlement Amount. Under the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement, JRS will either pay the Settlement Amount in full or default within less than two 

months, i.e. by June 2021. Thus, there is a built-in temporal limit of this Court's jurisdiction over 

the Settlement. 

Approval of the Settlement is appropriate under Rule 41(a)(2), and the Court should grant 

the Motion. 

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank] 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 24 of 42
6 

Exhibit 1 

WHEREFORE, Office Depot respectfully requests that this Court enter an order: (1) 

approving the Agreement with respect to Office Depot and the Debtor, (2) dismissing the Adversary 

Proceeding with prejudice, (3) reserving jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the Agreement, and 

enter a default judgment against the Debtor as provided for therein, and (4) providing for such 

further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

Dated ______, 2021 

SHRAIBERG, LANDAU & PAGE, P.A. 

Attorneys for Office Depot 

2385 NW Executive Center Drive, Suite 300 

Boca Raton, Florida 33431 

Telephone: 561-443-0800 

Facsimile: 561-998-0047 

Email: bss@slp.law 

Email: pdorsey@slp.law 

By: /s/ Bradley Shraiberg

 Bradley Shraiberg, Esq. 

 Fla. Bar. No. 121622 

 Patrick Dorsey, Esq. 

 Fla. Bar. No. 0085841 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via 

CM/ECF Notice of Electronic Filing to all parties registered to receive electronic noticing in this 

case on ______, 2021. 

 By: /s/ Bradley Shraiberg

 Bradley Shraiberg, Esq. 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 25 of 42
1 

Exhibit 2 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM DIVISION 

In re: 

STUART ROY MILLER, Case No.: 20-22497-EPK 

Debtor. Chapter 11 

__________________________/ 

OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, 

Plaintiff. 

v. Adv. Proc. No. 21-01074-EPK 

STUART ROY MILLER, 

Defendant. 

__________________________/ 

ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND DISMISSING 

ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NO. 21-01074-EPK, WITH PREJUDICE 

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement 

Between Office Depot, LLC and Sturt Roy Miller[D.E. # __ ], filed by the Plaintiff, OFFICE 

DEPOT, LLC. (“Office Depot”). The Court, having considered the Motion, having reviewed the 

portions of the Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement (“Agreement”) that pertain to 

Defendant, Stuart Roy Miller (“Miller”), and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is 

hereby: 

ORDERED AND ADJUGED as follows: 

1. The Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement Between Office Depot, LLC and 

Stuart Roy Miller is GRANTED. 

2. The Agreement, as it pertains to the Miller, is approved, and Office Depot and 

Miller are authorized to take any and all necessary actions to effectuate the terms of the Agreement. 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 26 of 42
2 

Exhibit 2 

3. Adversary Proceeding No. 21-01074-EPK is DISMISSED, with prejudice. 

4. The Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Agreement as it pertains 

to Miller, including but not limited to the entry of a non-dischargeable final 

judgment against Miller upon default by JRS Health Services, LLC of its 

obligations under the Agreement as set forth therein. 

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida this _____ day of ______, 

2021. 

Erik P. Kimball, Bankruptcy Judge 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 27 of 42
1 

Exhibit 3 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 

15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND 

FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION 

CASE NO. 50-2021-CA-000631 XXXX MB 

OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company, as 

successor-in-interest, to OFFICE DEPOT, 

INC., a Delaware Corporation 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

JRS HEALTH SERVICES LLC, a Florida 

Limited Liability Company, and RICHARD 

FALCHA, an Individual, and JEFFREY 

BISHOP, an Individual, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff, OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, as successor-in-interest to OFFICE DEPOT, INC., and 

Defendants, JRS HEALTH SERVICES LLC, RICHARD FALCHA, and JEFFREY BISHOP, by 

and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.420(a)(1)(B), Fla. R. Civ. P., hereby submit 

this Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, and agree as follows: 

1. The parties have entered into a settlement agreement that fully resolves all claims 

raised in this action. 

2. The parties agree that all claims raised, or that could have been raised, in this matter 

shall be dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing their own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

[SIGNATURE BLOCKS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 28 of 42
2 

Exhibit 3 

Dated: ________, 2021 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel 

By: /s/ 

Kimberly J. Freedman 

Fla. Bar No. 71826 

kimberly.freedman@nelsonmullins.com 

One Biscayne Tower, 21st Floor 

2 South Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: 305.373.9400 

Facsimile: 305.373.9443 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Office Depot, LLC, as 

successor-in-interest to Office Depot, Inc.

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP 

By: /s/ 

Theodore R. Walters 

Fla. Bar No. 0985813 

twalters@porterwright.com 

Anthony R. McClure 

Fla. Bar No. 102753 

amcclure@porterwright.com 

Sara K. White 

Fla. Bar No. 086014 

swhite@porterwright.com 

9132 Strada Place, Third Floor 

Naples, Florida 34108 

Telephone: 239.593.2900 

Facsimile: 239.593.2990 

Attorneys for Defendants, JRS Health 

Services LLC, Richard Falcha, and Jeffrey 

Bishop 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 29 of 42
1 

Exhibit 4 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 

15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND 

FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION 

CASE NO. 50-2021-CA-000631 XXXX MB 

OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company, as 

successor-in-interest, to OFFICE DEPOT, 

INC., a Delaware Corporation 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

JRS HEALTH SERVICES LLC, a Florida 

Limited Liability Company, and RICHARD 

FALCHA, an Individual, and JEFFREY 

BISHOP, an Individual, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal 

with Prejudice, and the Court having been advised of an agreement between the parties, and being 

otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby: 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. All claims or causes of action raised, or that could have been raised, in this matter 

are hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

2. All pending motions are denied as moot. 

3. The parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 30 of 42
2 

Exhibit 4 

4. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Agreement. 

DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this _____ day 

of ________________________, 2020. 

John S. Kastrenakes, Circuit Judge 

Copies furnished to: 

Kimberly J. Freedman: kimberly.freedman@nelsonmullins.com

Theodore R. Walters: twalters@porterwright.com

Anthony R. McClure: amcclure@porterwright.com

Sara K. White: swhite@porterwright.com

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 31 of 42
1 

Exhibit 5 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 

15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND 

FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION 

CASE NO. 50-2021-CA-000631 XXXX MB 

OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company, as 

successor-in-interest, to OFFICE DEPOT, 

INC., a Delaware Corporation 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

JRS HEALTH SERVICES LLC, a Florida 

Limited Liability Company, and RICHARD 

FALCHA, an Individual, and JEFFREY 

BISHOP, an Individual, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT FINAL JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff, OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, as successor-in-interest to OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 

(“Office Depot”), and Defendants, JRS HEALTH SERVICES LLC (“JRS”), RICHARD FALCHA 

(“Falcha”), and JEFFREY BISHOP (“Bishop” and, collectively “Defendants”), by and through 

undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1.420(a)(1)(B), Fla. R. Civ. P., hereby move for the entry 

of a consent final judgment against the Defendants, and state as follows: 

1. Office Depot initiated this action against Defendants on January 15, 2021. 

2. The parties subsequently resolved this dispute by entering into a Confidential 

Settlement and Release Agreement (“Agreement”), the effective date of which is May ____, 2021. 

3. Pursuant to the Agreement, the parties agreed to the entry of a consent final 

judgment in this matter against JRS, Falcha, and Bishop, jointly and severally, in the amount of 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 32 of 42
2 

Exhibit 5 

TEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS 

($10,500,000.00), less any amounts previously paid by JRS toward the total settlement amount, 

should JRS default on its payment obligations under the Agreement. 

4. JRS defaulted on its payment obligations under section 4(a) of the Agreement. 

5. Office Depot provided notice to JRS of its default(s) pursuant to the notice 

provision of the Agreement. 

6. JRS failed to cure its default(s) within five business days of such notice. 

7. Prior to its default(s), JRS paid Office Depot the total amount of $______________. 

8. Accordingly, the parties agree that Office Depot is entitled to the entry of a consent 

final judgment against JRS, Falcha, and Bishop, jointly and severally, in the amount of 

[$10,500,000.00 less the amount identified in paragraph 7], and they respectfully request that 

this Court enter a consent final judgment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Office Depot, and Defendants, JRS, Falcha, and Bishop, 

respectfully request that this Court grant this motion and enter the consent final judgment attached 

hereto, as well as any and all further relief the Court deems just and proper. 

[SIGNATURE BLOCKS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 33 of 42
3 

Exhibit 5 

Dated: ________, 2021 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel 

By: /s/ 

Kimberly J. Freedman 

Fla. Bar No. 71826 

kimberly.freedman@nelsonmullins.com 

One Biscayne Tower, 21st Floor 

2 South Biscayne Boulevard 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: 305.373.9400 

Facsimile: 305.373.9443 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Office Depot, LLC, as 

successor-in-interest to Office Depot, Inc.

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP 

By: /s/ 

Theodore R. Walters 

Fla. Bar No. 0985813 

twalters@porterwright.com 

Anthony R. McClure 

Fla. Bar No. 102753 

amcclure@porterwright.com 

Sara K. White 

Fla. Bar No. 086014 

swhite@porterwright.com 

9132 Strada Place, Third Floor 

Naples, Florida 34108 

Telephone: 239.593.2900 

Facsimile: 239.593.2990 

Attorneys for Defendants, JRS Health 

Services LLC, Richard Falcha, and Jeffrey 

Bishop 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 34 of 42
1 

Exhibit 6 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 

15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND 

FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION 

CASE NO. 50-2021-CA-000631 XXXX MB 

OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company, as 

successor-in-interest, to OFFICE DEPOT, 

INC., a Delaware Corporation 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

JRS HEALTH SERVICES LLC, a Florida 

Limited Liability Company, and RICHARD 

FALCHA, an Individual, and JEFFREY 

BISHOP, an Individual, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________/ 

CONSENT FINAL JUDGMENT 

THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court on the Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of 

Consent Final Judgment (“Joint Motion”), and the Court, having reviewed the Joint Motion, 

having been advised by the parties that Plaintiff, OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, as successor-in-interest 

to OFFICE DEPOT, INC. (“Office Depot”), and Defendants, JRS HEALTH SERVICES LLC 

(“JRS”), RICHARD FALCHA (“Falcha”), and JEFFREY BISHOP (“Bishop”), have agreed and 

consented to the entry of this consent final judgment, and being otherwise fully advised in the 

premises, it is hereby: 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Joint Motion is GRANTED. 

2. Final judgment is entered in favor Office Depot, whose principal address is 6600 

North Military Trail, Boca Raton, Florida, 33496. 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 35 of 42
2 

Exhibit 6 

3. Office Depot shall recover from Defendants JRS, whose principal address is 1761 

Annandale Circle, Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411; Falcha, whose address is 1761 Annandale 

Circle, Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411; and Bishop, whose address is 3172 SE Fairway Drive 

West, Stuart, Florida 34997, jointly and severally, the total amount of [$10,500,000.00 less the 

amount identified in paragraph 7 of the Joint Motion], which amount shall bear interest from 

year to year at the annual rate provided by law, for all of which let execution issue. 

4. Each of the Defendants shall complete under oath a Fact Information Sheet (Florida 

Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.977), including all required attachments, and serve it on counsel 

for Office Depot within forty-five (45) days of the date of this consent final judgment unless the 

judgment is satisfied or post-judgment discovery is stayed. 

5. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, to 

enforce the judgment debtors’ compliance with this consent final judgment, to enter all postjudgment orders as may be necessary and proper related to the collection on this judgment, and to 

enter further orders as the Court deems just and proper. 

DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this _____ day 

of ________________________, 2020. 

John S. Kastrenakes, Circuit Judge 

Copies furnished to: 

Kimberly J. Freedman: kimberly.freedman@nelsonmullins.com

Theodore R. Walters: twalters@porterwright.com

Anthony R. McClure: amcclure@porterwright.com

Sara K. White: swhite@porterwright.com

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 36 of 42
1 

Exhibit 7 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM DIVISION 

In re: 

STUART ROY MILLER, Case No.: 20-22497-EPK 

Debtor. Chapter 11 

__________________________/ 

OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, 

Plaintiff. 

v. Adv. Proc. No. 21-01074-EPK 

STUART ROY MILLER, 

Defendant. 

__________________________/ 

JOINT MOTION TO ENFORCE CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 

AGREEMENT AND FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST MILLER 

Plaintiff, OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, as successor-in-interest to OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 

(“Office Depot”), and Debtor/Defendant, STUART ROY MILLER (“Miller”), by and through 

undersigned counsel, hereby move to enforces the parties’ Confidential Settlement and Release 

Agreement and for the entry of a non-dischargeable final judgment against Miller, and state as 

follows: 

1. Office Depot initiated this Adversary Proceeding against Miller on March 2, 2021. 

2. Office Depot and Miller subsequently resolved this dispute by entering into a 

Confidential Settlement and Release Agreement (“Agreement”), the effective date of which is May 

____, 2021. 

3. JRS Health Services LLC (“JRS”), Richard Falcha (“Falcha”), and Jeffrey Bishop 

(“Bishop”), the defendants in a related state court matter, styled Office Depot, LLC, as successorCase 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 37 of 42
2 

Exhibit 7 

in-interest to Office Depot, Inc. v. JRS Health Services, LLC, Richard Falcha, and Jeffrey Bishop, 

Case No. 50-2021-CA-000631 XXXX MB (the “State Court Lawsuit”), are also parties to the 

Agreement. 

4. Pursuant to the Agreement, Office Depot on the one hand, and JRS, Falcha, Bishop, 

and Miller on the other, agreed to the entry of a consent final judgment in the State Court Lawsuit 

against JRS, Falcha, and Bishop, jointly and severally, in the amount of TEN MILLION FIVE 

HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($10,500,000.00), less any amounts 

previously paid by JRS toward the total settlement amount, should JRS default on its payment 

obligations under the Agreement. 

5. Pursuant to the Agreement, Office Depot on the one hand, and JRS, Falcha, Bishop, 

and Miller on the other, further agreed to the entry of a non-dischargeable final judgment against 

Miller in this Adversary Proceeding, adjudicating Miller jointly and severally liable for the total 

amount of the consent final judgment in the State Court Lawsuit along with JRS, Falcha, and 

Bishop. 

6. On ____________, 2021, this Court approved the Agreement and dismissed this 

Adversary Proceeding with prejudice. The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the 

Agreement as it pertains to Miller, including but not limited to the entry of a non-dischargeable 

final judgment against Miller upon default by JRS of its obligations under the Agreement as set 

forth therein. 

7. JRS defaulted on its payment obligations under section 4(a) of the Agreement. 

8. Office Depot provided notice to JRS of its default(s) pursuant to the notice 

provision of the Agreement. 

9. JRS failed to cure its default(s) within five business days of such notice. 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 38 of 42
3 

Exhibit 7 

10. Prior to its default(s), JRS paid Office Depot the total amount of $______________ 

toward the total settlement amount. 

11. On ___________, 2021, upon joint motion of Office Depot and JRS, Falcha, and 

Bishop, the Judge in the State Court Lawsuit entered a consent final judgment against JRS, Falcha, 

and Bishop, jointly and severally, in the amount $______________. 

12. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Office Depot and Miller agree that Office Depot is 

now also entitled to the entry of a non-dischargeable final judgment against Miller in this 

Adversary Proceeding, adjudicating Miller jointly and severally liable for the amount of the 

consent final judgment in the State Court Lawsuit along with JRS, Falcha, and Bishop. 

13. Accordingly, Office Depot and Miller respectfully request that this Court enforce 

the Agreement and enter a non-dischargeable final judgment against Miller in the form attached 

hereto as Exhibit A. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Office Depot, and Debtor/Defendant Stuart Roy Miller 

respectfully request that this Court grant this motion and enter the final judgment attached hereto, 

as well as any and all further relief the Court deems just and proper. 

[SIGNATURE BLOCKS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 39 of 42
4 

Exhibit 7 

Dated: ________, 2021 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Shraiberg, Landau & Page, P.A. 

By: /s/ 

Bradley S. Shraiberg 

Fla. Bar No. 121622 

bss@slp.law.com 

2385 NW Executive Center Drive, Suite 300 

Boca Raton, Florida 33431 

Telephone: 561.443.0800 

Facsimile: 561.998.0047 

Attorneys for Office Depot, LLC, as 

successor-in-interest to Office Depot, Inc.

Furr and Cohen, P.A. 

By: /s/ 

Robert C. Furr 

Fla. Bar No. 210854 

rfurr@furrcohen.com 

2255 Glades Road, Suite 301E 

Boca Raton, Florida 33431 

Telephone: 561.395.0500 

Facsimile: 561.338.7532 

Attorneys for Stuart Roy Miller 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 40 of 42
1 

Exhibit 8 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM DIVISION 

In re: 

STUART ROY MILLER, Case No.: 20-22497-EPK 

Debtor. Chapter 11 

__________________________/ 

OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, 

Plaintiff. 

v. Adv. Proc. No. 21-01074-EPK 

STUART ROY MILLER, 

Defendant. 

__________________________/ 

FINAL JUDGMENT 

THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court on the Joint Motion to Enforce Confidential 

Settlement and Release Agreement and for Entry of Final Judgment against Miller (“Joint 

Motion”) filed by OFFICE DEPOT, LLC, as successor-in-interest to OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 

(“Office Depot”), and Debtor/Defendant, STUART ROY MILLER (“Miller”), and the Court, 

having reviewed the Joint Motion, noting the parties’ agreement as represented in the Joint Motion, 

and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby: 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Joint Motion is GRANTED. 

2. Final judgment is entered in favor Office Depot, whose principal address is 6600 

North Military Trail, Boca Raton, Florida, 33496, and against Miller, whose address is 3421 NW 

25th Terrace, Boca Raton, FL 33434. 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 41 of 42
2 

Exhibit 8 

3. Office Depot shall recover from Miller the total amount of $_______________, 

which is the amount of the consent final judgment entered against JRS Health Services LLC 

(“JRS”), Richard Falcha (“Falcha”), and Jeffrey Bishop (“Bishop”), jointly and severally, in the 

related state court matter, styled Office Depot, LLC, as successor-in-interest to Office Depot, Inc. 

v. JRS Health Services, LLC, Richard Falcha, and Jeffrey Bishop, Case No. 50-2021-CA-000631 

XXXX MB (“State Court Lawsuit”). Miller shall be jointly and severally liable, along with JRS, 

Falcha, and Bishop, for this total amount, which amount shall bear interest from year to year at the 

annual rate provided by law, for all of which let execution issue. 

4. Pursuant to §§ 523(a)(2)(A), 523(a)(2)(B), 523(a)(4), and 523(a)(6) of the United 

States Bankruptcy Code, this final judgment is non-dischargeable, and Miller agrees not to seek to 

discharge this final judgment or oppose Office Depot seeking a determination of nondischargeability of this final judgment in any subsequent bankruptcy proceeding. 

5. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, to 

enforce the judgment debtor’s compliance with this Final Judgment, to enter all post-judgment 

orders as may be necessary and proper related to the collection on this judgment, and to enter 

further orders as the Court deems just and proper. 

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida this _____ day of ______, 

2021. 

Erik P. Kimball, Bankruptcy Judge 

Case 20-22497-EPK Doc 153-1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 42 of 42