# Profoundd archive — Epstein Files
# Bates number: EFTA00603809
# Title:        Joannou v. Corsini - WestlawNext Page 1 of 5
# Dataset:      9
# Pages:        5
# Images:       5 detected
# Tags:         epstein, doj, dataset-9, image-described
# Source PDF:   https://profoundd.com/epstein-docs/EFTA00603809/download
# Doc viewer:   https://profoundd.com/epstein-docs/EFTA00603809
#
# Text below is what Profoundd has extracted from the source PDF.
# 'ocr-enriched' tag means OCR was applied to scan-only pages.
# Image descriptions are AI-generated factual captions (llava:13b).
#----------------------------------------------------------------------

=== SUMMARY ===
Joannou v. Corsini - WestlawNext Page 1 of 5 WestlawNext" I • Jounce v. Corlinl Ciseidauriesaisseinreas coMOUMµ Nava. IMO Masa XI 14V Ltsuay1092 Sea diseson t OisatowSWIta by fonthion. ha v beilmonala 2"" 212. 2" • — . . _ - . _ eS peania urges 543 So 20 30e pLIF) 543 So.2d 308 District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District. George C. JOANNOU, Appellant, v. Frank A. CORSINI, Appellee. Nos.82-3136.88 -0334 MeV3.109. in a proceeding to enforce a doMelticated foreign judgment. the defendant W


=== EXTRACTED TEXT ===
Joannou v. Corsini - WestlawNext Page 1 of 5 
WestlawNext" 
I • Jounce v. Corlinl 
Ciseidauriesaisseinreas coMOUMµ Nava. IMO Masa XI 14V Ltsuay1092 Sea diseson 
t OisatowSWIta by fonthion. ha v beilmonala 2"" 212. 2" • — . . _ - . _ 
eS peania urges 543 So 20 30e pLIF) 
543 So.2d 308 
District Court of Appeal of Florida. 
Fourth District. 
George C. JOANNOU, Appellant, 
v. 
Frank A. CORSINI, Appellee. 
Nos.82-3136.88 -0334 MeV3.109. 
in a proceeding to enforce a doMelticated foreign judgment. the defendant Wonted from 
orders of the Circuit Court &sward County. Constance toter°. J., welch granted plaInWfS 
motions to compel discovery and to hold defendant in contempt. After conaolidation. the 
Chat! Court Of Appeal. Warner. J.. held that: (1) trial coon had jurisdiction over the defendant; (2) even If vial court did not have personal funsaction over defendant so oak( 
defendant to answer iMerrOgatones. defendant was not greet disobey trial caves order. and (3) civil contempt oraer was rendered moot by reversal of foreign judgment to extent that a sought to compel defendant to answer the interrogate/nos. however. contempt order 
was not mOibt to extent that it awarded SlinCtorts to COnsel to comensate plamtiff 
for Na *Romer fern expended n securing congeance without discovery order. 
Affirmed In part, reversed in part, and remanded. 
West Headnotelit (3) 
Chance View 
1 Judgment C Enforcement m other states 
Foreign judgment sought to be domesticated must toe final. Wears F.S.A. § 
55.501. 
1 Casa that cites this heat:Mote 
2 Judgment Felon:ovum in other states 
Whether or not foreign lodgment is final. for purposes Of seeking domestication of that nu:foment must be determined by tee of state of ferldniOn. but where that 
states law is not brought to court's anenson. law of that state may be presumed 
to be law of forum slide. West's F S.A. § 55 501 
3 Cases that Cite this headnote 
3 Judgment %az F prat juilbment 
Judgment is final where nothing further terrains to be done to fuly (Meows* 
ternenation of muse between the parties dif828y agedee except enforcement by execution or otherwise 
8 Cases that Ole !MS heacinote 
— • __ 
4 Judgment fir=' Enlorcernent in other states 
California judgment was renal when rendered and was erestid to enforcement 
pursuant to Florida statute governing dornestiostion of foreign judgments at emelt' was recorded in Florida vitae no Stay was requested of Fiends court and where
no enforcement had been stayed M California thus, Vial court had subject matter 
furisaction so act in ernarcemont pmteedngs. Wears F.SA § SS-501; Wears F.SA RCP Rule 1.530(b): West's F.SA RApp.Rute 9.310. 
4 Cases that cite this heednole 
. - • --- . _ _ . 
6 Court Stia Estoppel arismg from submitting to or invoking baud arm SELECTED TOPiCS 
ChM &PPM 
Monomers 
Proalors of Ur o,, Othrommit 
Feted° +wens Au 
Roos to Punish, we PrOcostirms 
Thwelor 
Cisme Cams Orden d Ina lad 
AAP 
Courts 
Rein Cdsri and Lama olJuntaclion 
PenenAl ,ArgiaCet end Venue 
ANN 
Sec cowlav Smears 
Conetructlai and effort of prevision ot -Ions reciprocal enforcement of 
appal act that no support Order that supersede or nullify My other order 
31 ALRillh 3.17 (Onideilf ixesttiod 11.1 
This annetlian casco our Inaba' me Ode and federal atm desire sib Po 
<outlaw ere itReCitYlne Patton y § 31 ot Me UMW,' R.ceoul Erioroomov et 5,0pOn act~ Words. ei 
Validity. COnlitniCUOn. and application 
of unttale enforcement a (*final pepsin ea 
31 A L Ram 703 fetimaly Melythod 'sell 
_Ths arrotetan «Mai are amines ell SW Old WOW orb in Niel me casts nine dicase3 pe deCoded rayon. 
evolving in. SC*. CCettrbebOn Cr 
NeifratOr• of the lInAtim fintomovises 
Clung in CirtumatsnCes Juelitying 
ModifthatiOn of Chao Support Omer 
1 MI Jul Proofed Facts 20 110tightmey 
atiathed n 1974) 
Ti.. Wn ants wry. soot ma CRUPOStatial elan 11.0014 SI dry dere an 
Poet sand sunned ale mods porton In • mono moo. and aim wow.. se bass of rat any ham monomial 
se. Alas soa-any Sans 
Notion for Wm of hansom' 
2032 M. 3213342 
Imiesn G JONES, Rellerer. v STATE or TEEMS. Adorney Canons and Mrphane 0 Oracesort Refilitediend 
Se eme Cad el re UMW 510•1 Omer 09. 2002 
Send 0 Joni& poetess to Chou. ROSA.. Mornay 0101dincl, nand mead els Can m Java • INN of Cancan to moms* opinormi the Karon 
Can CA ACO•Sh bawd at A. 
ReSponerinTs Brief en Carborari 
i9S? (A4. $7211 
Varesitia • Vamitredi 
Swims Con Wee Mood Sims Aped Ott 115? 
Pitons thiamin eons reds dos Paths of the MeMient d en Nos Vat Supreme Can doled Moen 30. less dt 2). afraid by we Ns. von. Cowl NA W+ (R 534, Meta Mere' Mccoem 
httpc/ ink/Document/FullTextilindType=Y&serNum=1989065877 .. 9/30/2014 
EFTA00603809
Joannou v. Corsini - WestlawNext Page 2 of 5 
Defendant, against whom California judgment had been entered, waived drama 
lack of personal Jumada:in over proceeding' to enforce that judgment. which had 
been dornesbaated, when he voluntarily entered an appearance by moving for 
protective order against tna'g of depositions without asserting his claim of lack of 
personal pnisdsclion by nuking substantive objectons to extent of docoyery 
requested from third-parties 
5 Cases Beal Ole this headnote 
— 
Pretrial Procedure rePo Order Compering Answer 
Even B teal coat did not have personal jurisdiction over defendant to order 
defendara to answer interrogatories. defendant was not free to disobey order of 
trial court 
1 Case that cites this headnote 
7 Contempt 4ie Validity of m- andate. order, or judgment 
Wen a party a charged wet contempt for waiting an order of court he may 
defend on ground that court was inroad jurisdictkin over the iterlY. Weever. 
party most Obey order until it is vacated or modified by gild 0301 or reversed on 
apnea. 
3 Cases that ate this noadnote 
8 Contempt 4--1- Review 
Appeal of civil contempt order. which was rioted against defendant in 
proceeding to firdoroe domesticate foreign judgment for fa tare to answer 
interrogateries, was rendered moot by reversal of foreign judgment to extent the: 
it sought to Compel defendant to answer the interrogatories. honeys. contempt 
order was not moot to extent matt awarded sanctions to plait/Offs counsel to 
compensate plaintiff for his attorney foes expended in securing compliance 
without discovery order. 
Attorneys and Law Finns 
'309 John Beranek of Klein, &Welt & UMW... West Palm Beach. and Kaye, Sacks% 
Flamer'. Hays & Handler. Los Angeles, Cal., for appenent 
Scott Jay Feder of Floyd. Pearson. Richman. Greer. Well, Zack 8 Brumbaugh.l.. Morn, 
for appellee. 
Opinion 
WARNER, Judge. 
Ths nondime appeal questions the junadcoon a the eel Court over the person of appellant 
in a proceeding to enforce a foreign judgment domesticated pursuant to section 55 501. 
Florida Statutes (Supp.1984). 
In Apat. 1987 appolee filed a California judgment in Florida pursuant to section 55.501, 
Florida Statuses (Supp.1984). Notice was Sant to appesanl pursuant to the statute. and 
appellant does not Challenge the domeStKabon of the judgment ptrsuart to that statute in 
these proceedings In aid 01 eseCUtich on the domesticated judgment appellee set 
depositions and served subpoenas on the record Custodians of two Florida banks. In July Cl
1987, appellant made an appearance in the proceedings by Sing two notions tor proteanfe 
orders to prevent the taking or the depositions a bank Olklah. He claimed that as a party 
he was entitled to notice of the taking of depositions pursuant to Florida Rule of CM 
Procedure 1,351(b) vetch he did not Waive end he also argued that the notice demanded production of records regarding dealings of nisi.* who was not  to the judgment.
Nowhere in the '310 notion did the appellant challenge the lunsrabOn of the anal CCeStt over 
his person 
Subsequently. appear served volurrinous viten-Inatome on appellant in aid a execution 
Receiving no timely response. appellee fried a notion to compel answers to inierrogakorreS. 
and the vial court entered an agreed order compelling responses within ten days. 
Thereat:et. in objections to interrogationeS. appellant raised for ihe first time his contention Petition for WM of Prohibmon andor 
n the Namaere Welt of Mandamus 
X02 Vot 32135442 
in Et lwhenG !ONES. Peteonw 
Swam Can a the cree0 Sure 
Ociobet W. flea 
.tsiaten G. amnia 80.3152. Vachw Kemal 57201 The /Wenn Ceram M Ow &Sol Tom oho &WOW tia echos. 
Seepterw 0. Goodson *awry Stara. o Jones Suwon» Can CenelJuswo 
Sae laws IMO* 
Thal Cain Dec umente 
In re Oath Funding, LLC 
0I3NLMWOO 
In re Ocala Forens. LLC 
Lanes Ram lienteupiry Con., 
Flares 
Ant 20.2013 
WItS CASE fawn towing 
Cft J010 14, 2013M 114LIT,L, Debtors WSW Entry otOtase Mgewng 
M Disown Seem* fin Froniduies for 
Sr Soilotegion at Teaks. 
in re Pacific Ethanol Halting Ca LLC 
2000 WL 6189032 
in is Pseek airway Hoene co tit 
Voted Stall BanA00frw COWL 0. 
Colawate 
May 17.2009 
Paolo Stuns Helena LLC. ewes 01W01 MS. LLC, Pack Me* Columba. LLC. Podec Mind Simard LLC at Paolo Ettansi Max Waft. tic.
Wawa tilde  in ma • 
in re Paaftc Ethanol Molding Ca LLC 
ECOO Mt swam 
In re Perak Earn HOMI110 Ca LLC 
Wald Stein 0.10.004Cy C0.4. 0. 
011••••• 
Wif t7. 2030 
Pads Rhone Keep Ca. UC. Peens 
awns, Madera LLC. Psoac Mama 
Cantu. U.O. Paolo Erma SIOCIWY LLC as PaMc EVMMI JAW 1180•5, LLC. 
04004P wtl antommonsammn et SW 
Se. Wye rw Goat cosines 
9/30/2014 
EFTA00603810
Joannou v. Corsini - WestlawNext Page 3 of 5 
that the trial court did not have eine:taw Over his person and further that the interrogatories 
were irrelevant. immaterial end that they exceed the number allowed under the rues. In 
response. adage moved to hold aPpeeent and his attorney in contempt a court when 
motion was withdrawn at hewing. Instead the tat court Ordered the aepellant to fee the 
answers within ten days. 
Appellant appealed the order compelling answers to this court pursueet to Florida Rule of 
APPefiate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(0(i)  on the second tat the order granting the moan to 
compel necessarily overate has objection to arratielan and thus determined that the court 
had lunette:bon over hie person. Appellant MO a motion for stay of the tool court's order 
which was denied. Review by this court tauter Florida Rule of eppefia4 Procedure 9 310(1) 
was she dented.
Receiving no response to the motion to compel after the stay had been denied, appellee 
Ned a motion for Goiania. In granting the motion. the Mal Court found boat the appellant 
had Intentionally violated the courts prior orders. held appellant in contempt. ordered him to 
answer the interrOgalOnes. and to pay a 31.000 seeclan to afeweeess counsel wenn ter 
days. This order was also appealed to the court and consoedated with the prior appeal. 
Mer both appeals were bbd. Appeaant moved .1 reenquish junadetiOn and stay this appeal 
because the underlying California judgment was reversed upon appeal Thus appestat 
could now move pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) to vacate what is now 
a Florida judgment S 55 503, Fle.Stat (Supp.198-1). However. appease resists the dismissal 
of this appeal beicauSe he Claims that the jurisdictional issue and subsequent sanction 
imposed in the conteinpl order are not rendered moot by the reversal of the Catania 
action. We agree that the issues are not moot 
1 2 Foreign judgments are entitled to domestication in Florida pursuant to section 
55.501, apnea Statutes (Supp 1984). This statute merely adepts the method by write 
foreign judgments. *Melee to far faith and credit under constitutional standards, may 
become Florida judgments for enforcement purposes. As such, under me Made the 
judgment sought to be domesticated must be final. See Jones v Roach. 1 la Ariz 146. 575 
Pgd 345 (Anz.epe1977). interpreting the identical Arizona Unifonn Enbrcerrent of Foreign 
Judgment Law. Vithether or not Vie judgment Is final must be determined by the law of the 
state of rendition. but where that Metes law Is not brought to the courts Menton, the law of 
that stale may be presumed to be the Ltrw of the Mum state. See Aboandandolo v. VOnCle. 
88 So 20 282 fFla.1956) 
3 4 In the Instant case. no California law has been presented. SO we presume that 
tne law of Cabana is the same as the law of Florida with regard to the finality of judgment). 
In Florida a judgment Is Mal lwpwire notmng further remains lo be done to fully effectuate 
termination 01 the cause between the parse. direcey affected except cam ereiment by 
execution a Othentese." Chan v. Brunswick Corp. 388 So.2d 274. 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). 
MOMS Pruitt v. Brock 437 So 2d 766 (Fla 1st DCA 1963). That lemenation occurs when 
the Vial court Saesjurisdiction over the cane upon lie expiration of the the Kra set forth 
in Florida Rule of CNA Procedure 1 530()). Hue. at 774 An appeal does not affect finality, 
but a pay nay Hay enlacement as judgment by posing a Plasma/ea teed in the case 
of a money judgment. 9 310. Therefore, we conclude that tie Carona 
judgment was final when rendered and that it was ameba to enforcement pursuant to 
section 55.501. Flonda Statutes (Supp.1984) at the lime d was recorded in Florida. No stay 
was requested of the '311 Florida court, nor was It brought to the that courts anent/co or our 
attention that enforcement had been stayed in CalifOrria. Consequently. the Vial court had 
subject matter jurisdiction to act In the enforcement proceedings in this case 
5 Tne second questein le whether the foal court had jurisdiction over the person of 
appellant theta appellant appears to be a non-resident and was not served with process in 
this case. he voluntanly entered art appearance by moving for a proteetmt order against the 
taking of depositions without asserting his Wire of lack of personal priedelion In that 
motion tie claimed that he was not gran notice of me wring a deposition and request for 
document* to whet', to es a partywas enticed under Fonda Rule of Civt Procedure 1.351 
(b). Further. he made substantive objections to the extent of discovery requested from third 
pries Team is nothing m the record presented to shoe Mahar an order was entered on 
this motion, although appellee states in his Mel that a hearing was held on the motion and 
the motion was demed Nevertheless. appellant made an appearance and dared rights 
under the Florida Rues ol Cm' Procedure which are a veleta to parties then the appellant 
makes such an appearance n these proceedings he is deemed to have waived his claim or 
lock of peisdicoon Cumberland &Own Inc v Gnat Asuman mortgage Corp. 507 So 2.1 
https://a.next.westlaw.corraink/Doeumcnt/Fut1Text?findType=Y&serNurn=1989065877... 9/30/2014 
EFTA00603811
Joannou v. Corsini - WestlawNext Page 4 of 5 
794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Thus, when the that court entered ft order competing ascovery 
had toth subiect matter jurisdiction and personal iurediebon ova the defendant And 
consequently. it also had the authority to enforce its order 
6 7 As to the centre( oraer, not only do we find that there was personal 
lurisascbon of the appellant but also even if the trial court did not have personal redden 
at the time to order appellant lo answer the interroartales. appellant was not free to disobey 
the Order of the trial court. When a party n charged with contempt for in rang an order of 
the coed. he may defend on the ground that the court was without jurodicbon over the party. 
However, the party most Obey the Order Nita it is vacated or mocefled by the trial curt or 
reversed on appeal. Kaybr v. Kayla... 468 Ser.2d 1253 (As 2d DCA 1985); Jameson v. 
State. 447 So.20 892 (Fla 4th DCA 1983). WM. 465 $o.2d 380 (Flat 1904)- IA ainnen- this 
court dearly hell that when the part's ern is that the cart does not have iunsacton over 
by person to surer hen to the orders of the mutt lack of personal hutschcbon makes such 
order voidable only. not void. 'One may not disobey with impunity the order of a cart which 
is merely vocable. as here! Jameson at 1598. We (lather find that the anal court had 
authority lo determine the moron for contempt notwithstanding the appeal Of the order 
compering diSCOvery to this court Wattnem A Condominium Association v Village 
Management Inc. 330 Sold 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 19hr FMS Management Systems. Inc v 
IDS Mortgage Corm 402 So.20 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). 
8 However wet now come to the question of whether the appeal is moot. The contact 
proceeding is unquestionably OW n nature. 
In a civil contempt proceeding an offended party to the cause re primarily 
seenng relief, personal and private to hmsert as dretinguished frorn 
punishment for conduct offensive to the pubic or asrespeant to the court 
and as authority_ 
Demean v State. 89 So 20 498 (Fla.11543) in the instant ease the discovery tour was 
for appellee's personal and private interest in enforcing the California judgment Slice that 
iudgment wroth was sought to be enforced b this Florida salon is of no further force and 
effect, the appellee can no longer seek relief in the way of discovery gong toward the 
enlacement or the ragmen!, u appellee n his brief even concedes. Thus. to enforce that 
portion of the order which compels the appellant to answer the interrogatories would ere 
at this point act as a punishment to Wear which is not the primary purpose of civil 
contempt. We therefore vacate as moot eo much of the contempt order as requires appellant 
to answer the interrogatories and respond to the request for prediction. However, as to the 
award of sanctions to appelee's counsel which. based upon the 112 sena vits presented 
below, were so Dampens* appellee for his attorneys fees upended in securing 
compliance with the valet order of the that earl we affirm. Perna v. T a M InveStments. 
Inc. 455 Scrod 673 (fie 3d DCA sorry That compliance with the Oidel requinng snares 
to interrogatories has been rendered moot try subsequent events aces not erase the efficay 
of the attempts by appellee's attorneys 10 seek comported with the discovery orders which 
al the tine were improperly reared by appesant 
In summary, we hckl that the tall court did have .vrisdcbon over the appellant in ties Derr 
and appellant was required to obey the orders Cl the trial court. However. since execution on 
the judgment has been rendered moot by the reversal of the California tudgment It follows 
that compliance with discovery a meet Ne.allokiss, al hough the part of the purge 
provision of the contempt order roguing compliant/twin discovery is moot that patron 
requiring payment of sanctions for attorneys fees to appellee's counsel is not moot and neat 
be compered with by the appellant. 
We therefore affirm the order competing discovery which determined the issue of personal 
proselecton, reverse in pal the order of contempt, and remand for proceedings consistent 
with this opinion.
ANSTEAD and OLICKSTEIN. Ii., concur. 
Parallel Citations 
14 Fla. 4.. Vileeidy 1092 
End of Document Oar Thema reuses to OFT* 019016 V 5 Omenwentwxs
https://a.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1989065877.. 9/30/2014 
EFTA00603812
Joannou v. Corsini - WestlawNext Page 5 of 5 
WessioRN•si 0 20n Theemen Flours 1403-RIF-AM (1-40:14342teR ic) 7404,33,Qtatie; 
9/30/2014 
EFTA00603813



=== IMAGE DESCRIPTIONS ===
[Image 1] The image shows a document with text, which appears to be a letter or a report. The document is titled "LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA" and is dated "April 15, 2014." It mentions a "REPORT OF THE COMPTROLLER" and includes a section titled "REPORT OF THE COUNTY TREASURER." The text discusses financial matters, such as "REVENUE AND EXPENSES" and "FUND BALANCES." There are also references to "REVENUE

[Image 2] The image shows a document that appears to be a letter or a report. It contains text and a table with headings such as "Title," "Date," "Author," and "Recipient." The visible text includes phrases like "Dear Dr. West," "West Palm Beach," and "George A. Baez." The document is dated "April 2014" and is addressed to "Dr. West." The content of the document is not fully legible due to the resolution an

[Image 3] The image shows a document with text, which appears to be a page from a report or a presentation. The text is too small and blurry to read clearly, but it seems to be a list of items or points, possibly related to a business or technical context. The document has a header with the title "Business Continuity Plan" and a footer with a page number "Page 5 of 5". There are no visible names, dates, pla

[Image 4] The image shows a document with text, which appears to be a letter or a report. The document is titled "FINAL REPORT" and is addressed to "Dr. John Doe." The text is too small to read in detail, but it seems to be discussing some form of research or study, as indicated by phrases such as "research," "study," and "results." The document includes a footer with a date and a reference number. The text

[Image 5] The image shows a document with text, which appears to be a page from a legal or official document. The text is too small to read clearly, and the document is partially obscured by a red rectangle, which suggests that it may be a confidential or restricted document. The visible text includes a header with the name "Nathaniel C. Banks," followed by a date "05/05/2014," and a page number "2." The do