Honorable Judge David Young

Lawson E Thomas Courthouse

175 NW 1st Avenue
Miami, FL 33128

May 1, 2018

RE: JM vs AJD /2017- 016674-FC-04

Dear Judge Young:

I hope you enjoyed your trip abroad. As you are aware, we have a Case Management Conference
tomorrow, May 2nd.

I am looking forward to discussing the progression of the case, including the upcoming
mediation; deposition dates; discovery; setting the case for trial; and other procedural matters
that can hopefully help move the case along.

This morning, however, a mere 24 hours prior to the Case Management Conference, I suddenly
received an email from opposing counsel with a staggering fourteen attachments. These
attachments contained old pleadings dating back months, some over six months old.
Astonishingly, in the accompanying letter opposing counsel sent you, opposing counsel asks
that you “rule” upon these matters tomorrow, during a Case Management Conference.

Please allow this letter to constitute my formal objection to any of these matters being discussed,
considered, or ruled upon, as they are substantive matters that cannot be heard at a Case
Management Conference. I will also not try any of these matters by consent. In addition, I would
request the Court to please respect and observe my due process rights, as well as standard Florida
law, including but not limited to the reasons below:

a) Nearly all the matters referenced by opposing counsel are matters that require an
evidentiary hearing. I have a due process right to evidentiary hearings and a due
process right to present my case with reasonable notice and time to prepare, and,
most importantly, my son has a right to have these matters adjudicated in proper and
somber manner, with all the benefits of both sides being able to presenting their
case/arguments. This is a right to which I am entitled as a U.S. citizen both under the U.S.
Constitution, Florida Constitution, Florida statutory law, and Florida caselaw.

b) Rule 1.200 clearly states that only matters related to case management (such as
scheduling of mediation; discovery timeframes; etc.) can be discussed at a Case
Management Conference. Yet opposing counsel wishes to have substantive matters not
even discussed but “ruled” upon at a Case Management Conference, matters that require
evidence submission and exhibits; legal arguments and briefs; and more.

c) There is ample caselaw from the appellate circuits, including from our very own 3rd
DCA, striking down rulings on substantive matters that are adjudicated in Case

1
 Management Conferences and striking down substantive matters that are adjudicated
when the hearing-notice did not state that such matters would be heard.

Florida law requires that hearing-notices clearly list the matters to be heard, for
obvious reasons, in part so that the litigant has time to prepare. This is, in fact, a
fundamental due process and adhered to by every court in our great nation, not only in
Florida. It is settled law. Yet, at every Case Management Conference we have had (and
this will be the exhausting third in as many months), Petitioner has repeatedly attempted
to raise issues that are not allowed to be raised at Case Management hearings. If
Petitioner has his way, apparently there will be a plethora of matters adjudicated
tomorrow, none of which were noticed for such.

In fact, the hearing notice does not list any matters to be heard. It is a general status
conference.

d) Even if the matters Petitioner wishes to have you rule upon did not require evidentiary
hearing (and they do); and even if tomorrow were not a Case Management Conference
(and it is), the fact that opposing counsel ambushed me with this 24 hours beforehand
is an abhorrent attempt to trick this Court into once again violating my due process
rights in favor of Petitioner. It is outrageous and opposing counsel should be sanctioned
for such.1 There is no possible way any litigant could prepare to discuss these
matters and present his or her case, on 24 hours’ notice, much less on a multitude of
matters. I respectfully ask that you not only deny this attempt, but that you sanction
opposing counsel for it.
(Moreover, this frivolous act by Petitioner and his counsel is against the child’s best
interests, of which Petitioner is clearly aware yet he does so anyway. As a busy single
mother caring for my son, I have had to take time away from his care to deal with this
draft this letter. I ask that you take note of the fact that Petitioner, despite knowing I am
caring for our son, continues to burden me with incredibly time-consuming
litigation-harassment stunts such as this.)

e) Your March 5th Order clearly stated that only “emergency” matters would be heard
prior to mediation (which is scheduled for May 16th). While you did say (during an April
hearing that was somehow granted to Father -- a ‘special set’ that was curiously tacked
on to a hearing on a motion to withdraw, and on which I had less than 24 hours’ advance
notice, and at which matters were discussed that I had no notice would be discussed) that
you could “undo” that Order, you did not actually undo it, as opposing counsel’s own
letter to you today reluctantly admits. Your Orders must mean something and litigants
have a right to reasonably rely on your Orders. ‘No motions heard absent emergencies
until after mediation’ means just that and I have relied on this. None of these matters

1
(This is not the first time opposing counsel has used the trial by ambush tactic. My previous
counsel, Evan Marks, specifically objected, on the record, to opposing counsel doing so, in a
prior hearing before Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr. Petitioner and his counsel also routinely come
to court with “Agreed Orders” drafted that they then place before the Judge, ambushing the other
side and trying to trick the Court into accepting such, for so-called expediency’s sake.)

2
 are “emergencies,” as opposing counsel admits in her own letter to you today. Per
way of analogy, undoing your March 5th Order would be tantamount to telling someone
they have 30 days to pay off a debt and, a week in, retracting that and calling it in the
debt with less than 24 hours’ notice. The ‘rules cannot be changed halfway through’ as
the adage goes. Furthermore, assuming arguendo that you actually undo your
March 5, 2018 Order, I would assume that such undoing would include the entire
Order and, therefore, Anthony B. Schram’s Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice is
now granted.

f) At the last hearing, the special-set at which I appeared telephonically because I had less
than 24 hours’ notice, you assured that no substantive matters would be heard until after
mediation.

g) It would be the height of judicial inefficiency to have these matters heard when
mediation is two weeks away, as the case may possibly settle in its totality at that time,
and much of these matters may not even need to take up the Court’s time.

h) Lastly, opposing counsel’s letter to you seems to indicate that Case Management
Conferences can include adjudication of substantive matters because it “moves the case
along.” But such is a self-interested and outright deliberately-daft misinterpretation of
Case Management Conferences. Matters that move the case along procedurally are to be
discussed (such as setting the case for trial; or laying out a time-table for discovery to
conclude) – not substantive ones. After all, if we were to adapt opposing counsel’s
interpretation, any and all contested factual and evidentiary issues could be
adjudicated at a Case Management Conference since, after all, adjudication of any
issue technically ‘moves the case along!’. Litigants would be forced to come to court
with countless boxes of documents, and prepared to discuss 20 or more issues in a case,
at any given Case Management Conference. It is an absurd and vile distortion of Rule
1.200 and of our judicial system. This is an orderly court in the United States – this is
not the Wild West, as much as Petitioner and his counsel would like to make it so,
for their benefit.

I thank you in advance for your time in reading over this and considering my position and I look
forward to an efficient Case Management Conference tomorrow. I have a list of case-
management related matters to be discussed (e.g., obtaining dates for our continued depositions,
as Petitioner has stubbornly refused, for weeks, to provide any and seems to be stonewalling the
continuation of his deposition) that I am confident will help streamline and move the case along.

With utmost respect,

s/Arlene Delgado

Arlene Delgado

cc: opposing counsel via email