The Roxy’s Pub foreclosure went from a quiet service-stage case to a contested fight in the space of three days. Between July 21 and July 23, 2026, eleven new filings hit the docket in NBL SPV IV, LLC v. Von Esselborn, Inc. — the lender swapped its collections firm for a national heavyweight and moved for final judgment, the Webb entities finally appeared through counsel, and a notice of related cases pulled back the curtain on a second, much larger loan and on Webb’s own lawsuit against the lender.
The lender lawyers up — and reaches for final judgment (DIN 67, 68 & 70)
On July 22, NBL SPV IV substituted Holland & Knight LLP — one of the country’s largest law firms — in place of the Boston collections shop Cohn & Dussi that filed the case (DIN 70). The same afternoon, new lead counsel Christopher H. Ezell filed a motion for an order to show cause why a final judgment of foreclosure should not be entered, invoking section 702.10, Florida Statutes (DIN 67). That statute is Florida’s fast-track foreclosure tool: the court reviews the verified complaint and, if it states a cause of action, orders the defendants to show cause why judgment shouldn’t be entered — and if the borrower can’t, possession of 309 & 313 Clematis can be handed to the lender. Holland & Knight also appeared for co-defendant Newtek Bank, N.A. (DIN 68), consolidating the entire Newtek side under one firm. Trading a collections boutique for Holland & Knight, then immediately reaching for a show-cause final judgment, is the lender signalling it means to move fast.
Webb’s side finally appears (DIN 63)
For the first two months of the case the borrower side was silent — every clerk’s-default notice went out unopposed. That changed on July 21, when Carlos M. Amor filed a notice of appearance for all five Webb entities named as core defendants: John P. Webb individually, Von Esselborn, Inc., RP Palm Beach, LLC, Small Time Restaurant Group, LLC and Wallisville Corporation (DIN 63). The plaintiff’s later service lists also name Ryan V. Kadyszewski — long the Webb entities’ go-to attorney — as defense counsel. The borrower is now represented and positioned to contest the show-cause motion rather than let a judgment walk in by default.
A $12.65M first loan — and Webb’s own suit — surface (DIN 69)
The most revealing of the new filings is the plaintiff’s notice of related cases (DIN 69). It discloses that the Roxy’s redevelopment was financed by two loans that closed together on October 31, 2022: a conventional first-mortgage loan of roughly $12,654,000 and the $4,866,000 SBA 504 interim construction loan that NBL is now foreclosing — both secured by the same mortgage, note and guaranties. That finally answers the “second mortgage” puzzle buried in the complaint: the $4.87M Newtek mortgage was the construction piece sitting alongside a far larger conventional loan. The notice also spotlights a case the borrowers filed first — John P. Webb, Von Esselborn, Inc. and RP Palm Beach, LLC v. Newtek Bank, N.A., et al., No. 502025CA012858, filed December 11, 2025 before Judge Siperstein. That “defensive” action attacks the enforceability of the very loan documents NBL seeks to foreclose — alleging fraud in the inducement, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith, and violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act — and names not only the Newtek entities but individuals Sean Filley, Anthony Zara and Glenn T. Maguire. NBL wants the two cases coordinated; how that plays out will decide whether the foreclosure gets fast-tracked or bogged down in Webb’s fraud claims.
The default scoreboard (DIN 60–66)
Underneath the headline moves, the war of attrition over the non-responding construction lienholders ground on. On July 22 the clerk again declined to enter defaults — against Skyworks, L.L.C. (DIN 61) and against Southern Land & Buildings and Tru-Steel Corp (DIN 62) — each time for the same reason: Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500 requires proof that the motion for default was served before the clerk can act, and that proof wasn’t on file. NBL re-filed default motions against all three on July 23 (DIN 64, 65 and 66) and had already re-moved against Cemex Construction Materials on July 21 (DIN 60). The lienholders still aren’t defending; the hold-up is paperwork, not opposition.
No judgment has been entered. But the shape of the case has changed: a national firm is pressing for an expedited final judgment on one side, while five newly-represented borrower entities and a parallel fraud suit push back on the other. The next thing to watch is whether Judge Cheesman issues the show-cause order NBL is asking for — and whether Webb’s December lawsuit gets folded in alongside it.