Town Center: The Case

This is a court-issued summons in Case No. 2025 CA 000670, directing the Flagler County Sheriff to serve the City of Palm Coast, c/o City Clerk Kaley Cook at 160 Lake Avenue, Palm Coast, FL 32164.

The summons commands the defendant to serve written defenses to the Complaint on Plaintiffs' attorney Patrice Boyes, Esq., within 20 days of service, exclusive of the day of service.

Failure to respond will result in a default judgment being entered against the defendant for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

The summons was signed and sealed by Clerk Tom Bexley on October 24, 2025.

Why it matters: This summons formally initiates the litigation process against the City of Palm Coast by triggering the 20-day deadline for the City to respond to the Complaint, and failure to respond could result in a default judgment against the municipal defendant.

Plaintiffs Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC sue the City of Palm Coast for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from the Town Center at Palm Coast Development of Regional Impact (DRI).

The Developer spent over $35.5 million constructing required infrastructure improvements between 2003 and 2007, in exchange for the City's contractual guarantee of potable water and wastewater capacity for the full buildout of a 1,557-acre mixed-use development through April 12, 2036.

In summer 2024, Plaintiffs' two pending real estate sales contracts were cancelled after prospective purchasers learned the City would not guarantee potable water availability and wastewater capacity, and the City is subject to a December 6, 2024 FDEP Consent Order for repeated wastewater permit violations including over 70 sanitary sewer overflows.

Plaintiffs seek damages including lost profits, reliance damages, decline in property value, and lost sales, as well as a court finding that the DRI Development Orders constitute enforceable contracts vesting Plaintiffs for water, sewer, and other public services concurrency for all remaining entitlements (496 dwelling units, 586,122 sq ft office, 1,205,045 sq ft retail, and other uses requiring 764,448 GPD potable water and 578,933 GPD wastewater capacity).

Why it matters: This is the initiating pleading that frames the entire case: it asserts the City breached binding DRI Development Orders by failing to reserve water and wastewater capacity promised in exchange for $35.5 million in developer-funded infrastructure, directly causing the failure of 2024 property sales and rendering the remaining DRI parcels nearly worthless.

This is the Form 1.997 Civil Cover Sheet filed by Plaintiffs Palm Coast Holdings Inc and Florida Landmark Communities LLC against Defendant City of Palm Coast in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Flagler County, Florida, Case No. 2025 CA 000670, assigned to Judge Sandra Upchurch.

The case is categorized as a Circuit Civil matter under 'Other – Business Transactions,' with a claim amount over $100,000.

The remedies sought are nonmonetary declaratory or injunctive relief, with 2 causes of action alleged.

The case is not a class action, no jury trial is demanded, and no related cases are known.

Why it matters: This cover sheet formally initiates the case record and establishes the nature of the dispute as a business transaction matter seeking declaratory or injunctive relief against the City of Palm Coast, signaling a likely challenge to a governmental action or decision affecting the plaintiffs' development interests.

This is the Seventh Judicial Circuit's Uniform Case Management Order, effective January 1, 2025 and adopted December 2024, filed in this Flagler County case on October 24, 2025.

It designates civil cases as 'General' (jury trial demanded, 18-month trial period) or 'Streamlined' (all other, 12-month trial period) and sets binding deadlines for service of process (120 days from filing), adding new parties, discovery and expert witness disclosures, dispositive motions (120 days before trial for General, 90 days for Streamlined), pretrial motions (30 days before trial), and mediation (must be completed before docket sounding).

The plaintiff is required to serve a copy of this order on all parties and file a notice of service within 30 days of issuance.

The order expressly warns that all deadlines will be strictly enforced.

Why it matters: This order establishes the governing procedural framework and all key deadlines for the case, making it a foundational document that will control the pace and structure of litigation from discovery through trial.

This is a Flagler County Clerk of Court receipt of transaction (Receipt #2025023517) issued on October 24, 2025, documenting payment of court filing fees for case 2025 CA 000670.

The payment was submitted by Holtzman Vogel via e-filing (Transaction #100433896). Fees paid include a $400.00 circuit civil filing fee and a $10.00 summons fee, totaling $410.00 with a zero balance remaining.

Why it matters: This receipt confirms the initiation or a new filing in circuit civil case 2025 CA 000670, with Holtzman Vogel acting as filing counsel, establishing the case's commencement and the identity of the filing party's law firm.

This Return of Service documents that process server Gary Crane successfully served the City of Palm Coast on October 29, 2025 at 3:35 PM by delivering the Summons, Complaint with Attached Exhibits, and Uniform Case Management Order to Bobbie Varney, Staff Assistant, at 160 Lake Avenue, Palm Coast, FL 32164.

Service was directed to the City Clerk, Kaley Cook, as the designated agent for the municipal corporation defendant.

The summons, issued October 24, 2025, required the City to serve written defenses within 20 days of service or face a default judgment.

The document was e-filed on October 30, 2025 by Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC on behalf of Plaintiffs Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC.

Why it matters: This Return of Service establishes that the City of Palm Coast was formally served on October 29, 2025, triggering the 20-day deadline for the City to respond to the complaint, making this a critical procedural milestone that starts the clock toward a potential default if the City fails to answer.

Plaintiffs, successors-in-interest to the developer of the 1,557-acre Town Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) approved in 2003, sue the City of Palm Coast for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from the City's refusal to guarantee potable water availability and wastewater capacity for their remaining vested development entitlements.

The developer and its community development district expended over $35.5 million in infrastructure improvements in exchange for the City's contractual commitment—reaffirmed in 2022 and 2024 Amended Development Orders—to vest all property owners for water, sewer, and other public services concurrency for all present entitlements through April 12, 2036.

In summer 2024, two sales contracts for Plaintiffs' remaining parcels were cancelled by buyers during due diligence upon learning the City refused to guarantee capacity; the City's wastewater plant is the subject of a December 2024 FDEP Consent Order citing 50+ effluent violations and 70+ sewage spills, while the City has continued to annex new lands (including 38.311 acres in November 2025) without first reserving capacity for the Town Center DRI.

Count III seeks a prohibitory injunction preventing the City from further annexations until the lawsuit is resolved; Plaintiffs seek general and special damages including lost profits, reliance damages, and diminution in property value.

Why it matters: This amended complaint is the central pleading defining the scope of the lawsuit—a major breach-of-contract and promissory estoppel action seeking millions in damages and injunctive relief against a Florida municipality for allegedly exhausting utility capacity it contractually guaranteed in 2003 and reaffirmed in 2022 and 2024, while continuing to annex and serve other lands; it will likely be a pivotal document shaping discovery, dispositive motions, and any trial on the merits.

The City of Palm Coast moves to dismiss with prejudice the Amended Complaint filed by Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC, which alleges breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from DRI Development Orders (2003, 2022, 2024) governing the Town Center Development of Regional Impact.

The City argues the Development Orders are regulatory land use approvals under Fla.

Stat. § 380.06, not bilateral contracts, and that any purported contractual guarantee of utility capacity is barred by sovereign immunity and the ultra vires doctrine.

The City further contends no material breach was adequately alleged, as plaintiffs point only to unnamed prospective purchasers canceling contracts during due diligence rather than any official permit denial, and notes FDEP Consent Orders from 2020 and 2024 impose binding wastewater compliance deadlines through December 28, 2028.

Count III, seeking injunctive relief to block future municipal annexations, is argued to be an improper judicial restraint on a legislative function governed exclusively by Chapter 171, Florida Statutes.

Why it matters: This is a critical dispositive motion that, if granted, would end the entire case with prejudice; it frames the central legal question of whether DRI development orders constitute enforceable contracts and raises sovereign immunity and ultra vires defenses that could eliminate all three counts before any factual development occurs.

Attorney Jeremiah R. Blocker of the Douglas Law Firm files a Notice of Appearance as attorney of record for Defendant City of Palm Coast, Florida, in case 2025-CA-670.

The notice requests that all future correspondence and pleadings be directed to the undersigned counsel.

The filing was e-filed on November 26, 2025, and served on plaintiffs' counsel at Holtzman Vogel, including D.

Kent Safriet, Patrice Boyes, and Valerie L. Chartier-Hogancamp.

Lisa Miles (FBN 1036064) is also listed as additional counsel at the Douglas Law Firm, located at 100 Southpark Blvd., Suite 414, St.

Augustine, Florida 32086.

Why it matters: This notice formally establishes defense counsel for the City of Palm Coast, signaling the city's active engagement in defending the lawsuit brought by Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC, and sets the stage for upcoming substantive filings and litigation activity.

This is a Notice of Zoom Hearing filed by Defendant City of Palm Coast, notifying all parties that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint will be heard via Zoom on March 2, 2026, at 1:30 p.m.

A 45-minute hearing period has been reserved. The hearing is set in Case No. 2025-CA-670, with Plaintiffs Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC opposing the City.

Zoom connection details, including a meeting ID of 386 313 4530, are provided for remote participation.

Why it matters: This notice establishes a critical upcoming hearing date (March 2, 2026) at which the court will consider whether the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint survives dismissal, making it a potentially dispositive procedural milestone in the case.

This is a Certificate of Compliance filed by Defendant City of Palm Coast certifying that its Initial Disclosures, required under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.280, were served on Plaintiffs Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC via email on December 29, 2025.

The filing was made through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal and served electronically on Plaintiffs' counsel at Holtzman Vogel (D.

Kent Safriet, Patrice Boyes, and Valerie L. Chartier-Hogancamp).

No specific factual disclosures or dollar amounts are detailed in this certificate itself.

The document is signed by Jeremiah Blocker of Douglas Law Firm, counsel for Defendant.

Why it matters: This is a routine procedural filing confirming the Defendant has met its initial discovery disclosure obligations under Rule 1.280, indicating the case has entered the discovery phase and the City of Palm Coast is actively participating in litigation.

This is Plaintiffs' mandatory initial disclosures under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(a), identifying 42 individuals with potentially discoverable information, including City of Palm Coast officials, FDEP personnel, former utility directors, damages expert Hank Fishkind PhD, and contract signatories related to failed purchase and sale agreements for real estate in Town Center at Palm Coast.

Key documents identified include a Vested Rights Application dated August 18, 2025 (1,078 pages) and an Expert Report dated November 13, 2025.

Plaintiffs claim $15,701,300 in damages exclusive of attorneys' fees and costs, with a detailed computation to be provided separately.

Plaintiffs disclaim knowledge of any applicable insurance coverage.

Why it matters: This disclosure is significant because it quantifies Plaintiffs' damages claim at $15,701,300, identifies the full universe of witnesses whose testimony will shape the case, and reveals that key issues center on FDEP Consent Orders (2020, 2024), DRI Development Orders (2003, 2022, 2024), Interlocal Agreements (2022, 2023), and failed real estate contracts — establishing the factual and legal framework for the litigation against the City of Palm Coast.

This order, signed by Circuit Judge Sandra C. Upchurch on January 5, 2026, schedules a case management conference for February 3, 2026 at 2:45 p.m. in the case of Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC v.

City of Palm Coast. Parties may appear via Zoom (Meeting ID: 386 313 4530).

The order requires parties to be prepared to discuss service of process status, defendant responses, discovery status, and pending motions, and warns that unserved defendants may be dismissed if more than 120 days have passed since filing without completed service.

Plaintiff is required to serve a copy of this order on all defendants within seven days and file a certificate of service, and failure to comply may result in sanctions including striking of pleadings, dismissal, or default.

Why it matters: This is a routine procedural scheduling order that sets the first major case management milestone at February 3, 2026, establishing deadlines and compliance requirements that could significantly affect the case if service of process or other obligations have not been met by the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff Florida Landmark Communities, LLC served 18 requests for admissions on Defendant City of Palm Coast, requiring responses within 30 days.

The requests seek admissions relating to three DRI Development Orders (2003, 2022, 2024) governing the 1,557-acre Town Center mixed-use development, including that Plaintiff fulfilled all obligations thereunder and the City never issued a default notice.

Key requests include admissions that the City failed to reserve promised potable water and wastewater capacity for Town Center, and that at an October 15, 2025 meeting, City Utility Director Brian Roche called Plaintiff's land 'worthless' without water/sewer entitlements and City Attorney Marcus Duffy conceded Plaintiff's DRI entitlements are 'vested.' The requests also seek admissions that the City entered bulk water and wastewater service agreements with outside entities after 2003.

Why it matters: This discovery filing is strategically significant because it attempts to lock the City into admissions that Plaintiff performed all contractual obligations, the City failed to reserve promised utility capacity, and the City's own officials acknowledged both the vested nature of Plaintiff's entitlements and the devastating impact of denying utility services — facts central to Plaintiff's breach of contract and vested rights claims.

This is Plaintiff Florida Landmark Communities, LLC's First Request for Production served on Defendant City of Palm Coast pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.350, containing 31 document requests with a relevant time frame beginning January 1, 2003.

The requests seek documents relating to infrastructure improvements and $35.5 million in expenditures by Plaintiff under the Town Center DRI Development Orders (2003, 2022, and 2024), the City's acknowledgment of completed DRI obligations, and the City's potable water and wastewater capacity.

Additional requests target communications, City Council meeting records, consultant reports, annexation impacts on utility capacity, and documents related to the City's alleged refusal or inability to guarantee water and wastewater availability for the Town Center DRI from 2022 to present.

The requests also cover DRI phasing analyses, Plaintiff's attempts to sell remaining land holdings, and any documents the City contends modify or terminate its DRI obligations.

Why it matters: This discovery filing reveals the core factual disputes in the case: whether the City of Palm Coast is honoring its utility capacity and service commitments under the Town Center DRI Development Orders despite the plaintiffs having spent $35.5 million and donated land, and whether the City's actions have impaired Plaintiff's ability to sell remaining development parcels, signaling a breach-of-contract or vested-rights dispute that will drive the litigation's merits.

This is a notice filed by Plaintiff Florida Landmark Communities, LLC pursuant to Rule 1.340 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, notifying the court and opposing counsel that it has served its First Set of Interrogatories on Defendant City of Palm Coast.

The document itself does not contain the interrogatories, only the notice of their service.

It was e-filed on January 23, 2026 and received by the Flagler County Clerk on January 26, 2026.

Counsel for both named Plaintiffs, Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC, signed the notice.

Why it matters: This filing marks the commencement of formal written discovery by Plaintiffs against the City of Palm Coast, signaling that the case has entered the active discovery phase, which will shape the factual record and litigation strategy going forward.

The City of Palm Coast moves to dismiss with prejudice the Amended Complaint filed by Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC, which alleged breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from DRI Development Orders (2003, 2022, and 2024) governing the Town Center Development of Regional Impact.

The City argues the Development Orders are regulatory land use approvals under Fla.

Stat. § 380.06, not bilateral contracts, and are therefore barred by sovereign immunity and the ultra vires doctrine.

Using the plaintiffs' own data, the City demonstrates that the DRI has already exceeded Phase 1 trip thresholds (7,368 PM Peak Hour trips vs. the 5,226 threshold), placing remaining entitlements in Phases 2 and 3 where no utility capacity guarantee exists.

The motion also argues Count II (promissory estoppel) fails because no clear, unconditional promise was made, and Count III (injunction against annexations) fails because annexation is a legislative act courts cannot enjoin and plaintiffs have no clear legal right to exclusive utility capacity.

Why it matters: This is a potentially dispositive motion that strikes at the legal foundation of all three counts of the plaintiffs' case, arguing that DRI development orders cannot be treated as enforceable contracts and that sovereign immunity bars the claims; if granted with prejudice, it would end the litigation without any trial on the merits.

Zachary W. Miller files this Notice of Appearance as co-counsel of record for Defendant, the City of Palm Coast, Florida, in Case No. 2025-CA-670.

The notice requests that all future correspondence and pleadings be directed to Miller at his Ponte Vedra Beach address.

The document was e-filed on January 27, 2026, and served on plaintiffs' counsel at Holtzman Vogel (D.

Kent Safriet, Patrice Boyes, and Valerie L. Chartier-Hogancamp) via the e-Portal system.

No substantive legal argument or relief is sought; this is purely a procedural entry of appearance.

Why it matters: This filing expands the defense team for the City of Palm Coast by adding Zachary W.

Miller as co-counsel, signaling the city may be bolstering its legal representation as the case progresses.

It is a routine procedural step but indicates the defendant is actively organizing its defense in this civil action brought by Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC.

This is a re-notice of a Zoom hearing filed by Defendant City of Palm Coast scheduling argument on its Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

The hearing is set for Monday, March 2, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom, with 45 minutes reserved.

The re-notice was necessitated because the Amended Motion to Dismiss, filed January 24, 2026, supersedes the previously filed motion, and re-noticing ensures all parties have proper opportunity to address the amended filing.

Zoom connection details, including a meeting ID and dial-in numbers, are provided.

Why it matters: This notice sets a critical hearing date of March 2, 2026, at which the court will consider whether to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint entirely, making it a potential dispositive turning point in the case.

This court order, signed by Circuit Judge Sandra C. Upchurch on February 4, 2026, schedules a jury trial in the matter of Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC v.

City of Palm Coast for the two-week period commencing November 16, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 301, Kim C.

Hammond Justice Center, Bunnell, Florida. Docket Sounding is set for November 3, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. via Zoom (ID: 386-313-4530), with mandatory attendance by all counsel and unrepresented parties.

The order directs pretrial procedures including mediation to be completed at least 75 days before docket sounding, mandatory pretrial meeting no later than 10 days before docket sounding, exhibit disclosure no less than 30 days before docket sounding, and filing of a Joint Pretrial Statement by docket sounding.

The Uniform Case Management Order (Exhibit A) is incorporated, setting deadlines for expert witness disclosure (120 days before docket sounding for plaintiffs), fact witness disclosure (60 days before), and written discovery requests (45 days before).

Why it matters: This order establishes the full litigation timeline and trial framework for this civil case against the City of Palm Coast, setting critical deadlines for discovery, witness disclosures, mediation, and pretrial submissions that will govern the case's progress toward a November 2026 jury trial.

This is the City of Palm Coast's formal response to Plaintiffs' (Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC) First Request for Production in Case No. 2025-CA-670, covering 32 document requests related to the Town Center DRI development.

The City produced documents under separate cover for several requests including those concerning infrastructure improvements, the $35.5 million expenditure by Plaintiff's predecessors, real property donations, DRI offsite mitigation obligations, water/wastewater capacity studies, council meeting minutes, and regulatory communications from 2022 to present.

The City objected to numerous requests—particularly those spanning 2003 to present—as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, and stated that no responsive documents exist in its possession for requests concerning communications with Plaintiff about water/wastewater capacity, DRI phasing communications, allocation policies, and documents modifying its 2003 DRI Development Order obligations.

Notably, the City denied possessing any documents concerning its alleged refusal or inability to guarantee water/wastewater capacity, objecting to that characterization.

Why it matters: This response reveals the City's discovery posture: it is producing some documents but broadly objecting to or denying possession of documents central to Plaintiffs' claims, including those concerning water/wastewater capacity guarantees and DRI phasing—issues that appear to be at the core of this dispute over development obligations under the 2003 Town Center DRI Development Order.

The City's denial of any communications regarding water capacity guarantees or refusals, combined with its objection to the 'refusal or inability' characterization, signals a key factual and legal battleground that may require further discovery motions.

This is a notice filed by Defendant City of Palm Coast confirming it has served answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories in Case No. 2025-CA-670.

The document does not contain the interrogatory answers themselves, only the notice of service.

It was e-filed on February 23, 2026, and received by the Flagler County Clerk on February 24, 2026.

The notice certifies electronic service on Plaintiffs' counsel at Holtzman Vogel, including D.

Kent Safriet, Patrice Boyes, and Valerie L. Chartier-Hogancamp.

Why it matters: This document confirms that discovery is actively proceeding in this civil case against the City of Palm Coast, indicating the litigation between the plaintiff developers and the municipal defendant has advanced to the interrogatory response stage, which may yield substantive factual admissions relevant to the underlying dispute.

Plaintiffs oppose the City of Palm Coast's Amended Motion to Dismiss their three-count Amended Complaint arising from the Town Center DRI Development Order (originally executed July 11, 2003), under which Plaintiffs expended over $35.5 million in infrastructure improvements by 2007 in exchange for vested water, sewer, traffic, and other public services concurrency rights.

Plaintiffs argue the DRI Development Orders (2003, 2022, and 2024) constitute enforceable bilateral contracts, that vested development rights cannot be divested by subsequently enacted Comprehensive Plan provisions or Land Development Code sections (the City's Comprehensive Plan was not enacted until April 6, 2004, and its LDC not until August 19, 2008), and that the DRI remains in Phase 1 based on actual traffic counts per the 2023 Biennial Traffic Report dated April 2024.

The City's refusal during 2024 to guarantee potable water and wastewater capacity caused two prospective purchasers to cancel contracts to purchase Plaintiffs' DRI landholdings, and the City's own motion concedes capacity issues are not resolved until 2028.

Plaintiffs request denial of the motion as to all three counts—breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and injunction against further annexations that would allocate capacity ahead of Plaintiffs' vested rights.

Why it matters: This response is a pivotal substantive brief that frames the central legal disputes—whether the DRI Development Orders are enforceable contracts shielding Plaintiffs' water and wastewater entitlements from subsequent City regulation, and whether the City's refusal to guarantee capacity constitutes an actionable anticipatory breach—and will largely determine whether the case proceeds to discovery or is dismissed at the pleading stage.

This is a court order issued by Judge Sandra C. Upchurch following a hearing held on March 2, 2026, on the City of Palm Coast's Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

The motion had been filed by the City of Palm Coast on January 27, 2026, and Plaintiffs Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC filed their opposition on February 26, 2026.

The Court denied the Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.

The Defendant is ordered to serve its Answer to the Amended Complaint no later than March 23, 2026.

Why it matters: This is a significant turning point in the case, as the denial of the motion to dismiss allows Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint to survive and the litigation to proceed to the answer and discovery phases, foreclosing the City of Palm Coast's attempt to terminate the case at the pleading stage.

This is a transmittal letter from Mandy Fischer, Paralegal at Holtzman Vogel, to the Judicial Assistant for Judge Upchurch, submitting a proposed order denying Defendant City of Palm Coast's Amended Motion to Dismiss.

The motion was heard on March 2, 2026. Defense counsel has reviewed the proposed order and does not object to its language.

The letter requests that Judge Upchurch enter the proposed order if she agrees with its form.

Why it matters: This document signals a significant procedural development: Plaintiffs are seeking a court order denying the Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss, which, if entered, would allow the case to proceed on the merits rather than being dismissed at the pleading stage.

The City of Palm Coast filed this Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in case 2025-CA-670, admitting limited facts (including that a Development of Regional Impact application was submitted around 2003 and public infrastructure obligations were memorialized that year) while denying the majority of allegations.

The City asserts seven affirmative defenses: sovereign immunity barring the promissory estoppel claim in Count II and failure to provide pre-suit notice under §768.28; failure to exhaust administrative remedies; that the Amended Development Order is not a contract under Florida law, barring breach of contract claims; that annexation is a legislative act courts cannot enjoin absent illegality or fraud; that the Remaining Entitlements outside Phase 1 carry no guaranteed water/sewer capacity; that Count III for injunctive relief fails as injunctive relief is a remedy not a cause of action; and that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages.

Why it matters: This is a critical turning point establishing the City's legal theory that the foundational document underlying Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim (the Amended Development Order) is not a contract as a matter of Florida law, and that sovereign immunity, exhaustion of remedies, and separation of powers collectively bar or substantially limit most of the relief sought, shaping the primary legal battlegrounds for the remainder of the case.

This is a Notice of Taking Deposition filed by Plaintiffs' counsel in a civil case against the City of Palm Coast.

It schedules the deposition of Phong Nguyen for April 27, 2026 at 1:00 PM Eastern, to be held at Southern Reporting, 145 City Place, Suite 302, Palm Coast, FL 32164.

The notice specifies that Nguyen's deposition will begin at 1:00 PM or immediately following the deposition of Jose Papa, also scheduled that day.

The document was e-filed March 27, 2026 and received by the Clerk on March 30, 2026.

Why it matters: This notice indicates that Plaintiffs are actively conducting fact discovery by deposing at least two witnesses (Phong Nguyen and Jose Papa) on the same day, suggesting the case is in an active discovery phase that may be building toward dispositive motions or trial preparation.

This is a Notice of Taking Deposition filed by Plaintiffs' counsel scheduling the deposition of Jose Papa on April 27, 2026, at 9:00 AM Eastern time.

The deposition is to be held at Southern Reporting, 145 City Place, Suite 302, Palm Coast, FL 32164.

The notice was e-filed on March 27, 2026, and electronically received by the Flagler County Clerk on March 30, 2026.

No subject matter or document requests are specified in the notice.

Why it matters: This notice reflects that the case is in active discovery, with Plaintiffs deposing an individual named Jose Papa, who may be a witness or official relevant to the dispute between the developers and the City of Palm Coast.

This is Plaintiff Florida Landmark Communities, LLC's Second Request for Production served on Defendant City of Palm Coast, containing two specific requests (numbered #32 and #33).

Request #32 seeks all documents and communications supporting the City's Second Affirmative Defense as alleged in the City's Answer and Affirmative Defenses dated March 23, 2026.

Request #33 seeks all documents and communications not previously produced relating to or arising from the Vested Rights Application submitted to the City on August 19, 2025, by Holtzman Vogel on behalf of Plaintiffs.

The requests cover a time frame from January 1, 2003 through the date responses are due, and reference three DRI Development Orders dated July 11, 2003, July 5, 2022, and February 6, 2024.

Why it matters: This discovery filing is significant because it reveals that the City filed an Answer with Affirmative Defenses as recently as March 23, 2026, and that Plaintiffs had previously submitted a Vested Rights Application in August 2025, indicating the case involves disputed vested development rights under multiple DRI Development Orders spanning two decades.

The targeted nature of these two requests suggests discovery is becoming more focused on the City's defenses and the administrative vested rights process, key issues in determining the outcome of this land use dispute.

This is a Notice of Taking Audiovisually Recorded Deposition filed by Plaintiffs' counsel scheduling the deposition of Ray Tyner on May 12, 2026 at 1:00 PM Eastern via Zoom videoconferencing.

The deposition will be both stenographically recorded by a certified court reporter and automatically recorded by video through Zoom's system.

It is being taken for purposes of discovery, use at trial, or other purposes permitted under court rules.

The notice was e-filed on April 8, 2026, and served on all counsel of record through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal.

Why it matters: This deposition notice identifies Ray Tyner as a witness the Plaintiffs intend to examine, which may be significant in establishing facts related to the claims against the City of Palm Coast; it marks an active discovery phase in this civil litigation.

Plaintiffs reply to nine affirmative defenses served by the City of Palm Coast on March 24, 2026, denying each defense.

Key arguments include: sovereign immunity is waived for promissory estoppel claims against municipalities; exhaustion of administrative remedies should be excused because Plaintiffs filed a vested rights petition on August 19, 2025 and received no response for six months until February 13, 2026; the DRI Development Order constitutes a contract containing enforceable guarantees; and the City's failure to provide water and wastewater capacity renders Plaintiffs' remaining landholdings 'nearly worthless.' Plaintiffs further argue several of the City's defenses are legally insufficient for failure to plead ultimate facts.

Why it matters: This reply crystallizes the core legal disputes — whether the DRI Development Order is a contract, whether administrative remedies were exhausted or excused, and whether sovereign immunity applies — framing the issues that will drive merits litigation and any motions to strike the City's affirmative defenses.

This is the City of Palm Coast's amended response to Plaintiffs' (Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC) First Request for Production in case 2025-CA-670, covering 32 document requests related to the Town Center DRI development.

The City produced documents under separate cover for many requests concerning infrastructure improvements, the $35.5 million expenditure by Plaintiffs, potable water and wastewater capacity, DRI phasing, and regulatory permits, while claiming no responsive documents exist for several requests including communications about water/wastewater capacity for the Town Center DRI from 2022 to present.

The City objected to certain requests as overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly those spanning more than twenty years, and withheld some documents on privilege grounds (Requests 29 and 31) with a privilege log provided.

Notably, the City denied possessing any documents about its alleged refusal or inability to guarantee water/wastewater capacity, and about communications with potential purchasers of Plaintiff's land holdings.

Why it matters: This document reveals the City's discovery posture, including blanket denials of possessing key communications about water/wastewater capacity guarantees for the Town Center DRI from 2022 onward, and assertion of privilege over internal DRI phasing communications — facts central to Plaintiffs' claims that the City failed to honor its utility service obligations under the 2003 DRI Development Order.

This is a Notice filed by Defendant City of Palm Coast announcing service of its Amended Answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories in Case No. 2025-CA-670.

The document does not contain the actual interrogatory answers but serves as formal notice of their transmission to opposing counsel.

The filing was electronically served on April 16, 2026, to Plaintiffs' counsel at Holtzman Vogel, including D.

Kent Safriet, Patrice Boyes, and Valerie L. Chartier-Hogancamp.

The City is represented by the Douglas Law Firm (Jeremiah Blocker and Lisa Miles) and Zachary W.

Miller, Esq.

Why it matters: This notice indicates that the City of Palm Coast found it necessary to amend its prior interrogatory answers, suggesting that initial responses were incomplete, inaccurate, or required supplementation as discovery in this municipal dispute progresses.

This is a notice filed by Plaintiffs' counsel scheduling the audiovisually recorded deposition of John Zobler on May 7, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.

Eastern time, to be conducted via Zoom videoconferencing. The deposition will be both stenographically recorded by a certified court reporter and automatically recorded by Zoom's video system.

It is being taken for purposes of discovery, use at trial, or other purposes permitted under court rules.

Why it matters: This notice indicates the case is in active discovery, with Plaintiffs pursuing testimony from John Zobler, whose identity and role in the dispute between the developer plaintiffs and the City of Palm Coast may be significant to the underlying claims.

This is a notice filed by Plaintiffs' counsel scheduling the audiovisually recorded deposition of Michael Hanson for May 7, 2026, at 1:00 p.m.

Eastern time, to be conducted via Zoom videoconferencing. The deposition is to be both stenographically recorded by a certified court reporter and automatically video-recorded through Zoom's system.

The deposition is scheduled to occur immediately following the deposition of John Zobler on the same date.

It is being taken for purposes of discovery, potential use at trial, or other purposes permitted under the Florida Rules of Court.

Why it matters: This notice reflects active discovery proceedings in the case, identifying Michael Hanson as a witness whose testimony Plaintiffs are pursuing, and signals that multiple depositions (including John Zobler's) are being conducted in close succession as the case progresses toward trial.

This is a notice filed by Plaintiffs' counsel scheduling the audiovisually recorded deposition of Michael McGlothin for June 18, 2026 at 9:00 a.m.

Eastern time via Zoom videoconferencing. The deposition will be both video-recorded through Zoom's system and stenographically recorded by a certified court reporter.

It is intended for discovery purposes, potential use at trial, or other purposes permitted under Florida court rules.

The case involves Plaintiffs Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC against the City of Palm Coast, a Florida municipal corporation.

Why it matters: This notice signals that Plaintiffs are actively conducting discovery by deposing Michael McGlothin, whose testimony may be relevant to the underlying dispute with the City of Palm Coast, advancing the case toward trial preparation.

This is the City of Palm Coast's response to Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production, addressing requests numbered 32 and 33.

For Request 32, the City states that documents supporting its Second Affirmative Defense are publicly available through the City's Code of Ordinances and Land Development Regulations.

For Request 33, which sought documents related to a Vested Rights Application submitted by Holtzman Vogel on behalf of Plaintiffs on August 19, 2025, the City objects on grounds of duplication and asserts it has already produced all non-privileged documents in its possession.

The document was filed April 29, 2026, signed by counsel from the Douglas Law Firm and Zachary W.

Miller, Esq.

Why it matters: This response reveals the City's litigation posture during discovery — directing Plaintiffs to public records for affirmative defense support and asserting it has fully complied with production obligations regarding the Vested Rights Application, a likely central issue in this land use dispute.

This is a notice filed by Plaintiffs' counsel scheduling the audiovisually recorded deposition of Marcus Duffy on June 17, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.

Eastern time via Zoom videoconferencing. The deposition will be both video-recorded through Zoom's automatic recording system and stenographically recorded by a certified court reporter.

It is being taken for purposes of discovery, potential use at trial, or other purposes permitted under court rules.

Zoom meeting credentials (Meeting ID: 813 7721 9632, Passcode: 351817) are provided in the notice.

Why it matters: This notice reveals that Plaintiffs are actively conducting discovery against the City of Palm Coast, identifying Marcus Duffy as a witness of sufficient importance to depose, which may indicate his role in decisions relevant to the underlying dispute between the developer plaintiffs and the City.

This is an amended notice of deposition scheduling Marcus Duffy for June 25, 2026 at 9:00 a.m.

Eastern via Zoom videoconference, amended solely as to the date from a prior notice.

The deposition will be both stenographically recorded by a certified court reporter and audiovisually recorded via Zoom's system.

It is being taken for discovery purposes, for use at trial, or for other purposes permitted under court rules.

Why it matters: This routine discovery notice identifies Marcus Duffy as a deponent in the plaintiffs' case against the City of Palm Coast, signaling active fact-gathering by plaintiffs and indicating the case is in the discovery phase heading toward trial.

This is a Request for Production of Documents filed by Defendant City of Palm Coast pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280 and 1.350, directed to Plaintiffs Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC.

The request seeks 25 categories of documents relating to the Town Center at Palm Coast Development of Regional Impact (DRI), including communications about the 2003, 2022, and 2024 Development Orders, records of entitlement assignments and transfers from 2014 to present, financial records supporting claimed damages, agreements with prospective purchasers of development rights, and documents concerning utility capacity and infrastructure.

Plaintiffs are required to produce documents within 30 days of service, with electronic copies to be sent to Samantha@dhclawyers.com.

The request broadly covers contractual rights, lost profits, appraisals, traffic studies, and communications with third parties and state regulatory agencies including FDEP.

Why it matters: This broad discovery request signals the City's defense strategy: to challenge the nature and extent of Plaintiffs' claimed development rights and entitlements, probe the financial basis for alleged damages, and investigate prior assignments and sales of entitlements that may undermine Plaintiffs' standing or damages claims.

It marks a key phase of active discovery that will shape the factual record regarding the disputed DRI development rights.

This is a notice filed by Defendant City of Palm Coast pursuant to Rule 1.340, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, advising that it has propounded its first set of interrogatories, numbered 1 through 28, upon Plaintiff Florida Landmark Communities, LLC.

The interrogatories require sworn written answers within 30 days of service. The document was e-filed on May 14, 2026, and received by the Clerk's office on May 15, 2026.

Plaintiffs' counsel of record at Holtzman Vogel (D. Kent Safriet, Patrice Boyes, and Valerie L.

Chartier-Hogancamp) were served via the e-Portal system.

Why it matters: This notice marks the formal commencement of written discovery by the Defendant against one of the two Plaintiffs, indicating the case has entered active discovery phase and that the City is seeking detailed factual information from Florida Landmark Communities, LLC to build its defense.

This is a Notice of Mediation filed by mediator Terrance M. White (Mediator No. 1770RA) in the case of Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC versus City of Palm Coast (Case No. 2025-CA-670).

The notice schedules mediation for July 31, 2026, at 9:00 A.M. at City of Palm Coast City Hall, 160 Lake Ave, Palm Coast, FL.

The mediator is Terrence White of Upchurch Watson White & Max, based in Ormond Beach, FL.

The document was e-filed on June 12, 2026, and electronically received by the Flagler County Clerk on June 15, 2026.

Why it matters: This notice signals that the case between the plaintiffs and the City of Palm Coast has advanced to the alternative dispute resolution stage, with mediation scheduled for July 31, 2026, potentially indicating an opportunity to resolve the dispute before further litigation or trial.

Plaintiffs respond to the City of Palm Coast's First Request for Production (served May 14, 2026), addressing 25 document requests relating to the DRI Development Orders (2003, 2022, 2024), development rights and entitlements, utility capacity, damages, and third-party transactions.

Plaintiffs assert numerous objections including overbreadth, undue burden, lack of temporal limitations, attorney-client privilege, and work product doctrine across most requests, while agreeing to produce non-privileged responsive documents within defined scopes.

Key factual admissions include that the Developer provided $35.5 million in infrastructure improvements to Town Center in exchange for vested entitlements, and that the breach period relevant to the action begins in 2024.

Plaintiffs reference an expert report by Hank Fishkind, PhD dated November 13, 2025, previously disclosed with Initial Disclosures dated December 29, 2025, as responsive to damages-related requests.

Why it matters: This document reveals the scope of discovery disputes between the parties and discloses key factual and legal positions: Plaintiffs contend the Development Orders are binding contracts supported by $35.5 million in infrastructure consideration, limit their production obligations largely to post-2024 documents, and rely on an expert damages report — all of which will shape the trajectory of discovery and potential motions to compel.

This is a notice filed by Plaintiff Florida Landmark Communities, LLC (FLCLLC) in Case No. 2025 CA 000670, advising the court and opposing counsel that FLCLLC has served its answers to the City of Palm Coast's First Set of Interrogatories.

The document itself does not contain the interrogatory answers but serves as the formal notice of service required under Florida court rules.

It was e-filed on June 15, 2026, and received by the Flagler County Clerk on June 16, 2026.

Counsel D. Kent Safriet of Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak, PLLC signed the filing on behalf of both Plaintiffs.

Why it matters: This is a routine discovery procedural filing indicating that written discovery is actively underway, reflecting that the case between the Plaintiffs and the City of Palm Coast is progressing through the discovery phase of litigation.

This is a jointly executed confidentiality agreement governing the production of sensitive documents in discovery, entered into between Plaintiffs Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC and Defendant City of Palm Coast.

The agreement was triggered by the City's First Request for Production served May 14, 2026, specifically RFP Nos. 11–13 seeking financial records supporting lost profits claims, property valuations, and appraisals related to the 1,557-acre Town Center DRI executed in 2003.

Plaintiffs agreed to Bates-label responsive documents as 'Confidential,' while the City agreed to restrict use to this litigation and require written consent from experts and consultants before sharing documents.

The agreement also provides three days' notice before filing confidential documents, allows Plaintiffs to redact or seek sealing via court order, and includes inadvertent production protections consistent with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.285.

At case conclusion, the City must return or destroy all confidential documents.

Why it matters: This agreement facilitates the production of Plaintiffs' proprietary financial and valuation records — central to their damages claims — while protecting them from public disclosure, signaling that damages discovery is actively underway and that Plaintiffs possess potentially sensitive financial data regarding the DRI's lost profits and development rights valuation.

This is the City of Palm Coast's notice of intent to take the deposition of Julie Padilla pursuant to Rule 1.310(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

The deposition is scheduled for Friday, August 28, 2026, beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern time, to be conducted via Zoom before a Lexitas Court Reporting court reporter.

The deposition will be recorded stenographically and is intended for discovery purposes, use at trial, or both.

The document was e-filed on June 30, 2026, and served on plaintiffs' counsel at Holtzman Vogel.

Why it matters: This notice indicates the defendant City of Palm Coast is actively conducting discovery by deposing Julie Padilla, suggesting she is a witness with relevant knowledge in this civil action brought by Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC against the City.

This is a Notice of Taking Deposition filed by Defendant City of Palm Coast in case 2025-CA-670 against Plaintiffs Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC.

The Defendant notices the deposition of Jake Miller to be held on Wednesday, August 26, 2026, beginning at 12:00 p.m. eastern time via Zoom before a Lexitas Court Reporting court reporter.

The deposition will be recorded by stenographic means and is taken for purposes of discovery, use at trial, or both.

Zoom connection details are to be provided to all counsel upon receipt from Lexitas Court Reporting.

Why it matters: This notice reflects that the case is in active discovery, with the Defendant pursuing testimony from Jake Miller, who appears to be a witness potentially connected to the Plaintiffs' claims involving the City of Palm Coast.

It signals that the City is building its defense through deposition discovery ahead of trial.

This is a Notice of Taking Deposition filed by Defendant City of Palm Coast in a civil case brought by Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC.

The defendant notifies all parties of its intent to depose Walker Douglas on Wednesday, August 26, 2026, beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern time via Zoom, before a Lexitas Court Reporting court reporter.

The deposition will be recorded stenographically and is taken for purposes of discovery, use at trial, or both, pursuant to Rule 1.310(b), Fla.

R. Civ.

P. Plaintiffs' counsel from Holtzman Vogel (D.

Kent Safriet, Patrice Boyes, and Valerie L. Chartier-Hogancamp) are identified as parties to be served.

Why it matters: This notice identifies Walker Douglas as a witness whose testimony the defendant considers relevant to its defense, signaling an active discovery phase and indicating that Walker Douglas may have knowledge material to the dispute between the plaintiffs and the City of Palm Coast.

This is a Notice of Taking Deposition filed by the Defendant, City of Palm Coast, noticing the deposition of Jeff Douglas scheduled for Tuesday, August 25, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. eastern time.

The deposition will be conducted via Zoom before a Lexitas Court Reporting court reporter and recorded stenographically.

It is taken pursuant to Rule 1.310(b), Fla. R.

Civ. P., for purposes of discovery, use at trial, or both.

Counsel for Plaintiffs at Holtzman Vogel were served via the e-Portal system on July 9, 2026.

Why it matters: This notice indicates the City of Palm Coast is actively pursuing discovery from Jeff Douglas, suggesting he is a potentially important witness whose testimony the defense considers relevant to its case against the plaintiff developers, Palm Coast Holdings and Florida Landmark Communities.

This is a Notice of Taking Deposition filed by Defendant City of Palm Coast in Case No. 2025-CA-670.

The City notices the deposition of Michael Chiumento, scheduled for Monday, August 24, 2026, beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern time via Zoom before a Lexitas Court Reporting court reporter.

The deposition will be recorded by stenographic means and is taken for purposes of discovery, trial use, or both.

Plaintiffs' counsel of record from Holtzman Vogel were served via the e-Portal system.

Why it matters: This deposition notice indicates that the City of Palm Coast is actively pursuing discovery against a witness named Michael Chiumento, who appears to be associated with the Plaintiffs or relevant to the underlying dispute, suggesting the case is in an active pretrial discovery phase.

This document is a Certification of Mediation Authority filed by both Plaintiffs pursuant to Fla.

R. Civ.

P. Rule 1.720(e), certifying compliance with mediation attendance and authority requirements.

It identifies Michael D. Chiumento, III, of 145 City Pl #301, Palm Coast, FL 32164, as the authorized representative for both Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC at mediation.

The certification affirms that Chiumento will have full authority to settle the case without further consultation, as required by Fla.

R. Civ.

P. Rule 1.720(b)(1) and (c).

The document was e-filed on July 13, 2026, and served on all counsel of record via the Florida E-Filing Portal.

Why it matters: This filing indicates the case has progressed to the mediation stage, with Plaintiffs formally designating a fully authorized settlement representative, signaling that a mediation session is imminent and that the parties may be approaching potential resolution of the dispute against the City of Palm Coast.

This is a notice filed by Plaintiff Florida Landmark Communities, LLC (FLCLLC) in Case No. 2025 CA 000670, advising the court and opposing counsel that FLCLLC has served amended answers to the City of Palm Coast's First Set of Interrogatories.

The document was e-filed on July 20, 2026, through the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal.

It does not contain the substance of the amended answers themselves, only the formal notice of service.

The filing is signed by D. Kent Safriet and associates at Holtzman Vogel on behalf of both Plaintiffs, Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC.

Why it matters: This notice indicates that discovery is actively ongoing and that FLCLLC found it necessary to amend its prior interrogatory responses, which may signal updated factual positions or corrections relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims against the City of Palm Coast.

The City of Palm Coast moves to continue the November 16, 2026 trial date to a March 2027 trial term and amend the scheduling order, citing three grounds: (1) key witness Kady Dearing is on maternity leave from July 29 through mid-November 2026, making her deposition impossible before the August 18, 2026 dispositive motion deadline; (2) Plaintiffs produced 48,922 pages of documents in multiple batches through July 15, 2026, requiring substantial review time before depositions and dispositive motions can proceed; and (3) the case's complexity — a 372-page Amended Complaint involving decades-spanning land use issues — disqualifies it as a 'streamlined' case under Fla.

R. Civ.

P. 1.200, warranting 'general' case designation. The City requests a new amended Trial Order with dispositive motions due 120 days before trial, written discovery served 45 days before docket sounding, and discovery completed 10 days before docket sounding.

Plaintiffs objected to the continuance during a July 20, 2026 videoconference.

Why it matters: This motion is a significant procedural development that, if granted, would delay trial by approximately four months and reshape all remaining deadlines; the parties' dispute over scheduling reflects underlying tensions about discovery scope and case complexity that will influence how the court manages this land use litigation going forward.

The City of Palm Coast moves to continue the November 16, 2026 trial to a March 2027 trial term and amend the scheduling order, citing four grounds: (1) key witness Kady Dearing is on maternity leave from July 29 through mid-November 2026, making her deposition impossible before the August 18, 2026 dispositive motion deadline; (2) Plaintiffs produced 48,922 pages of documents in multiple batches through July 15, 2026, leaving insufficient time for review before deadlines; (3) the case does not qualify as 'streamlined' under Fla.

R. Civ.

P. 1.200 given the 372-page amended complaint and complex land use issues; and (4) a potentially privileged document (bates stamp PL_00013434, labeled 'PalmCoastHoldingsLegalMemo2025') was inadvertently disclosed in Plaintiffs' production, requiring a pause in discovery review.

The City requests new deadlines including dispositive motions 120 days before trial, written discovery cutoff 45 days before docket sounding, and discovery completion 10 days before docket sounding.

Plaintiffs oppose the motion, as confirmed by a July 20, 2026 videoconference conferral.

Why it matters: This motion signals a significant potential delay in the case timeline and reveals critical discovery disputes, including a possibly inadvertent disclosure of a privileged legal memo by Plaintiffs, which could trigger privilege clawback proceedings and affect the scope of discoverable evidence; the Court's ruling will determine whether the November 2026 trial proceeds or is pushed approximately four months to March 2027.

Plaintiffs filed this Notice of Inadvertent Disclosure pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.285, advising that on July 24, 2026, they became aware that a document named 'PalmCoastHoldingsLegalMemo2025' (Bates stamp PL-00013434) was inadvertently produced in discovery.

Plaintiffs assert that the document is protected by attorney-client privilege and work product privilege.

The notice demands that the recipient promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified materials and all copies, notify any other persons to whom the materials were disclosed, and take reasonable steps to retrieve the disclosed materials.

Why it matters: This notice is a procedurally significant clawback filing that attempts to protect a potentially key legal memorandum from disclosure to opposing counsel; its resolution could affect the scope of discoverable evidence and the litigation strategy available to the City of Palm Coast.

This is a Certification of Authority filed by Defendant City of Palm Coast pursuant to Rule 1.720(e), Fla.

R. C.

P., confirming its compliance with mediation attendance requirements. The document certifies that City Manager Michael McGlothlin will attend the Mediation Conference scheduled for July 31, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. at Palm Coast City Hall.

McGlothlin is designated as having full authority to settle the case on behalf of the Defendant.

The document was e-filed on July 27, 2026, and served electronically to Plaintiffs' counsel at Holtzman Vogel.

Why it matters: This certification confirms that the City of Palm Coast is prepared to engage in mediation with full settlement authority, indicating the case has reached a potential resolution stage and that a key mediation session is imminent on July 31, 2026.

This is a Notice of Zoom Hearing filed by Defendant City of Palm Coast, notifying all parties that its Amended Motion to Continue Trial and Amend the Order Scheduling Trial and Directing Pretrial Procedures (DKT #58) will be heard via Zoom on August 14, 2026, at 10:30 a.m.

A 30-minute hearing block has been reserved. The Zoom meeting ID is 386 313 4530, and service was made electronically to counsel at Holtzman Vogel on July 30, 2026.

Why it matters: This notice signals that the Defendant is actively seeking to delay or reschedule the trial, which could significantly affect the case timeline and pretrial deadlines in this civil action between the plaintiff property interests and the City of Palm Coast.

This is a Notice of Taking Deposition filed by Defendant City of Palm Coast in Case No. 2025-CA-670.

The City noticed the deposition of Dr. Hank Fishkind, to be taken via Zoom on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern time, before a court reporter from Lexitas Court Reporting.

The deposition will be recorded stenographically and is intended for discovery, trial use, or both.

Plaintiffs' counsel at Holtzman Vogel (D. Kent Safriet, Patrice Boyes, and Valerie Chartier-Hogancamp) were served via the e-Portal system.

Why it matters: This notice reveals that Dr. Hank Fishkind — likely an expert witness for the Plaintiffs — is being deposed by the Defendant City, indicating the case has progressed into expert discovery and suggesting economic or financial expert testimony will be a key component at trial.

This is a Notice of Taking Deposition filed by Defendant City of Palm Coast in its civil case against Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC.

The notice schedules the deposition of Brett Witte for Wednesday, September 2, 2026, beginning at 9:00 a.m. eastern time via Zoom.

The deposition will be recorded stenographically by Lexitas Court Reporting and is taken pursuant to Rule 1.310(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

It is intended for discovery, use at trial, or both.

Why it matters: This notice identifies Brett Witte as a witness the Defendant considers important enough to depose, signaling that his testimony may be material to the City of Palm Coast's defense strategy in this civil action.

It reflects active discovery proceedings in this case, suggesting the litigation is progressing toward trial preparation.

This is the Defendant City of Palm Coast's expert witness disclosure filed in advance of the jury trial scheduled for the two-week period commencing November 16, 2026.

The City discloses four expert witnesses: Phong Nguyen (PTP, City of Palm Coast) on Town Center DRI planning and transportation; Richard L.

Levey (Ph.D., AICP, Levey Consulting) on land development, comprehensive planning, and zoning; Dr.

Randall Valentine (Thomas Roney LLC) on economic and business damages; and Kyle Schaeffer (CPA, H2 Advisors, LLC) on economic damages.

The disclosure was served on plaintiffs' counsel at Holtzman Vogel on August 5, 2026.

Why it matters: This disclosure reveals the City's litigation strategy, particularly its intent to counter the plaintiffs' damages claims through two economic damages experts and to defend its land use and planning decisions through planning and zoning specialists, signaling the case is headed to a contested jury trial on both liability and damages.

This is Plaintiffs' Expert Witness Disclosure filed pursuant to the Order Scheduling Trial and Directing Pretrial Procedures dated February 4, 2026, in a breach of contract case against the City of Palm Coast.

Plaintiffs identify two experts: Dr. Henry H.

Fishkind, Ph.D. of Fishkind Litigation Services (Orlando, FL), who will testify regarding economic analysis of the Town Center Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order and Plaintiffs' damages from the City's alleged breach of the DRI Development Order; and Dave Mulholland, P.E. of Moffatt & Nichol (Lake Mary, FL), who will testify regarding traffic and phasing of the Town Center DRI.

Curriculum vitae for both experts are attached to the disclosure.

Why it matters: This disclosure is a key pretrial filing that reveals the substance and scope of Plaintiffs' damages and technical theory at trial — specifically that they will use an economist to quantify damages from the City's alleged breach of the DRI Development Order and a traffic engineer to address phasing issues, signaling a complex, expert-driven damages case against the City of Palm Coast.

This document is a Notice of Cancellation of Hearing filed by counsel for Defendant City of Palm Coast in case no. 2025-CA-670.

It notifies all parties that the Zoom hearing previously scheduled for August 14, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. on the Defendant's Amended Motion to Continue Trial and Amend the Order Scheduling Trial and Directing Pretrial Procedures (DKT #58) is cancelled.

The notice was e-filed on August 11, 2026, and served via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal.

No reasons for the cancellation are stated in the document.

Why it matters: This cancellation indicates that the defendant's pending motion to continue trial (DKT #58) will not be heard on the scheduled date, potentially signaling a resolution of the scheduling dispute, a withdrawal of the motion, or a rescheduling — which could affect the trial timeline in this case between the plaintiff developers and the City of Palm Coast.

All parties jointly move the court to stay proceedings and cancel all pending deadlines in this real property litigation between plaintiffs Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC against the City of Palm Coast.

The parties report they have reached a tentative settlement involving the purchase and sale of the real property at issue in the litigation, which is expected to close in approximately 90 days from the filing date.

The motion requests cancellation of the docket sounding scheduled for November 3, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. and the two-week trial period commencing November 16, 2026, both set pursuant to the Court's February 4, 2026 scheduling order.

The parties also request the court retain jurisdiction until the transaction closes, and commit to promptly notifying the court upon closing.

Why it matters: This joint motion is a pivotal turning point signaling the likely resolution of the case, as all parties have agreed to a tentative settlement involving a real property transaction expected to close within 90 days, effectively halting all litigation activity and rendering the scheduled trial moot if finalized.

This is a Notice of Cancellation of Depositions filed by counsel for Defendant City of Palm Coast in Case No. 2025-CA-670.

It notifies all parties that the deposition of Dr. Hank Fishkind, previously scheduled for Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., has been canceled.

No reason for the cancellation is stated. The notice was e-filed on August 20, 2026, and served on opposing counsel at Holtzman Vogel via the e-Portal system.

Why it matters: This document indicates that a key expert witness deposition — likely of an economic or financial expert given Dr.

Fishkind's known expertise — has been canceled, which may reflect a settlement negotiation, scheduling change, or strategic shift in the litigation between the plaintiff landowners and the City of Palm Coast.

This notice informs all parties that the deposition of Brett Witte, previously scheduled for Wednesday, September 2, 2026 at 12:00 p.m., has been canceled.

The notice was filed by the Douglas Law Firm on behalf of the Defendant, City of Palm Coast.

No reason for the cancellation is provided. The document was served electronically via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal to counsel for the opposing parties at Holtzman Vogel.

Why it matters: This is a routine procedural filing indicating a discovery scheduling change; it signals that deposition activity involving Brett Witte is ongoing or being rescheduled, which may reflect negotiations, witness availability issues, or shifts in litigation strategy during the discovery phase.

This is a Notice of Cancellation of Depositions filed by counsel for Defendant City of Palm Coast in a civil action brought by Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC against the City.

The notice cancels the previously scheduled deposition of Julie Padilla, which had been set for Friday, August 28, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.

No reason for the cancellation is provided in the document. The filing was electronically served on opposing counsel at Holtzman Vogel on August 20, 2026.

Why it matters: This is a routine procedural filing indicating that active discovery, including witness depositions, is underway in this case; the cancellation of Julie Padilla's deposition may signal a scheduling change, settlement discussions, or a strategic decision, though no explanation is provided.

This document is a Notice of Cancellation of Depositions filed by counsel for Defendant City of Palm Coast in case 2025-CA-670.

It notifies all parties that the deposition of Jake Miller, previously scheduled for Wednesday, August 26, 2026, at 12:00 p.m., has been canceled.

No reason for the cancellation is stated. The notice was e-filed on August 20, 2026, and served electronically on opposing counsel at Holtzman Vogel representing the plaintiffs, Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC.

Why it matters: This is a routine procedural filing indicating a discovery activity — the deposition of Jake Miller — has been canceled, which may suggest a scheduling change, settlement discussions, or a strategic decision affecting the pace of discovery in this municipal corporation dispute.

This is a Notice of Cancellation of Depositions filed by counsel for Defendant City of Palm Coast in Case No. 2025-CA-670.

It notifies all parties that the deposition of Walker Douglas, previously scheduled for Wednesday, August 26, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., has been canceled.

No reason for the cancellation is stated in the document. The notice was e-filed on August 20, 2026, and served on opposing counsel at Holtzman Vogel via the e-Portal Electronic Filing System.

Why it matters: This is a routine procedural filing canceling a scheduled deposition, but it may indicate a shift in discovery strategy or a scheduling change affecting the pace of litigation between the plaintiffs and the City of Palm Coast.

This is a Notice of Cancellation of Depositions filed by counsel for Defendant City of Palm Coast in case no. 2025-CA-670.

It notifies all parties that the deposition of Jeff Douglas, previously scheduled for Tuesday, August 25, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., has been canceled.

No reason for the cancellation is provided. The notice was e-filed on August 20, 2026, and served via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal to opposing counsel at Holtzman Vogel.

Why it matters: This is a routine procedural notice indicating a deposition cancellation during the discovery phase, but it may signal a delay in the defendant's discovery schedule or a shift in litigation strategy, as Jeff Douglas appears to share a name with the filing law firm (Douglas Law Firm).

This is a Notice of Cancellation of Depositions filed by counsel for the Defendant, City of Palm Coast, in a civil action brought by Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC.

The notice informs all parties that the deposition of Michael Chimento, previously scheduled for Monday, August 24, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., has been canceled.

No reason for the cancellation is provided. The document was e-filed on August 20, 2026, and served electronically to opposing counsel at Holtzman Vogel.

Why it matters: This is a routine procedural filing indicating a deposition cancellation during the discovery phase; it signals that discovery activity involving witness Michael Chimento has been at least temporarily suspended, which may reflect scheduling changes, settlement discussions, or strategic decisions by the defense.

This is a cover letter from Mandy Fischer, paralegal at Holtzman Vogel, addressed to the judicial assistant of Judge Sandra C.

Upchurch, transmitting a proposed Order Granting the Parties' Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings in Palm Coast Holdings, et al vs.

City of Palm Coast (Case No. 2025 CA 670). The Joint Motion to Stay was filed on August 19, 2026.

The letter notes that the proposed order was circulated to Defendant's counsel, who does not object to the language.

The letter requests that the judge review and presumably sign the proposed order.

Why it matters: This transmittal letter indicates that both parties have agreed to a stay of proceedings, reflecting a significant procedural development that would pause the litigation; the lack of objection from Defendant's counsel signals a consensual, joint agreement to halt the case at this stage.

This is a court order granting the parties' Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings and Cancel All Pending Deadlines, filed August 19, 2026, in a civil case between Palm Coast Holdings, Inc. and Florida Landmark Communities, LLC against the City of Palm Coast.

The order stays the case entirely, cancelling all pending deadlines including a docket sounding set for November 3, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. and a trial period commencing November 16, 2026.

The parties are directed to promptly notify the Court upon closing of a purchase and sale transaction and to file appropriate documentation to conclude the matter.

The Court retains jurisdiction during the pendency of the stay.

Why it matters: This order is a major turning point indicating the parties have reached or are on the verge of a settlement involving a real estate purchase and sale transaction, effectively halting all litigation activity and signaling the likely imminent conclusion of the case.