IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PASCO COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA Civil Division

Collette v. Obama, et al. Case Number: 512012CA 2041WS

Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Reconsider I, Jerry Collette, plaintiff, reply to defendants opposition, dated July 23, 2012, to my motion to reconsider and set aside the courts venue order of July 16, 2012, transferring venue to Leon County, as follows: Introduction It appears that, yet again, defendants are trying to flimflam the court, and, perhaps, yet again, to the level of attempted fraud upon the court. On the other hand, just as it was possible that the defendants team of attorneys simply made honest mistakes before, they may have simply done so again.1 Procedural Issues 1. My motion is one for reconsideration of the courts order, not a rehearing on it. Yet, in their opposition paper, defendants refer to my motion for reconsideration as a motion for rehearing. There is a difference.2 2. A simple Google search with the terms rehearing and reconsideration brings, at the very top of 728.000 results, an article3 from page 79 of the Florida Bar Journal of June, 2009, Volume 83, No. 6, entitled, Reconsideration or Rehearing: Is There a Difference? by James H. Wyman. In its conclusion, that article states, in relevant part:

1 2

I take no position as the likelihood of either possibility. Particularly in Florida. 3 Which is online at: http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/c0d731e03de9828d852574580042ae7a/0020ff826ad66c5f 852575c50049d2b4?OpenDocument

Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Reconsider - Page 1 of 5

[...] motions for reconsideration and motions for rehearing are separate and distinct under Florida law. A motion for rehearing is a creature of the rules of procedure. It may only be directed at final orders [.] A motion for reconsideration is a creature of the common law. It may be directed at virtually any nonfinal order and filed at any time until entry of judgment [.]4 3. The article goes on to recommend doing exactly as I did: To avoid confusion and maintain clarity, the practitioner who seeks to have a trial judge reconsider a nonfinal order should properly style the motion as one for reconsideration and not rehearing.5 4. As the court stated in Monte Campbell Crane Co., Inc. v. Hancock, 510 So. 2d 1104, 1105-1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987): It is well settled that a trial court has the inherent authority to control its own nonfinal orders prior to entry of final judgment. North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So.2d 849, 851 (Fla. 1962); Alabama Hotel Co. v. J.L. Mott Iron Works, 86 Fla. 608, 98 So. 825 (Fla. 1924). 5. An order to transfer venue is a nonfinal order. Included in the courts authority to control its own nonfinal orders prior to entry of final judgment are the authorities to: a. Reconsider them, and b. Set them aside. 6. Accordingly:

Was there nobody on the entire team of defendants attorneys who knew the difference between a motion for reconsideration and motion for rehearing? Or, are defendants, yet again, trying to flimflam the court? 5 The rehearing that I have suggested would not be of an order, but would be of defendants original motion to transfer venue, however, any such rehearing would only occur if and after the court sets aside the order of July 16, 2012, that transferred venue to Leon County. Therefore, at such a point, there would be no order in existence upon which to have a rehearing, but merely a then outstanding motion. Furthermore, I did not request, but merely suggested, a rehearing on this motion. I would willingly forego such a hearing and permit the court to simply deny the motion. My suggestion for a rehearing on it was simply a courtesy to defendants.
Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Reconsider - Page 2 of 5

a. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of defendants opposition paper should be disregarded as irrelevant; and b. The conclusion drawn therefrom, stated in paragraph 3 of their opposition paper, should be disregarded as incorrect. Substantive Issues 7. Defendants began paragraph 4 of their opposition by quoting two sentences from my motion to reconsider and set aside: It turns out that property had no bearing, whatsoever, on the venue holding in Tucker. There was not even any property in the entire litigation! 8. Defendants then went on to say, Contrary to plaintiffs assertions, [.] However, instead of asserting anything contrary to my assertions, they simply quoted the second sentence of Tucker,6 and attached a copy of the entire case. 9. Nothing in the second sentence of Tucker7 states that: a. Property had any bearing on the venue holding; or b. There was any property in the litigation. 10. Contrary to defendants assertion, there is nothing in the second sentence of Tucker8 which is contrary to my assertions that the defendants quoted. 11. Accordingly, defendants contention of paragraph 4 of their opposition document should be disregarded as nonsensical.

Which I mentioned in my motion to reconsider, at p. 4 #1, stating: The Tucker court mentions property only once, in [which I misstated as] the very first [when it was, actually, the second] sentence, simply to describe the history of the parties transactions together, i.e., that previous dealings between them were related to a piece of property. Other than that, property had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Tucker case, or its venue holding.

7 8

Or anywhere else in the case. Or anywhere else in the case.

Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Reconsider - Page 3 of 5

12. In further support of my position that the Tucker venue holding has nothing, whatsoever, to do with property, the Tucker court also stated, at 1372: Moreover, contrary to the defendant's assertion, the [venue] rule [followed and stated in this holding] is not confined to personal injury or property damage cases; it applies equally to those which involve economic or intangible losses alone. E.g., Soowal v. Marden, 452 So.2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (trademark infringement); E.J. Sales & Service, Inc. v. Southeast First National Bank of Miami, 415 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (conversion); see also Firstamerica Development Corp. v. Daytona Beach News-Journal Corp., 196 So.2d 97 (Fla. 1966) (libel action accrues under prior venue statute in each county newspaper circulates, even though it is published elsewhere.) 13. With respect to paragraph 5 of defendants opposition document, even if everything that the defendants state therein is true, the court has a duty, nonetheless, to correct the clear error of law it made in its order of July 16, 2012. 14. Accordingly, paragraph 5 of defendants opposition document should be disregarded as irrelevant. 15. In their opposition document, defendants have not challenged, among other things, any of the following assertions of my motion to reconsider and set aside:9 a. Clear error is a valid basis for reconsideration; b. With multiple options, plaintiff may choose any proper venue; c. With respect to my case, the residence of defendants has no bearing on venue; d. Accrual based venue is determined by the controlling law, as stated in Tucker; e. At the last hearing, defendants mischaracterized the basis of the Tucker holding; f. The Tucker case clearly and simply states the controlling law on the subject of venue in a tort action; g. The Tucker case is a commanding precedent to my case;

Listed in the order presented in my motion.

Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Reconsider - Page 4 of 5

h. The injury for which I am seeking redress was first suffered by me in Pasco County; i. I have properly pled facts sufficient to establish venue in Pasco County; j. Pasco County is a proper venue for this case; k. For determining venue, the allegations of my complaint are presumed to be true; and l. Defendants have not properly contradicted my venue choice. Conclusion Being that there is good reason to disregard every paragraph of defendants opposition document, its conclusion should, likewise, be disregarded. The defendants have not properly opposed my motion to reconsider and set aside the courts order of July 16, 2012, transferring venue to Leon County. Accordingly, my motion to reconsider and set aside should be GRANTED. Respectfully Submitted, July 24, 2012

Jerry Collette Plaintiff Pro Se PO Box 3664 Holiday FL 34692 727-457-0300

Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Reconsider - Page 5 of 5