Hearings, 7/26 & 8/9/24

July 26, 2024 Hearing as told by Intervenors

On July 3rd, Judge Freeman gave his verbal rulings (see previous post) along with instructions for each of the four parties (MJ, 18 Paradise, Plaintiffs, Intervenors) to put his decisions in writing to comprise a “Final Order” for all to sign. 

For those who are wondering, we found some judges write their own Final Order, other judges ask the parties to write it, it’s just a matter of preference.  

To streamline the process for July 26th hearing, lawyers representing MJ and 18 Paradise, along with the Intervenors, combined their facts and conclusions into one document.  The draft was forwarded to plaintiff attorneys, Davis and Andersson, for review and to add their own facts and conclusions.  Instead, Mr. Davis red-lined and crossed out entire sections from the document’s 12 pages, described by MJ’s lawyer Jeff Possinger as “gutted.”   

Mr. Possinger added that Mr. Davis had inserted lines he had deleted from their three-party document, into his own plaintiffs’ document?  His comment to the judge was, “We’re wondering if we were all at the same trial.”  

Mr. Possinger also informed Judge Freeman of a recent post on the plaintiffs’ website which ended with the comment, “We are appealing the dismissal of the Consumer Protection Act claim. The Court’s ruling would pretty much prove the claim.”

Once each party re-affirmed what the judge had ruled in their favor, Mr. Davis and Mr. Andersson presented their agenda:

1. Andersson & Davis submitted a list of homes they claim comprise Homestead homeowners, which included rentals for Vacation Internationale and Meadow Greens. A quick look revealed missing addresses.

2. Andersson & Davis submitted a proposal that the court registry funds from people who had sold their homes, be deposited into their trust fund. Both 18 Paradise and Intervenors objected to this proposal, citing a lack of trust and history of conflict for the plaintiffs to be entrusted with returning these funds. The judge explained the law states that class lawyers are responsible for taking care of the class.  

3. Andersson & Davis claim they are the prevailing party (winning party), and therefore, entitled to an award for their legal fees. Ben Vandenberghe, lawyer for 18 Paradise, reminded the court of Andersson & Davis’ win-loss ratio as being 8 claims lost, 1 tie, 1 win (dismissal of 6th & 7th amendments) which he believes does not support their claim as the winning party.

It’s our understanding these two proposals (court registry and prevailing party) are still pending a decision.

By the end of the hearing:

1. Matt Skinner, an Intervenor, asked the judge to terminate Andersson and Davis’ representation as class action lawyers in order for homeowners to openly communicate with current owner, 18 Paradise.  As it stands now, there can be no direct communication between homeowners and 18 Paradise due to the active lawsuit. The judge explained he could not grant the request for termination due to Andersson and Davis still being responsible to take care of the class.   

2. The judge brought up maintenance fees being sent to the plaintiffs’ trust fund which elicited a strong denial of head-shaking and “No, no, no!” from Andersson and Davis. Judge Freeman leaned forward and said, “We read it on your website, it was all through it!”  

Summary:  The Final Order cannot be signed until these Motions and Proposals by plaintiff lawyers have been processed appropriately through the court.  

Even Mr. Davis said, “We’re on the cusp of judgment,” acknowledging we’re almost done, but for those of us who live here, it can’t come soon enough.  

August 9, 2024 Hearing

This hearing began with a few glitches, the main one being only a few of us were able to get on zoom.  Judge Freeman had several people in his courtroom but most were for other cases. 

Once our case was called, plaintiffs lawyers (Andersson & Davis) were told by Judge Freeman their request for him to reconsider his decision about them having to pay fine of $24,000 to MJ, was denied.  They were to pay the fine and MJ could enforce the judgment in the next 30 days.  

Side note: This fine is regarding the plaintiffs posting confidential documents on their website, and refusing to take them down despite a cease & desist order.  This incident goes back to March 2024.

At this point, Mr. Davis asked the judge about “CR54” which our research showed was making a judgment “final” which meant it could be appealed.  Until orders are made final, they can be revised, but not appealed.  Mr. Davis appeared irritated, telling the judge, “If I can’t appeal, I can’t litigate.”  

On Aug. 19, 2024, Mr. Andersson and Mr. Davis filed a Motion for Stay of Judgment which is asking the judge to stop/delay his decision about paying the fine until it can be appealed. Mr. Davis worded it this way in his motion:

“As it stands, the Court’s order puts plaintiffs in the impossible situation of being required to comply with the order (pay the fine) but without the right to appeal that decision.”

For those of you wondering why the lawsuit is still active nearly four months after trial, it’s this continued filing of orders, motions and proposals that require being heard.