<Schaaf>

This office has been retained by Dr. Anthony Kirkpatrick to represent his interests regarding the dispute which has arisen over the commercial lease, executed on April 13, 2008, by and between you, as Lessor, and Dr. Kirkpatrick, on behalf of The International Research Foundation for RSD/CRPS, as Lessee (the “Lease”), as to the commercial space comprising the entirety of the property located at 1910 E. Busch Boulevard, in Tampa (the “Premises”), including the surgery and recovery facilities contained therein.

Specifically, I have been asked to respond to your September 17, 2017 email to Dr. Kirkpatrick, in which you purport to give Dr. Kirkpatrick notice of your intent to evict him from the Premises, effective on January 1, 2018.

Please note that I have reviewed the Lease, and the attachments referenced therein, and that, based upon such review, I see no valid legal basis for your proposed termination of the Lease on January 1, 2018. To the contrary, my client has occupied the Premises for nearly ten years, and during that time has remained in good standing, has never been in default, and has effected dramatic improvements to the Premises, as have been necessary to the operation of his practice and treatment of his patients, all as contemplated in the Lease. Further, in 2013, Dr. Kirkpatrick exercised his unilateral and unconditional right to extend the Lease, for a second five-year term, and, having fully performed throughout such term, hereby exercises his right to extend the Lease for a third five-year term, through April of 2023, as is his right pursuant to Section 3 of the Lease.

While, as reiterated in your email, you have offered to sell Dr. Kirkpatrick your share of the property located at 1902 – 1904 E. Busch Boulevard (the “Adjacent Property”), his decision not to purchase that property in no way creates in you any legal right to terminate the Lease or to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick. To this point, we trust that you do not intend to use the specter of a baseless eviction claim, which could irreparably damage Dr. Kirkpatrick’s practice and research, and jeopardize the lives of his patients, to coerce him into a purchase of the Adjacent Property.

In light of the foregoing, please provide me with any and all information which you feel supports your claimed right to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick from the Premises as of January 1, 2018.

Please provide your response to the foregoing on or before the close of business on Friday, October 13, 2017, to avoid the commencement of legal proceedings for declaratory and other relief regarding the above issues.

Nothing contained herein should be deemed a waiver of any of my client’s legal claims or defenses against you, or as an agreement to forbear from the immediate enforcement of any such claims or defenses.

It is my understanding that you are not represented by counsel in this matter. If, however, you are, please forward this letter to such attorney for immediate review and response.

Your prompt attention is appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Gary M. Schaaf, Esquire

GMS1/kls

Cc: Dr. Anthony F. Kirkpatrick

EXHIBIT -2-

10-19-2017

From: Schaaf, Gary [mailto:GSchaaf@beckerlawyers.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 10:44 AM
To: alan@gassmanpa.com
Cc: Stubbs, Kiara
Subject: Lease Dispute Between Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. Derasari - K25110/386111

Alan:

I have received and reviewed your October 17^th letter regarding the dispute between Drs. Kirkpatrick and Derasari.

I am relatively open next week to schedule a call with you, and my client will be available beginning on October 30^th. Please let us know your available dates.

I am puzzled by your request for a copy of the Lease in question, as I would assume that your client has the Lease under which he is seeking to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick.

Please confirm that your client has a copy of the Lease and the attachments referenced in it.

Thank you for your help.

-Gary Schaaf

Gary M. Schaaf
Office Managing Shareholder
Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney
Tampa
Ext. 33912 (813.527.3900)

EXHIBIT -3-

11-10-2017

November 10, 2017

VIA EMAIL TO agassman@gassmanpa.com

Alan S. Gassman, Esquire

Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A.

1245 Court Street,

Suite 102 Clearwater, FL 33756

Re: Dispute Between Drs. Kirkpatrick and Derasari

Dear Alan:

Further to our conversation of last week, regarding the lease between Dr. Derasari and Dr. Kirkpatrick as to 1910 E. Busch Boulevard, in Tampa (the “Lease”), and the documents referenced therein, including the agreement drafted by attorney, Richard Wilkes (the “Professional Agreement”), I have the following.

While, when we first spoke, you indicated that you did not believe that Dr. Derasari had a signed copy of the Lease in his possession, in our second call, you indicated that he had an unsigned copy, and that he did not believe that the Lease had ever been signed.

To that point, and as a condition precedent to further negotiations, we need to receive the following, by the close of business on Wednesday, November 15, 2017:

- Confirmation that the copy of the Lease in Dr. Derasari’s possession is, in fact, the operative Lease under which the parties have operated for now close to ten years, - A copy of that Lease, and - An explanation of Dr. Derasari’s alleged legal basis, if any, for his claimed right to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick as of the end of 2017, as set forth in the following email:

From: Manjul Derasari < manjulderasari@gmail.com>

Date: September 17, 2017 at 6:29:17 PM EDT

To: Anthony Kirkpatrick MD PhD < akirkpat@tampabay.rr.com>,

Anthony Kirkpatrick MD PhD < akirkpat@rsdfoundation.org>

Subject: Notice

Dear Dr Kirkpatrick,

Here by I am giving advance notice of more than 90 days to you that you should move out of rental premise at 1910 East Busch Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33612 by January 1, 2018.

I am aware of your important clinical work, and I will co-operate with you to fecilitate [sic] your relocation to 1902 -1904 East Busch Boulevard premises, which is right next to your current premise

In addition to wrongfully threatening to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick from the leased property within the building located at 1910-1912 E. Busch Boulevard (“Building 1”), Dr. Derasari has also wrongfully threatened to restrict or otherwise take action inconsistent with Dr. Kirkpatrick’s use of certain space in the adjacent building, located at 1902-1904 E. Busch Boulevard, which is owned by Drs. Kirkpatrick and Derasari, through their limited liability company, Manjul and Anthony, LLC (“Building 2”), as follows:

From: Manjul [mailto:manjulderasari@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 9:22 PM

To: Anthony Kirkpatrick MD PhD

Subject: Re: Bureau of Labor Statistics

To start with Please clear your stuff from Busch facing front rooms of 1904 You will continue to use1902 with rear access I will utilize the rooms my way I will give you keys for emergency access

One more thing once I sign agreement FMC I am not available for anesthesia services thanks for opportunity.

Manjul Derasari

As we discussed, Dr. Kirkpatrick takes Dr. Derasari’s foregoing threats to evict him from Building 1 or to interfere with his use of Building 2 extremely seriously, as either action could result in critical and irreparable harm to his patients, his business, and the business and mission of The International Research Foundation for RSD/CRPS (the “Foundation”), which is the tenant under the Lease.

Accordingly, Dr. Kirkpatrick has instructed me to file suit for declaratory relief, for temporary and permanent injunctive relief, for damages resulting from Dr. Derasari’s anticipatory breach of contract, and for such other legal claims as may be necessary to preserve his rights or the rights of the Foundation, absent immediate unconditional assurances that Dr. Derasari intends to take no action which would interfere in any way with Dr. Kirkpatrick’s continued, unfettered, and uncompromised use of those portions of Building 1 or Building 2, currently under his use and control, other than in accordance with the Lease, the Professional Agreement, or any other documents to which Drs. Derasari and Kirkpatrick are parties.

Further, please note that, contrary to Dr. Derasari’s contention that the Lease may not have been executed, Dr. Kirkpatrick forwarded copies of the signature pages of the Lease to Dr. Derasari, showing that the Lease was signed on

April 13, 2008, as follows:

From: Anthony Kirkpatrick MD, PhD [mailto:akirkpat@tampabay.rr.com]

Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 10:10 PM

To: MARY DAVIS (foundation@tampabay.rr.com) Cc: MANJUL DERASARI MD (manjulderasari@yahoo.com)

Subject: Rent for 1910

Mary,

See attached PDF of rent Agreement for 1910.

The Lease Agreement that was signed on April 13, 2008.

Copies of the signature pages attached to the above email are attached to the email communicating this letter, for your review.

Please also note that the execution of the Lease, on April 13, 2008, followed just days after the below email of April 9, 2008, in which Dr. Kirkpatrick indicated that certain potential stumbling blocks to the execution of the Lease had been overcome, and that execution of the Lease would be forthcoming:

From: Anthony Kirkpatrick MD, PhD [mailto:akirkpat@tampabay.rr.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 9:16 AM

To: Dr. Manjul Derasari

Subject: Delay in signing of the two lease agreements

Manny: Thanks for taking the time to clarify the reason for delaying the signing of the two lease agreements. Also, thanks for reassuring me that there is no reason to seek legal counsel on my part or to share the delay issue with the Foundation’s Board of Directors.

It is my understanding that if you do not obtain the registration of your company’s new name with the State of Florida; you intend to sign the two lease agreements as an individual. Please let me know immediately if the above does not accurately account for our telephone conversation this morning.

Tony

Also, further to our conversation, please provide me the copy of the Professional Agreement, which you indicated was in your client’s possession.

The Professional Agreement was entered into on November 18, 2017, in accordance with the following email from Dr. Kirkpatrick to Dr. Derasari, and was thereafter incorporated by reference into the Lease:

From: Anthony Kirkpatrick MD, PhD [mailto:akirkpat@tampabay.rr.com]

Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 1:05 AM

To: Dr. Manjul Derasari Subject: Professional Agreement

Manny:

In preparation for our meeting today (Sunday), please takes a close look at the attached Professional Agreement.

I took the “talking points” recently drafted by my attorney and added a series of 15 resolutions. Please be aware that in drafting these resolutions, I did not have time to consult with my attorney.

You and I have already reached an agreement on most of these resolutions through numerous discussions. It is essential to complete this task today because we will be required to make our first substantial deposit of money on Monday. If we do not make that deposit for the fence/wall project on Monday, I will not be able to open my practice on January 1.

You have already agreed to the deposit of $13,750 from each of us for the fence/wall project. However, I am not comfortable going forward without first completing a draft of our Professional Agreement. Our lawyers can polish our agreement later.

We can also finalize my lease agreement with you as a separate item on our agenda today.

While you indicated that Dr. Derasari will be moving, and is looking for a way to get “1 ½ buildings” off his balance sheet, Dr. Derasari’s self-imposed business considerations can in no way alter the terms of the agreements which he and Dr. Kirkpatrick have entered into.

We are of the opinion that Dr. Derasari is threatening to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick from Building 1, and to improperly restrict his use of Building 2, as retribution for Dr. Kirkpatrick’s reasonable decision not to purchase Dr. Derasari’s interest in Building 1. To be clear, the goal of reaching an acceptable, mutually beneficial resolution to the challenges posed by our clients’ respective interests in Buildings 1 and 2, will not be advanced through threats, which will be more likely to lead to unnecessary and costly litigation.

However, as you and I discussed the other day, while marketing one or both of the buildings to third-party purchasers may lead to such a resolution, before any third-party could effectively step into this situation, the Lease and the Professional Agreement would likely need to be amended, and the parties’ rights and obligations more specifically set forth.

While our office would gladly take the primary role in drafting the documents, we will first need to know that Dr. Derasari is on board with such an approach.

One immediate issue, made evident from the attached signature pages from the Lease, is that Dr. Derasari executed the Lease over a signature block which reads: Manjul Derasari, 1912 E. Busch Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612, EIN #20-1700965, but then hand-printed, next to his signature, “Mohak, LLC” (which, according to the SunBiz website, apparently changed its name to Mohak Properties, LLC in May of 2008), “or its holding entity” (which was nowhere defined). The foregoing raised an issue as to the identity of the Lessor under the Lease, which could be more specifically addressed in any amended lease.

Dr. Kirkpatrick needs assurances that he will be permitted, without interference to continue running his operations, as he has in the past, through at least the end of this Lease term and the additional five-year term of the Lease (ending in 2023), which issue will need to be addressed in any amendment to the Lease. Dr. Derasari, for his part, has alleged that Dr. Kirkpatrick is using more than his share of Building 2. To this point, the parties, in any amendment to the Professional Agreement, or in any Operating Agreement for the LLC, will need to address specifically what space in Building 2 will be occupied and used by each of them. The parties should also seek to address their respective contribution, over the past several years, to the improvements on the property.

If the foregoing proposed approach to resolving these issues is acceptable to you and your client, please provide me with the requested information sometime today or on Monday.

As we discussed, the next advisable step may be to schedule a meeting between us and our respective clients, in hopes of defining the terms to be included in the amended Lease and Professional Agreement.

Thank you for your help and please let me know your thoughts by Monday, if possible.

Nothing contained herein should be deemed a waiver of any of my client’s legal claims against Dr. Derasari, or as an agreement to forbear from the immediate enforcement of any such claims.

Very truly yours,

Gary M. Schaaf

GMS/kls Enclosures cc: Dr. Anthony Kirkpatrick ACTIVE: K25110/386111:10301455_1

EXHIBIT -4-

11-15-2017

From: Schaaf, Gary [mailto:GSchaaf@bplegal.com]

Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 4:08 PM
To: Alan Gassman

Cc: Stubbs, Kiara; Maribeth Vongvenekeo; Manjul Derasari

Subject: RE: Lease Dispute Between Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. Derasari - K25110/386111

Alan:

Further to our conversation of yesterday, and having spoken with my client today, I have the following.

In my November 10 letter, I requested certain information as a condition precedent to further negotiations:

- Confirmation that the copy of the Lease in Dr. Derasari’s possession is, in fact, the operative Lease under which the parties have operated for now close to ten years. As to this point, you indicated, during our telephone call yesterday, that the Lease from which I provided the signature pages is, in fact, the operative lease.

- A copy of that Lease. We are still awaiting a copy of the Lease which Dr. Derasari was referring to when he claimed the right to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick on January 1, 2018, without which, we have no basis on which to accept your statement as to the first point.

- An explanation of Dr. Derasari’s alleged legal basis, if any, for his claimed right to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick as of the end of 2017. While it seems, based upon our conversation of yesterday, that we are in agreement that no such legal basis exists, and that the parties are in agreement that Dr. Kirkpatrick is entitled to remain in the space, as is currently in use, for the remaining five years under the Lease, I would appreciate written acknowledgment of that fact.

Providing us with the foregoing information will enable us to move forward in our negotiations, as we discussed.

Further, please see my comments to your email, in blue below.

-Gary

From: Alan Gassman [mailto:AGassman@gassmanpa.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 2:03 PM
To: Schaaf, Gary <GSchaaf@bplegal.com>
Cc: Stubbs, Kiara <KStubbs@bplegal.com>; Maribeth Vongvenekeo <Maribeth@gassmanpa.com>; Manjul Derasari <manjulderasari@gmail.com>

Subject: RE: Lease Dispute Between Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. Derasari - K25110/386111

Gary, thanks for the letter.

Consistent with our discussion,there is no intent tofile any kind of eviction action or to do anything unlawful, and no threats are being made.I'm sure that you have ways to delay any kind of eviction if an eviction action has to be filed, which would only occur if we can't work something out.

We need to know that no action which could interfere with Dr. Kirkpatrick’s use of the property will be taken during the course of our ongoing negotiations.

You and I agreed to work on a peaceful solution to the situation, and nothing has changed, and I prefer not to escalate hostilities by pointing out conduct of your client's which has not been helpful.

Your letter seems to tilt this pinball machine of a matter towards litigation, but I think that we agree that litigation would only be good for the lawyers.

We are in agreement that what you describe as the “peaceful” solution would be preferable to litigation, but are prepared to litigate if Dr. Kirkpatrick’s rights and the rights of the Foundation cannot be immediately and sufficiently protected.

What exactly do you want as far as "assurances" that your client is not being threatened?

While your above statement and statements during our phone call are helpful, providing us with Dr. Derasari’s copy of the Lease, on which he based his purported right to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick, would certainly help to allay my client’s concerns.

By copy to Dr Derasari I am asking that he check his records and e-mails to be sure he has what you are referring to in your letter, and to be clear on what exactly he has and does not have.

Please let me know how long Dr. Derasari’s review is expected to take, as it is keeping us from moving forward in our negotiations.

In any event, you can be assured that Dr Derasari will followthe law and also good business etiquette as wework to settle this matter, and you and I discussed putting a 5 year arm's length lease in place regardless of whether the present lease is valid. I note that there are no witnesses, as required for a lease going more than 1 year.Do you want to propose a lease form for amendment and restatement.

While, as I’m sure you are aware, the Florida case law would render it nearly impossible to set aside the Lease based on the lack of witnesses, after the parties have performed under the Lease for nearly ten years, including the first five-year renewal, I agree that the Lease should be redrafted, if for no other reason than to provide the certainty necessary to render the property marketable. However, until we have received the requested information, and explored our options, redrafting the Lease is likely premature.

Please suggest someone who can be hired independently by the jointly owned company to evaluate the square footage in use andto make suggestions for the best way to sell or lease the common building at arm's length. Or would you prefer to have the doctors bid against each other and the highest bidder pays the lower bidder one half of the bid amount and owns the building?

I believe the former option is likely preferable, together with appraisals of the two buildings, to be performed by the same company, if possible.

By "Professional Agreement" do you mean the chicken scratched letter from the prior lawyer that had comments etc written on it? That doesn't look like an agreement to me. In fact it makes mention of items not agreed to.

The Professional Agreement has been in place for just short of ten years and is incorporated into the Lease by reference and by hyperlink. We believe it is fully enforceable, but that, like the Lease (and for some of the same reasons), should be redrafted to better set forth the rights of the members of Manjul & Anthony, LLC.

Shall we get the prior lawyer's file to see what he has on this?

This is not likely necessary, at this point.

Best regards

Alan S. Gassman, Esquire
Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A.
1245 Court Street, Suite 102
Clearwater, FL 33756
727-442-1200
FAX 727-443-5829

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE STRICTLY PROHIBITED BY LAW. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT THE ABOVE-STATED TELEPHONE NUMBER.

>>> "Schaaf, Gary" <GSchaaf@bplegal.com> 11/10/2017 10:10 AM >>>

Alan:

As we discussed this morning, I attach my letter concerning the above matter, as well as an exhibit to the letter.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

-Gary

From: Alan Gassman [mailto:AGassman@gassmanpa.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 5:41 PM
To: Schaaf, Gary <GSchaaf@bplegal.com>; Alan Gassman <AGassman@gassmanpa.com>
Cc: Stubbs, Kiara <KStubbs@bplegal.com>; Maribeth Vongvenekeo <Maribeth@gassmanpa.com>; manjulderasari@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Lease Dispute Between Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. Derasari - K25110/386111

Gary, can we talk on Monday 11:30 am to talk about mutual objectives and how we can proceed?

Best regards

Alan S. Gassman, Esquire
Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A.
1245 Court Street, Suite 102
Clearwater, FL 33756
727-442-1200
FAX 727-443-5829

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPY OF THIS COMMUNICATION MAY BE STRICTLY PROHIBITED BY LAW. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT THE ABOVE-STATED TELEPHONE NUMBER.

>>> Alan Gassman <agassman@gassmanpa.com> 10/23/2017 1:35 PM >>>

Thanks Gary. The only copy of the lease that Dr Derasari has been able to find is not signed.

Do you have a signed copy? Because of referral relationships we should get a signed lease in place if there is not one already.

Best regards

Sent from my iPad. Have a fantastic day!

On Oct 19, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Schaaf, Gary <GSchaaf@bplegal.com> wrote:

Alan:

I have received and reviewed your October 17^th letter regarding the dispute between Drs. Kirkpatrick and Derasari.

I am relatively open next week to schedule a call with you, and my client will be available beginning on October 30^th. Please let us know your available dates.

I am puzzled by your request for a copy of the Lease in question, as I would assume that your client has the Lease under which he is seeking to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick.

Please confirm that your client has a copy of the Lease and the attachments referenced in it.

Thank you for your help.

-Gary Schaaf

GaryM. Schaaf
Office Managing Shareholder
Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney

The Becker & Poliakoff Client CARE Center is here to serve our valued clients. If we can be of assistance in any way, please call us toll-free at 1-844-CAREBP1 (1-844-227-3271) or by email at care@bplegal.com.

EXHIBIT -5-

11-27-2017

From: Schaaf, Gary
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 12:30 PM
To: 'Alan Gassman' <AGassman@gassmanpa.com>
Cc: Stubbs, Kiara <KStubbs@bplegal.com>
Subject: Kirkpatrick - Derasari - Lease Issues - K25110/386111

Alan:

In addition to the below, somewhat confusing email, Dr. Derasari has been communicating directly with Dr. Kirkpatrick concerning property taxes which are coming due on the 1902-1904 E. Busch Boulevard property, and has requested that Dr. Kirkpatrick contribute $5,000.00 to the account of Manjul & Anthony, LLC.

Please note that, in light of the current legal posture of this matter and the involvement of the attorneys, Dr. Kirkpatrick does not wish to engage in direct communications with Dr. Derasari, and has asked me to communicate with you on his behalf. I would appreciate if you would pass that information on to your client.

As to Dr. Derasari’s specific request, Dr. Kirkpatrick is unwilling to contribute any amounts to the LLC account until he has been provided with evidence of the taxes owed, the current balance in the LLC’s account, and all information necessary for him to access the account online, since Dr. Derasari has taken it upon himself to change the online access information, and has not provided the new information to Dr. Kirkpatrick.

Also, further to my initial letter to you of November 10, 2017, and as discussed in our subsequent conversations, I am still awaiting the following information, which is necessary to our commencement of negotiations:

- Please either scan me a copy of the operative lease which Dr. Derasari has in his possession, or verify that, when he threatened, in his September 17, 2017 email, to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick at the end of this year, he had no copy of the operative lease (noting that, in his below email, Dr. Derasari expressly claims not to have kept a copy of the lease).

- Please confirm that the lease provides for an additional five-year term, through April of 2023, and that there will be no further attempts to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick or his Foundation, before that date.

- Please scan me a copy of the Professional Agreement which Dr. Derasari has in his possession.

Once we have received the above information, I will contact you with our thoughts regarding a potential resolution.

Thank you for your help.

-Gary

From: Manjul Derasari [mailto:manjulderasari@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 10:22 AM
To: Anthony Kirkpatrick MD PhD <akirkpat@rsdfoundation.org>; Anthony Kirkpatrick MD PhD <akirkpat@tampabay.rr.com>; Alan Gassman <AGassman@gassmanpa.com>; Schaaf, Gary <GSchaaf@bplegal.com>

Subject: Time to meet discuss

dear AFK,

By this time I am realizing and you too that we should meet and resolve the issue at hand.

I have outlined my rationale in my last email to you and both lawyer.

Why I am writing directly to you and lawyers ?

Because it seems to me that solution is going to come from us.

Since both of us have hired lawyers I am keeping them in loop.

It is getting clear to me that you want to stay at 1910 ,in that case we need to come to new understanding due to new reality and than move foreward.

As owner of 1910-1912 east Busch Blvd which was purchased in 2003. now I am planning to join another medical practice from January 2018. I will be no longer coming to my medical practice location on daily basis and we are sharing common area which IS called PROCEDURE ROOM and RECOVERY room .

This room was furnished with cabinets by my Vietnamaese carpenter with input from you but at my expanse. My c arm floroscope is stationed there permanently Initially we both had monitors than you replaced some monitors .still one of my monitor is in RR ,

It is my clear recollection that this area was kept as common area and was not counted in rented area.

Both rooms have direct access to my side of building, that also make it very important so a modified lease is needed

2, my plans are to keep the building to myself in other words NOT to sale medical building.

But since I will not be there WE need to have a new set of clear and simple lease

3.OUR original lease is out dated and was not signed with any witness .It will not pass a common sense TEST a five and ten year term lease signed without lawyers and witness can JUST go on and on,This is my common sense interpretation.

IT was our mutual understanding and that was put in words --I was trusting you SO much that YOU got a lawyers help and I had gone along . JUST look the trust I had in you that THE lease itself is with YOU -and I did not keep a copy .Its a fact .

Your lawyer may call me stupid and my lawyer will call me gullible.

4,we need to come to a written understanding about 1902 -1904 Building and to me it is to allow me to rent 50 % of that building . In the current law suit your lawyer is carving that issue OUT,on some purpose,

Tony ,

In long run you and your foundation are better off in 1902 -1904 Building and leave me in 1910-1912 Building .

If we continue through lawyers its not cost effective and the solutions will be NOT much different. !!!! at what expense ?

I have outlined my position YOU can do the same and lets hash it out and than since we already have lawyers , we will make it legal through them ,

.Please write your wishes before we meet --just like what I am doing .

Thanks

I still have faith and that our understanding may work .

Manjul Derasari.

EXHIBIT -6-

12/8/2017

From: Schaaf, Gary [mailto:GSchaaf@bplegal.com]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 10:03 AM
To: Alan Gassman
Cc: Stubbs, Kiara
Subject: RE: Kirkpatrick - Derasari - Lease Issues - K25110/386111

Alan:

In advance of our telephone conference, scheduled for next Wednesday, December 13^th, please provide me with the information which I requested in my below email (highlighted in yellow).

As we have maintained since our first correspondence, our receipt of the information is a necessary pre-condition to our negotiation of this dispute, and providing it (or, in the case of the Lease or the Professional Agreement, verifying that he doesn’t have it) will in no way unduly burden Dr. Derasari.

I thank you for your help in that regard.

To a second point, Dr. Derasari and Mary Davis met on Wednesday of this week, and together were able to gain access to the LLC’s online banking records. While, as a result, Dr. Kirkpatrick is now in a position to access the information necessary to address Dr. Derasari’s concerns about the LLC’s funding for payment of property taxes and other expenses (as set forth in the attached email, received this morning), because Dr. Kirkpatrick is out of the country, with limited communication, until later this month, I will not have an answer for you in time for our telephone conference next Wednesday.

Please pass that information on to Dr. Derasari, and remind him that I have advised Dr. Kirkpatrick that communications regarding the ongoing disputes should be handled through counsel.

Thank you, again, and I look forward to (1) receiving the requested information, and (2) our telephone call on Wednesday.

Nothing contained herein should be considered a waiver of any of my clients’ legal claims or defenses against Dr. Derasari, or any entity with which he is affiliated, as an agreement to forbear from the immediate enforcement of any such claims or defenses, or as consent to or agreement with any statement contained in the email from Dr. Derasari, which I reference above, or in any other communications.

-Gary Schaaf

From: "Schaaf, Gary"
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 12:30 PM
To: Alan Gassman <AGassman@gassmanpa.com>
Cc: Stubbs, Kiara <KStubbs@bplegal.com>
Subject: Kirkpatrick - Derasari - Lease Issues - K25110/386111

Alan:

- Please either scan me a copy of the operative lease which Dr. Derasari has in his possession, or verify that, when he threatened, in his September 17, 2017 email, to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick at the end of this year, he had no copy of the operative lease (noting that, in his below email, Dr. Derasari expressly claims not to have kept a copy of the lease).

- Please confirm that the lease provides for an additional five-year term, through April of 2023, and that there will be no further attempts to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick or his Foundation, before that date.

- Please scan me a copy of the Professional Agreement which Dr. Derasari has in his possession.

Once we have received the above information, I will contact you with our thoughts regarding a potential resolution.

Thank you for your help.

-Gary

dear AFK,

By this time I am realizing and you too that we should meet and resolve the issue at hand.

I have outlined my rationale in my last email to you and both lawyer.

Why I am writing directly to you and lawyers ?

Because it seems to me that solution is going to come from us.

Since both of us have hired lawyers I am keeping them in loop.

It is getting clear to me that you want to stay at 1910 ,in that case we need to come to new understanding due to new reality and than move foreward.

As owner of 1910-1912 east Busch Blvd which was purchased in 2003.now I am planning to join another medical practice from January 2018.I will be no longer coming to my medical practice location on daily basis and we are sharing common area which IS called PROCEDURE ROOM and RECOVERY room .

It is my clear recollection that this area was kept as common area and was not counted in rented area.

Both rooms have direct access to my side of building,that also make it very important

so a modified lease is needed

2, my plans are to keep the building to myself in other words NOT to sale medical building.

But since I will not be there WE need to have a new set of clear and simple lease

Your lawyer may call me stupid and my lawyer will call me gullible.

4,we need to come to a written understanding about 1902 -1904 Building

and to me it is to allow me to rent 50 % of that building . In the current law suit your lawyer is carving that issue OUT,on some purpose,

Tony ,

In long run you and your foundation are better off in 1902 -1904 Building and leave me in 1910-1912 Building .

If we continue through lawyers its not cost effective and the solutions will be NOT much different. !!!! at what expense ?

I have outlined my position YOU can do the same and lets hash it out and than since we already have lawyers , we will make it legal through them ,

.Please write your wishes before we meet --just like what I am doing .

Thanks

I still have faith and that our understanding may work .

Manjul Derasari.

EXHIBIT -7-

1-31-2018

From: Schaaf, Gary [mailto:GSchaaf@bplegal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:03 AM
To: Alan Gassman
Cc: Stubbs, Kiara
Subject: Kirkpatrick - Derasari - K25110/386111

Alan:

Further to our recent conversation regarding a potential settlement between Drs. Anthony Kirkpatrick and Manjul Derasari, please review the following.

As you have conceded in our prior communications, Dr. Derasari has no legal basis on which to evict or otherwise remove Dr. Kirkpatrick from the space which he occupies and utilizes in Building 1, until at earliest April of 2023.

The current dispute has arisen solely as a result of two decisions by Dr. Derasari. First, he decided to move his practice from the East Busch Boulevard location, which I am certain he considers to be in his best financial interest. Second, he decided, recklessly and without legal basis, to attempt to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick from Building 1, as of the end of 2017.

While Dr. Kirkpatrick has in no way contributed to the situation in which our respective clients find themselves, as we have discussed, he is open to considering various potential resolutions to the matter, including, but not limited to the possibility of (1) consolidating his operations entirely into Building 1, assuming that he would be properly compensated for costs incurred in any such consolidation, as well as for prior improvements to the property on which both buildings are located, which have benefited Dr. Derasari; or (2) entering into a long-term lease of the currently leased and utilized portions of Building 1, while agreeing to an equitable division of Building 2, for leasing by the LLC.

However, Dr. Derasari’s reckless actions, in wrongfully attempting to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick from Building 1, have resulted in Dr. Kirkpatrick’s foundation incurring otherwise unnecessary legal fees and costs, for which he will expect reimbursement in any settlement.

Further, in order to successfully negotiate any potential settlement, Dr. Kirkpatrick must establish a level of trust in Dr. Derasari, which is now lacking, based upon Dr. Derasari’s actions, not only in attempting the eviction, but in his subsequent communications.

Specifically, contrary to your representations in our initial communications, when Dr. Derasari sent his September 17, 2017 eviction email, he already had copies of the subject Lease, signed and unsigned, as well as the Professional Agreement, in his possession.

My letter of October 3, 2017 (to which you responded by letter dated October 17, 2017), requested Dr. Derasari’s legal basis for the threatened eviction, which has since been revealed to be lacking. In my response (by email dated October 19, 2017) to your October 17 request for a copy of the Lease, I pointed out that your client should have had a copy of the Lease and its attachments, and asked you to confirm that he did.

While you indicated to me, during our first telephone conversation, on October 30, 2017, that you didn’t believe your client had a copy of the Lease, you were unable to answer my question as to whether Dr. Derasari believed that there was no signed Lease. In our second conversation, on November 3, 2017, you indicated that Dr. Derasari had an unsigned copy of the Lease, and that he did not believe that the Lease had ever been signed. In my follow-up email of November 10, 2017, I pointed out, among other things, that Dr. Kirkpatrick had forwarded Dr. Derasari copies of the executed signature pages of the Lease, in an email dated January 29, 2014, and provided you with copies of those pages.

While, in your November 11, 2017 email, you indicated that Dr. Derasari did not then intend to file an eviction action against Dr. Kirkpatrick, you also indicated that you were simultaneously asking Dr. Derasari to check his records and emails to determine whether he had the Lease in his possession.

By email dated November 15, 2017, I reiterated my request for any copy of the Lease in Dr. Derasari’s possession.

In his subsequent email of November 19, 2017, Dr. Derasari, while asserting that the Lease was allegedly not properly witnessed (which would indicate that he believed it had been signed), also expressly stated that he did not keep a copy of the Lease.

By emails dated November 27, 2017 and December 8, 2017, I again reiterated my request for any copy of the Lease in Dr. Derasari’s possession.

In your December 13, 2017 email to me, you stated that, after Dr. Derasari wrote the eviction email, he had found, as an attachment to one of his past emails, a copy of the signed Lease, but that he had not forwarded you the email or its attachments. That same day, I asked you to scan me a copy of the Lease, which you had referenced in your email, which you did, by email dated December 18, 2017.

Curiously, however, the scan which you provided reflected, at the bottom, that it had been faxed by Dr. Derasari to your office, on October 13, 2017, meaning that both you and he had the Lease over two weeks before the date of our first conversation, and during the period of my numerous requests for the copy.

Moreover, since, at the top of the Lease is a notation which reads:

On April 13, 2008, the Lease Agreement for the FOUNDATION was completed. PDF files of the signed pages are linked below: PDF File, it is clear that (1) Dr. Derasari printed out the Lease which he faxed you, from the website which also contained the executed pages of the Lease, and (2) both of you therefore, at the very least, had knowledge of the website which contains the signed pages.

All of the foregoing leads us to believe that Dr. Derasari was, in fact, in possession of a copy of the Lease, as well as the executed signature pages, when he wrote the baseless eviction email to Dr. Kirkpatrick, which caused this dispute and the substantial costs which Dr. Kirkpatrick and his foundation have incurred.

Based on the foregoing, before moving forward with our negotiations, Dr. Kirkpatrick demands an apology from Dr. Derasari, for the wrongful eviction notice, and for his misleading statements regarding his knowledge and possession of the Lease and its terms, as well as his agreement to reimburse the Foundation for its unnecessary legal costs, all of which flowed from Dr. Derasari’s unfortunate decision to wrongfully attempt the eviction, and were exacerbated by his misleading communications regarding the Lease.

Please let me know if we can resolve the foregoing issues, so that we may move forward in our negotiations.

Nothing contained herein should be deemed a waiver of any of my client’s legal claims against Dr. Derasari, or as an agreement to forbear from the immediate enforcement of any such claims. Nor should anything contained herein be deemed a settlement offer, as any settlement agreement will need to be reduced to writing and executed by both parties.

-Gary

Gary M. Schaaf
Office Managing Shareholder
Board Certified Business Litigation Attorney
Tampa
Ext. 33912 (813.527.3900)

EXHIBIT -8-

February 26, 2018

From: Schaaf, Gary
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 9:06 AM
To: 'Alan Gassman' <Alan@gassmanpa.com>
Cc: 'Stubbs, Kiara' <KStubbs@bplegal.com>
Subject: RE: Kirkpatrick - Derasari - K25110/386111

Alan:

I have received your below email, as well as your letter of February 13, 2008, and have discussed them both with my client.

First, as I’ve explained, in order to move forward with any negotiations, we need to know that Dr. Derasari is willing to (1) reimburse Dr. Kirkpatrick and his Foundation for the substantial legal costs which they have incurred as a result of Dr. Derasari’s reckless attempt to evict them from Building 1, in violation of both the Lease and the Professional Agreement, and (2) apologize for having done so. Absent the foregoing, Dr. Kirkpatrick is content to remain in the existing space, under the terms which have been in place for the past ten years.

While, in your below email, you question whether Dr. Kirkpatrick needed to incur costs in responding to Dr. Derasari’s attempt to evict him and his Foundation from Building 1, since, in your words, “he knew he had a binding lease,” in your February 13^th letter, you raise, among other possibilities (1) that Dr. Kirkpatrick would possibly agree to lose the use of his PACU (recovery room), which is integral to his practice, and which Dr. Kirkpatrick has every right to use, pursuant to the Lease and its attachments (and particularly the Professional Agreement referenced at Paragraph 6 of the Lease), which were executed and agreed to by Dr. Derasari, and in accordance with which the parties have done business for the past ten years (the Professional Agreement incorporated into the Lease expressly stating, at Paragraph 8: “In the lease agreement for rent, included is usage of the fluoroscopy room, PACU and nursing area for performing procedures by Dr. Derasari and Dr. Kirkpatrick”), (2) that Dr. Derasari may take the position that some or all of the operating room (fluoroscopy room), PACU, and nurses station areas may in fact not be included in the rent paid under the Lease, and (3) that Dr. Derasari may consider leasing the remainder of Building 1 to a tenant which is incompatible with Dr. Kirkpatrick’s practice, all of which raises the likelihood, as we have discussed, that Dr. Kirkpatrick will need to seek injunctive or declaratory relief from the court, and all of which makes clear that Dr. Kirkpatrick has been entirely justified in obtaining legal advice and counsel.

Please let me know if Dr. Derasari is willing to comply with the foregoing two conditions, so that we may move on to a substantive discussion of your proposals.

Thank you for your help.

-Gary Schaaf

From: Alan Gassman [mailto:Alan@gassmanpa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:12 AM
To: Schaaf, Gary <GSchaaf@bplegal.com>
Cc: Derasari, Manjul <manjulderasari@yahoo.com>; Stubbs, Kiara <KStubbs@bplegal.com>
Subject: Re: Kirkpatrick - Derasari - K25110/386111

Thanks Gary.

What are Dr Kirkpatrick's alleged damages for this alleged eviction?

If you advised Dr Kirkpatrick that he had a binding lease, and he knew

he had a binding lease, and nothing has changed but for his interaction

with your firm, what are his damages?

Do you think they exceed the fair rental value of the use of the 2nd building

and the now exclusive use of the commonprocedure room and equipment?

Best regards

Alan S. Gassman, Esquire
Gassman, Crotty & Denicolo, P.A.
1245 Court Street, Suite 102
Clearwater, FL 33756
727-442-1200
FAX 727-443-5829

EXHIBIT -9-

2/27/2018

From Schaaf to Gassman via email as an attachment

2-27-2018

Alan:

In response to your emails inquiring as to the amount of legal fees my client is seeking, and whether we are in possession of “a copy of the lease that has the pages other than the first page and signature pages,” I have the following.

To address the second question first, I believe we already provided you with full copies of the lease, and Kelly Duffy, of your office, actually provided it to me, by email dated December 18, 2017. Please see my email to you of January 31, 2018 (attached for your reference), in which I provide a history of the various exchanges of the documents, and which you responded to that same day.

As to the first question, Dr. Kirkpatrick has now incurred over $30,000 in legal fees which would not have been incurred, absent Dr. Derasari’s increasingly aggressive attempts, throughout the second half of last year, and beginning, in earnest, in July of 2017, to coerce Dr. Kirkpatrick to buy out his interest in Building 2, as evidenced by (among other things) the below three emails.

EMAIL #1

From: Anthony Kirkpatrick MD PhD
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 5:26 PM
To: Manjul Derasari
Cc: Mary Davis; JERRY TRACHTMAN ESQ (jtrachtman@trachtman-law.com)
Subject: RE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Manny,

During our meeting on July 26, you asked if I was willing to purchase your 50% share of building #2.

When I told you that I was not prepared to make you an offer, you became visibly upset and accused me of taking advantage of you because I currently store more things in building #2 than you.

You became very angry with me and declared for the first time in our ten year relationship that you wanted to occupy 50% of the building. Furthermore, your request seemed strange since you just built a woodshed at your home. A woodshed is defined as the small building used for storing firewood and other items.

I told you that it was not clear to me if you genuinely needed additional storage space in building #2 or if you were threatening to move my things around in building #2 as a ploy to coerce me into making you an offer for the purchase of your 50% share of building #2.

I’m calling your bluff. If you truly need 50% of the space in building #2 for storage, I’m confident we can find space for you in building #2 without threatening my work at the surgery center.

We also had a meeting on or about July 24, 2017. I reminded you that ten years ago you were informed that I would not rent space from you in building #1 unless we (together) purchased building #2. You understood that the Foundation required building #2 for storage space for the surgery center, even though you did not need extra storage space to operate your business that is essentially a doctor’s office.

Also, you were informed that the purchase of building #2 would permit the surgery center to control improving the landscape of the entire property. Back then, the property looked more like a cheap strip mall rather than a medical facility. There was a huge “Massage” parlor sign on Busch Blvd. I was informed that one of the lawyers in building #2 was soliciting prostitutes that entered your parking lot.

You understood at the outset that your financial investment of 50% in building #2 was your cost of doing business with my not-for-profit surgery center.

The following link shows before and after photos of the landscape improvements made by our surgery center (which increased the value of building #1 that you own). Note the huge “Massage” parlor signage in the front of the property. Also, note that the parking lot was used as a shortcut to Busch Blvd. As you recall, the parking lot was used as an unofficial “street” through the property:

http://rsdhealthcare.org/Test_sign.htm

At this time, the Foundation would like to keep a good cash reserve since the Foundation is more focused on research and therefore not generating as much money from patient care and treatments.

A Kirkpatrick MD PhD

www.rsdfoundation.org

www.rsdhealthcare.org

EMAIL #2

From: Manjul [mailto:manjulderasari@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 9:22 PM
To: Anthony Kirkpatrick MD PhD
Subject: Re: Bureau of Labor Statistics

To start with

Please clear your stuff from Busch facing front rooms of 1904

You will continue to use1902 with rear access

I will utilize the rooms my way

I will give you keys for emergency access

One more thing once I sign agreement FMC I am not available for anesthesia services thanks for opportunity .

Manjul Derasari

EMAIL #3

From: Manjul Derasari < manjulderasari@gmail.com>

Date: September 17, 2017 at 6:29:17 PM EDT

To: Anthony Kirkpatrick MD PhD < akirkpat@tampabay.rr.com>, Anthony Kirkpatrick MD PhD < akirkpat@rsdfoundation.org>

Subject: Notice

Dear Dr Kirkpatrick,

Here by I am giving advance notice of more than 90 days to you that you should move out of rental premise at 1910 East Busch Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33612 by January 1, 2018.

I am aware of your important clinical work, and I will co-operate with you to fecilitate [sic] your relocation to 1902 -1904 East Busch Boulevard premises, which is right next to your current premise

The foregoing emails show that Dr. Derasari, when confronted with Dr. Kirkpatrick’s decision not to buy out his interest in Building 2, and in a wrongful and unauthorized attempt to force his hand in that regard (1) for the first time asserted his desire to utilize 50% of the building for storage (with which request Dr. Kirkpatrick seemed happy to oblige), (2) then (among other things) unilaterally ordered Dr. Kirkpatrick to clear all of his property from all front-facing rooms in the 1904 space, and (3) finally, improperly notified Dr. Kirkpatrick that he and his Foundation would be evicted from the Building 1 space, as of January 1, 2018.

In light of Dr. Derasari’s foregoing threats, Dr. Kirkpatrick had no alternative than to seek legal counsel and thoroughly address all of his legal options.

Please note that Dr. Kirkpatrick will be out of town for the next two weeks, and I will be largely unable to communicate with him until his return.

-Gary

ACTIVE: K25110/386111:10643202_1

EXHIBIT -10-

10/22/2018

VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL AND EMAIL TO alan@gassmanpa.com

Alan S. Gassman, Esquire Gassman,

Crotty & Denicolo, P.A.

1245 Court Street, Suite 102 Clearwater, FL 33756

Re: Dispute Between Drs. Kirkpatrick and Derasari

Dear Alan:

On February 27, 2018, I notified you, in your capacity as counsel for Dr. Manjul Derasari, that Dr. Anthony Kirkpatrick and the International Research Foundation for RSD/CRPS (the “Foundation”) had incurred over $30,000 in legal fees, in responding to and defending against your client’s unwarranted and increasingly aggressive attempts, throughout the second half of last year, and beginning, in earnest, in July of 2017, to coerce Dr. Kirkpatrick to purchase his interest in the building located at 1902-1904 E. Busch Boulevard (“Building #2”), by, among other things, threatening to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick and the Foundation from the property located at 1910 E. Busch Boulevard (“Building #1”), occupied by Dr. Kirkpatrick and the Foundation, pursuant to the Foundation’s lease of the property (the “Lease”), despite having no legal basis for any such threatened eviction.

Evidence of the foregoing is outlined below and documented in greater detail at the following website:

http://rsdfoundation.org/en/lease.htm

As a result of your client’s false statement to you and others, that he had no obligation to continue to rent the Building #1 space to the Foundation because there was never a signed lease agreement between him and the Foundation, the Foundation was required to document, through a tedious review of records and numerous communications with me, and others between you and me, at great expense, that Dr. Derasari, in fact, had a copy of the signed and duly executed Lease in his files for many years. Nonetheless, Dr. Derasari recklessly served a wholly-unwarranted eviction notice against the Foundation, which I think we can agree was in no way supported by Florida law.

In fact, in our communications, you ultimately conceded that Dr. Derasari had no legal basis on which to evict or otherwise remove Dr. Kirkpatrick from the space which he and the Foundation occupy and utilize in Building #1, until, at earliest, April of 2023.

It is clear from my review of the file that Dr. Derasari embarked on an improper scheme to coerce Dr. Kirkpatrick to purchase his interest in Building #2, which Dr. Kirkpatrick had no interest in purchasing. Specifically, Dr. Derasari attempted to force Dr. Kirkpatrick to buy his 50% interest in Building #2 by, among other things, wrongfully threatening to evict him and the Foundation from Building #1. Dr. Derasari’s reckless and dangerous filing of the unlawful eviction notice, to force Dr. Kirkpatrick to vacate Building #1 and to purchase Dr. Derasari’s interest in Building #2, and to force the Foundation to move to Building #2, placed both the Foundation and Dr. Kirkpatrick’s patients at risk of critical and irreparable harm, all for Dr. Derasari’s sole financial benefit. Because, as we have explained in the past, Building #2, due to, among other things, ongoing mold contamination, is not suited for a surgery center, forcing the Foundation to move its operations to Building #2 would have likely destroyed the Foundation.

Before moving forward with any negotiations regarding the resolution of his dispute with Dr. Derasari, Dr. Kirkpatrick demands an apology from Dr. Derasari, for sending the wrongful eviction notice, and for his misleading statements regarding his knowledge and possession of the Lease and its terms. Also, he must agree to reimburse the Foundation for its legal costs, as set forth above, which flowed from his unfortunate decision to wrongfully attempt the eviction, and were exacerbated by his misleading communications to you, regarding the Lease. To this point, Dr. Kirkpatrick and the Foundation agree that Dr. Derasari’s reimbursement of their legal costs will fulfill the apology requirement.

We are concerned that Dr. Derasari is also failing to meet his obligations under the Lease agreement. Specifically, under Subparagraph 7 of the Lease, Dr. Derasari’s duties to the Foundation are defined to include the following:

“Lessor shall, at its expense, maintain in good condition and repair, the roof, foundation, structural supports, underground or otherwise concealed plumbing to the point of entry to the premises, exterior walls (excluding store front, doors, window glass and plate glass), exterior painting, exterior electrical systems to the premises, and the air conditioning and heating systems for the leased space. Lessor shall not in any way be liable to Lessee for failure to make repairs as herein specifically required unless Lessee has previously notified Lessor in writing of the need for such repairs and Lessor has failed to commence and complete said repairs within a reasonable period of time following receipt of such notification.”

Dr. Derasari has failed to maintain the Foundation’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning unit (“HVAC”) in good condition. If the HVAC unit fails, patients at the surgery center will be placed at risk of irreparable harm and injury. Northside Services states that the HVAC unit for the Foundation in Building #1 is in terrible shape because it has not had a maintenance inspection since 2014.

According to Northside Services, HVAC inspections should take place at least twice per
year:

“In order for your air conditioning system to withstand the Florida climate all year long, it’s good to have an AC tune-up service bi-annually. Regular AC maintenance will keep your system working properly and reduce the risk of costly repairs over time.”

http://www.northsideservices.com/www.northsideservices.com/airconditioning.html

Further, according to The Asset Management Alliance Company, HVAC inspection should take place at least twice per year:

"Recommended HVAC Inspection – Have your HVAC system checked at least twice a year by a professional to help early identify potential issues that could compromise your units efficiency or safety."

http://www.assetmanagementalliance.com/5-maintenance-tips-for-commercial-hvacsystems/

We demand that the foregoing issues be immediately addressed. Absent a response from you, on or before the close of business on Wednesday, October 31, 2018, we will need to explore our legal options to protect Dr. Kirkpatrick and the Foundation.

Nothing contained herein should be considered a waiver of any of the Foundation’s or Dr. Kirkpatrick’s legal claims against Dr. Derasari or any one or more of his entities, or as an agreement to forbear from the immediate enforcement of any such claims.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Gary M. Schaaf, Esq.

GMS/kls cc: Anthony Kirkpatrick, MD, PhD Jerry Trachtman, Esq., General Counsel

ACTIVE: K25110/386111:11587159_1_GSCHAAF

EXHIBIT -11-

11/13/2018

November 13, 2018

VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL AND EMAIL TO alan@gassmanpa.com

Alan S. Gassman, Esquire Gassman,

Crotty & Denicolo, P.A.

1245 Court Street,

Suite 102 Clearwater,

FL 33756 Re: Dispute Between Drs. Kirkpatrick and Derasari

Dear Alan:

Dr. Kirkpatrick has furnished me with a copy of Dr. Derasari’s October 28, 2018 email to him, which he finds to be replete with false statements and misrepresentations. A copy of the email is attached for your review. In light of the email, Dr. Kirkpatrick has asked me to communicate his wish that any further communications between the parties be handled through counsel.

While you have stated your client’s willingness to mediate or otherwise settle this matter, and have accused us of throwing up obstacles to that process, you, yourself, have raised a few issues for which we will need explanations.

First, please explain the basis for your contention that Dr. Kirkpatrick owes compensation for the use of 90% of Building #2, and to whom that compensation would be owed. Dr. Derasari has, to my knowledge, at no time been excluded from the use of that building. Further, Dr. Derasari will recall that the LLC’s purchase of Building #2 was a necessary pre-condition to Dr. Kirkpatrick’s lease of a portion of Building #1, for the construction of a licensed surgery center, as Dr. Kirkpatrick and the Foundation needed the additional space in Building #2 for storage and administrative use.

As set forth in Paragraph 1 of the Professional Agreement, the parties agreed that the purpose of the acquisition was to obtain control over the entire parcel, which would enable them to create the overall atmosphere for the property that they believed would be best conducive to their medical practices and to the work of the Foundation, and would add value to the location. Also, Paragraph 6 of the Professional Agreement provided that:

"Given the fact that the relationship between [the Parties] is personal, in the sense that even another doctor in the same specialty may not be an adequate substitute, and given the fact that neither party would necessarily want to have the same arrangement with anyone else, in the event of a substantial change in one party’s circumstances (e.g. death, disability, significant change in practice, loss of license, etc.) the other party should have a right to continue to maintain your practice to as close to as originally contemplated as possible."

The foregoing provision is particularly applicable in light of the desire of Dr. Kirkpatrick and the Foundation to continue operating as they have in the past, despite Dr. Derasari’s decision to move his practice to another city.

The Professional Agreement was expressly incorporated into the Lease, was thereby ratified by the parties, and is further referenced as a binding agreement between the parties, by Dr. Derasari, in his October 28th email.

After practicing medicine on the property for ten years and benefitting from huge investments unilaterally made by Dr. Kirkpatrick to improve the value of the property, Dr. Derasari decided to default on the Professional Agreement and cash in on the improvements that Dr. Kirkpatrick had made to the property. Dr. Derasari embarked on an improper scheme to coerce Dr. Kirkpatrick to purchase his interest in Building #2, which Dr. Kirkpatrick had no interest in purchasing. Specifically, Dr. Derasari attempted to force Dr. Kirkpatrick to buy his 50% interest in Building #2 by, among other things, wrongfully threatening to evict him and the Foundation from Building #1. A move to Building #2 would place both the Foundation and Dr. Kirkpatrick’s patients at risk of critical and irreparable harm, all for Dr. Derasari’s sole financial benefit. Because, as we have explained in the past, Building #2 is not suited for a surgery center, forcing the Foundation to move its operations to Building #2 would have likely destroyed the Foundation.

Dr. Kirkpatrick forewarned Dr. Derasari, as early as three months before he retained my legal services, that he was acting contrary to the Professional Agreement. Instead of complying with the Professional Agreement, Dr. Derasari became increasingly aggressive and began concocting schemes to coerce Dr. Kirkpatrick to purchase his 50% ownership in Building #2. You were provided with evidence supporting the above, on October 22, 2018, by way of a link to a copy of the following email from Dr. Kirkpatrick to Dr. Derasari with copies to Executive Director and the General Counsel for the Foundation:

From: Anthony Kirkpatrick MD PhD

Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 5:26 PM

To: Manjul Derasari

Cc: Mary Davis; JERRY TRACHTMAN ESQ (jtrachtman@trachtman-law.com) Subject:

RE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Manny,

During our meeting on July 26, you asked if I was willing to purchase your 50% share of building #2.
When I told you that I was not prepared to make you an offer, you became visibly upset and accused me of taking advantage of you because I currently store more things in building #2 than you.

I’m calling your bluff. If you truly need 50% of the space in building #2 for storage, I’m confident we can find space for you in building #2 without threatening my work at the surgery center.

You understood at the outset that your financial investment of 50% in building #2 was your cost of doing business with my not-for-profit surgery center.

The following link shows before and after photos of the landscape improvements made by our surgery center (which increased the value of building #1 that you own). Note the huge “Massage” parlor signage in the front of the property. Also, note that the parking lot was used as a shortcut to Busch Blvd. As you recall, the parking lot was used as an unofficial “street” through the property:

http://rsdhealthcare.org/Test_sign.htm

At this time, the Foundation would like to keep a good cash reserve since the Foundation is more focused on research and therefore not generating as much money from patient care and treatments.

A Kirkpatrick MD PhD

www.rsdfoundation.org
www.rsdhealthcare.org

Secondly, we find it most disturbing that Dr. Derasari continues to promote schemes to coerce Dr. Kirkpatrick to purchase his 50% interest in Building #2, which Dr. Kirkpatrick had no interest in purchasing. His tactics have included the reckless and dangerous serving of the unlawful eviction notice, to force Dr. Kirkpatrick to vacate Building #1 (Dr. Derasari’s email September 17, 2017), restricting Dr. Kirkpatrick’s access to Building #2 (Dr. Derasari’s email August 30, 2017), and threatening to report Dr. Kirkpatrick to legal authorities, claiming Dr. Kirkpatrick violates the law by having a person take care of his pet bird occasionally overnight in Building #2.

Since you have joined in Dr. Derasari’s accusation that Dr. Kirkpatrick may be violating the law, please let me know what law or insurance policy provision you are concerned may be violated when Dr. Kirkpatrick, while traveling once or twice a year, for a period of one or two weeks, allows a friend to stay with his pet bird in Building #2. Note that the public is not invited into the room that is used for this purpose, and the walls in the room have been stripped of all wallcoverings and painted to prevent mold contamination. If you are aware of any specific violation of law, including any relevant zoning law or ordinance, please let me know, so that any such potential violations may be addressed going forward.

While, to my knowledge, no portion of Building #2 has ever been income-producing, and it was never contemplated that such would be the case, Dr. Kirkpatrick has not precluded the possibility, upon receipt of a good faith proposal from Dr. Derasari. I am, however, not aware of any specific request by Dr. Derasari to use any particular portion of the building for such purposes.

In the event that Dr. Derasari is interested in leasing a portion of Building #2, in accordance with the terms of the Professional Agreement and in a manner which is compatible with the best interests, operations, and work of the LLC and the Foundation, Dr. Kirkpatrick would work with Dr. Derasari, through counsel, to accomplish that goal. However, under no circumstances would Dr. Kirkpatrick be willing to vacate the Building #1 space which he and the Foundation currently occupy.

Thirdly, please explain the basis for your contention that Dr. Kirkpatrick owes compensation for his use of what you’re describing as the “common room” in Building #1, when the use of the fluoroscopy room, PACU, and nursing area is expressly included in Dr. Kirkpatrick’s rent, pursuant to Resolution #8 of the Professional Agreement, which is incorporated into the Lease.

Nor do I see any basis for demanding rent from Dr. Kirkpatrick for use of the C-Arm (by which I believe you are referring to the fluoroscope), or for demanding that Dr. Kirkpatrick purchase that piece of equipment or one of his own, since Dr. Kirkpatrick already paid for one-half of the fluoroscope pursuant to Resolution #7 of the Professional Agreement.

Further to that point, (1) while Dr. Derasari agreed to pay 50% of the $1,500 annual cost to the State of Florida to maintain the license to operate the surgery center, he then unilaterally decided to stop paying his half, for a period of ten years, at an increased cost to Dr. Kirkpatrick and his Foundation of $7,500; and (2) while Dr. Derasari was to pay 75% of the common area maintenance (“CAM”) costs on the property, he unilaterally decided to pay only 50%, thereby requiring Dr. Kirkpatrick and the Foundation to pay 50% of those costs, for a period of ten years, at an additional cost of roughly $12,000. To remedy this situation going forward, Dr. Kirkpatrick proposes that Dr. Derasari will provide the Foundation with a monthly bill for the agreed 25% of the CAM charges, and pay the balance himself.

While I understand your client’s request for a mediator to help facilitate a resolution between the parties, I’m unclear as to the need for a mental health counselor. If your reference to a mental health counselor was an attempt to bring levity to the situation, while I am always open to exploring the potential benefits of bringing humor to a situation, the mediator in me senses that, in this case, it will not prove particularly helpful.

I am also unclear as to the specifics of your proposal that I prepare a letter, at my client's expense, “explaining what the situation is with the lease” and my availability to meet with “prospective tenants who will want to share the common room, etc., so that we can begin negotiations with a new tenant or owner for Dr. Derasari's building.” To this point, since Dr. Kirkpatrick, as Treasurer of the Foundation, needs to keep his legal costs at a minimum, and is too busy with the work of the Foundation to spend time attempting to predict what prospective tenants (if any) Dr. Derasari may propose, and since Dr. Derasari is attempting to locate a tenant as a result of his own decision to vacate the space, the burden should be on Dr. Derasari to provide us with proposals, to be communicated through counsel, for review by Dr. Kirkpatrick and the Foundation’s Board of Directors. We are, of course, interested to know if your client has any such prospective tenant in mind for Building #1.

Lastly, while I have no objection to discussing these issues with you and Darryl, I would need to first consult with Dr. Kirkpatrick as to the specifics of any such discussions.

I will look forward to receiving your thoughts. Very truly yours,

Gary M. Schaaf

GMS1/kls Enclosure cc: Anthony F. Kirkpatrick, M.D.

ACTIVE: K25110/386111:11661746_1_GSCHAAF

A copy of the email from Dr. Derasari to Dr. Kirkpatrick is attached below for your review.

-----Original Message-----

From: Manjul Derasari [mailto:manjulderasari@icloud.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2018 3:55 AM
To: Anthony Kirkpatrick MD PhD

Subject: Air conditioning bill

Dear Dr AFK

I got a letter from your lawyer reminding about a/c in lease .

You very well know that I am not there on a day to day basis .so I do not know about the a/c problem.

When hit and run damage happened Bethany called me immediately, first thing in the morning but NOT when a/c problem .

As majority owner of the property I took care of the repair as well as went beyond to add safeguard for the future at no coast to the renter.it has cost me close to $10 K .

I do not know the long time renter since (2007) carries a renter insurance or not inspite of reminding .

But he does like to spend on lawyers fees and than to claim as legal expanses .

If you read the same lease with addendum that you yourself created that we will resort to mediation not litigations and in your hand writing you noted Dr Derasari do not think this is needed. Who started the lawsuit ? You .

Yes I wrote the first email to you about moving your practice please read it again , I have shown concerns about your practice . And it WAS not eviction but moving in to your own building NEXT door. But you somehow refused and started litigation .

And who is breaking mediation part of the lease? The same one who created it . What an irony ,yes it was in 2007 but I was asking you to drop the lawyer, please count how many times in my emails.

Today I found out you had called a/c service in early October and NOT paid for it .

Probably it was called to keep 1902 1904 cool for its residents in a commercial Zone during your vacation .Doc the bird and its bird sitter during vacation needed to stay cool in a mould infested 1902 -1904 !

Are not you concerned about your precious Bird ‘doc’ s health and the health of its human bird sitter ? Last year ‘doc ‘ did get deathly sick just for your reminder after it’s stay at 1902-1904 .

A service was also done on 1910 -1912 a/c units. If I was still there it would have been done probably sooner .

I tookcare of BOTH the payments from respective accounts . Please see attached receipts.

I am still paying 50 % of the LLC without utilizing it actively like you .

You are occupying 80 % or so as well as utilizing it in similar proportion. You are not acknowledging the fact but I am documenting for both of us . Since get go ,2007 -you have shown more interest in building renovating and investing in 1902 -1904 building for your own interest.

I did not ask you to build expensive bathroom, conference room nor exercise room and “DOC “ living quarter in 1902 -1904 even against my objections . So it was NATURAL for me to ask you to move to that building when I was joining FMC I asked you to buy it . So that you stay in your building and I keep my building to myself and YOU would NOT have to pay me any rent .

You had asked me to appraise 1902 -1904 . I clearly remember you telling me to get an approved reputed appraiser .You did not like the higher value it came out, at one point I offered for you to buy it at cost price but you did not want to move nor buy 50 % of my share in LLC. Because you are getting benefitted full occupancy at half price .

Tony , you have taught me many things . Sincerely if you want I can write it down to you . I am grateful for that and I will always remember you for those pearls . But from this one email what happened I wish had not happened .

You and me are very DIFFERENT - that in itself is a British understatement BUT also in many ways similar . Otherwise how we stayed to gather for such a long time ? I was the first resident paired with you at TGH in 1988 or so and up to 2017 . That is a long time .

I thank you for all the good .

Reality is reality .

Manjul Derasari .

EXHIBIT -12-

11-21-2018

November 21, 2018

VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL

Darryl R. Richards, Esq.

Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP

401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 3100

Tampa, Florida 33602

Dear Darryl:

I am writing in response to your letter of November 16, 2018. I will respond to your letter in greater detail after Dr. Kirkpatrick and I return from vacation, early next week.

Preliminarily, I need the following clarifications in order to proceed toward a resolution of this matter.

First, please explain the basis for your contention that Dr. Derasari has grounds to dissolve Manjul and Anthony, LLC (the “LLC”), and to force the sale of 1902 -1904 E. Busch Boulevard. Section 605.0702, Florida Statutes, provides five ways in which an LLC member may establish grounds for judicial dissolution:

1) The conduct of all or substantially all of the company’s activities is unlawful;

2) It is not reasonably practicable to carry on the business of the LLC in conformity with its articles or operating agreement;

3) The controlling managers or members have acted illegally or fraudulently;

4) The company’s assets are being misappropriated or wasted, causing injury to the company or to one or more if its members; or

5) The managers or members are deadlocked, and irreparable injury to the company is being threatened or suffered.

While it appears that you are referring to the deadlock provision, I am interested to know whether you intend that any of the other provisions apply. I do not believe the deadlock provision, which requires both deadlock and a threatened or suffered irreparable injury to the company, would apply where, as here, one stated purpose of the LLC is to provide Dr. Kirkpatrick with the additional space he needs to operate his practice and to carry out the Foundation’s mission.

Secondly, since (1) Dr. Derasari has acted to conceal critical documents material to this case, including the Lease itself, from your co-counsel, Alan Gassman Esq., and (2) since Mr. Gassman joined with Dr. Derasari in falsely accusing Dr. Kirkpatrick of violating the “law” with regard to his activities in Building #2, we need assurances that your client intends to negotiate in good faith, going forward.

To minimize further misrepresentations and to facilitate our discussions going forward, my client has prepared a summary of my written communications with Mr. Gassman, along with copies of Lease and the Professional Agreement, at the following website.

http://rsdfoundation.org/en/Schaaf.htm

Based upon Dr. Derasari’s past actions, we are concerned that he will not act in good faith to move toward a fair and quick resolution of this matter.

For example, while, in your letter, you assert that Dr. Derasari did not threaten to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick from his surgery center, we must respectfully disagree, for the reasons set forth in my letter to Alan Gassman of January 31, 2018 (included in the above website at Exhibit 7).

Dr. Derasari not only intended to evict Dr. Kirkpatrick from his surgery center, in a clear effort to force his purchase of Dr. Derasari's 50% share of Building #2, but initially concealed the executed Lease from his own counsel, because it showed Dr. Kirkpatrick’s and the Foundation’s clear right to operate the surgery center, in Building #1, for at least an additional five years.

Dr. Derasari continues to coerce Dr. Kirkpatrick to vacate the surgery center and move to Building #2, for his sole financial benefit, even though it has been explained to him, for more than a year, that his actions could place both the Foundation and Dr. Kirkpatrick’s patients at risk of critical and irreparable harm, because Building #2, due to, among other things, ongoing mold contamination, is not suited for a surgery center. As we have pointed out, forcing the Foundation to move its operations to Building #2 would have therefore likely destroyed the Foundation.

By way of explanation of Dr. Derasari’s charade regarding the Lease, in late 2017, in my January 31, 2018 letter to Alan Gassman, I wrote the following:

Specifically, contrary to your representations in our initial communications, when Dr. Derasari sent his September 17, 2017 eviction email, he already had copies of the subject Lease, signed and unsigned, as well as the Professional Agreement, in his possession.

My letter of October 3, 2017 (to which you responded by letter dated October 17, 2017), requested Dr. Derasari’s legal basis for the threatened eviction, which has since been revealed to be lacking. In my response (by email dated October 19, 2017) to your October 17 request for a copy of the Lease, I pointed out that your client should have had a copy of the Lease and its attachments, and asked you to confirm that he did.

While you indicated to me, during our first telephone conversation, on October 30, 2017, that you didn’t believe your client had a copy of the Lease, you were unable to answer my question as to whether Dr. Derasari believed that there was no signed Lease. In our second conversation, on November 3, 2017, you indicated that Dr. Derasari had an unsigned copy of the Lease and that he did not believe that the Lease had ever been signed. In my follow-up email of November 10, 2017, I pointed out, among other things, that Dr. Kirkpatrick had forwarded Dr. Derasari copies of the executed signature pages of the Lease, in an email dated January 29, 2014, and provided you with copies of those pages.

While, in your November 11, 2017 email, you indicated that Dr. Derasari did not then intend to file an eviction action against Dr. Kirkpatrick, you also indicated that you were simultaneously asking Dr. Derasari to check his records and emails to determine whether he had the Lease in his possession.

By email dated November 15, 2017, I reiterated my request for any copy of the Lease in Dr. Derasari’s possession.

In his subsequent email of November 19, 2017, Dr. Derasari, while asserting that the Lease was allegedly not properly witnessed (which would indicate that he believed it had been signed), also expressly stated that he did not keep a copy of the Lease.

By emails dated November 27, 2017, and December 8, 2017, I again reiterated my request for any copy of the Lease in Dr. Derasari’s possession.

In your December 13, 2017 email to me, you stated that, after Dr. Derasari wrote the eviction email, he had found, as an attachment to one of his past emails, a copy of the signed Lease, but that he had not forwarded you the email or its attachments. That same day, I asked you to scan me a copy of the Lease, which you had referenced in your email, which you did, by email dated December 18, 2017.

Curiously, however, the scan which you provided reflected, at the bottom, that it had been faxed by Dr. Derasari to your office, on October 13, 2017, meaning that both you and he had the Lease over two weeks before the date of our first conversation, and during the period of my numerous requests for the copy.

Moreover, since, at the top of the Lease is a notation which reads:

On April 13, 2008, the Lease Agreement for the FOUNDATION was completed. PDF files of the signed pages are linked below: PDF File, it is clear that (1) Dr. Derasari printed out the Lease which he faxed you, from the website which also contained the executed pages of the Lease, and (2) both of you, therefore, at the very least, had knowledge of the website which contains the signed pages.

All of the foregoing leads us to believe that Dr. Derasari was, in fact, in possession of a copy of the Lease, as well as the executed signature pages, when he wrote the baseless eviction email to Dr. Kirkpatrick, which caused this dispute and the substantial costs which Dr. Kirkpatrick and his foundation have incurred.

Based on the foregoing, before moving forward with our negotiations, Dr. Kirkpatrick demands an apology from Dr. Derasari, for the wrongful eviction notice, and for his misleading statements regarding his knowledge and possession of the Lease and its terms, as well as his agreement to reimburse the Foundation for its unnecessary legal costs, all of which flowed from Dr. Derasari’s unfortunate decision to wrongfully attempt the eviction, and were exacerbated by his misleading communications regarding the Lease.

Indicative of Dr. Derasari’s continuing bad faith is his recent false allegation that Dr. Kirkpatrick is violating the law by having a person take care of his pet bird, overnight in Building #2, on a very occasional basis. Since Alan Gassman has provided no legal basis for your client’s claim, Dr. Kirkpatrick demands that it be withdrawn. Dr. Derasari’s threats to report Dr. Kirkpatrick to law enforcement is another example of his bad faith attempts to coerce Dr. Kirkpatrick to purchase his 50% interest in Building #2, which Dr. Kirkpatrick has no interest in purchasing. This most recent false allegation against my client is addressed in my November 13, 2018 letter to Alan Gassman, which is included in the above website at Exhibit 10.

On another point, Dr. Kirkpatrick wishes to advise Dr. Derasari of recent damage to the property.

On Saturday, November 17^th, he noticed severe damage to two of the yellow poles which Dr. Derasari recently had installed at the front entrance to the property, presumably to protect the building from vehicular damage. While Dr. Derasari indicated in an email that he paid nearly $10,000 for the poles, he did so despite the fact that Dr. Kirkpatrick had recommended and agreed to pay to add large boulders, which would serve the same purpose, and which Dr. Derasari had previously agreed would sufficiently protect the property from auto accidents. Dr. Derasari inexplicably rejected Dr. Kirkpatrick’s offer, stating simply, “I am the majority owner of the property.”

Under Subparagraph 7 of the Lease, we request that the Lessor immediately repair the unsightly damaged poles, a photograph of which is attached for your review. Further, in this regard, while Dr. Kirkpatrick made two previous requests in writing for the Lessor to complete the painting of the front entrance wall, which is required as a result of an auto accident which occurred several months ago, the painting has not yet been completed. A photograph of the damaged poles is attached for your review.

Nothing contained herein should be deemed a waiver of any of my client’s legal claims against Dr. Derasari, or as an agreement to forbear from the immediate enforcement of any such claims.

I look forward to your response, and to further discussions toward a potential resolution of this dispute.

Very truly yours,

Gary M. Schaaf

GMS1/kls

Enclosures

cc: Anthony F. Kirkpatrick, M.D.

ACTIVE: K25110/386111:11691767_1

EXHIBIT -13-

November 30, 2018

From: Schaaf, Gary
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 11:39 AM
To: 'Richards, Darryl' <darrylr@jpfirm.com>
Cc: 'Stubbs, Kiara' <KStubbs@beckerlawyers.com>; 'Alan Gassman ESQ (Alan@gassmanpa.com)' <Alan@gassmanpa.com>
Subject: RE: Kirkpatrick - Derasari Dispute - K25110/386111

Darryl:

Further to my email and letter of November 21, 2018, I attach an email from Bethany Martin, of Dr. Kirkpatrick’s office, to Dr. Derasari, from yesterday, which is part of the ongoing communications between Ms. Martin and Dr. Derasari, regarding the respective responsibilities for payment of the CAM charges on the property.

I thought it might be helpful to your understanding of Dr. Kirkpatrick’s position in this regard.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

-Gary

From: Bethany Martin [mailto:Bethany@rsdfoundation.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 3:28 PM
To: Manjul Derasari (manjulderasari@gmail.com); MANJUL DERASARI MD (manjulderasari@yahoo.com); manjulderasari@icloud.com
Cc: Schaaf, Gary; Anthony Kirkpatrick MD PhD; JERRY TRACHTMAN ESQ (jtrachtman@trachtman-law.com)

Subject: CAM Expenses

Dr. Derasari,

As you are aware, Dr. Kirkpatrick asked me to provide you with the monthly rent. Also, he wants me to make sure that the Foundation pays the common area maintenance (CAM) promptly.

You and your attorney reference the Professional Agreement as a binding document with which Dr. Kirkpatrick and the Foundation must fully comply. The Professional Agreement is the only document that I could find where the pro rata rate for the CAM expenses is defined and ratified by you, and Dr. Kirkpatrick. After the initial startup, you recommended that you pay 75% and the Foundation pays 25% of the CAM expenses for the entire property based on the fact that that you have 75% ownership control while Dr. Kirkpatrick has 25% ownership control of the property.

You will find a copy of the Professional Agreement that was incorporated into the Lease Agreement on the following website:

http://rsdfoundation.org/en/Schaaf.htm

In the future, please provide me with an invoice to ensure that the Foundation pays its 25% share of the cost for CAM.

It is my understanding that you have complained to your attorney about having to pay more for CAM costs because of the significant value and improvements that the Foundation has made to the property over the past decade. The Professional Agreement expressly states that one purpose of the LLC was to “add value to the location." This is precisely what the Foundation has done. The photos show what the property looked like before Dr. Kirkpatrick arrived and agreed to increase the value of the property. Please take a moment to review the before and after photos of the property which demonstrate the increased value of the property as a result of the Foundation’s efforts. These photos are linked under Exhibit 10 at the above website.

Please note that the cost of purchasing, as well as the cost of maintaining, the Koi pond, the six waterfalls, the bridge across the pond, the outdoor security cameras, and the outdoor security photo beams, and many other amenities were paid entirely by the Foundation without expense to you.

Please find attached the Certificate of Insurance for the Foundation located at 1910 E. Busch Blvd., Tampa, FL, 33612.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Bethany Martin, M.S. | Research Associate

International Research Foundation for RSD/CRPS

www.rsdfoundation.org

www.rsdhealthcare.org

Email: Bethany@rsdfoundation.org

EXHIBIT -14-

December 21, 2018

From: Schaaf, Gary
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 5:06 PM
To: 'Richards, Darryl' <darrylr@jpfirm.com>
Cc: Stubbs, Kiara <KStubbs@beckerlawyers.com>; JERRY TRACHTMAN ESQ (jtrachtman@trachtman-law.com) <jtrachtman@trachtman-law.com>
Subject: Kirkpatrick - Derasari Dispute - K25110/386111

Darryl:

I attach an email from Bethany Martin, of Dr. Kirkpatrick’s office, to Dr. Derasari, from yesterday, which is part of the ongoing communications between Ms. Martin and Dr. Derasari, regarding the shared payment of costs incurred on behalf of the LLC. The email concerns the HVAC costs which we have discussed, 50% of which are Dr. Derasari’s responsibility.

I wanted to ensure that you received the correspondence, and thought it might be helpful to your understanding of Dr. Kirkpatrick’s position in this regard.

Please note that I am working on a response to your December 17^th letter, but the impending holidays, my upcoming vacation, and a jury trial set for early next year have filled my calendar.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and have a good holiday.

-Gary

From: Bethany Martin
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 11:21 AM
To: Manjul Derasari (manjulderasari@gmail.com); MANJUL DERASARI MD (manjulderasari@yahoo.com); manjulderasari@icloud.com
Cc: Gary Schaaf ESQ; Anthony Kirkpatrick MD PhD; JERRY TRACHTMAN ESQ (jtrachtman@trachtman-law.com)
Subject: HVAC Replacement

Dr. Derasari:

By email on March 4, 2018, Dr. Kirkpatrick informed you that I was assigned the task of monitoring the LLC account to ensure there is 50/50 sharing of expenses for Building #2. On October 27, 2018, Northside Services provided you with documentation that HVAC #2 is not operating and needs to be replaced.

On November 28, 2018, I requested that you provide the Foundation with an estimate of how much money we should keep in the LLC account as a cushion for such expenses. You have not responded to my request for this information. The Foundation has deposited enough money in the LLC account to cover 50% of the cost to replace the damaged HVAC unit with a new unit.

The following link provides information delivered by Northside Services, along with the invoice showing a total cost of $6261.00 to replace the damaged HVAC unit for Building #2:

http://rsdresearch.org/kirkpatrick/HVAC_Info.htm

Please deposit $3,732.00 into the LLC account to match the previous deposit by the Foundation.

Northside is scheduled to replace the HVAC unit on January 15, 2019.

Thanks,

Bethany Martin, M.S. | Research Associate

International Research Foundation for RSD/CRPS

www.rsdfoundation.org

www.rsdhealthcare.org

Email: Bethany@rsdfoundation.org

EXHIBIT 15

From: Stubbs, Kiara [mailto:KStubbs@beckerlawyers.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:22 AM
To: GwendaB@jpfirm.com
Cc: Schaaf, Gary; Darryl R. Richards
Subject: Acceptance of Service - DERASARI v. KIRKPATRICK

Good Morning, Gwenda:

I attach the Acceptance of Service form, which you provided, signed by Mr. Schaaf and dated as of today’s date.

While Dr. Kirkpatrick’s response to the Complaint will otherwise be due 20 days from today, on April 9, 2019, pursuant to Mr. Schaaf’s agreement with Mr. Richards, the time for such response will be tolled upon Mr. Richards’ receipt of Mr. Schaaf’s reply to his outstanding letter of December 26, 2018, and our client’s “story” document, unless and until Mr. Richards thereafter provides notice of our need to respond to the Complaint, in which case our client will have either 10 days, or the number of days left in the original 20-day response period on the date on which the response and “story” were received, whichever is shorter, to file and serve his response to the Complaint.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Best Wishes,

Kiara

Stubbs

LegalAssistanttoGarySchaaf,Esq.,ConradLazo,Esq.,andCarolynMeadows,Esq.

Tampa

Ext:33919

(813.527.3900)

From: Gwenda D. Braman [mailto:GwendaB@jpfirm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 4:49 PM
To: Schaaf, Gary <GSchaaf@beckerlawyers.com>
Subject: DERASARI v. KIRKPATRICK

Good afternoon, Mr. Schaaf – Pursuant to your discussions with Darryl Richards regarding the above matter, attached is an Acceptance of Service on behalf of Dr. Kirkpatrick. Please sign and return it to our office for filing with the court.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Thank you.

Gwen

EXHIBIT 16

From: Schaaf, Gary [mailto:GSchaaf@beckerlawyers.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:47 AM
To: Darryl R. Richards; Stubbs, Kiara; Gwenda D. Braman
Subject: RE: Acceptance of Service - DERASARI v. KIRKPATRICK - K25110/386111

That won’t be a problem, Darryl.

You’ll have them by the end of this week.

-Gary

Gary

Schaaf

OfficeManagingShareholder
BoardCertifiedBusinessLitigationAttorney

Tampa

Ext:33912

(813.527.3912)

From: Darryl R. Richards [mailto:DarrylR@jpfirm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:45 AM
To: Stubbs, Kiara <KStubbs@beckerlawyers.com>; Gwenda D. Braman <GwendaB@jpfirm.com>
Cc: Schaaf, Gary <GSchaaf@beckerlawyers.com>
Subject: RE: Acceptance of Service - DERASARI v. KIRKPATRICK

To be clear, if we do not receive the response to my letter and your client’s “story” on or before March 29, we will not agree to an extension beyond April 9. Darryl

From: Stubbs, Kiara <KStubbs@beckerlawyers.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:22 AM
To: Gwenda D. Braman <GwendaB@jpfirm.com>
Cc: Schaaf, Gary <GSchaaf@beckerlawyers.com>; Darryl R. Richards <DarrylR@jpfirm.com>
Subject: Acceptance of Service - DERASARI v. KIRKPATRICK

This message originated from outside Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel, & Burns, LLP

Good Morning, Gwenda:

I attach the Acceptance of Service form, which you provided, signed by Mr. Schaaf and dated as of today’s date.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Best Wishes,

From: Gwenda D. Braman [mailto:GwendaB@jpfirm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 4:49 PM
To: Schaaf, Gary <GSchaaf@beckerlawyers.com>
Subject: DERASARI v. KIRKPATRICK

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Thank you.

Gwen