conversations
listlengths 3
3
|
|---|
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "**IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE** **FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR** **PALM BEACH COUNTY COUNTY, FLORIDA** **CASE NUMBER:** **ARTHUR SCHEMAN & TRUDE** **SCHEMAN, ** **Plaintiffs, ** **v. ** **STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE** **COMPANY, ** **Defendant. ** **___________________________________/** **COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL** **COMES NOW, ** Plaintiffs, Arthur Scheman & Trude Scheman, by and through the undersigned counsel and sues Defendant, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, and alleges as follows: This is an action for breach of contract with damages greater than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50, 000. 00), exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. At all material times hereto, Plaintiffs, Arthur Scheman & Trude Scheman (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), were and are Florida resident. At all material times hereto, Defendant, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, was a corporation duly licensed to transact insurance business in the State of Florida. Defendant does business, has offices, and/or maintained agents for the transaction of its customary business in Palm Beach County County, Florida. Jurisdiction and venue of this matter are proper in Circuit Court for Palm Beach County County, Florida. ----- Prior to September 27, 2022, Plaintiffs sought and purchased property insurance from Defendant to cover their property located at 9860 Donato Way, Lake Worth, Florida, 33467, (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ Property”). Said policy of insurance, which is believed to be policy number 7Y-CY-A815-0 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ Policy”), was issued by Defendant to Plaintiffs to provide insurance coverage that included, but was not limited to, coverage afforded to protect Plaintiffs’ Property against Hurricane damage. Plaintiffs’ Policy was in full force and effect as of September 27, 2022. A formal copy of the Plaintiffs’ Policy is not currently in the possession of Plaintiffs, but is well known to Defendant, and has been requested by Plaintiffs through a Request to Produce, which has been served upon Defendant contemporaneously with this Complaint. See: Equity Premium, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. , 956 So. 2d 1257 (Fla 4th DCA 2007); Amiker v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. , 398 So. 2d 974 (Fla 1st DCA 1981); Parkway General Hospital, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 393 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981) and Sasche v. Tampa Music Co. , 262 So. 2d 17( Fla. 2nd DCA 1972). On or about September 27, 2022, Plaintiffs’ Property was damaged by a Hurricane event. Said Hurricane event was covered under Plaintiffs’ Policy, and Defendant assigned the loss as claim number 59-64H1-04Q. This is an action related to Defendant’s breach of contract for failure to fully indemnify Plaintiffs from loss. **COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANT** **COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, Arthur Scheman & Trude Scheman, by and through the** undersigned counsel and sue Defendant, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, and alleges as follows: ----- Plaintiffs re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 8 above and incorporates the same by reference herein. Plaintiffs are a named insured under Plaintiffs’ Policy which was in full force and effect all times material to this Complaint. Plaintiffs have complied with all conditions precedent to this lawsuit which entitles Plaintiffs to recover under Plaintiffs’ Policy, or any such conditions have been waived by the Defendant. Despite demand for payment, Defendant has failed or refused fully indemnify Plaintiffs from the amount of loss. Defendant’s refusal to reimburse Plaintiffs adequately for damages, and otherwise make Plaintiffs whole, constitutes a breach of contract. Plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of Defendant’s breach in the form of insurance proceeds which have not been paid, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs have been and remain fully prepared to comply with all of the Policy’s obligations. As a result of Defendant’s breach of contract, it has become necessary that Plaintiffs retain the services of the undersigned attorneys pursuant to Sections 627. 70152 (July 1, 2021), 428 (July 1, 2021), 626. 9373 (July 1, 2021), 57. 041, 57. 104, Florida Statutes. Plaintiffs are obligated to pay a reasonable fee for the undersigned attorney’s services in bringing this action, plus necessary costs. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs under Sections 627. 70152 (July 1, 2021), 627. 428 (July 1, 2021), 626. 9373 (July 1, 2021), 57. 041, 57. 104, Florida Statutes. ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Arthur Scheman & Trude Scheman, by and through the** undersigned counsel, demands judgment against Defendant, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, for all damages with interest, costs, attorney fees pursuant to Sections 627. 70152 (July 1, 2021), 627. 428 (July 1, 2021), 626. 9373 (July 1, 2021), 57. 041, 57. 104, Florida Statutes, and for all other remedies the Court sees fit to grant, and Plaintiff demands trial by jury. **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** **I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this document will be served on** Defendant along with the Summons in this action. **: September 5, 2024** _/s/Dalya Zalloum_ **COHEN LAW GROUP** Dalya Zalloum, Esq. _FOR THE FIRM_ Florida Bar Number: 1002903 350 North Lake Destiny Road Maitland, Florida 32751 Phone: (407) 478-4878 Fax: (407) 478-0204 Primary: DZalloum@itsaboutjustice. law Secondary: -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ARTHUR SCHEMAN & TRUDE SCHEMAN, Plaintiffs, _Ê_ vs. STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ____________________________________/ **DEFENDANT’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO** **PLAINTIFFS** Defendant, STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, (hereinafter “State Farm” or “Defendant”), pursuant to Rule 1. 350, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby requests that Plaintiffs, ARTHUR SCHEMAN & TRUDE SCHEMAN (“Plaintiffs”), produce the following for inspection and/or copying at the offices of the undersigned counsel within 30 days after service of this request. You are advised that you shall serve a written response to this Request for Production within the time period set forth above. For each of the designated items or categories of documents listed below, you shall state in your response the documents are attached unless the request is objected to, in which event you must state the reasons for your objections. You are further notified that upon production of the requested documents, you shall either produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall identify them to correspond with the categories in this Request. The Plaintiffs shall produce all documents within their possession, custody, or control, including but not limited to all documents in the possession, ----- Ê custody, or control of their attorneys, directors, officers, employees, agents, accountants or representatives. If any document cannot be produced in full, produce it to the extent possible and identify each page or portion of the document withheld and the reasons it has been withheld. DEFINITIONS Ê The term \"documents\" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind, including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether printed, recorded, stored, or reproduced by any mechanical or electronic process or written or produced by hand, including computer tapes (and backup tapes), whether different from the original by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mail, electronic computer files, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, accident reports, incident reports, studies, calculations, computations, surveys, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, prospectuses, circulars, trade letters, advertisements, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of conversation(s), telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter, computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind, whether or not the document is out of your possession, custody or control. Ê The term \"correspondence\" means any tangible object that conveys information or memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited to, writings, letters, memoranda, electronic mail (otherwise known as “e-mail”), facsimiles, reports, notes, telegrams and interoffice communication. Ê The term \"relating to\" as used herein is defined to mean evidencing, referring to, pertaining to, consisting of, reflecting, concerning, or in any way logically or factually connected with the matters discussed. Ê The term “property” or “subject property” refers to the property located at 9860 Donato Way, Lake Worth, FL 33467. Ê The term “you” or “your” refers to Plaintiffs, Arthur Scheman and Trude Scheman. Ê The term “Loss” or “this Claim” refers to the loss described in the Complaint or the loss reported to State Farm for aof loss occurring on or about September 27, 2022, claim number assigned 59-64H1-04Q. ----- Ê **DOCUMENTS REQUESTED** Ê Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, correspondence from you or any agent of yours to State Farm and/or its agents beginning from thethe Loss was reported to State Farm through the present. Ê Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, correspondence from State Farm and/or its agents to you and/or your agents beginning from thethe Loss was reported to State Farm through the present. Ê Any and all documents evidencing agreements for representation between yourself and any individual or business entity representing you in this Claim, including but not limited to contracts, letters of representation, correspondence, and fee schedules for representation by public adjusters or public adjuster firms. ÊThisÊrequestÊdoesÊnotÊseekÊagreementsÊforÊlegalÊrepresentation, Ê _butÊdoesÊseekÊunredactedÊdocumentsÊresponsiveÊtoÊthisÊrequest. ÊÊÊ_ _Ê_ Ê Any and all documents evidencing an assignment of benefits between yourself and any individual or business entity that relate to the Loss or any portion of the subject Property for which you are claiming damages concerning the Loss. Ê Ê Any and all documents evidencing the damages that you are claiming as a result of the Loss, including, but not limited to estimates, contracts, receipts, statements, invoices, and work orders. Ê Any and all documents evidencing the damages that you are claiming to any personal property as a result of the Loss, including, but not limited to estimates, contracts, receipts, statements, and invoices. Ê Any and all documents relating to repairs or other work performed to the roof of the subject property since thethe roof was last replaced through the present. Ê Any and all documents relating to the most recent replacement of the roof of the subject Property. Ê Any and all documents evidencing estimates, work orders, invoices, statements, and receipts relating to the repair or replacement of the roof of the subject Property. Ê Any and all documents relating to your purchase of a tarp for the roof of the subject Property relating to this Loss. Ê Any and all documents that evidence, depict, or reflect the age or condition of the roof of the subject Property at the time of the Loss. Ê Any and all documents evidencing the replacement of damaged property as a result of your loss, including but not limited to contracts, receipts, canceled checks, bills of sale, statements, ATM receipts, credit card statements, and invoices. ----- Ê Ê Any and all bills or invoices incurred by you as a result of the Loss. Ê Any and all documents evidencing any repairs performed prior to September 27, 2022, for any area of the subject Property relating to the Loss. Ê Any and all documents evidencing any repairs performed prior to September 27, 2022, to the roof of the Property. Ê Any and all documents evidencing any repairs performed prior to September 27, 2022, to the interior of the Property. Ê Any and all documents evidencing any repairs performed prior to September 27, 2022, to the exterior of the subject Property relating to the Loss. Ê Any and all documents evidencing all repairs performed at any time after September 27, 2022, to any area of the subject Property relating to the Loss. Ê Any and all documents evidencing all repairs performed at any time after September 27, 2022, to the interior of the subject Property relating to the Loss. Ê Any and all documents evidencing all repairs performed at any time after September 27, 2022, to the roof of the subject Property relating to the Loss. Ê Any and all documents evidencing all repairs performed at any time after September 27, 2022, to the exterior of the subject Property relating to the Loss. Ê Any and all maintenance records for any portion or area of the subject Property relating to the Loss. Ê Any and all documents evidencing repairs relating to the roof of the subject Property or service calls to a roofing company at any time from thethe roof was last replaced through theof loss, including but not limited to work orders, invoices, statements, inspections, estimates, and receipts. Ê Any and all documents you received from any roofing company, contractor, handyman, and any other person or company that you or any of your agents retained to inspect any portion or area of the Property relating to the Loss. Ê Any and all documents you received from any roofing company, contractor, handyman, and any other person or company that you or any of your agents retained to perform repairs or renovations to any portion or area of the Property relating to the Loss. Ê Any and all documents reflecting payment(s) made by you or your agents to any roofing company, contractor, handyman, and any other person or company that you or your agents retained for any reason relating to the Loss. ----- Ê Ê Any and all documents reflecting, depicting or otherwise evidencing any efforts to protect the Property from further damage after discovery of the Loss. Ê Any and all documents in your possession that were prepared by third-parties who inspected or evaluated the subject Property relating to the Loss. Ê Any and all photographs, videographs, recordings, film, diagrams, drawings, charts, sketches or any other documents illustrating the damages sustained in the Loss. Ê Any and all photographs, videographs, recordings, film, diagrams, drawings, charts, sketches or any other documents illustrating the pre-loss condition (prior to September 27, 2022) of any portion or area of the subject Property you are claiming as part of this Loss. Ê Any and all documents evidencing application for or issuance of building permits for any portion of the subject Property relating to the Loss from theyou purchased the subject Property through the present. Ê All maintenance and/or repair records for the Subject Property from theof purchase through the present. Ê All documents relating to any prior insurance claims at the Subject Property, including, but not limited to, any repair receipts, estimates, photographs, and/or invoices. Ê Any and all bills incurred as a result of any prior loss to the subject Property. Ê Copies of any pre-purchase inspection reports for the Subject Property. Ê Copies of any inspection reports for the Subject Property prepared on or after theof purchase of the Subject Property through the present. Ê Any and all documents in your possession relating to the Loss. **Ê** Ê Any and all documents upon which you relied upon in answering the Interrogatories or that are referenced in your Answers to Interrogatories. ----- #### CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies that this request, response or objection is: (A) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing [law][ or][ a] good [faith] argument [for][ the] extension, modification, [or][ reversal][ of] existing law; (B) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; and (C) not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive, given [the][ needs][ of][ the] case, [the] discovery already [had][ in] the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation #### KELLEY KRONENBERG /s/ Melanie S. Wes ## eman_ Melanie S. Weseman, Esq. Fla. Bar No. : 506451 mweseman@kelleykronenberg. com 1475 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 275 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) [684-5956] #### (Certificate [of][ Service][ on] Following Page) ----- **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 16th day of January, 2025, this document was filed using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. This document is being served on all counsel and pro se parties of record by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, pursuant to and in compliance with Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2. 516. The mailing and electronic addresses are: Dalya Zalloum, Esquire, Cohen Law Group, 350 North Lake Destiny Road, Maitland, FL 32751, DZalloum@itsaboutjustice. law, (407) 478-4878, Attorney for Plaintiffs. **KELLEY KRONENBERG** /s/ MelanieÊS. ÊWeseman **Melanie S. Weseman, Esq. ** Fla. Bar No. : 506451 mweseman@kelleykronenberg. com **John S. Riordan, Esq. ** Fla. Bar No. : 0568694 jriordan@kelleykronenberg. com 1475 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 275 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 684-5956 Facsimile: (561) 684-5753 Attorneys for State Farm Insurance Company Address for service of pleadings only: mweseman@kelleykronenberg. com hmoore@kelleykronenberg. com -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "**IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE** **FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR** **PALM BEACH COUNTY COUNTY, FLORIDA** **CASE NUMBER:** **ARTHUR SCHEMAN & TRUDE** **SCHEMAN, ** **Plaintiffs, ** **v. ** **STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE** **COMPANY, ** **Defendant. ** **___________________________________/** **COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL** **COMES NOW, ** Plaintiffs, Arthur Scheman & Trude Scheman, by and through the undersigned counsel and sues Defendant, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, and alleges as follows: This is an action for breach of contract with damages greater than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50, 000. 00), exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. At all material times hereto, Plaintiffs, Arthur Scheman & Trude Scheman (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), were and are Florida resident. At all material times hereto, Defendant, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, was a corporation duly licensed to transact insurance business in the State of Florida. Defendant does business, has offices, and/or maintained agents for the transaction of its customary business in Palm Beach County County, Florida. Jurisdiction and venue of this matter are proper in Circuit Court for Palm Beach County County, Florida. ----- Prior to September 27, 2022, Plaintiffs sought and purchased property insurance from Defendant to cover their property located at 9860 Donato Way, Lake Worth, Florida, 33467, (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ Property”). Said policy of insurance, which is believed to be policy number 7Y-CY-A815-0 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ Policy”), was issued by Defendant to Plaintiffs to provide insurance coverage that included, but was not limited to, coverage afforded to protect Plaintiffs’ Property against Hurricane damage. Plaintiffs’ Policy was in full force and effect as of September 27, 2022. A formal copy of the Plaintiffs’ Policy is not currently in the possession of Plaintiffs, but is well known to Defendant, and has been requested by Plaintiffs through a Request to Produce, which has been served upon Defendant contemporaneously with this Complaint. See: Equity Premium, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. , 956 So. 2d 1257 (Fla 4th DCA 2007); Amiker v. Mid-Century Ins. Co. , 398 So. 2d 974 (Fla 1st DCA 1981); Parkway General Hospital, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 393 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981) and Sasche v. Tampa Music Co. , 262 So. 2d 17( Fla. 2nd DCA 1972). On or about September 27, 2022, Plaintiffs’ Property was damaged by a Hurricane event. Said Hurricane event was covered under Plaintiffs’ Policy, and Defendant assigned the loss as claim number 59-64H1-04Q. This is an action related to Defendant’s breach of contract for failure to fully indemnify Plaintiffs from loss. **COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANT** **COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, Arthur Scheman & Trude Scheman, by and through the** undersigned counsel and sue Defendant, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, and alleges as follows: ----- Plaintiffs re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 8 above and incorporates the same by reference herein. Plaintiffs are a named insured under Plaintiffs’ Policy which was in full force and effect all times material to this Complaint. Plaintiffs have complied with all conditions precedent to this lawsuit which entitles Plaintiffs to recover under Plaintiffs’ Policy, or any such conditions have been waived by the Defendant. Despite demand for payment, Defendant has failed or refused fully indemnify Plaintiffs from the amount of loss. Defendant’s refusal to reimburse Plaintiffs adequately for damages, and otherwise make Plaintiffs whole, constitutes a breach of contract. Plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of Defendant’s breach in the form of insurance proceeds which have not been paid, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs have been and remain fully prepared to comply with all of the Policy’s obligations. As a result of Defendant’s breach of contract, it has become necessary that Plaintiffs retain the services of the undersigned attorneys pursuant to Sections 627. 70152 (July 1, 2021), 428 (July 1, 2021), 626. 9373 (July 1, 2021), 57. 041, 57. 104, Florida Statutes. Plaintiffs are obligated to pay a reasonable fee for the undersigned attorney’s services in bringing this action, plus necessary costs. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs under Sections 627. 70152 (July 1, 2021), 627. 428 (July 1, 2021), 626. 9373 (July 1, 2021), 57. 041, 57. 104, Florida Statutes. ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Arthur Scheman & Trude Scheman, by and through the** undersigned counsel, demands judgment against Defendant, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, for all damages with interest, costs, attorney fees pursuant to Sections 627. 70152 (July 1, 2021), 627. 428 (July 1, 2021), 626. 9373 (July 1, 2021), 57. 041, 57. 104, Florida Statutes, and for all other remedies the Court sees fit to grant, and Plaintiff demands trial by jury. **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** **I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this document will be served on** Defendant along with the Summons in this action. **: September 5, 2024** _/s/Dalya Zalloum_ **COHEN LAW GROUP** Dalya Zalloum, Esq. _FOR THE FIRM_ Florida Bar Number: 1002903 350 North Lake Destiny Road Maitland, Florida 32751 Phone: (407) 478-4878 Fax: (407) 478-0204 Primary: DZalloum@itsaboutjustice. law Secondary: -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "**IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE** **FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR** **PALM BEACH COUNTY COUNTY, FLORIDA** **CASE NUMBER:** **ARTHUR SCHEMAN & TRUDE** **SCHEMAN, ** **Plaintiffs, ** **v. ** **STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE** **COMPANY, ** **Defendant. ** **___________________________________/** **PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO DEFENDANT** Plaintiffs, Arthur Scheman & Trude Scheman, by and through the undersigned counsel, under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1. 350 and 1. 280(a), submits to Defendant, State Farm Florida Insurance Company, the following Request to Produce and requests that Defendant furnish copies to Plaintiffs at 350 North Lake Destiny Road, Maitland, Florida, 32751, or via E-Mail, within forty-five (45) days of service of the Complaint herein. **DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS** For purposes of this Request to Produce, the following terms and definitions are provided: Plaintiffs: The term “Plaintiffs” as used herein shall mean Arthur Scheman & Trude Scheman and their representatives as defined below. Defendant: The term “Defendant” shall mean State Farm Florida Insurance Company, whether by that name or any other, and its representatives as defined below. Representatives: The term \"representatives\" shall mean any and all present or former partners, agents, employees, servants, officers, directors, attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnificators, insurers, independent contractors and other persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of the entity referred to. ----- You and Your: The terms \"you\" and \"your\" shall refer to Defendant (defined above) and any other person or entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf. Document: The term \"document\" shall mean any written, printed, typed or other graphic or photographic matter (including without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotapes, recordings and motion pictures and data stored on a computer disc or computer hard drive) and shall include the originals, identical copies and all non-identical copies, whether different from the original by reason of any notation made on each copy or otherwise and shall include, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, all letters, telegrams, teletypes, correspondence, contracts, agreements, notes, mechanical and electronic sound recordings and transcripts thereof (including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and discs), computer records, computer printouts, other printed matter produced through computers, calendar and diary entries, memoranda, notes and records of all telephone or personal conversations, meetings and other communication, inter-office and intra-office communications, statements, manuals, summaries and compilations, minutes of meetings, charges, maps, reports, analysis, studies, graphs, prospectus, returns, statistics, pamphlets, books, offers, bulletins, order papers, articles, catalogs, records, tables, books of account, ledgers, vouchers, canceled checks, invoices, bills, receipts, tickets, worksheets and all drafts, alterations, modifications and changes to any of the foregoing, as well as all digitally stored and generated documents and notes. Communication: The term \"communication\" as used herein shall mean any contact between or among the parties indicated, including but not limited to, all documents (defined above), telephone or personal conversations, meetings, e-mails or electronic contacts, conferences and discussions. Once identified, a communication may be subsequently identified by use of a common description. ----- Identify: The term “identify” when used with reference to a person shall mean to: a. State the full name of the person; b. State the full name of the last known employer of the person; c. State the last known occupation or title of the person with such employer; d. State the last known business telephone number of the person; e. State the last known home address of the person; and f. State the last known home telephone number of the person. Once identified, a person may be subsequently identified by uniform use of a standard name. Identify: The term “identify” when used with reference to a document shall mean to: a. State a complete description of the document; b. Identify the person who prepared the document; c. State theon which the document was prepared; d. State the location at which the document was prepared; and e. Identify the person who presently has care, custody and control of the document. Once identified, a document may be subsequently identified by uniform use of a standard description. Person: The term “person” as used herein shall mean a natural person other than an entity and shall be construed to include groups of natural persons. **INSTRUCTIONS** Should Defendant object to a Request to Produce or not respond pursuant to a claim of privilege, Defendant is required to: a. State the basis of the claim of privilege; b. Identify the subject matter of the information to which a claim of privilege is made; c. Identify all persons or entities who have had access to or claimed to be privileged or were present when the privileged information was discussed, and d. Identify all persons or entities to which the privileged information has been disclosed. ----- **PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO DEFENDANT** A true and correct copy of all DEC pages and the full and complete insurance policy(s) referenced in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and a sworn statement of a corporate officer of Defendant attesting to the coverage and authenticity of the policy. **RESPONSE:** A copy of any and all other DEC pages and insurance policy(s) that may provide coverage to either Plaintiffs for the damages claimed in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. **RESPONSE:** A copy of each and every document (defined above) that you reasonably anticipate may be introduced into evidence at the trial of this matter. **RESPONSE:** A copy of any and all documents that you allege may support any affirmative defense which you have raised in this matter. **RESPONSE:** A copy of any and all documents that you allege may support any Motion to Dismiss which you have filed in this matter. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any and all statements, and any transcripts from any person who has knowledge of the facts in this matter including any expert witness or Defendant (defined above) herein. **RESPONSE:** ----- Copies of any and all recorded statement(s) and telephone conversations, as well as any transcripts for the same that have been reduced to writing and/or transcribed, including but not limited to Examinations Under Oath, which were taken of or provided by any insured or their representatives (defined above) that are in your possession or control. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any and all recorded statement(s) and telephone conversations, as well as any transcripts for the same that have been reduced to writing and/or transcribed, which were taken of or provided by any witness that are in your possession or control. **RESPONSE:** Each and every document, report, chart, graph, object, summary, compilation of data or other thing relied upon by any of your experts, in whole or in part, in the formulation of any opinions and conclusion in this case. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any photographs of Plaintiffs’ Property located at 9860 Donato Way, Lake Worth, Florida, 33467 which are in your possession or control. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any photographs that reflect any damage at Plaintiffs’ Property located at 9860 Donato Way, Lake Worth, Florida, 33467that are in your possession or control. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any photographs of any work performed at Plaintiffs’ Property located at 9860 Donato Way, Lake Worth, Florida, 33467 that are in your possession or control. **RESPONSE:** ----- Copies of any and all estimates and damage appraisals and other documents (defined above) referencing damage appraisals regarding Plaintiffs’ Property located at 9860 Donato Way, Lake Worth, Florida, 33467that are in your possession or control. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any and all documents (defined above) upon which you based any denials of coverage for the loss described in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any and all documents (defined above) upon which you based any denials of all or part of the amount of loss claimed by Plaintiffs. **RESPONSE:** If there are any denials of insurance coverage by Defendant, then copies are requested of any and all applications for insurance, insurance forms, data sheets, correspondence, notices, facsimile, e-mails and other documents (defined above) that reference in any way any the insurance policy at issue in this matter. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any and all correspondence, facsimile, notices, e-mails and other documents (defined above) that reference in any way any notices that you provided to Plaintiffs regarding cancellation of the insurance policy at issue in this matter. **RESPONSE:** Copies of all PORS, Proof of Mailing and other documents (defined above) that reflect in any way mailings made by you to Plaintiffs regarding cancellation of the policy of insurance at issue in this matter. **RESPONSE:** ----- All reports and current curriculum vitae from any expert(s) retained by you for any reason regarding Plaintiffs’ claim. **RESPONSE:** Any and all e-mails, letters, facsimile, and other correspondence regarding any claims made by Plaintiffs for property insurance benefits as a result of the Hurricane event of September 27, 2022, including but not limited to, correspondence with experts, correspondence with experts, independent adjusters, appraisers, inspectors, and any other third party. **RESPONSE:** All documents reflecting any payment made to any person (defined above) or entity for any reason as a result of the Hurricane event described in Plaintiffs’ Complaint. **RESPONSE:** All books, treaties or authority used by Defendant’s adjuster in determining what amount to pay or deny regarding the claim at issue. **RESPONSE:** All writings, memoranda, notes or other materials reflecting examination of Plaintiffs’ Property by Defendant or its agents. **RESPONSE:** All proofs of loss received by Defendant from Plaintiffs. **RESPONSE:** All estimates received by Defendant from any source for repairs to Plaintiffs’ Property. **RESPONSE:** ----- Defendant’s latest claims manual or statement of policies and procedures on the processing or handling of property damage claims. **RESPONSE:** Any training manuals, guides and documents that Defendant has provided to its adjusters regarding adjusting Hurricane damage claims from the past three years to the present. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any peer reviews, estimates, or comparative estimates generated by anyone on Defendant’s behalf regarding the amount of loss at issue. **RESPONSE:** All documents showing the total amount paid during the past three years to any third parties providing services, analyses, or opinions regarding Plaintiffs’ claim. **RESPONSE:** A copy of the contract/agreement/document (if any) that Defendant has with anyone, including but not limited to contractors, engineers, adjusters, or experts, who may provide testimony at the trial of this matter. **RESPONSE:** A copy of each resume, curriculum vitae, and other document listing the qualifications of each and every expert and/or consultant hired by you or your representatives (defined above) who may testify at trial. **RESPONSE:** ----- All documents that relate to the drafting, meaning, and interpretation of any language, terms, or provisions, used in the policy at issue. **RESPONSE:** Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1. 310(b)(6), please produce three (3) alternatives for deposition to occur no earlier than thirty (30) days but no later than one hundred-twenty (120) days from service for the deposition of the corporate representative(s) with the most knowledge of the claim asserted by the Plaintiffs’ Complaint as well as the individual(s) primarily responsible for the decision to deny indemnifying Plaintiffs’ amount of loss. A designation of the information upon which such examination will proceed will be provided under separate cover. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any and all notices sent by you or your representatives (defined above) to any insured to participate in a mediation program under Fla. Stat. § 627. 7015 and copies of any and all PORS, Proof of Mailing and other documents (defined above) which reflect in any way mailings made by you to any insured regarding the same. **RESPONSE:** **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** **I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this document will be served on** Defendant along with the Summons and the Complaint in this action. **: September 5, 2024** _/s/Dalya Zalloum_ **COHEN LAW GROUP** Dalya Zalloum, Esq. _FOR THE FIRM_ Florida Bar Number: 1002903 350 North Lake Destiny Road Maitland, Florida 32751 Phone: (407) 478-4878 Fax: (407) 478-0204 Primary: DZalloum@itsaboutjustice. law Secondary: -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION ______________________________________/ SEH 27 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. COVENTRY 871 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; LENDINGONE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ICON EQUITY GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and 879 COVENTRY STREET HOLDINGS LLC, a Florida limited liability company. Defendants. ________________________________________/ **VERIFIED COMPLAINT** Plaintiff, SEH 27 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, sues Defendants Coventry 871 LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, LendingOne LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Icon Equity Group LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, (collectively, “Defendants”) and alleges: **INTRODUCTION** Plaintiff filed an action on a debt and for foreclosure, which is currently pending in the Circuit Court in and for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, against a number of defendants, including Anthony Shafer, a guarantor, to collect an outstanding debt and foreclose certain security interests (the “Foreclosure Action”). ----- After the Foreclosure Action was filed, and during the same period of time in which the debtor and the guarantors sought and obtained repayment extensions and a forbearance agreement, guarantor Anthony Shafer directed and caused the fraudulent transfer of assets in hopes of frustrating Plaintiff’s rights as creditor and Plaintiff’s expected collection efforts. Among the fraudulent transfers is the transfer of 100% membership interest in 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC which is now the subject of this action. 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC owns a property located at 879 Coventry Street Boca Raton Florida 33487 (the “879 Coventry Property”) and 871 Coventry Street Boca Raton Florida 33487 (the “871 Coventry Property”) (collectively, the “Coventry Properties”). In this Verified Complaint, Plaintiff sues Coventry 871 LLC, who was the transferee in the fraudulent transfer of the membership interest in 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC. Plaintiff names Defendant Icon Equity Group LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company controlled by Anthony Shafer, and 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC, the Florida Limited Liability Company whose membership interest was fraudulently transferred, as nominal defendants. In addition, Plaintiff names Defendant LendingOne LLC as a nominal defendant, based on an apparent mortgage held by LendingOne LLC and secured by the 879 Coventry Property. Plaintiff seeks avoidance, damages, and any further relief as is just and proper. **PARTIES AND JURISDICTION** This is an action for statutory relief and damages in an amount greater than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50, 000. 00), exclusive of interest, costs, and attorney’s fees, and thus, is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 2 ----- Plaintiff is a company existing and operating under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware. Defendant Coventry 871 LLC is a company existing and operating under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware. Defendant LendingOne LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that holds a lien on the 879 Coventry Property by virtue of a mortgage and is named in this action as a nominal defendant. No wrongdoing by Defendant LendingOne LLC is known or alleged as of this time. Defendant Icon Equity Group LLC is or was a Florida limited liability company having its principal place at 23 S. Swinton Ave, Delray Beach, in Palm Beach County, Florida. According to public state records, Defendant Icon Equity Group LLC was recently dissolved on September 27, 2024 and is named as a nominal defendant. Defendant 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC is a Florida limited liability company having its principal place at the 871 Coventry Property in Palm Beach County, Florida and is named as a nominal defendant. This Court has jurisdiction over all defendants because each of them: (1) operates, conducts, engages in, or carries on a business or business venture in this state or has an office or agency in this state that gave rise to this action as set forth in Fla. Stat. § 48. 193(1)(a); (2) engages in substantial and not isolated activity within this state as set forth in Fla. Stat. § 48. 193(2); or (3) owns, uses, possesses, and/or holds a lien secured by real property in Palm Beach County, Florida. Venue is proper in Palm Beach County, Florida, under Fla. Stat. §§ 47. 011 and 041. 3 ----- **BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS** **A. ** **The Foreclosure Action. ** On or about November 5, 2021, Anthony Shafer, as manager of Icon Development Holdings II, LLC, signed and executed a promissory note in the original principal sum of $10, 800, 000. 00 that became due on April 30, 2023. The promissory note had a corresponding mortgage that was recorded on November 12, 2021, in Official Records Book 33046, Page 121 in the public records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Anthony Shafer also signed an unlimited guaranty, unconditionally and continually guaranteeing the referenced promissory note. At Icon Development Holdings II LLC’s request, the original maturityof April 30, 2023 was extended through multiple amendments, the last of which extended the maturity to March 31, 2024. Icon Development Holdings II LLC then defaulted pursuant to the terms and conditions of the loan by, among other things, failing to pay the whole of the then outstanding principal, plus all accrued and unpaid interest (including default interest) upon the extended maturity of the promissory note on March 31, 2024. On April 12, 2024, Anthony Shafer, Icon Development Holdings II, LLC, and other corporate guarantors, entered into a forbearance agreement with Plaintiff. The very next month, Icon Development Holdings II, LLC defaulted on the payments required by the forbearance agreement. Under the forbearance agreement, Anthony Shafer acknowledged the full amount of the debt, waived all defenses, and consented to a judgment for the total debt, which continues to accrue default interest. 4 ----- On June 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint for Foreclosure and Damages in the Palm Beach County Action which named Anthony Shafer as a defendant, among others. On September 27, 2024, the trial court in the Foreclosure Action entered an agreed order on order to show cause, where it found that Plaintiff is likely to prevail in the action under Fla. Stat §702. 10(2)(d). In addition, in the same Foreclosure Action, a Motion for Summary Judgment was filed by Plaintiff on October 18, 2024 which is yet to be heard. **B. ** **Anthony Shafer’s Precipitous Drop in Net Worth and the 879 Coventry Street** **Holding LLC Transfer. ** Anthony Shafer provided Plaintiff with a personal financial statementd December 1, 2023 that stated that at the time: (1) Anthony Shafer’s net worth was $174 million dollars; (2) listed Icon Equity Group LLC as his employer; (3) listed Anthony Shafer as the sole owner of 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC; (4) listed Anthony Shafer as owning the Coventry Properties through his ownership interest in 879 Coventry Street Holdings, LLC. Additionally, the operating agreement for Icon Equity Group LLC, d April 27, 2021, lists Anthony Shafer as its sole member and manager. The legal description of the 871 Coventry Property is Lot 16, Block 2 of BEL MARRA SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 30, of Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. The legal description of the 879 Coventry Property is Lot 17, Block 2 of BEL MARRA SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 25, Page 30, of Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. On October 5, 2024, Anthony Shafer produced a personal financial statement in compliance with a court order from the Court in the Foreclosure Action. In those intervening ten months since the December 1, 2023 personal financial statement, Anthony Shafer’s self-reported 5 ----- net worth dwindled to just shy of two million dollars-reflecting a purported drop of more than $172 million dollars. Numerous assets, including membership interests in corporate entities and real property, were removed from Anthony Shafer’s October 2024 personal financial statement without explanation as to whether they were transferred and, if so, for what consideration, if any. Upon information and belief, Anthony Shafer has engaged in and continues to engage in actions to dissipate his assets in an effort to frustrate and defraud his creditors, including Plaintiff. On August 31, 2024, Icon Equity Group LLC an entity that Anthony Shafer manages, controls, and claimed to own, assigned 100% membership interest in 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC (the “Transfer”). The Transfer was for no or only nominal and insufficient consideration. On September 27, 2024, Icon Equity Group LLC was administratively dissolved according to state public records. **COUNT I-FRAUDULENT TRANSFER UNDER FLA. STAT. § 726. 105(1)(a)** Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-30 above, as if fully set forth herein. Section 105(1)(a) of the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Fla. Stat. 101 et. seq. provides that a transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor (whether the creditor’s claim arose before or after the transfer was made) if the debtor made the transfer with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor. Plaintiff was a creditor of Anthony Shafer within the meaning of section 105(1)(a) before and at the time of the Transfer. Anthony Shafer, as manager of Icon Equity Group LLC, made the Transfer with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors, including Plaintiff, in violation of Fla. 6 ----- Stat. § 726. 105(1)(a). Icon Equity Group LLC was a mere instrumentality used to fraudulently transfer the membership interest in 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC (and the Coventry Properties) to Coventry 871 LLC. Anthony Shafer’s actual intent can be evidenced by the following badges of fraud: (a) At the time the Transfer was made, Anthony Shafer had been sued by Plaintiff in the Foreclosure Action seeking payment of millions of dollars in damages. (b) The Transfer was made after it became clear that Anthony Shafer would incur a substantial debt as guarantor for Icon Development Holdings II LLC. The Transfer constitutes a fraudulent transfer pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726. 105(1)(a). As a direct and proximate result of the Transfer, Plaintiff has been harmed and continues to be harmed. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff is under secured and will not be made whole if it forecloses on the collateral in the Foreclosure Action. In addition, as a direct and proximate result of the Transfer, Plaintiff incurred or will incur damages in an amount to be determined at trial. The Transfer is subject to avoidance and recovery pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 105(1)(a). **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests a judgment in its favor against Defendants, ** and for the Court to: (i) find that the transfer of the membership interest in 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC to 871 Coventry LLC was a fraudulent transfer pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 105(1)(a); (ii) award damages against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of the value of the membership interest in 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC; (iii) avoid the Transfer; (iv) enter provisional remedies against further transfers by Defendants of the membership interest 7 ----- in 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC and the Coventry Properties, including but not limited to injunctive relief; and (v) award such and further relief as is just and proper. **COUNT II-FRAUDULENT TRANSFER UNDER FLA. STAT. § 726. 105(1)(b)** Plaintiff repeats and reallege paragraphs 1-30 above, as if fully set forth herein. Section 105(1)(b) of the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Fla. Stat. 101 et. seq. provides that a transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor if the debtor made the transfer without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor either was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction or intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he or she would incur, debts beyond his or her ability to pay as they became due. Plaintiff was a creditor of Anthony Shafer within the meaning of section 105(1)(b) before and at the time of the Transfer. Anthony Shafer, through his control and management of Icon Equity Group LLC transferred the membership interest in 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC to Coventry 871 LLC for less than reasonably equivalent value at a time when: (1) Anthony Shafer was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which his remaining assets were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction, and/or (2) Anthony Shafer intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due. Specifically, Anthony Shafer transferred the membership interest in 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC to Coventry 871 LLC when Anthony Shafer was a defendant under the Foreclosure Action, which will likely impose over $9 million in joint and several liability against him, plus additional liabilities in the form of costs and interest. 8 ----- The Transfer constitutes a fraudulent transfer pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726. 105(1)(b). As a direct and proximate result of the Transfer, Plaintiff has been harmed. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff is under secured and will not be made whole if it forecloses on the collateral in the Foreclosure Action. In addition, as a direct and proximate result of the Transfer, Plaintiff has incurred or will incur damages in an amount to be determined at trial. The Transfer is subject to avoidance and recovery pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 105(1)(b). **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests a judgment in its favor against Defendants, ** and for the Court to: (i) find that the transfer of the membership interest in 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC to 871 Coventry LLC was a fraudulent transfer pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 105(1)(b); (ii) award damages against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of the value of the membership interest in 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC; (iii) avoid the Transfer; (iv) enter provisional remedies against further transfers by Defendants of the membership interest in 879 Coventry Street Holdings LLC and the Coventry Properties, including but not limited to injunctive relief; and (v) award such and further relief as is just and proper. [SIGNAUTRES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 9 -----d: October 28, 2024 Respectfully submitted, SEQUOR LAW, P. A. 1111 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 1250 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 372-8282 Fax: (305) 372-8202 By: /s/ Arnoldo B. Lacayo Arnoldo B. Lacayo Florida Bar No. 675482 Email: alacayo@sequorlaw. com Jennifer Mosquera Florida Bar No. : 1018656 Email: jmosquera@sequorlaw. com **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed and sent via electronic service using the portal system with the Florida Courts eFiling Portal which sent e-mail notification of such filing in accordance with Rule 2. 516 Fla. R. Jud. Admin. to all parties on the attached Service List on October 28, 2024. _/s/ Arnoldo B. Lacayo_ Arnoldo B. Lacayo 10 -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION SEH 27 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. COVENTRY 871 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; LENDINGONE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ICON EQUITY GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and 879 COVENTRY STREET HOLDINGS LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendant. / **PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST** **FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT LENDINGONE LLC** Plaintiff, SEH 27 LLC, pursuant to Rules 1. 280 and 1. 350of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby serves this First Request for Production son Defendant, LendingOne LLC. LendingOne LLC shall produce the documents requested below to Plaintiff through its counsel at a mutually convenient place within the time set by Rule 1. 350 or as otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the Court. SEQUOR LAW P A ----- **DEFINITIONS** For the purposes of the Requests and the instructions thereto, the following definitions apply: The rules of construction set forth in Rules 1. 280, and 1. 350 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are incorporated herein. The terms “and” and “or” shall be individually interpreted in every instance as meaning “and/or” and shall not be interpreted disjunctively to exclude any information otherwise within the scope of any request. The terms “any” and “all” shall be considered to include “each” and “each and every. ” “Coventry Properties” refer to the properties located at 879 Coventry Street Boca Raton, Florida 33487 and 871 Coventry Street Boca Raton, Florida 33487. “Account” means any account, regardless of the type of account, whether open or closed, that is held in the name of any Relevant Party in connection with the Coventry Properties. “Loan” means a loan, letter of credit, line(s) of credit, debenture, mortgage and/or credit of any kind in connection with the Coventry Properties. “Communication” means any transmission of information, and shall include both oral and written communications, including without limitations communications by telephone, meetings, conferences, visits, discussions, negotiations, memoranda, mail, facsimile, electronic mail, other electronic- or internet-facilitated communication, or telegram. It further includes, but is not limited to, any summaries, reviews, reports, notes, logs, records, journals, minutes, or outlines concerning or memorializing the transmittal of information, and any contracts. 2 SEQUOR LAW P A ----- “Destination of Funds” shall mean the location where monies were sent, including the name of the account holder, account number, address, bank name and bank address or routing number. “Document(s)” means all originals, all drafts, all revised versions, and any and each copy bearing notations or marks not found on the original or draft, of any written, recorded, or graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, including, but not limited to, records relating to litigation, records relating to threats of claims, any typed or printed matter, correspondence, letters, faxes, interoffice communications, licenses, permits, diaries, calendars, memoranda, insurance policies, contracts or agreements, checks, statements of account, receipts, summaries, indices, data sheets, notes, papers, files, assignments, books, records, messages, reports, tables, graphs, computer printouts, tape recordings, transcripts, charts, logs, accounts, ledgers, studies, manuals, appraisals, consultant’s or expert’s reports, exhibits, notices, instructions, minutes, purchase orders, financial records, statements, bills, accounting records, tax records, accounting or tax work sheets, magnetic tapes, and any other data compilations from which information can be obtained or translated. The term “Document(s)” also includes all Communications. The term “Document(s)” also includes all ESI. The term “Document(s)” further includes all copies of Documents where the copy is not identical to the original. “ESI” means electronically stored information, and includes, but is not limited to, electronic data, computer programs (whether private, commercial, or work-in-progress), programming notes and instructions, activity listings of email transmittals and receipts, output resulting from the use of any software program, word-processing Documents, spreadsheets, database files, charts, graphs, PowerPoints, outlines, graphic files, miscellaneous files and file fragment, data compilations, voicemails, magnetic media, tapes electronic mail, text messages, 3 SEQUOR LAW P A ----- instant messages (IMs), WhatsApp messages, and/or Signal messages, on computer databases, indices, computers, backup storage media, cloud-based storage, CD-ROMs, DVDs, optical disks, hard drives, removable storage devices, floppy disks, regardless of the media on which they reside and regardless of whether said electronic data exist in an active file, deleted file, or file fragment, computer memories, cloudbased storage, hard disks, diskettes and cartridges, network drives, network memory storage, archived tapes and cartridges, removable media, magnetic tapes of all types, microfiche, and/or any other media used for digital data storage or transmittal. ESI also includes the file, folder tabs, and containers and labels appended to or associated with each original and non-identical copy. The term “Identify, ” when used with respect to persons, means to give, to the extent known: (i) the person’s full name; (ii) the person’s present or last known residential and business addresses; (iii) when referring to a natural person, additionally, the person’s present or last known place of employment and the person’s responsibilities with that employer. The term “Identify, ” when used with respect to Documents, means to give, to the extent known, the (i) type of Document; (ii) general subject matter; (iii)of the Document; and (iv) author(s), addressee(s), and recipient(s). “Including” means “including, but not limited to. ” “Person(s)” means any natural person, or any business, legal, or governmental entity, or association. “Relating to” means directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, relating to, referring to, pertaining to, mentioning, containing, discussing, embodying, identifying, stating, concerning, constituting, evidencing, recording, reflecting, substantiating, describing, summarizing, identifying, referring to in any way, or in any way relevant to. 4 SEQUOR LAW P A ----- “Relevant Period” shall mean the period beginning from January 1, 2023 to the present. “Relevant Parties” and/or “Relevant Party” refer to each of the following entities or individuals and extends to individuals bearing a name of similar variation as well as to any instance in which the Relevant Parties are reflected as having an relation to the matters set forth in the “Document Requests”: a. Anthony Shafer b. Coventry 871 LLC c. 879 Coventry Holding LLC d. Icon Equity Group LLC “State, ” “explain, ” and “describe” mean to set forth a complete and detailed statement of all information, circumstances, and facts that concern, refer to, relate to, reflect, comprise, or bear upon the matter concerning which information is requested. “You” and “Your” means the recipient of these Requests. **INSTRUCTIONS** Each Request shall be construed as being inclusive rather than exclusive. Thus, words importing the singular shall include the plural; words importing the plural shall include the singular; words importing one gender shall include both genders; the use of a verb in any tense, mood, or voice shall be construed as the use of the verb in all tenses, moods, or voices, as necessary to bring within the scope of the Requests all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of their scope; the words “and” and “or” shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to make the interrogatory or Document request inclusive; the word “all” means “any and all” and the word “any” means “any and all. ” 5 SEQUOR LAW P A ----- In producing Documents, you should furnish all Documents in your possession, custody, or control, regardless of whether such Documents are possessed directly by you or your agents, assigns, employees, or representatives, or by your attorneys or their agents, employees, representatives, or investigators. A Document is deemed in your actual or constructive possession, custody, or control if it is in your physical custody or if it is in the physical custody of any other person and you (i) own such Document in whole or in part; (ii) have a right, by control, contract, statute, order, or otherwise to use, inspect, examine, or copy such Document on any terms; (iii) have an understanding, express or implied, that you may use, inspect, examine, or copy such Documents upon any terms; or (iv) have, as a practical matter, been able to use, inspect, examine, or copy such Document when you sought to do so. For the avoidance of doubt, and without limiting the foregoing, a Document is deemed to be in your actual or constructive possession, custody, or control if it is accessible on a network or server maintained by you. Each of these Discovery Requests requires production in full, without abbreviation, redaction, or expurgation of any responsive Documents. If any responsive Document is not or cannot be produced in full, produce it to the extent possible, indicating which Document or portion of that Document is being withheld and the reason(s) it is being withheld. Produce any and all drafts of each Document that is responsive to any Document request and any and all copies of each such Document that are not identical in any respect, including but not limited to differences in handwritten notes, markings, stamps, interlineations, and electronic information. Documents referred to herein shall include all portions or pages of each Document referred to and all attachments, enclosures, appendices, and supporting Documentation, including, without limitation, originals, copies, drafts, working papers, routing slips, handwritten notes, and 6 SEQUOR LAW P A ----- similar materials (with or without notes or changes therein). All Documents that are physically attached to each other when located for production shall be left so attached when produced. Documents that are segregated or separated from other Documents, whether by inclusion in binders, files, subfiles, or by use of dividers, tabs, or any other method, shall be left so segregated or separated when produced. Documents shall be produced in the order in which they were maintained and in the files in which they were found. With respect to ESI: a. ESI shall be produced on readily accessible electronic media, including, without limitation, CD-ROM, DVD, USB flash drive, external hard drive (with standard PC compatible interface), or such other media as may be agreed upon (“Production Media”). A unique identifying label shall be affixed to each piece of Production Media, which identifies theof the production and the sequence of the material in that production. All Production Media shall be properly packaged to ensure safe shipping and handling. b. ESI shall be produced in Native Format, inclusive of all metadata along with the software necessary to interpret such files if such software is not readily available. A single Bates numbered TIFF placeholder shall be provided for any data provided in native format. The TIFF placeholder shall state: “This Document produced in native format, per Plaintiff’s request. ” c. Under no circumstances should ESI be converted from the form in which it is ordinarily maintained to a different form that makes it more difficult or burdensome to use. ESI should not be produced in a form that removes or significantly degrades the ability to search the ESI by electronic means where the ESI is ordinarily maintained in a way that makes it searchable by electronic means or which results in the loss of metadata. ESI shall be processed, to the extent practicable, in a manner that preserves all metadata, hidden columns or rows, hidden text or 7 SEQUOR LAW P A ----- worksheets, speaker notes, tracked changes, and comments. Databases or underlying data should not be produced without first discussing production format issues with Plaintiff’s counsel. Documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business or organized and labeled to correspond to the categories in this request. All hard-copy Documents shall be produced while maintaining the file folder, envelope, or other container in which the Documents are kept or maintained by you. If, for any reason, the container cannot be produced, produce copies of all labels or other identifying marks. OCR shall also be provided for all hardcopy Documents. The text for each hard-copy Document shall be generated by applying optical character recognition (OCR) technology to the scanned image of the Document, and providing that text file in searchable format. If any requested Document is not or cannot be produced in full, you are requested to produce such Document to the extent possible, indicating which Document or portion of that Document is being withheld and the reason that portion of the Document is being withheld. In producing Documents, you are requested to produce each Document requested together with all non-identical copies and drafts of that Document. If the original of any Document cannot be located, a copy shall be provided in lieu thereof, and shall be legible and bound or stapled in the same manner as the original. Whenever a request calls for production with respect to “each” one of a particular type or class of matters, events, persons, or entities, of which there is more than one, You are required to separately list, set forth, or identify for each thereof all of the information called for. If any Document or any part of a Document called for by these Discovery Requests has been destroyed, discarded, lost, or otherwise disposed of or placed beyond your custody or control, you shall furnish a list identifying each such Document by: (i); (ii) author; 8 SEQUOR LAW P A ----- (iii) recipient(s); (iv) type of Document (e. g. , letter, memorandum, chart, or e-mail); (v) general subject matter; (vi) the Document’s present or last-known location or custodian; (vii) theof the Document’s destruction or other disposition; (viii) the reason for such destruction or other disposition; and (ix) the person authorizing such destruction or other disposition. If a privilege is claimed as the basis for not producing any Document (such as the Attorney-Client Privilege or other exception from disclosure that you contend may apply), you are to furnish a privilege log setting forth, for each such Document: (i) the nature of the privilege claimed; (ii) theof the Document; (iii) the person(s) who prepared the Document; (iv) each person to whom a copy of the Document was furnished, or to whom its contents were communicated, including titles and job descriptions of any such person; (v) the person who has custody of such Document or a copy of such Document; (vi) any and all facts and reasons that you claim support each objection; (vii) the reason(s) for the preparation of the Document; (viii) each person who has knowledge of any of the facts or reasons that you claim support such objection; and (ix) all information relating hereto which is not within the scope of the privilege claimed. Documents not otherwise responsive to these Discovery Requests are to be produced if such Documents discuss or explain the Documents which are responsive to these Discovery Requests, or if such Documents are attached to Documents responsive to these Discovery Requests and constitute routing slips, transmittal memoranda, or letters, comments, evaluations, or similar materials. In responding to these Discovery Requests, if you encounter any ambiguity in construing an individual request or any definitions and instructions relevant thereto, set forth the matter or term deemed ambiguous and the construction used in responding to such request. 9 SEQUOR LAW P A ----- The past tense shall be construed to include the present tense, and vice versa, to make the Requests inclusive rather than exclusive. The singular shall be construed to include the plural, and vice versa, to make the Requests inclusive rather than exclusive. In the event You claim that any Document which was requested to be identified is unavailable, lost, misplaced, or destroyed, You must state the following: (a) theYou believe such Document became unavailable, lost, misplaced, or destroyed; (b) the reason why such Document became misplaced, lost, or destroyed; and (c) identify all persons who You know or believe have knowledge of such facts. **DOCUMENTS REQUESTED** Please produce the following: All Documents related to each loan application for approval of credit or financing related to any Account(s) or Loan(s). All monthly statements related to any Account(s) or Loan(s) during the Relevant Period. All Document reflecting the current amount due and owing related to any Account(s) or Loan(s). Account(s) or Loan(s) opening Documents. All other Documents relating to any Account(s) or Loan(s). 10 SEQUOR LAW P A ----- All financial statements, balance sheets, accounts receivable and payable ledgers, net worth statements, income statements, working capital statements, cash flow statements or any other financial matters relating to any Account(s) or Loan(s). All documents reflecting the Source of Funds for any Transfer during the Relevant Period to you or on your behalf by any Relevant Party in connection with any Account(s) or Loan(s). All documents reflecting the Source of Funds for any Transfer during the Relevant Period to you or on your behalf by any third party on behalf of any Relevant Party in connection with any Account(s) or Loan(s). All documents reflecting the Destination of Funds for any Transfer during the Relevant Period from you to any Relevant Party in connection with any Account(s) or Loan(s). All documents reflecting the Destination of Funds for any Transfer during the Relevant Period from you to any third party on behalf of any Relevant Party in connection with any Account(s) or Loan(s). All documents reflecting or concerning sales, leases, real estate brokerage services, transfer of title, mortgages, appraisals, homeowner’s association applications, or other agreements concerning the Coventry Properties. All communications between you, on the one hand, and any of the Relevant Parties, on the other hand, in connection with any Account(s) or Loan(s). All agreements executed by you during the Relevant Period with any of the Relevant Parties in connection with any Account(s) or Loan(s). d: November 25, 2024 Respectfully submitted, SEQUOR LAW, P. A. 1111 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 1250 11 SEQUOR LAW P A ----- Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 372-8282 Fax: (305) 372-8202 By: /s/ Arnoldo B. Lacayo Arnoldo B. Lacayo Florida Bar No. 675482 Email: alacayo@sequorlaw. com Jennifer Mosquera Florida Bar No. : 1018656 Email: jmosquera@sequorlaw. com **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed and sent via electronic service using the portal system with the Florida Courts eFiling Portal which sent e-mail notification of such filing in accordance with Rule 2. 516 Fla. R. Jud. Admin. to all parties on November 25, 2024. /s/ Arnoldo B. Lacayo Arnoldo B. Lacayo 12 SEQUOR LAW P A -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ANTHONY SIMEONE and FRANCES SIMEONE, Plaintiffs, vs. R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. , Defendant. _________________________________/ **COMPLAINT** Plaintiffs, ANTHONY SIMEONE and FRANCES SIMEONE, sue Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. , and alleges: This is an action for damages that exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of $50, 000. 00. All acts complained of occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida and Palm Beach County is the proper venue for this action. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have occurred or been waived. Plaintiffs, ANTHONY SIMEONE and FRANCES SIMEONE, are residents of Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. , is a Florida profit corporation transacting its customary business in Palm Beach County, Florida. Prior to May 15, 2023, Plaintiffs, ANTHONY SIMEONE and FRANCES SIMEONE, purchased a chair from the \"Rooms to Go\" furniture store located at 9185 Glades Rd Ste A, Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida. ----- Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. , owns and operates the \"Rooms to Go\" furniture store located at 9185 Glades Rd Ste A, Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida. On or about May 15, 2023, Plaintiff, ANTHONY SIMEONE, was using the chair purchased from Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. , in his home in Palm Beach County, Florida. At that time and place, the chair collapsed beneath the Plaintiff, ANTHONY SIMEONE, causing him to suffer bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, lost wages and earning capacity, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are either permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future. Plaintiff, ANTHONY SIMEONE, used the chair in the manner intended and reasonably foreseeable to the Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. At all times material hereto, Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. , designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold the chair described herein. The chair described herein contained a defect that was present at the time of manufacture. While in use, the chair can break apart and collapse, creating a risk of injury to users. When the subject chair was placed into the stream of commerce by the Defendant it was not reasonably fit, suitable, or safe for its intended purpose or reasonably foreseeable use. **COUNT I - IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY** Paragraphs 1-14 are re-alleged and incorporated herein. The chair designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by the Defendant was not reasonably fit for either the uses intended or the uses reasonably foreseeable by the Defendant. While in use, the chair collapsed, injuring the Plaintiff. The chair's lack of fitness was the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries. ----- WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ANTHONY SIMEONE, demands judgment against Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. for damages, interest, costs and for such further relief as this court deems appropriate under the circumstances and further demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right. **COUNT II - IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE** Paragraphs 1-14 are re-alleged and incorporated herein. The chair designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by the Defendant was not reasonably fit for the specific purpose for which the Defendant knowingly sold the product and for which Plaintiff bought the product in reliance on the judgment of the Defendant. While the chair was used as intended and for its specific purpose, the chair collapsed, injuring the Plaintiff. The chair's lack of fitness was the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ANTHONY SIMEONE, demands judgment against Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. for damages, interest, costs and for such further relief as this court deems appropriate under the circumstances and further demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right. **COUNT III - STRICT LIABILITY - MANUFACTURING DEFECT** Paragraphs 1-14 are re-alleged and incorporated herein. The chair that caused the Plaintiff's injuries was designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by the Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. The chair was made differently than its intended design and therefore failed to perform as safely as intended. The chair was made in a manner that allowed it to break apart and collapse, creating a risk of injury to users. ----- The chair reached the Plaintiff without substantial change affecting its condition from the time it was manufactured. While the Plaintiff was using the chair, the manufacturing defect caused the chair to collapse and injure the Plaintiff. The chair’s manufacturing defect was the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ANTHONY SIMEONE, demands judgment against Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. for damages, interest, costs and for such further relief as this court deems appropriate under the circumstances and further demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right. **COUNT IV - STRICT LIABILITY - DESIGN DEFECT** Paragraphs 1-14 are re-alleged and incorporated herein. The chair that caused the Plaintiff's injuries was designed by the Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. The chair failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used as intended or in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the Defendant. The chair reached the Plaintiff without substantial change affecting its condition from the time it was manufactured. While the Plaintiff was using the chair, the design defect caused the chair to collapse and injure the Plaintiff. The chair’s design defect was the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ANTHONY SIMEONE, demands judgment against Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. for damages, interest, costs and for such further relief as this court deems appropriate under the circumstances and further demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right. ----- **COUNT V - STRICT LIABILITY - FAILURE TO WARN** Paragraphs 1-14 are re-alleged and incorporated herein. The foreseeable risk of harm from the chair could have been reduced or avoided by providing reasonable instructions or warnings regarding the chair’s tendency to collapse. The failure to provide those warnings made the chair unreasonably dangerous by failing to alert the Plaintiff that the chair could break apart and collapse. Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. 'S, failure to warn was the direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff's injuries. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ANTHONY SIMEONE, demands judgment against Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. for damages, interest, costs and for such further relief as this court deems appropriate under the circumstances and further demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right. **COUNT VI - NEGLIGENCE** Paragraphs 1-14 are re-alleged and incorporated herein. As the designer, manufacturer, distributor, and/or seller of the chair, the Defendant owed a duty to use reasonable care in the design, manufacture, and/or sale of a product that was reasonably safe for its intended and foreseeable use. Defendant breached this duty by designing, manufacturing, and/or selling a chair that Defendant knew or should have known was defective and posed an unreasonable risk of injury to consumers. Defendant also failed to warn Plaintiffs of the unreasonable risk of injury in using a chair that Defendant knew or should have known was defective. As the direct and proximate cause of the Defendant’s negligence, the chair broke apart and collapsed when it was utilized in a normal and foreseeable manner by the Plaintiff. ----- As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s negligence, the Plaintiff, ANTHONY SIMEONE, suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, lost wages and earning capacity, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are either permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, ANTHONY SIMEONE, demands judgment against Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. for damages, interest, costs and for such further relief as this court deems appropriate under the circumstances and further demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right. **COUNT VII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM** Paragraphs 1-14 are re-alleged and incorporated herein. At the time of the accident complained of in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Plaintiffs were married. Plaintiffs continue to be married. That as a result of the negligent acts of the Defendant, the Plaintiffs were caused to suffer, and will continue to suffer in the future, loss of consortium, loss of society, affection, assistance, and conjugal fellowship, all to the detriment of their marital relationship. That all the injuries and damages were caused solely and proximately by the negligence of the Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, FRANCES SIMEONE, demands judgment against Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. for damages, interest, costs and for such further relief as this court deems appropriate under the circumstances and further demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right. ON NEXT PAGE] ----- Signed andd this 11[th] day of November 2024. **KOGAN AND DiSALVO, P. A. ** 3615 West Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33436 Phone: (561) 375-9500 Fax: (561) 374-7898 By: _/s/ George M. Bakalar_ GEORGE M. BAKALAR, ESQ. Florida Bar No. : 802689 [Email: gmbakalar@koganinjurylaw. com](mailto:gmbakalar@koganinjurylaw. com) BRIGITTE M. JOLLIET, ESQ. Florida Bar No. : 1054771 [Email: bjolliet@koganinjurylaw. com](mailto:bjolliet@koganinjurylaw. com) Counsel for Plaintiffs Anthony Simeone and Frances Simeone. -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ANTHONY SIMEONE and FRANCES SIMEONE, Plaintiffs, vs. R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. , Defendant. _________________________________/ **PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO** **DEFENDANT, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. ** Plaintiffs, ANTHONY SIMEONE and FRANCES SIMEONE, by and through the undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1. 350, Fla. R. Civ. P. , hereby request that Defendant, R. T. G. FURNITURE CORP. , produce at the offices of Plaintiffs’ counsel, located at 3615 W. Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, FL 33436, the following items within forty-five (45) days after service of this request: Any and all policies of insurance which you contend cover or may cover you for the allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint, including any and all declaration pages, policy forms and endorsements. Any and all documents related to the warnings and instructions provided with the subject chair (SKU No. 26320072) from January 2021 to the present. Any and all documents reflecting the sale and distribution of the subject chair (SKU No. 26320072) to the Plaintiff. Any and all documents reflecting the inspection of the subject chair (SKU No. 26320072) that was sold to the Plaintiff. ----- Copies of any and all marketing materials, advertisements, or promotional materials for the subject chair (SKU No. 26320072) from January 2021 to the present. Any and all documents concerning any known issues, complaints, or investigations related to defects or safety issues with the subject chair (SKU No. 26320072) from January 2021 to the present. Any and all documents, drawings, schematics, and specifications related to the design, manufacture, and assembly of the subject chair (SKU No. 26320072) from January 2021 to the present. Copies of any and all quality control and inspection reports for the subject chair (SKU No. 26320072), including any reports or assessments related to product safety, durability, or defect detection from January 2021 to the present. Copies of any and all warranty policies and records of any and all notices, consumer advisories, or safety bulletins issued regarding the subject chair (SKU No. 26320072) from January 2021 to present. Copies of any and all any recall notices or advisories that were provided to consumers or the retailer where Plaintiff purchased the chair from January 2021 to present. Copies of any and all consumer complaints, claims, incident reports, inspections, or investigations concerning the subject chair (SKU No. 26320072) from January 2021 to the present. Copies of the company’s product safety and quality assurance policies or procedures applicable to the subject chair (SKU No. 26320072) from January 2021 to the present. ----- Any and all risk management, safety assessments, or incident analysis reports prepared for the subject chair (SKU No. 26320072) from January 2021 to the present. Records showing the qualifications, training, and employment history of any employees responsible for the design, quality control, inspection, sale, or delivery of the subject chair (SKU No. 26320072) from January 2022 to the present. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Request to Produce has been served on the Defendant along with the Summons and Complaint. **KOGAN AND DiSALVO, P. A. ** 3615 West Boynton Beach Blvd. Boynton Beach, FL 33436 Phone: (561) 375-9500 Fax: (561) 374-7898 By: _/s/ George M. Bakalar_ GEORGE M. BAKALAR, ESQ. Florida Bar No. : 802689 [Email: gmbakalar@koganinjurylaw. com](mailto:gmbakalar@koganinjurylaw. com) -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA KIMBERLY ST. LOUIS, case **2009CPrQO95** **5** **9XXXX** Plaintiff, vs. FLORIDA BAR NO. : 00477$§: IAN ROVNER, Defendant. ``` ----- at 5 GH ``` **VERIFIED** **COMPLAINT** **FOR** **PARTITION** **AND** **FOR** **DAMAGES^** Plaintiff, KIMBERLY ST. LOUIS (“Plaintiff”) by and through undersigned counsel, files this verified complaint for partition and damages against Defendant, IAN ROVNER (“Defendant”), and alleges as follows: **COUNT** **I** **-** **PARTITION** This is an action for partition of real and personal property instituted under Florida Statute Chapter 64. The real property that is the subject of this action is situated in Palm Beach County, Florida, with an address of 9157 Dupont Place, Wellington, Florida 33414 and is more particularly described as follows: Lot 1818, of Olympia - Plat II, Block “F” Replat, according to the Platr thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 101, page 36, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. The property is owned by Plaintiff and Defendant as joint tenants with full rights of survivorship with each party owning an undivided fifty per cent (50%) iMgrest in the property. Plaintiff resides at 1335 Olive Tree Circle, Greenacres, Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant resides at the property. ----- Venue is proper in Palm Beach County, Florida as the causes of action alleged herein accrued in said county and the subject real property is located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Personal property including but not limited to furniture and furnishings acquired by the parties for the real property is also jointly owned with each party owning an undivided fifty per cent (50%) interest in the personal property. Plaintiff has no knowledge of any parties who claim an interest in the property or who will be materially affected by this action other than Plaintiff and Defendant except the recorded mortgage on the property in the amount of $100, 000. 00. Each of the parties is over 18 years of age. The property is not reasonably susceptible of an equitable physical division because of the configuration of certain improvements on it. A private sale of the real and personal property under F. S. 64. 061(4) would not be prejudicial to the interests of the defendant. The prosecution of this partition action is for the common benefit of Plaintiff and Defendant. Defendant has exclusive possession of said property without providing Plaintiff compensation for his use of her share of the property. Due to Defendant’s exclusive possession of the property, Plaintiff is entitled to compensation during the pendency of these proceedings. Plaintiff has retained the law firm of Vincent, Kahn & Shearin, LLC to represent :Plaintiff in this action, and has agreed to pay the firm a reasonable fee for its services. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the court to order the private sale of the real and personal property jointly owned and distribute the proceeds ofthe sale among the Plaintiff and Defendant as their interests may appear; award Plaintiff compensation for the period ----- that Defendant had exclusive possession of the property; award to Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this action, and order the payment of those fees and costs from the proceeds of the sale, with each party bearing a proportionate share of the attorney’s fees; and enter any other relief this court deems just and proper. **COUNT** **II** **-UNJUST** **ENRICHMENT** This is an action for damages that exceeds $15, 000. 00. Plaintiff is an individual sui juris residing in Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant is an individual sui juris residing in Palm Beach County, Florida. Venue is proper in Palm Beach County, Florida as the property at question is located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Plaintiff and Defendant purchased a residential home as joint tenants with rights of survivorship, described in paragraph 2 above and personal property such as furniture and furnishings for said home. Closing on the property was held on September 4, 2007. Plaintiff and Defendant resided in the property until March 5, 2009 when Defendant had Plaintiff forcibly removed from the property and since that time Defendant has maintained exclusive possession of said property. Plaintiff contributed funds and other considerations for said property of which Defendant was aware. Defendant has refused to compensate Plaintiff for the benefits she conferred to Defendant and it would be inequitable for him to retain said property without paying the value thereof. ----- WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands judgment for damages against Defendant and for any other reliefthis court deems just and proper. D this/'$ _day_ of March, 2009. VINCENT, KAHN & SHEARIN, LLC 800 East Broward Boulevard Suite 403 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 524-9494 (954) 653-5027 (fax) Robert L. Shearin, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Florida Bar #0047759 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PALM BEACH Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared KIMBERLY ST. LOUIS, who was swom and says that she has read the Verified Complaint for Partition, and as to the facts stated to be true, they are true, and as to the facts stated upon information and belief, she is informed and believes that they are true. Swom to and subscribed before me on March 211^72009 by KIMBERLY ST. LOUIS. **NOTARY** **PUBLIC-STATE** **OF** **FLORIDA** Notary Public - State of Florida **Robert** **L. ** **Shearin** **Commission** **#** **DD400985** **Expires:** **APR. ** **01, ** **2009** ’ed Thru Atlantic Bonding Co. , Inc. ----- ----- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA KIMBERLY ST. LOUIS Plaintiff, CASE NO8D **2«l9fPr0095** **59XXXX** **\"B** vs. FLORIDA BAR NO. : 0047759 IANROVNER, Defendant. __________________________________ I_ The civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form is required by the Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting judicial workload data pursuant to Florida Statute §25. 075. TYPE OF CASE (Place an 'x' in one box only) o-- __ Domestic Relations __Torts Other Civil ' ###### c? __ Simplified Dissolution __ Professional Malpractice Contracts - __ Dissolution of Marriage __ Products liability Condominium r“^ - CO - __ Support - FV-D Auto negligence Real property/Mortgage __ Support - Non IV-D Other negligence __ Eminent domain _URESA - IV-D x Other _URESA - NonIV-D __ Domestic Violence Other domestic relations Is Jury Trial Demanded in Complaint? Yes x No: ATTORNEY INITIATING ACTION Robert L. Shearin, Esquire Florida Bar No. : 0047759 -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA **CASE** **NO. ** **50-2009-CA-009559-XXXX-MB** JUDGE THOMAS H. BARKDULL, III KIMBERLY ST. LOUIS, ## * Plaintiff, ### * vs. ### * IAN ROVNER, ### * Defendant. ### * ## REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS The Defendant requests, in accordance with **Rule** **1. 350, ** **_Florida_** **_Rules_** **_of_** **_Civil_** **_Procedure, _** that the Plaintiff produce the following documents for inspection and copying, at the offices of Christopher N. Link, P. A. , Pine Island Office Centre, 111 North Pine Island Road, Suite 209, Plantation, Florida 33324-1836, within 30 days of theof service: All documents and other items in your possession or #### control which in any way relate to the property located at 9157 Dupont Place, Wellington, Florida 33414, including, but not limited #### to all correspondence, notes, email messages, closing statements, deeds, notes and mortgages. All documents and other items evidencing all sums paid by you towards the acquisition, maintenance and upkeep of the #### property located at 9157 Dupont Place, Wellington, Florida 33414. All documents and other items evidencing all sums paid by you towards any renovations and/or improvements to the #### property located at 9157 Dupont Place, Wellington, Florida 33414. 1 ----- **CASE** **NO. ** **50-2009-CA-009559-XXXX-MB** _Kimberly_ _St. _ _Louis_ _vs. _ _Ian_ _Rovner_ All documents and other items evidencing the existence of all personal property, fumiture and/or furnishings in which the Plaintiff is claiming a 50% interest. **WE** **CERTIFY** that a true copy of the foregoing was served by mail upon counsel for the Plaintiff, Robert L. Shearin, Esquire, Vincent, Kahn & Shearin, LLC, 800 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 403, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301, this 24th day of March, 2009. CHRISTOPHER N. LINK, P. A. Attorneys for Defendant Pine Island Office Centre 111 North Pine Island Road, Suite 209 Plantation, Florida 33324-1836 Phone: (954) 915-0400 - Fax: (954) 424-0895 Email: LinkFamilyLaw@earthlink. net By: CHRISTOPHER \\NJ N K Florida Bar No. 887821N 2 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO:502022CA005093XXXXMB(AE) NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , Plaintiff, vs. BLAINE MINTON, and SAMANTHA MINTON, Defendants. __________________________/ **AMENDED COMPLAINT** The plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , sues the defendants, BLAINE MINTON and SAMANTHA MINTON, and alleges: This is an action for damages in excess of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30, 000. 00), exclusive of interest and costs. The plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , is a corporation licensed and authorized to do business in the State of Florida, including Palm Beach County, and is otherwise sui juris. The defendant, BLAINE MINTON, is a a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. The defendant, BLAINE MINTON, was the owner and in possession of real property located at 1420 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, at all times material hereto. The defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. The defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, was the owner and in possession of real property located at 1420 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, at all times material hereto. ----- The plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , performed services, demolition, moisture and water testing, mold remediation, and provided materials and supplies to the real property located at 1420 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, at all times material hereto. Venue is proper in this jurisdiction as one or more of the acts complained of occurred in Palm Beach County, the defendants, BLAINE MINTON and SAMANTHA MINTON, reside in Palm Beach County and the real property which is the subject matter of this lawsuit is located in Palm Beach County, Florida. **COUNT I** **BREACH OF CONTRACT AS TO BLAINE MINTON** Plaintiff realleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 8 and further alleges: At all times material hereto, defendant, BLAINE MINTON, was the owner, in possession of or had the right of control of the real property located at 1420 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. The above described real property had three separate structures thereon consisting of the main house, pool house and garage house. On August 27, 2020, defendant, BLAINE MINTON, contacted plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , to meet at the real property located at 1420 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida to assess water, moisture and mold damage in the three structures located on the property. Plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , commenced with moisture evaluation of the mold damage in the three structures. The moisture evaluation in the three structures commenced in the walls, ceilings and floors. On August 28, 2020, plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , and defendant, BLAINE MINTON, entered into an oral contract. On August 28, 2020, defendant, BLAINE MINTON, requested to plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , to perform moisture and water testing in the three structures, to assess and ----- conduct moisture evaluation, and to perform mold remediation at the above described real property. On August 28, 2020, plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , offered to defendant, BLAINE MINTON’s, to perform moisture and water testing in the three structures, to assess and conduct moisture evaluation, and to perform mold remediation for a fee at the above described real property. On August 28, 2020, defendant, BLAINE MINTON, accepted, hired and orally contracted with plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , to perform moisture and water testing in the three structures, to assess and conduct moisture evaluation, and to perform mold remediation at the above described real property. Defendant, BLAINE MINTON, agreed to pay plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , a reasonable fee for their services, work and materials. Plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , performed their work, services, testing, drying out, and mold remediation through November 30, 2020. Plaintiff has performed all conditions precedent to be performed by plaintiff or the conditions have occurred. Plaintiff has demanded payment of the above described services, demolition, mold remediation, moisture and water testing and materials and supplies from defendant, BLAINE MINTON. Defendant, BLAINE MINTON, has not paid plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , for their work, services, water testing, and remediation performed and materials, supplies, equipment and tools used on the above described real property. Defendant, BLAINE MINTON, owes plaintiff the following: Main house mold remediation $34, 000. 86 Main house EMS dry out $30, 707. 61 Pool house mold remediation $15, 038. 45 Garage house mold remediation $11, 381. 60 ----- TOTAL: $91, 128. 52 Attached as exhibit 1 are copies of the four invoices for work and services performed and materials used by plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , on the three structures owned by plaintiff. Attached as exhibit 2 are 249 color copies of photographs taken at defendant’s three structures depicting and showing the work and services performed and materials used by plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , pursuant to the oral contract, at defendant’s property from 8/27/2020 to 11/29/2020. Attached as exhibit 3 in a timeline chronology of the work and services performed by plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , at defendant’s three structures on defendant’s property from 8/27/2020 to 11/29/2020. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , demands a judgment for damages against defendant, BLAINE MINTON, together with interest and court costs. **COUNT II** **OPEN ACCOUNT FORM 1. 932, FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE** **AS TO BLAINE MINTON** Plaintiff realleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 8 and further alleges: Defendant, BLAINE MINTON, owes plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , the sum of $91, 128. 52, for their services, demolition, moisture and water testing performed, mold remediation, and materials and supplies used on defendant’s real property located at 1420 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida that is due with interest since November 30, Attached as exhibit 1 is a copy of the account/invoicing showing items, time of accrual of each, and amount of each item, for the above described real property. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , demands a judgment for damages against defendant, BLAINE MINTON, together with interest and court costs. ----- **COUNT III** **FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AS TO BLAINE E. MINTON** Plaintiff realleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 8 and further alleges: Defendant, BLAINE MINTON, hired and orally contracted with plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , to perform services, demolition, moisture and water testing, and mold remediation at the real property located at 1420 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant, BLAINE MINTON, represented to plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , that defendant would pay plaintiff for their demolition, moisture and water testing, mold remediation, services performed and materials and supplies utilized at the above described real property. From August 27, 2020, thru November 30, 2020, and for the numerous months thereafter, defendant, BLAINE MINTON, continued to represent to plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , that defendant would pay plaintiff for their demolition, moisture and water testing performed, mold remediation, services performed and materials and supplies used on the above described real property, and not encumber the property. The representations by defendant, BLAINE MINTON, were knowingly and intentionally false. Defendant, BLAINE MINTON, always intended to use plaintiff’s expertise and efforts in mold remediation to have the three structures on the above described real property remediated without paying plaintiff for their demolition, moisture and water testing performed, mold remediation, services performed and materials and supplies used. The representations by defendant, BLAINE MINTON, were intentionally and falsely made to plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , so that plaintiff would not file a mechanic’s lien on the real property owned by defendant, BLAINE MINTON. Defendant, BLAINE MINTON, intended for plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , to rely upon defendant’s representations, and plaintiff did rely on defendant’s representations by expending their time, effort, services, materials, supplies and expertise to water test, demolition and ----- remediate the three structures on the above described real property, and not file a mechanic’s lien on the real property. Plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , relied upon the representations made by defendant, BLAINE MINTON. Plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , was damaged by their reliance upon defendant’s misrepresentations that defendant would pay plaintiff for their work, services, water testing, demolition and remediation, and supplies and materials utilized at the above described real property. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , demands a judgment for damages against defendant, BLAINE MINTON, together with interest and court costs. **COUNT IV** **BREACH OF CONTRACT AS TO SAMANTHA MINTON** Plaintiff realleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 8 and further alleges: At all times material hereto, defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, was the owner, in possession of or had the right of control of the real property located at 1420 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. The above described real property had three separate structures thereon consisting of the main house, pool house and garage house. On August 27, 2020, defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, contacted plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , to meet at the real property located at 1420 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida to assess water, moisture and mold damage in the three structures located on the property. Plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , commenced with moisture evaluation of the mold damage in the three structures. The moisture evaluation in the three structures commenced in the walls, ceilings and floors. On August 28, 2020, plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , and defendant, SAMANTHA ----- MINTON, entered into an oral contract. On August 28, 2020, defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, requested to plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , to perform moisture and water testing in the three structures, to assess and conduct moisture evaluations, and perform mold remediation at the above described real property. On August 28, 2020, plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , offered to defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, to perform moisture and water testing in the three structures, to access and conduct moisture evaluation, and to perform mold remediation for a fee at the above described real property. On August 28, 2020, defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, accepted, hired and orally contracted with plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , to perform moisture and water testing in the three structures, to assess and conduct moisture evaluation, and to perform mold remediation at the above described real property. Defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, agreed to pay plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , a reasonable fee for their services, work and materials. Plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , performed their work, services, testing, drying out, and mold remediation through November 30, 2020. Plaintiff has performed all conditions precedent to be performed by plaintiff or the conditions have occurred. Plaintiff has demanded payment of the above described services, demolition, mold remediation, moisture and water testing and materials and supplies from defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON. Defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, has not paid plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , for their work, services, water testing, and remediation performed and materials, supplies, equipment and tools used on the above described real property. Defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, ----- owes plaintiff the following: Main house mold remediation $34, 000. 86 Main house EMS dry out $30, 707. 61 Pool house mold remediation $15, 038. 45 Garage house mold remediation $11, 381. 60 TOTAL: $91, 128. 52 Attached exhibit 1 are copies of the four invoices for work and services performed and materials used by plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , on the three structures owned by plaintiff. Attached exhibit 2 are 249 color copies of photographs taken at defendant’s three structures depicting and showing the work and services performed and materials used by plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , pursuant to the oral contract, at plaintiff’s property from 8/27/2020 to 11/29/2020. Attached as exhibit 3 is a timeline chronology of the work and services performed by plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , at defendant’s three structures on defendant’s property from 8/27/2020 to 11/29/2020. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , demands a judgment for damages against defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, together with interest and court costs. **COUNT V** **OPEN ACCOUNT FORM 1. 932, FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE** **AS TO SAMANTHA MINTON** Plaintiff realleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 8 and further alleges: Defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, owes plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , the sum of $91, 128. 52, for their services, demolition, moisture and water testing performed, mold remediation, and materials and supplies used on defendant’s real property located at 1420 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida that is due with interest since November 30, 2020. Attached as exhibit 1 is a copy of the account/invoicing showing items, time ----- of accrual of each, and amount of each item, for the above described real property. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , demands a judgment for damages against defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, together with interest and court costs. **COUNT VI** **FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AS TO SAMANTHA MINTON** Plaintiff realleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1 through 8 and further alleges: Defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, hired and orally contracted with plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , to perform services, demolition, moisture and water testing, and mold remediation at the real property located at 1420 North Swinton Avenue, Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, represented to plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , that defendant would pay plaintiff for their demolition, moisture and water testing, mold remediation, services performed and materials and supplies utilized at the above described real property. From August 27, 2020, thru November 30, 2020, and for the numerous months thereafter, defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, continued to represent to plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , that defendant would pay plaintiff for their demolition, moisture and water testing, mold remediation, services performed and materials and supplies used on the above described real property, and not encumber the property. The representations by defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, were knowingly and intentionally false. Defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, always intended to use plaintiff’s expertise and efforts in mold remediation to have the three structures on the above described real property remediated without paying plaintiff for their demolition, moisture and water testing performed, mold remediation, services performed and materials and supplies used. The representations by defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, were intentionally and falsely made to plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , so that plaintiff would not file a mechanic’s lien on the real property owned by defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON. ----- Defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, intended for plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , to rely upon defendant’s representations, and plaintiff did rely on defendant’s representations by expending their time, effort, services, materials, supplies and expertise to water test, demolition and remediate the three structures on the above described real property, and not file a mechanic’s lien on the real property. Plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , relied upon the representations made by defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON. Plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , was damaged by their reliance upon defendant’s misrepresentations that defendant would pay plaintiff for their work, services, water testing, demolition and remediation, and supplies and materials. WHEREFORE, plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , demands a judgment for damages against defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, together with interest and court costs. **JURY DEMAND** Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues triable as of right. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically transmitted on the 10th day of January, 2023, to: ADAM P. HANDFINGER, ESQUIRE and BRETT **J. MORITZ, ESQUIRE, at ahandfinger@pecklaw. com**, bmoritz@pecklaw. com, mgil@pecklaw. com, PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P. C. , Attorneys for Defendants, BLAINE E. MINTON, and SAMANTHA C. MINTON, One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2000, Miami, Florida 33131. LAW OFFICES OF FRED LAND FULMER, P. A. Attorneys for Plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. Galleria Corporate Centre, Suite 1216 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 (954)763-1052 Broward flfulmerlaw@aol. com By /s/ Fred L. Fulmer FRED L. FULMER FLA BAR NO: 347681 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO:502022CA005093XXXXMB(AE) NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , Plaintiff, vs. BLAINE MINTON, and SAMANTHA MINTON, Defendants. __________________________/ **PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO** **DEFENDANT, SAMANTHA MINTON** In accordance with Rule 1. 350 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. , requests the defendant, SAMANTHA MINTON, produce at the office of the undersigned attorney within thirty (30) days hereof, the following: **“Subject residence” is defined as the premises located at 1420 North Swinton** **Avenue, Delray Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. ** Any and all photographs of the work and services performed by plaintiff at the “subject residence”. Any and all photographs of the damages to the “subject residence” you claim as a result of the work performed by the contractors as alleged in the case entitled Blaine E. Minton vs. Boca Development & Construction Corp. , et al, case no. : 502021CA004816. A copy of any insurance policy issued to you in effect at the time of the subject incident which might inure to the benefit of the plaintiff as a result of the incident alleged in the complaint. A copy of any declaration page to the insurance policy in effect at the time of the subject incident which might inure to the benefit of the plaintiff as a result of the incident alleged in the complaint. All policies of insurance, insuring the defendant which might inure to the benefit of the plaintiff as a result of the incident alleged in the complaint. ----- Any and all drawings, graphs, charts, video, photographs, not privileged or work product, pertaining to the subject claims alleged in the complaint. Any and all statements of plaintiff obtained by defendant or any agents or attorneys, recorded or written prior to, at the time of or subsequent to and related to the claims alleged in the complaint. Any and all statements of any witnesses obtained by the defendant or any agents or attorneys, recorded or written, at the time of or subsequent to and related to the claims alleged in the complaint. Any and all text messages, emails, letters or correspondence by and between plaintiff and defendant (plaintiff sent or delivered to defendant, and defendant sent or delivered to plaintiff) from your initial contact with plaintiff to presentregarding the work and services performed by plaintiff at the “subject residence”. Copies of any and all photographs, materials, documents, letters, invoices, bills or statements SAMANTHA MINTON alleges or asserts supports her claim for damages sustained as a result of the contractors who performed services at the “subject residence” in relation to the case entitled Blaine E. Minton vs. Boca Development & Construction Corp. , et al, case no. : 502021CA004816. Copies of any deposition transcript of any individual taken in the case entitle Blaine E. Minton vs. Boca Development & Construction Corp. , et al, case no. : 502021CA004816. Any and all records, reports, letters, emails, text messages, papers, documents, materials and written evidence supporting defendant’s affirmative defense #1. Any and all records, reports, letters, emails, text messages, papers, documents, materials and written evidence supporting defendant’s affirmative defense #2. Any and all records, reports, letters, emails, text messages, papers, documents, materials and written evidence supporting defendant’s affirmative defense #3. Any and all records, reports, letters, emails, text messages, papers, documents, materials and written evidence supporting defendant’s affirmative defense #4. Any and all records, reports, letters, emails, text messages, papers, documents, materials and written evidence supporting defendant’s affirmative defense #5. ----- Any and all records, reports, letters, emails, text messages, papers, documents, materials and written evidence supporting defendant’s affirmative defense #6. Any and all records, reports, letters, emails, text messages, papers, documents, materials and written evidence supporting defendant’s affirmative defense #7. Any and all records, reports, letters, emails, text messages, papers, documents, materials and written evidence supporting defendant’s affirmative defense #8. Any and all records, reports, letters, emails, text messages, papers, documents, materials and written evidence supporting defendant’s affirmative defense #9. Any and all records, reports, letters, emails, text messages, papers, documents, materials and written evidence supporting defendant’s affirmative defense #10. Any and all records, reports, letters, emails, text messages, papers, documents, materials and written evidence supporting defendant’s affirmative defense #11. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically transmitted on the 3rd day of February, 2023, to: ADAM P. HANDFINGER, ESQUIRE and **BRETT J. MORITZ, ESQUIRE, at ahandfinger@pecklaw. com, bmoritz@pecklaw. com, ** mgil@pecklaw. com, PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P. C. , Attorneys for Defendants, BLAINE E. MINTON, and SAMANTHA C. MINTON, One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2000, Miami, Florida 33131. LAW OFFICES OF FRED LAND FULMER, P. A. Attorneys for Plaintiff, NATIONAL BIO-SAFE, INC. Galleria Corporate Centre, Suite 1216 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 (954)763-1052 Broward flfulmerlaw@aol. com By /s/ Fred L. Fulmer FRED L. FULMER FLA BAR NO: 347681 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15[TH ]JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION KIMBERLY ANN TCHIVIDJIAN, Plaintiff, CASE NO: 2023-CA-002312 vs. WOW VENTURES LLC D/B/A HIJINKS SPORTS GRILL, a Florida Limited Liability Company, SYDNEY SMITH, individually, and AMMY SMITH, individually, Defendants. __________ / **REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF, KIMBERLY ANN** **TCHIVIDJIAN** Defendant, WOW VENTURES LLC. D/B/A HIJINKS SPORTS GRILL, a Florida Limited Liability Company, (“Hijinks”), by and through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 1. 350 of The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby instructs Plaintiff, KIMBERLY ANN TCHIVIDJIAN (“Plaintiff”) to produce for inspection and/or copying within thirty (30) days, copies of the following documents relating to the subject litigation that are in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control, or are in the possession, custody or control of any agent, servant, employee, attorney or representative of Plaintiff. **INSTRUCTIONS FOR ANSWERING** You are required in responding to this Request for Production to obtain and furnish all information available to you and any of your representatives, employees, agents, brokers, servants, or attorneys and to obtain and furnish all information that is in your possession or under your control, or in the possession or under the control of any of your representatives, employees, agents, servants or attorneys. Each Request which seeks information relating in any way to communications, to, from, or within a business and/or corporate entity, is hereby designated to demand, and should be construed to include, all communications by and between representatives, employees, agents, brokers and/or servants of the business and/or corporate entity. ----- Each Request should be responded to separately. However, a document which is the response to more than one request may, if the relevant portion is marked or indexed, be produced and referred to in a later response. All documents produced shall be segregated and identified by the paragraphs to which they are primarily responsive. Where required by a particular paragraph of this Request, documents produced shall be further segregated and identifies as indicated in this paragraph. For any documents that are stored or maintained in files in the normal course of business, such documents shall be produces in such files, or in such a manner as to preserve and identify the file from which such documents were taken. If you object to part of any Request, please furnish documents responsive to the remainder of the request. Each Request refers to all documents that are either known by the defendant to exist or that can be located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts of the defendant. The documents produced in response to this request shall include all attachments and enclosures. The documents requested for production include those in the possession, custody, or control of defendant, its agents, representatives, or attorneys. References to the singular include the plural. The use of any tense of any verb shall be considered also to include within its meaning all other tenses of the verb so used. [If under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:] Please note that the defendant, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(e), is under a continuing duty to seasonably supplement the production with documents obtained subsequent to the preparation and filing of a response to each request. All documents called for by this Request (or related to this Request) for which the defendant claims a privilege or statutory authority as a ground for non-production shall be listed chronologically as follows: a. The place, and manner of recording or otherwise preparing the document; b. The name and title of the sender; c. The identity of each person or persons (other than stenographic or clerical assistants) participating in the preparation of the document; d. The identity and title, if any, or the person or persons supplying the attorney with the information requested above; ----- e. The identity of each person to whom the contents of the document have heretofore been communicated by copy, exhibition, sketch, reading or substantial summarization, thes of said communication, and the employer and title of said person at the time of said communication; f. Type of document; g. Subject matter (without revealing the relevant information for which privilege or statutory authority is claimed); and h. Factual and legal basis for claim, privilege or specific statutory or regulatory authority which provides the claimed ground for non-production. Each Request for a document or documents shall be deemed to call for the production of the original document or documents to the extent that they are in, or subject to, directly or in directly, the control of the party to whom this Request is addressed. In addition, each Request, should be considered as including a Request for separate production of all copies and, to the extent applicable, preliminary drafts of documents that differ in any respect from the original or final draft or from each other (e. g. , by reason of differences in form or content or by reason of handwritten notes or comments having been added to one copy of a document but not on the original or other copies thereof). All documents produced in response to this Request shall be complete, notwithstanding the fact that portions thereof may contain information not requested. If any documents requested herein have been lost or destroyed, the documents so lost or destroyed shall be identified by author, and subject matter. Where exact information cannot be furnished, estimated information is to be supplied to the extent possible. Where estimation is used, it should be so indicated, and an explanation should be given as to the basis on which the estimate was made and the reason exact information cannot be furnished. With respect to any document requested which was once in possession, custody or control, but no longer is, please indicate thethe document ceased to be in possession, custody or control, the manner in which it is ceased, and the name and address of its present custodian. Unless otherwise indicated, each Request is to be construed as encompassing all documents which pertain to the stated subject matter and to events which transpired between 2019, up to the present. Production can be accomplished by mailing the documents within the rule time to the Law Offices of Lydecker Diaz. , 4350 W. Cypress Street, Suite 910, Tampa, FL 33607. **Definitions** You, \"your\" and \"yourself refer to the party to whom the following requests are addressed. , and its agents, representatives, officers, directors, affiliates, predecessors and successors in ----- interest, parents, divisions, subsidiaries, area and regional offices, and employees including persons or entities outside of the United States. \"Person\" means natural persons, firms, proprietorships, associations, partnerships, corporations and every other type of organization or entity. \"Identify\" means when used in reference to: a. A document, to state separately: (1) Its description (e. g. letter, report, memorandum, etc. ), (2) Its, (3) Its subject matter, (4) The identity of each author or signer. (5) Its present location and the identity of its custodian b. An oral statement, communication, conference or conversation, to state separately: (1) Itsand the place where it occurred, (2) Its substance, (3) The identity of each person participating in the communication or conversation, and (4) The identity of all notes, memoranda or other documents memorializing, referring to or relating to the subject matter of the statement; c. A natural person or persons to state separately: (1) The full name of each such person, (2) His or her present, or last known business address and his or her present or last known residential address, and (3) The employer of the person at the time to which the interrogatory answer is directed and the person's title or position at that time; d. An organization or entity other than a natural person (e. g. , a company, corporation, firm, association, or partnership), to state separately: (1) The full name and type of organization or entity, (2) Theand state of organization or incorporation, (3) The address of each of its principal places of business, and (4) The nature of the business conducted. \"Communication\" shall mean any transmission of information, the information transmitted, and any process by which information is transmitted, and shall include written communications and oral communications. ----- \"Document\" or \"documents\" includes without limitation any written, typed, printed, recorded or graphic matter, however preserved, produced, or reproduced, of any type or description, regardless of origin or location, including without limitation any binder, cover note, certificate, letter, correspondence, record, table, chart, analysis, graph, schedule, report, test, study memorandum, note, list, diary, log, calendar, telex, message (including, but not limited to, inter-office and intra-office communications), questionnaire, bill, purchase order, shipping order, contract, memorandum of contract, agreement, assignment, license, certificate, permit, ledger, ledger entry, book of account, check, order, invoice, receipt, statement, financial data, acknowledgment, computer or data processing card, computer or data processing disk, computer-generated matter, photograph, photographic negative, phonograph recording, transcript or log of an such recording, projection, videotape, film, microfiche, and all other data compilations from which information can be obtained or translated, reports and/or summaries of investigations, drafts and revisions of drafts of any documents and original preliminary notes or sketches, no matter how produced or maintained, in you actual or constructive possession, custody or control, or the existence of which you have knowledge, and whether prepared, published or released by you or by any other person. If a document has been prepared in several copies, or additional copies have been made, or copies are not identical (or which by reason of subsequent modification of a copy by the addition of notations or other modifications, are no longer identical), each non-identical copy as a separate document. \"Relating to\" means consisting of, referring to, describing, discussing, constituting, evidencing, containing, reflecting, mentioning, concerning, pertaining to, citing, summarizing, analyzing or bearing any logical or factual connection with the matter discussed. \"Claim\" means a demand or assertion, whether oral or written, formal or informal, by any person for monetary payment, the undertaking of action, or the cessation of action. \"Consulted\" or \"contracted\" means any form of communication, e. g. , oral statements, telephonic conversations or other mechanical communications or any other type of communication including written letters or documents. \"Plaintiff ' means and any other individuals who have acted on the plaintiff s behalf. \"Management\" or \"manage\" includes any act of directing, conducting, administering, controlling or handling an identified function or duty. \"During the relevant time period\" shall mean a period of five years before and up to theof occurrence alleged. \"Any\" shall also mean \"all\" and vice versa. \"And\" shall mean \"or\" and \"or\" shall mean \"and\" as necessary to call for the broadest possible answer. ----- **REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF, KIMBERLY ANN TCHIVIDJIAN** Copies of Federal Income Tax Returns, W-2 withholding tax statements, any and all other business records and/or income records, payroll withholding tax statements, commission statements, personal records of income and any other documents of income for six (6) years prior to the current year, together with a record of earnings toin the current year. Any and all medical or related bills, paid or owing, allegedly resulting from the subject incident or occurrence. All clinical records pertaining to medical examinations or treatments administered to Plaintiff because of the incident involved in this lawsuit, which are in the Plaintiff’s possession or control or in the possession or control of Plaintiff’s attorneys, agents, representatives or employees. All medical records, reports, hospital records, chiropractic records, osteopathic records, faith healers’ records, x-ray reports, MRI scan reports, lab results, CT scan reports, nurses notes, physical therapy records, and any other medical information in your possession, including copies of any radiographic materials such as x-ray films, CT films, MRI films, for treatment rendered to Plaintiff for injuries allegedly incurred as a result of the incident or occurrences described in the Complaint which are in the Plaintiff’s possession or control or in the possession or control of Plaintiff’s attorneys, agents, representatives or employees. All documents reflecting expenses, other than medical expenses, paid or owing allegedly resulting from the incident or occurrence as alleged in the Complaint, including but not limited to repair bills and estimates for property damage. All reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis submitted by any expert expected to testify at trial, including vocational specialist and rehabilitative consultant, which relate to the incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit and/or injuries, damages or losses allegedly caused by the incident, pursuant to Mims v. Casademont, 464 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). All police reports, accident reports, incident reports, or any other reports made as a result of the alleged incident or occurrence alleged in the Complaint. All written or recorded statements of any witnesses to this action other than Plaintiff(s) relating to facts or issues involved in this lawsuit or a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording or transcription of a statement that is a substantial verbatim recital of an oral statement. All written or recorded statements taken of Hijinks(s), their agents or employees, relating to facts or issues involved in this lawsuit or a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording or transcription of a statement that is a substantial verbatim recital of an oral statement. ----- All photographs, graphs, charts, and other documentary evidence of the scene, parties or vehicles involved in or pertaining to the subject incident, occurrence or issues in this cause. All photographs and/or films depicting injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of the subject incident. All photographs, graphs, charts, diagrams, documents, and/or other documentary or physical evidence of the incident scene, the subject product, or any objects present at the incident scene that depict things or conditions that have changed since the photographs were taken. Pierson v. Seale, 128 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). All insurance policies in full force and effect on theof the incident described in the Complaint providing any type of insurance under which Plaintiff received or is eligible to receive in connection with medical, health, hospital, accident, Medicare, Medicaid, disability, sickness, Social Security, worker’s compensation, income disability, wage continuation, lost wages, umbrella liability, and other expenses occasioned as a result of the subject incident and as to all insurance available to Plaintiff the following: a. All contracts of insurance and/or other similar benefits applied for, together with the identification card and declaration sheet of all insurance in effect on theof the occurrence described in the Complaint; b. All applications for benefits available under the above-referenced insurance policies; c. All records of payments, duplicate checks, check stubs, memos and correspondence relating to payment made under the above-referred to policies; and d. All applications for insurance as above-referenced applied for by Plaintiff. All documents relating to any settlement by Plaintiff with any other person or entity who may have been liable for damages claimed by Plaintiff. All documents relating to payment by any source, and any resulting lien, for medical bills, doctor bills, hospital bills, prescription bills, ambulance bills, or bills for any similar expenses incurred by Plaintiff(s) as a result of the alleged incident described in the Complaint. All documents relating to any efforts by Plaintiff to seek employment (or to seek compensation for the performance of services) with any employer, person or entity at any time from theof the subject incident through theof your response to this request. All documents relating to any Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment, other governmental benefits or other benefits of any kind whatsoever which you have applied to and/or received since theof the subject incident. ----- All medical reports, clinical records and documents relating to the care, examination, and treatment of Plaintiff by any and all physicians, hospitals, or other practitioners of any kind, whatsoever, for any medical or other health-related conditions, of any kind, for any illnesses, conditions or injuries of the Plaintiff for the past ten (10) years. Each and every document, including employment or payroll record, time sheet, attendance log or writing of any type documenting each and every day or partial day you claim to have missed from work as a result of the incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Any and all curriculum vitae for experts expected to testify at trial of this cause. Any and all bills or statements for services submitted by experts expected to testify at trial of this cause and documentation reflecting the amount for such services paid to. All documents provided by any expert witnesses retained or consulted by Plaintiff in connection with this matter, whether or not Plaintiff intends to call the expert as a witness. Legible copy of the front and back of the Plaintiff’s current driver’s license. Legible copy of the front and back of all cards reflecting Plaintiff’s medical or health insurance providers. All documents relating to any meetings, discussions, encounters and/or conversations, whether public or private, that Plaintiff had with any present and/or former agent or employee of Hijinks. A copy of the Application and/or Claim for Benefit and/or Claim for Payment submitted by Plaintiff to Plaintiff's insurance company for either personal injuries and/or property damage sustained by Plaintiff, in the subject accident and/or incident. Any and all medical reports which reflect any injury, disability, infirmity or illness suffered by the Plaintiff which pre-existed the incident which forms the subject matter of this litigation. Any and all accidents and/or incident reports which reflect accidents or incidents involving the Plaintiff which occurred prior to the incident which forms the subject matter of this litigation. Any and all accident and/or incident reports which reflect accidents or incidents involving the Plaintiff which occurred subsequent to the incident which forms the subject matter of this litigation. In support of this Request for Production, Hijinks would show that it is unable to obtain the materials without due expense and hardship. The articles are in the sole or exclusive possession ----- #### of the Plaintiff, her agents, or attorneys; and such items are necessary for Hijinks to properly prepare [its][ case. ] #### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 25th day of October 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Eservice to: Glen B. Levine, Esq. , Elie Anidjar, Esq. , LAW OFFICES OF ANIDJAR & LEVINE, P. A. , Attorneysfor Plaintiff [ pleadings@anl-law. com ] and the original [has][ been][ filed][ with][ the][ Court. ] #### LYDECKER LLP 4350 W. Cypress St Suite 910 Tampa, [FL][ 33607] Counselfor Defendant Telephone [No. :] (813) [443-8424] Facsimile No. : (305) 416-3190 BY: /s/ Dawn ## George_ DAWN E. GEORGE, ESQ. Florida Bar No. : 1006408 deg@lydecker. com ANA REYES, ESQ. Florida Bar No. : 1036548 apr@lydecker. com -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15™ JUDICIAL COURT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA KIMBERLY ANN TCHIVIDJIAN, Plaintiff, vs. WOW VENTURES LLC, d/b/a HIJINKS SPORTS GRILL, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant. ##### FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT, WOW VENTURES LLC, d/b/a HIJINKS SPORTS GRILL. # _/ ##### COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1. 350, and files this First Request for Production to Defendant, ##### WOW VENTURES LLC, d/b/a HIJINKS SPORTS GRILL. , and requests the Defendant produce [the][ items][ listed][ below][ in][ accordance][ with][ Rule][ 1. 350:] Any [and][ all][ Policies][ of][ Insurance][ that ]you [contend][ cover][ or] may [cover] any Defendant[ for] the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Any [and][ all][ documents][ which] support [the][ affirmative][ defenses][ in] your [answer. ] Any [and][ all] reports [of] expert [witnesses][ who][ will] testify [at][ time][ of][ trial] pertaining [to] any issue involved in this lawsuit. Any [statements][ of][ the][ Plaintiff][ taken][ in][ connection][ with][ the][ above][ lawsuit. ] Any model, plat, map, drawing, [motion] picture, [video] tape, [or] photograph pertaining to any [fact][ or][ issue][ involved][ in][ this] controversy. A copy of the title and registration for the subject bar/restaurant. 1 ----- A copy of your driver’s license. Any [materials] you [intend][ to][ use][ at][ trial][ to] impeach [the] parties, [their][ witnesses][ or] experts, including impeachment [material][ set][ forth][ in][ and] Northup[ v. ][ Acken][ 865][ So. 2d][ 1267] (Fla. 2004). Any [and][ all][ invoices][ and/or] repair [estimates][ of][ Defendant’s][ bar/restaurant] pertaining [to] the accident. ##### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been furnished via the Florida court E-Filing Portal to: Dawn E. George, Esq. and Ana Reyes, Esq. , Lydecker LLP, [4350][ W] Cypress St, [Suite] 910, Tampa, [Florida] 33607, [Counsel]for Defendant, at: deafh lvdecker. com and aiir. t71vdecker. com, on this 0 day [of] December, [2023. ] LAW OFFICES OF ANIDJAR & LEVINE, P. A. 300 SE 17th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Phone (954) 525-0050/Fax (954) 525-0020 E-Service: pleadings# anl, -, law. com By: GLEN B. LEVINE, ESQ. FBN 0144355 ANTHONY K. GOODMAN, ESQ. FBN 019641 2 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Probate Division: File No: FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES Plaintiff, V. LAINIE BETH ROLDAN Defendant. / COMPLAINT Plaintiff, FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES (\"FIDF\"), by and through its undersigned counsel, sues Defendant, LAINIE BETH ROLDAN (\"ROLDAN\"), as follows: FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS This is an action concerning the Barry Rubin Legacy Trust under the Last Will and Testament of Barry E. Rubin dtd. December 3, 2019 (\"Trust\") [Exhibit \"A\"]. The principle place of administration of the Trust is Palm Beach County, Florida. FIDF is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization and the residuary beneficiary under both the Will and Trust. Refer to ARTICLE IX of the Trust. ROLDAN is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. On December 3, 2019, Barry E. Rubin executed the Trust. Barry E. Rubin (\"decedent\") died on October 27, 2021 in Palm Beach County, Florida at which time the Trust because irrevocable. Prior to his death, the decedent owned the following assets: Asset DOD Value Owner/Benefieiary/Joint Owner 2014 Merces Benz E350 $13, 189. 00 Barry E. Rubin Misc. tangible personal property 10, 000. 00 Barry E. Rubin Charles Schwab Acct#REDACTED 9, 099, 788. 61 Barry E. Rubin ----- REDACTE REDACTE REDACTE ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- REDACTE ----- ----- REDACTED R -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL CASE NO: 502022CP003828XXXXSB DEFENSE FORCES, PROBATE DIVISION: IZ Plaintiff, v. LAINIE BETH ROLDAN, et. al, Defendants. ###### LAINIE BETH ROLDAN’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS # _I ###### TO FRIENDS OF THE ISRAEL DEFENSE FORCES Defendant Lanue Beth Roldan, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Florida Rule ###### of Civil Procedure 1. 350, hereby requests Plaintiff Friends of the Israel Defense Forces to produce and permit the inspection of the documents identified below in its possession, custody, or control. The documents requested should be produced for inspection and copying within 30 days at Pankauski Lazarus PLLC, 415 South Olive Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401. Alternatively, you may [send] copies [of][ the][ documents][ via][ e-mail][ to] iason@phflonda. com; ##### If arrangement needs to be made to facilitate or accommothe production, please contact the undersigned [counsel. ] #### Definitions The following definitions shall apply: A. The terms \"you\" and \"your\" shall mean the person or entity to whom this request is propounded, and any and all agents, employees, attorneys, attorneys-in-fact, accountants, representatives, investigators, auditors, predecessors [and][ successors][ in] interest, [and] any [other] persons acting [or] purporting [to][ act][ on][ behalf][ of] you [or][ under][ the] control, [instruction][ or] guidance [of] your attorneys, [and] any entity [in][ which] you [have][ an] ownership [interest. ] B. The term \"Plaintiff' refers to Friends of die Israel Defense Forces. 1 ----- C. The term “Defendant” refers to Lainie Beth Roldan. D. The term “Decedent” refers to Barry E. Rubin. E. The term “Will” refers to the Last Will and Testament of Barry E. Rubind December 3, 2019. F. The term “Beneficiary Designation” refers to the Designated Beneficiary Plan Agreementd October 19, 2021 with Charles Schwab. G. The \"Amended Complaint” means the Amended Complaint that you filed in this action on September 19, 2022. H. The term \"document\" shall mean the originals and all non-identical copies of any written, recorded, or graphic matter, however produced, reproduced, or fixed in a tangible medium of expression, of every kind, and regardless of where located, and all tangible and intangible things from which information can be processed or transcribed, including the originals and all non-identical copies, including but not limited to any summary, schedule, memorandum, note, message, electronic mail, statement, computer record, letter, telegram, facsimile, telefax, bulletin, inter- or intra-office communication, report, diary, desk or pocket calendar, electronic calendar, notebook, day book, chronological data compilation, appointment book, message slip, message book, pamphlet, periodical, magazine, newspaper article, advertisement, list, graph, motion picture, photograph, x-ray or other machine-produced diagnostic picture or depiction, chart, index, tape, record, drawing, compilation, tabulation, computer print-out, computer-stored memory component or device, e-mail, study, analysis, transcript, minutes, books, data sheet, data processing card or tape, phone records, correspondence, ledgers, invoices, worksheets, receipts, returns, prospectuses, financial statements, schedules, affidavits, contracts, agreements, subcontracts, bonds and similar documents, cancelled checks, checkbooks, check stubs, promissory notes, complaints and all other pleadings, judgments, transcripts, statistics, surveys, releases, microfiche, microfilm, metadata, electronic and digital and mechanical recordings of every kind (including but not limited to tapes, videotapes, cassettes, disks, cd's, dvd's, and all other manner of electronic, mechanical and digital recordings, including recordings using any new technology not specifically mentioned herein), notes or documents memorializing conversations or meetings or conferences, cards, notations, and all writings of any other kind, in the possession, custody or control of you or your attorney(s), and any and all drafts, amendments, revisions, alternations, modifications, changes, and amendments of all of the foregoing. The term \"document\" shall also include the files in which any such documents are maintained, including file folders and file jackets, and any indices thereof. I. The term \"all documents\" shall mean every document, group of documents, partial document, non-identical reproduction of a document, attachments, exhibits, transmittal correspondence, responses and replies. J. The term \"communication\" shall mean any oral or written statement, remark, conversation, dialogue, discussion, agreement, argument, exchange, note, contract, or transmission, between any two or more persons, including but not limited to communications in person, over the telephone, via electronic mail or instant messaging or text messaging video conferencing and all other electronic means, meetings, conferences, and other communications involving any number of persons. 2 ----- K. The term \"person\" shall mean any individual, natural person, proprietorship, partnership, firm, corporation, association, organization, joint venture, business trust, business enterprise, governmental agency or body, public entity, legal or business entity, revocable or irrevocable trust, or any other group of natural persons. L. The term \"entity\" shall mean any legal or business entity, proprietorship, business enterprise, partnership, firm, company, corporation, association, organization, joint venture, governmental agency, public entity, foundation, revocable or irrevocable trust, or any other group of natural persons working for profit or not for profit. M. The terms \"evidence”, “support” or \"relate” shall mean concerning, reflecting, relating to, respecting, referring to, summarizing, digesting, embodying, establishing, tending to establish, tending not to establish, evidencing, supporting, comprising, connected with, commenting on, referencing, responding to, disagreeing with, showing, describing, analyzing, representing, constituting and including. N. The term \"identify\", when used in reference to a document or record, shall mean and include the name and address of the custodian of the document or record, the location of the document or record, a general description of the document or record, including (1) the title of the document or record if it has one, (2) the general subject matter of the document or record, (3) theof the document or record, and (4) the name and address of the author of the document or record. If you don't know the location of each document or record, then please state the name(s) and address(es) of anyone whom you know to have possession or control of the original or copy of such document or record. **DOCUMENTS REQUESTED** All emails, text messages, and other documents by and between you and the Decedent. All documents reflecting any donation made by Decedent to you during his lifetime. All documents reflecting any planned giving or bequest that Decedent intended to make to you, such as donor pledges and donor contact records. All documents reflecting any of your donor events that Decedent attended. All internal emails, text messages, memoranda, and other communications that you created prior to Decedent’s death that in any way relate to Decedent. All documents and communications by and between you and Marc Rubin relating to Lainie Roldan, the Will, the Beneficiary Designation, the substance of the Amended Complaint or the subject matter of this litigation. 3 ----- All documents and communications by and between you and Eileen Gould relating to Lainie Roldan, the Will, the Beneficiary Designation, the substance of the Amended Complaint or the subject matter of this litigation. All documents and communications by and between you and Barbara Stubbs relating to Lainie Roldan, the Will, the Beneficiary Designation, the substance of the Amended Complaint or the subject matter of this litigation. All documents and communications by and between you and Loretta Friedman relating to Lainie Roldan, the Will, the Beneficiary Designation, the substance of the Amended Complaint or the subject matter of this litigation. All documents and communications by and between you and any other person relating to Lainie Roldan, the Will, the Beneficiary Designation, the substance of the Amended Complaint or the subject matter of this litigation. All documents which evidence, support or relate to your allegations in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Amended Complaint regarding the medical conditions suffered by the Decedent. All documents which evidence, support or relate to your allegation in Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint that the Decedent was incapable of making his own medical decisions as of October 19, 2021. All documents which evidence, support or relate to your allegations in Paragraphs 14 and 17 of the Amended Complaint that the Beneficiary Designation is void on the basis of incapacity. All documents which evidence, support or relate to your allegations in Paragraphs 14 and 23 of the Amended Complaint that the Beneficiary Designation is void on the basis of undue influence. All documents which evidence, support or relate to your allegations in Paragraphs 14 and 28 of the Amended Complaint that the Beneficiary Designation is void on the basis of fraud. 4 ----- All documents winch evidence, support or relate to your allegations in Paragraphs 14 and 33 of the Amended Complaint that the Beneficiary Designation is void on the basis of insane delusion. All documents which evidence, support or relate to your allegations in Paragraph 40 ###### of the Amended Complaint that Lanne abused her confidential relationship with Decedent and improperly acquired [and][ retained][ his] personal property. All documents which evidence, support or relate to any other allegations of the Amended Complaint. All reports or tests of any neurologist or any other medical professional relating to the Decedent’s mental capacity. All documents identified in your response to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories. All documents relied upon in preparing your response to answers to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories. ###### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY diat a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed electronically [and][ served][ on] January 4, 2023, [to][ the] following persons [in][ die][ method][ noted:] David M. Garten, Esq. , Law Office of David M. Garten, 400 Columbia Drive Ste. 100, West Palm Beach, [FL][ 33409][ via] e-portal [to:] dgarten@gartenlaw. com; chancock@gartenlaw. com; ###### Jordan [R. ] Hammer, Esq. , [Ellis][ Law] Group, P. L. , [4755] Technology Way, [Suite] 205, [Boca] Raton, [FL] 33431 via email to e-portal to: iordan@ellis-law. com; service@ellis-law. com; Marc H. Rubin, 10 Woodlake Drive, Croton on the Hudson, NY 10520 via US Mail; ###### Samantha Rubin, 10 Woodlake Drive, Croton on the Hudson, NY 10520 via US Mail; Matthew Rubin, 10 Woodlake Drive, Croton on the Hudson, NY 10520 via US Mail; Claire Rubin, 10 Woodlake Drive, Croton on die Hudson, NY 10520 via US Mail; ###### Eileen Gould, 300 First Avenue, Apt. 1A, New York, NY 10019 via US Mail Loretta Friedman, 34 Locust Grove Road, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 via US Mail 5 ----- ##### Pankauski Lazarus PLLC 415 South Olive Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Telephone: [561-514-0900] courtfilnigs@phflorida. com By: [/s/] Jason [D. ] ### L/i^ams_ Jason [D. ] Lazarus, Esq. Florida Bar No. 139040 Andrew S. Kwan, Esq. Florida Bar No. 76539 6 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA DJINNEE O. GUNNING, Case No: Judge: Plaintiff(s), vs. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and SARAH B. SMITH Defendant(s). _____ ________ _______ _______ / **COMPLAINT** Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, by and through undersigned counsel, sues the Defendants, SARAH B. SMITH and UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, and alleges: **GENERAL** **ALLEGATIONS** This Is a claim for damages that exceeds fifteen thousand dollars ($15, 000. 00). Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, at all times relevant herein, is over the age of eighteen years, sui juris, and a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, at all times relevant herein, is over the age of eighteen years, sui juris and a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, is a foreign corporation with offices located in Palm Beach County, Florida, where it maintains sales agents, adjusters, insurance policy writers and insures risks of loss that result to policy holders who entered into a policy of automobile insurance and who resided within Palm Beach County, Florida at the time the policies were issued. At all ----- times relevant and material herein, Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, issued and provided a policy of automobile insurance to Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, where such policy offered underinsured/uninsured motorist benefits. The cause of actions complained of herein occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida. **COUNT** **I** **NEGLIGENCE** The Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, reavers and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one (1) through three (3) and five (5) above as ## if fully set forth herein. On or about May 13, 2013, Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, was operating a vehicle owned by her on Military Trail at or near its intersection with Burns Road, City ## of Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach County, Florida. At said time, Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, carelessly and negligently operated and/or maintained said vehicle and collided into the vehicle Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, was operating. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, the Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, suffered bodily injury that is permanent within a reasonable degree of medical probability, resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, lost wages, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, inconvenience, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, and loss of ability to earn money and aggravation of a preexisting condition. These losses are either permanent or continuing and the Plaintiff will suffer these losses ----- in the future. Plaintiffs vehicle was damaged and he/she lost the use of it during the period required for its repair or replacement WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, demands judgment against the Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15, 000. 00), plus costs incurred herein and any other relief this court deems fit and proper. **COUNT** **TWO** **CLAIM** **FOR** **UNDERINSURED/UNINSURED** **MOTORIST** **AS** **TO** **UNITED** **SERVICES** **AUTOMOBILE** **ASSOCIATION** Plaintiff re-alleges, re-adopts and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through five (5) above as if fully set forth herein. This is an action for underinsured/uninsured motorist benefits pursuant to Section 627. 727, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant and material herein, Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, maintained and provided a policy of automobile insurance containing an endorsement for underinsured/uninsured motorist benefits issued to the Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, Policy Number 00064 72 82U 7104 3 Notice of a claim arising out of and directly related to the motor vehicle crash of May 13, 2013 was presented to the Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION. Plaintiff is not in possession of the contract/policy of insurance, but it is readily available to and in the possession of the Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION. Pursuant to the provisions of the contract/policy of insurance, Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, ----- DJINNEE O. GUNNING, for the damages recoverable to her as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH. As a result, Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical, nursing, and professional health care treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are either permanent or continuing, and plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future. Plaintiff’s motor vehicle was damaged and she lost the use of it during the time required for its repair or replacement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DJINNEE 0. GUNNING, demands judgment against Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15, 000. 00), plus costs incurred herein and any other relief this court deems fit and proper. **DEMAND** **FOR** **TRIAL** **BY** **JURY** The Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. LITTKY, SMITH, PHIPPS & CASAS, P. A. Suite 800, Citizens Building 105 South Narcissus Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 655-8444/ office / (561) 655-5028 fax (800) 519-1965 toll free Discovery e-m? II: [lspc. discovery@lspcinjury. com](mailto:lspc. discovery@lspcinjury. com) BY:_______ ALEJAN G. CASAS, Esq. Florida Bhrllo. : 0914398 -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "**IN** **THE** **CIRCUIT** **COURT** **OF** **THE** **15TH** **JUDICIAL** **CIRCUIT** **IN** **AND** **FOR** **PALM** **BEACH** **COUNTY, ** **FLORIDA** **DJNNEE** **O. ** **GUNNING, ** **CASE** **NO. :** **502013CA010239XXXXMB** **DIVISION:** **GENERAL** **JURISDICTION** **Plaintiff, ** **vs. ** **UNITED** **SERVICES** **AUTOMOBILE** **ASSOCIATION, ** **Defendant. ** ``` ___________________________ I ``` **REQUEST** **TO** **PRODUCE** Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, by and through the undersigned counsel, requests **Plaintiff, ** **DJINNEE** **GUNNING, ** to produce the following items within thirty (30) days in accordance with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure: All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint. All medical, hospital and/or other related bills regarding the accident alleged in the Complaint. All medical reports and/or hospital records in your possession regarding the accident alleged in the Complaint. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on theof the accident sued upon. Any statements, either recorded or written, and in the custody of Plaintiff or ### Plaintiffs attorney made by Defendant in regard to the above matter. ----- Any statements, either recorded or written, and in the custody of Plaintiff or ### Plaintiffs attorney made by persons who have knowledge concerning the subject incident. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or any other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by plaintiffs for the months of May 2013 and June 2013. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRI’s, x-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained, or translated if necessary which are in possession of Plaintiff and/or counsel for Plaintiff. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, all Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms of the Plaintiffs herein from five (5) years prior to the accident sued upon to the present. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, all withholding statements, pay envelopes, deposit slips, or any other evidence of income earned by Plaintiff for the current calendar year. Any and all medical records, hospital records, emergency room records and records from any health care provider pertaining to the treatment of Plaintiff for any reason in the five (5) years prior to the referenced incident. Any and all bills, statements or receipts relating to any non-medical expenses claimed as damages in this lawsuit that have not been produced in response to any of the preceding paragraphs. Any bills and/or estimates for the repair of plaintiffs vehicle any other damaged property. If the vehicle was not repairable, in addition, attach estimates of the value of the ----- vehicle on theof the alleged incident and estimates and/or receipts concerning salvage value. Any and all photographs of the vehicles involved in the incident before and after the accident. Any and all photographs of Plaintiff depicting injuries sustained as a result of the within incident. Any releases, “Mary Carter Agreements, ” and any other type of settlement agreements between Plaintiff and any other party which may have been responsible for the damages claimed by Plaintiff. Any and all policies of insurance providing collateral source payments to Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, PIP insurance, medical payment insurance, disability insurance, and/or employment related insurance. Any and all claim forms submitted by Plaintiff pursuant to the policies of insurance referred to in Paragraph 17 above. All incident reports filed by Plaintiff for any purpose, including, but not limited to, reports to employer and/or insurance company regarding the incident, if applicable, and/or any other reports filled out by Plaintiff. All documents, papers or evidence to be introduced at trial. All expert reports from any experts who will testify at trial. All reports, statements, written opinions and affidavits prepared by any experts retained by, or on behalf of, Plaintiff and who may called by Plaintiff to testify at the trial of this cause. **_See, _** **_Mims_** **_v. _** **_Casademont, _** **_N. D. ,_** 464 So. 2nd 643 (Fla. 3dDCA 1985). ----- **CERTIFICATE** **OF** **SERVICE** **I** **HEREBY** **CERTIFY** that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via e-mail to: Alejandro G. Casas, Esq. , LITTKY, SMITH, PHIPPS & CASAS, P. A. , 105 South Narcissus Avenue, Suite 800, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, [lspc. discovery@lspcinjury. com, ](mailto:lspc. discovery@lspcinjury. com) this 18th day of August, 2013. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN M. McGOWEN Attorneys for Defendant USAA 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 420 Plantation, Florida 33324 Primary e-mail: [hmg. pld. sfl@USAA. com](mailto:hmg. pld. sfl@USAA. com) ### Phone(954)370-3129 Fax (954) 474-0689 Florida Bai-No. : 602248 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA DJINNEE O. GUNNING, Case No: Judge: Plaintiff(s), vs. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and SARAH B. SMITH Defendant(s). _____ ________ _______ _______ / **COMPLAINT** Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, by and through undersigned counsel, sues the Defendants, SARAH B. SMITH and UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, and alleges: **GENERAL** **ALLEGATIONS** This Is a claim for damages that exceeds fifteen thousand dollars ($15, 000. 00). Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, at all times relevant herein, is over the age of eighteen years, sui juris, and a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, at all times relevant herein, is over the age of eighteen years, sui juris and a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, is a foreign corporation with offices located in Palm Beach County, Florida, where it maintains sales agents, adjusters, insurance policy writers and insures risks of loss that result to policy holders who entered into a policy of automobile insurance and who resided within Palm Beach County, Florida at the time the policies were issued. At all ----- times relevant and material herein, Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, issued and provided a policy of automobile insurance to Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, where such policy offered underinsured/uninsured motorist benefits. The cause of actions complained of herein occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida. **COUNT** **I** **NEGLIGENCE** The Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, reavers and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one (1) through three (3) and five (5) above as ## if fully set forth herein. On or about May 13, 2013, Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, was operating a vehicle owned by her on Military Trail at or near its intersection with Burns Road, City ## of Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach County, Florida. At said time, Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, carelessly and negligently operated and/or maintained said vehicle and collided into the vehicle Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, was operating. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, the Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, suffered bodily injury that is permanent within a reasonable degree of medical probability, resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, lost wages, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, inconvenience, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, and loss of ability to earn money and aggravation of a preexisting condition. These losses are either permanent or continuing and the Plaintiff will suffer these losses ----- in the future. Plaintiffs vehicle was damaged and he/she lost the use of it during the period required for its repair or replacement WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, demands judgment against the Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15, 000. 00), plus costs incurred herein and any other relief this court deems fit and proper. **COUNT** **TWO** **CLAIM** **FOR** **UNDERINSURED/UNINSURED** **MOTORIST** **AS** **TO** **UNITED** **SERVICES** **AUTOMOBILE** **ASSOCIATION** Plaintiff re-alleges, re-adopts and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through five (5) above as if fully set forth herein. This is an action for underinsured/uninsured motorist benefits pursuant to Section 627. 727, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant and material herein, Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, maintained and provided a policy of automobile insurance containing an endorsement for underinsured/uninsured motorist benefits issued to the Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, Policy Number 00064 72 82U 7104 3 Notice of a claim arising out of and directly related to the motor vehicle crash of May 13, 2013 was presented to the Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION. Plaintiff is not in possession of the contract/policy of insurance, but it is readily available to and in the possession of the Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION. Pursuant to the provisions of the contract/policy of insurance, Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, ----- DJINNEE O. GUNNING, for the damages recoverable to her as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH. As a result, Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical, nursing, and professional health care treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are either permanent or continuing, and plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future. Plaintiff’s motor vehicle was damaged and she lost the use of it during the time required for its repair or replacement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DJINNEE 0. GUNNING, demands judgment against Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15, 000. 00), plus costs incurred herein and any other relief this court deems fit and proper. **DEMAND** **FOR** **TRIAL** **BY** **JURY** The Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. LITTKY, SMITH, PHIPPS & CASAS, P. A. Suite 800, Citizens Building 105 South Narcissus Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 655-8444/ office / (561) 655-5028 fax (800) 519-1965 toll free Discovery e-m? II: [lspc. discovery@lspcinjury. com](mailto:lspc. discovery@lspcinjury. com) BY:_______ ALEJAN G. CASAS, Esq. Florida Bhrllo. : 0914398 -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA DJINNEE O. GUNNING, Case No: Plaintiff(s), vs. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and SARAH B, SMITH Defendant(s). ________________________/ **PLAINTIFF’S** **FIRST** **REQUEST** **TO** **PRODUCE** **TO** **DEFENDANT, ** **UNITED** **SERVICES** **AUTOMOBILE** **ASSOCIATION** Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 1. 350, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, request the Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, to produce and permit the Plaintiff to inspect and/or copy the following documents and items hereinafter enumerated within forty-five (45) days from theof service, at the offices of undersigned counsel. Inspection will be made by visual observation, examination and/or copying. Copies of any and all communications, writings, recordings, memorandums, notes, depositions, written statements, transcripts, recorded statements (audio and/or video) and all other materials reflecting statements made by the Plaintiff relative to the subject incident. Copies of any and all communications, writings, recordings, memorandums, notes, depositions, written statements, transcripts, recorded statements (audio and/or video) and all other materials reflecting statements made by any Defendant relative to the subject incident. Copies of any and all communications, writings, recordings, memorandums, notes, depositions, written statements, transcripts, recorded statements (audio and/or video) and all other materials reflecting statements made by any witnesses relative to the subject incident. ----- Color copies of any and all photographs and/or video of the scene of the incident, the vehicles involved and the parties involved. Certified copy of any applicable liability insurance contracts and/or policies including any excess coverage and all declaration sheets relative thereto. Copies of any and all documents which evidence property damage to the defendant’s vehicle involved in the incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Copies of any and all documents which evidence property damage to the vehicle operated by the Plaintiff involved in the incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Copy of the complete claim file relative to the subject uninsured/underinsured motorists claim. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished with the complaint via service of process on the above named defendant. LITTKY, SMITH, PHIPPS & CASAS P. A. Suite 800, Citizens Building 105 South Narcissus Avenue West Palm Beach Florida 33401 (561) 655-8444 trffice / (561) 655-5028 fax (800) 519-1965 toll free Discovery E-Maill [lspc. discoverv@lspciniurv. com](mailto:lspc. discoverv@lspciniurv. com) BY:__________/ - Alejandro G/Qasas, Esq. Florida Bar ho. : 0914398 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA DJINNEE O. GUNNING, Case No: Judge: Plaintiff(s), vs. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and SARAH B. SMITH Defendant(s). _____ ________ _______ _______ / **COMPLAINT** Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, by and through undersigned counsel, sues the Defendants, SARAH B. SMITH and UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, and alleges: **GENERAL** **ALLEGATIONS** This Is a claim for damages that exceeds fifteen thousand dollars ($15, 000. 00). Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, at all times relevant herein, is over the age of eighteen years, sui juris, and a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, at all times relevant herein, is over the age of eighteen years, sui juris and a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, is a foreign corporation with offices located in Palm Beach County, Florida, where it maintains sales agents, adjusters, insurance policy writers and insures risks of loss that result to policy holders who entered into a policy of automobile insurance and who resided within Palm Beach County, Florida at the time the policies were issued. At all ----- times relevant and material herein, Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, issued and provided a policy of automobile insurance to Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, where such policy offered underinsured/uninsured motorist benefits. The cause of actions complained of herein occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida. **COUNT** **I** **NEGLIGENCE** The Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, reavers and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one (1) through three (3) and five (5) above as ## if fully set forth herein. On or about May 13, 2013, Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, was operating a vehicle owned by her on Military Trail at or near its intersection with Burns Road, City ## of Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach County, Florida. At said time, Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, carelessly and negligently operated and/or maintained said vehicle and collided into the vehicle Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, was operating. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, the Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, suffered bodily injury that is permanent within a reasonable degree of medical probability, resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, lost wages, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, inconvenience, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, and loss of ability to earn money and aggravation of a preexisting condition. These losses are either permanent or continuing and the Plaintiff will suffer these losses ----- in the future. Plaintiffs vehicle was damaged and he/she lost the use of it during the period required for its repair or replacement WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, demands judgment against the Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15, 000. 00), plus costs incurred herein and any other relief this court deems fit and proper. **COUNT** **TWO** **CLAIM** **FOR** **UNDERINSURED/UNINSURED** **MOTORIST** **AS** **TO** **UNITED** **SERVICES** **AUTOMOBILE** **ASSOCIATION** Plaintiff re-alleges, re-adopts and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through five (5) above as if fully set forth herein. This is an action for underinsured/uninsured motorist benefits pursuant to Section 627. 727, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant and material herein, Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, maintained and provided a policy of automobile insurance containing an endorsement for underinsured/uninsured motorist benefits issued to the Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, Policy Number 00064 72 82U 7104 3 Notice of a claim arising out of and directly related to the motor vehicle crash of May 13, 2013 was presented to the Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION. Plaintiff is not in possession of the contract/policy of insurance, but it is readily available to and in the possession of the Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION. Pursuant to the provisions of the contract/policy of insurance, Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, ----- DJINNEE O. GUNNING, for the damages recoverable to her as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH. As a result, Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical, nursing, and professional health care treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are either permanent or continuing, and plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future. Plaintiff’s motor vehicle was damaged and she lost the use of it during the time required for its repair or replacement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DJINNEE 0. GUNNING, demands judgment against Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15, 000. 00), plus costs incurred herein and any other relief this court deems fit and proper. **DEMAND** **FOR** **TRIAL** **BY** **JURY** The Plaintiff, DJINNEE O. GUNNING, hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. LITTKY, SMITH, PHIPPS & CASAS, P. A. Suite 800, Citizens Building 105 South Narcissus Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 655-8444/ office / (561) 655-5028 fax (800) 519-1965 toll free Discovery e-m? II: [lspc. discovery@lspcinjury. com](mailto:lspc. discovery@lspcinjury. com) BY:_______ ALEJAN G. CASAS, Esq. Florida Bhrllo. : 0914398 -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA DJINNEE 0. GUNNING, Case No: Plaintiff(s), vs. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and SARAH B. SMITH Defendant(s). #. / **PLAINTIFF’S** **FIRST** **REQUEST** **TO** **PRODUCE** **TO** **DEFENDANT, ** **SARAH** **B. ** **SMITH** Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 1. 350, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, request the Defendant, SARAH B. SMITH, to produce and permit the Plaintiff(s) to inspect and/or copy the following documents and items hereinafter enumerated, at the offices of undersigned counsel. Inspection will be made by visual observation, examination and/or copying. Copies of any and all communications, writings, recordings, memorandums, notes, depositions, written statements, transcripts, recorded statements (audio and/or video) and all other materials reflecting statements made by the Plaintiff relative to the subject incident. Copies of any and all communications, writings, recordings, memorandums, notes, depositions, written statements, #### transcripts, recorded statements (audio and/or video) and all other materials reflecting statements made by this Defendant relative to the subject incident. Copies of any and all communications, writings, recordings, memorandums, notes, depositions, written statements, #### transcripts, recorded statements (audio and/or video) and all other materials reflecting statements made by any witnesses relative to the subject incident. Color copies of any and all photographs and/or video of the scene of the incident, the vehicles involved and the parties involved. ----- Certified copy of any applicable liability insurance contracts and/or policies including any excess coverage and all declaration sheets relative thereto. Copies of any and all documents which evidence property damage to the defendant's vehicle involved in the incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit, Copies of any and all documents which evidence property damage to the vehicle operated by the Plaintiff involved in the incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Copies (front and back) of all driver’s licenses presently issued to this defendant. Copies (front and back) of the vehicle registration certificate and/or title to the defendant’s vehicle which was involved in the incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Copies of any and all cellular phone bills for any cellular telephone assigned to, owned or used by this defendant on theof the subject incident. A copy of any and all citations, infractions, statutory #### violations or ordinance violations issued to Defendant as a result of the subject incident as well as any documentation regarding the final disposition of same. A copy of the Traffic Accident Report for the subject automobile incident. Copies of any and all Traffic Accident Reports for any and all automobile collisions that this Defendant has been involved in within the three (3) year period prior to the subject collision. Copies of any and all traffic or other Court transcripts and/or video regarding the subject matter of the instant litigation. Copies of all reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis submitted by any Defendant’s expert witnesses regarding the subject incident and/or the Plaintiff’s injuries and/or damages sustained as a result of the subject incident. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished with the complaint via service of process on the above named defendant. ----- LITTKY, SMITH, PHIPPS & CASAS P. A. Suite 800, Citizens Building 105 South Narcissus Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 655-8444 office / (561) 655-5028 fax (800) 519-1965 *)ll free Discovery E-MaiB [lsDc. discoverv@lspciniurv. com](mailto:lsDc. discoverv@lspciniurv. com) BY:_________ Ji! ' 1 #### Alejandro/Glltasas, Esq. Florida Bar Nfo. : 0914398 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15[TH ]JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION SAMANTHA RICHTER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JANET KREINDEL, Plaintiff, vs. BOCA REGENTS OPCO, LLC d/b/a THE LEGACY AT BOCA RATON REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, Defendant / **COMPLAINT** COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, SAMANTHA RICHTER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JANET KREINDEL, Deceased, by and through her undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendant, BOCA REGENTS OPCO, LLC d/b/a THE LEGACY AT BOCA RATON REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, and alleges: This action is within the jurisdiction of this court for damages in excess of Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($50, 000. 00), exclusive of interest and costs. At all times material to this cause of action, JANET KREINDEL was an adult resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto, JANET KREINDEL was a person who was suffering from the infirmities of aging to the extent that she was impaired in her ability to adequately provide for her own care and protection. ----- Page 2 JANET KREINDEL died on April 29[th], 2024. At all times material to this action, SAMANTHA RICHTER is the duly appointed personal representative of the Estate of JANET KREINDEL. At all times material hereto, Defendant, BOCA REGENTS OPCO, LLC, was licensed and authorized to do business as a nursing home in Florida. The Defendant was in the business of owning, managing and maintaining nursing homes and related healthcare facilities, including THE LEGACY AT BOCA RATON REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, located in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Defendant, BOCA REGENTS OPCO, LLC, was the licensee and owner of THE LEGACY AT BOCA RATON REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER. At all times material hereto, Defendant, BOCA REGENTS OPCO, LLC, was subject to the provisions of Chapter 400 of Florida Statutes, which sets the standards for operating nursing homes such as THE LEGACY AT BOCA RATON REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER. During JANET KREINDEL’s residency at THE LEGACY AT BOCA RATON REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, the staff and employees failed to develop an adequate care plan and properly monitor and supervise the care and treatment provided to JANET KREINDEL in order to prevent her from suffering the development and deterioration of wounds, suffering the development and deterioration of infections, and suffering falls and unexplained injuries. ----- Page 3 As a direct result of THE LEGACY AT BOCA RATON REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER’s acts and omissions, JANET KREINDEL suffered the development and deterioration of wounds, suffered the development and deterioration of infections, and suffered falls and unexplained injuries. This is a claim under Florida Statute §400 for violation of JANET KREINDEL’s resident's rights, based solely on custodial care issues, and any presuit pursuant to Chapter 766 is unnecessary. Plaintiff has complied with the nursing home presuit provisions set forth in Florida Statutes §400. 0233. Plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent to the filing of this action. Plaintiff's counsel certifies by signing this Complaint that a good faith investigation into the merits of this claim was made. It has been necessary for SAMANTHA RICHTER to retain the undersigned firm of Ford, Dean & Rotundo, P. A. , to prosecute this action and has agreed to pay said firm a reasonable fee for its services. **COUNT I** **CHAPTER 400 CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT, ** **BOCA REGENTS OPCO, LLC d/b/a THE LEGACY AT BOCA RATON** **REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER** Plaintiff hereby realleges paragraphs one (1) through fourteen (14) as if fully stated herein and further alleges: ----- Page 4 Defendant has a statutorily mand responsibility to JANET KREINDEL to provide her with her nursing home resident's rights, as set forth in Florida Statute §400. 022, which responsibility included, but was not limited to, the following: (a) providing adequate and appropriate healthcare and protective and support services; (b) preventing mental and physical abuse of JANET KREINDEL; (c) complying with regulations for the operation of nursing homes promulgated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and contained in the Florida Administrative Code 59A-4; and (d) treating residents courteously, fairly, and with the fullest measure of dignity. That Defendants' responsibilities to JANET KREINDEL, as outlined in Florida Statutes §400. 022, are non-delegable and such that Defendants had direct liability for violations, deprivations and infringements by any person or entity under Defendants's control, direct or indirect, including their employees, agents, consultants and independent contractors, whether in-house or outside entities, individuals, agencies or pools, or caused by Defendants's policies, and procedures, whether written or unwritten, or common practices. That in addition to Defendants' direct responsibility under Florida Statute §400. 022 and as alleged in the preceding paragraph, Defendants had vicarious liability for the acts and omissions of all persons or entities under Defendants's control either direct or indirect including its employees, agents, consultants and independent contractors, whether in-house or outside entities, individuals, agencies or pools causing any deprivations or infringements of JANET KREINDEL resident's rights as set forth in Florida Statutes §400. 022. ----- Page 5 That the duty alleged in the immediately preceding paragraphs include, but are not limited to, proper training and supervision; proper hiring, background and referral checks; and proper retaining and dismissing of employees, agents, consultants and independent contractors, as well as providing adequate staffing. That notwithstanding the responsibility of Defendants to provide JANET KREINDEL with her statutorily mand nursing home resident's rights, JANET KREINDEL was deprived of such rights by the acts or omissions of Defendants's agents and employees which include, but are not limited to, the following: a) failing to properly provide a turning program for the prevention of wounds; b) failing to provide a proper mattress, bedding, protective devices and positioning devices for JANET KREINDEL; c) failing to turn and position JANET KREINDEL timely and appropriately to prevent wounds; d) failing to properly recognize the development and deterioration of wounds on JANET KREINDEL and failing to obtain treatment to prevent the worsening of such wounds; e) failing to adequately clean JANET KREINDEL to prevent skin breakdown due to continual contact with feces and urine; f) failing to provide and implement the appropriate fall precautions to JANET KREINDEL; g) failing to provide the appropriate fall supervision to JANET KREINDEL; h) failing to provide JANET KREINDEL with the appropriate care, treatment and supervision to protect her from suffering falls and to protect her from suffering the development and deterioration of wounds; i) failing to prevent unexplained injuries to JANET KREINDEL; J) failure to properly supervise JANET KREINDEL; ----- Page 6 k) failing to provide adequate and appropriate protective and support services to JANET KREINDEL; l) failing to develop, implement, and upan adequate and appropriate resident care plans to meet the custodial needs of JANET KREINDEL; m) failing to maintain records which contain sufficient and accurate information to justify the diagnosis and treatment and to document the results, including at a minimum documented evidence of assessments of the needs of the resident, of establishment of appropriate plans of care and treatment, and of the care and services provided; n) failing to appropriately monitor JANET KREINDEL and recognize significant signs and symptoms of change in her health condition, such as suffering the development and deterioration of wounds, suffering the development and deterioration of infections, and suffering falls and unexplained injuries; o) failing to properly notify the family and physicians of JANET KREINDEL’s of significant changes in her health status, such as suffering the development and deterioration of wounds, suffering the development and deterioration of infections, and suffering falls and unexplained injuries; p) failing to protect JANET KREINDEL from foreseeable harm, including but not limited to suffering the development and deterioration of wounds, suffering the development and deterioration of infections, and suffering falls and unexplained injuries; q) failing to properly supervise staff; r) failing to properly train staff; s) improper retention of staff; t) Inadequate staffing; u) failing to protect the dignity of JANET KREINDEL; v) failing to protect the privacy of JANET KREINDEL; w) failing to follow physician orders; and ----- Page 7 x) failing to properly chart on the resident pursuant to Florida Statute § 400, F. A. C. 59-A; and 42 C. F. R. 483. As a direct and proximate result of the failure of the Defendant to comply with the requirements of Florida Statute §400. 022, and to provide adequate and appropriate and protective support services, JANET KREINDEL suffered damages, including loss of dignity; humiliation; bodily injury; pain and suffering, disability, physical impairment; disfigurement; mental anguish, inconvenience; loss of capacity to enjoy life; discomfort; aggravation of existing diseases or physical defect; medical, hospital and nursing expenses and died on April 29[th], 2024. The survivors of JANET KREINDEL are as follows: a) SAMANTHA RICHTER, Daughter b) Eric Kreindel, Son Each survivor may recover the value of lost support and services from theof the decedent’s injury to his death, with interest, and future loss of support and services from theof death and reduced to present value. Minor children of the decedent, and all children of the decedent if there is no surviving spouse, may also recover for lost of parental companionship, instruction, and guidance and for mental pain and suffering from theof injury. The decedent’s personal representative may recover for the decedent’s estate the following: a) loss of earnings of the deceased from theof injury to theof death, less lost support of survivors excluding contributions in kind, with interest, ----- Page 8 loss of the prospective net accumulations of an estate which might reasonably have been expected but for the wrongful death, reduced to present money value may also be recovered. b) Medical or funeral expenses due to the decedent’s injury or death that have become a charge against her or his estate or that were paid by or on behalf of decedent. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SAMANTHA RICHTER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JANET KREINDEL, demands judgment against Defendant, BOCA REGENTS OPCO, LLC d/b/a THE LEGACY AT BOCA RATON REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER for all compensatory damages allowed by law for the deprivation of JANET KREINDEL’s rights as stated above, and further demands prejudgment interest and a trial by jury on all issues triable as a matter of right. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend to allege a cause of action for punitive damages at a later. **DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL** The Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury of all issues so triable as of rightD this 24th day of October, 2024. FORD, DEAN & ROTUNDO, P. A. _Attorneys for Plaintiff_ 3323 NE 163[rd ]Street, Suite 605 North Miami Beach, FL 33160 Tel: (305) 670-2000/Fax: (305) 670-1353 [Bill@forddean. com](mailto:Bill@forddean. com) [Service@forddean. com](mailto:Service@forddean. com) By: WILLIAM A. DEAN, Esquire FBN: 118354 : -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION SAMANTHA RICHTER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JANET KREINDEL, Deceased, Plaintiff, vs. BOCA REGENTS OPCO, LLC d/b/a THE LEGACY AT BOCA RATON REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, Defendant. / **PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT, ** **BOCA REGENTS OPCO, LLC d/b/a THE LEGACY AT BOCA RATON** **REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER** COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, SAMANTHA RICHTER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JANET KREINDEL, Deceased, by and through her undersigned counsel, and propounds the attached requests for production, pursuant to F. R. C. P. §1. 350, upon the Defendant, BOCA REGENTS OPCO, LLC d/b/a THE LEGACY AT BOCA RATON REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, to produce copies of the attached documents being requested, pursuant to the applicable rules of civil procedure, within FORTY FIVE (45) days from theof service hereof. Note: The term “Facility” refers to: “THE LEGACY AT BOCA RATON REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER\" ” The term “Resident”refers to: “JANET KREINDEL” The term “AHCA” refers to: “Agency for Healthcare Administration” All words used in any gender shall extend to and include all genders. ----- Provide all insurance policies _and_ declaration sheets (including umbrella and excess policies), that may provide coverage to the Facility for the negligence that has been asserted by the Plaintiff and all insurance policies and declaration sheets (including umbrella and excess policies) that may provide coverage to any other entity(s) in addition to the Facility, which was responsible for any care/treatment/supervision provided to the Resident while he/she was a resident at the Facility, as required by Florida Statute §400. 141(1)(s). Provide all reservations of rights notices or denials of coverage notices for any insurance policies identified Request for Production #1 and being asserted against this claim. If a policy of insurance identified in Request for Production # 1 is a “shared policy, ” and there have been or are other pending claims being made on that policy, provide a list of the names and addresses of the other claimants and/or their attorneys. If a settlement has been made on a portion of the policy, provide the amount of the settlement and the remaining money left on the policy. If a policy of insurance identified in Request for Production # 1 is a “wasting policy, ” provide a summary of the remaining funds left on the policy, as of the answering of this request for production. If the facility does not have a policy of insurance that provides coverage for this claim, provide any and all documents which show that the Facility has complied with the liability insurance requirements set forth in Florida Statute §400. 141. If the facility does not have a policy of insurance that provides coverage for this claim, provide any and all documents that show that the Facility has provided notice to the Department of Elderly affairs that the Facility is not in compliance with Florida Statutes and/or Florida Administrative Code. Provide a complete copy of the facility’s licensure file as required by Florida Statute §400. 071(1)(e). Provide laser color copy of all or portions of the original chart for the Resident while he/she was a resident at the Facility, as designated by Plaintiff’s counsel _after having the_ _opportunity to review the chart. Please provide aof availability, in writing, for the_ Plaintiff’s attorney to review the original chart. Provide a laser color copy of the complete administrative and/or financial file or files prepared and/or maintained by the Facility concerning the Resident, including any contract(s) between the Resident and the Facility, and any attachments to that contract(s), as designated by Plaintiff’s counsel after having the opportunity to review the administrative file. Please provide aof availability, in writing, for the Plaintiff’s attorney to review the original chart administrative file. ----- Provide laser copies of any and all photographs that were taken of the Resident while he/she was at the Facility. Provide a complete and itemized bill(s) for any and all services, medical supplies, pharmaceutical supplies, therapies, or any other goods or services for which the Facility charged the Resident, or any third party payor on behalf of the Resident, while he/she was a resident at the Facility, including but not limited to: a. A complete and itemized bill of the Resident. b. All bills or statements submitted by the Facility to Medicare, or any fiscal intermediary for Medicare, for supplies, therapies, or other ancillary charges covering care, supplies, equipment, or other ancillary charges for the Resident. c. Detail the specific nature of the charges, the specific services received, and expenses incurred for such items of service, enumerating in detail the constituent components of the services received within each department of the Facility, including unit price data on rates charged by the Facility. d. Specifically identify therapy treatment as to the, type, and length of treatment. e. If the Facility has added to the price of any good or service provided to the Resident beyond the price charged to the Facility for any good or service, such as: pharmaceutical goods, supplies, therapies or any other good or service, please identify clearly the original cost of the good or service and separately state the amount of any service or handling charge. f. All bills or statements submitted by the Facility to the Resident, his/her power of attorney, guardian, or family for room and board, services, supplies, equipment, or other items provided to the Resident, including co-payments or deductibles. g. All revenue reports and/or remittance advisories that reflect reimbursement made by Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, or any individual for room and board, services, supplies, equipment, or other items provided by the Facility to the Resident. h. All statements, lists, or reconciliations of trust accounts, reflecting funds received from the Resident, his/her power of attorney, guardian, or family or held in trust for the benefit of the Resident. If the Facility held money or property in safekeeping for the Resident, provide copies of the quarterly statements provided to the Resident. ----- Provide a copy of the Facility’s policies and procedures governing the operation of the Facility and the care and treatment of residents at the Facility during the period of the Resident’s residency, as required by Florida Administrative Code 59A-4. 106. In lieu of producing the entire policy and procedure manual, the Facility may provide a complete index of all policy and procedure manuals that govern the care provided at the Facility, from which the Plaintiff’s counsel will designate certain portions for copying. Provide copies of the fire safety inspections during the period of Resident’s residency and required by Florida Administrative Code §59A-4. 130. Provide copies of the license issued pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes for the operation of the Facility while the Resident was at the Facility and all licensure records submitted to the Agency for Health Care Administration. Provide copies of all other brochures and advertising materials used by the Facility during the Resident’s residency. Provide copies of all information given to Resident and/or family by the Facility pursuant to Florida Administrative Code §59A-4. 106. Provide copies of the “standing orders, ” if any, concerning the Resident during his/her residency. Provide the daily census of the Facility for the time period that the Resident was at the Facility. Provide daily census sheets for the wing and unit where the Resident resided during the time he/she was at the Facility. Provide all staff schedules for the time period that the Resident was at the Facility. Provide all time cards for all employees who worked on the wing/unit where the Resident lived during the Resident’s residency. Provide any and all records of the Facility used or prepared for the purpose of calculating or ensuring compliance with staffing requirements of nursing homes and established by the State of Florida during the entire residency of the Resident, pursuant to the Florida Administrative Code §59A-4. 108. Provide a copy of the Facility’s written Table of Organization. Provide copies of any minutes of the Governing Body of the Facility prepared during the time the Resident was at the Facility. ----- Provide copies of 24-hour report sheets and any communication books utilized by the staff or employees of the Facility during the time period that the Resident was at the Facility. Provide copies of all electronic communications and/or information, including e-mails, voice mail, Twitter, texts, faxes, records, orders, evaluations, etc. .. , stored in any manner and in any format concerning the Resident. If the Facility has a surveillance system in place, provide copies of all surveillance tapes showing the Resident during his/her residency. In the alternative, provide aand time, in writing, for the Plaintiff’s counsel to view the surveillance tapes. Provide any and all records of accidents or unusual incidents concerning the Resident. Provide copies of and all writings or documents in your possession reflecting any investigations conducted by any state or federal agencies concerning the Resident. Provide copies of all inspection reports for the 5 years prior to the resident’s stay at the facility. Provide copies of any management contracts in effect during the time the Resident was at the Facility. Provide copies of all reports, correspondence, or other writings generated by or on behalf of any management company or consultant to the Facility concerning the care and treatment of residents during the Resident’s residency. Provide copies of any and all resident family council (or similar entry) minutes, or other documents which record the discussions, agenda, or determinations of the council created during the residency at issue. Provide any and all reports or data compilations that concern the status or condition of residents and were prepared by and sent to corporate officers or supervisors during the residency in question. Provide a blank copy of the Facility’s standard incident report form. Provide written job descriptions for all staff, employees, agents and apparent agents at the Facility during the time that the Resident was at the Facility. Provide copies of any and all in-service training and attendance sheets for all in-service training provided at the Facility during the time that the Resident was at the Facility. Provide a list of all videos and teaching materials used for in-service training programs ----- during the time that the Resident was at the Facility. Provide a list of all employees of the Facility during the time the Resident was at the Facility. Provide any and all documentation, (i. e. personnel files), maintained at the Facility for each employee of the Facility who provided any care or service to the Resident at the Facility, including but not limited to the following information: a. any and all applications for employment; b. copies of any and all documentation obtained by the Facility about the employee from any third source such as employment verification information from other employers, reports from any law enforcement or state administrative agency or any abuse reporting agency where such document is not privileged by the state or Federal law creating the abuse reporting agency; c. copies of any and all licensing certification for the employee; d. any and all documents which would contain disciplinary information of the employee by the Facility, including letters of reprimand, complaints by outside persons, or letters of reprimand; e. any and all documents submitted by or recorded by Facility, concerning complaints registered by another employee concerning employee; f. any and all performance evaluations completed for the employee; g. any and all forms, letters, or notes relating to termination of the employee's service at the Facility, including writings completed by the employee or any other member of the Facility's staff or administration. Provide any and all turnover reports which delineate the turnover rate for employees of the Facility during the time that the Resident was at the Facility. Provide copies of any and all budgets and budget worksheets, including any original budgets and all amendments to budgets, prepared for the operation of the Facility for the calendar years the Resident was at the Facility. Provide any and all documents evidencing skin evaluation, wound assessment, and wound care, including any and all wound photos taken of the resident. ----- If the resident was seen by a home health aide, or outside healthcare provider, provide copies of any and all records in the Facility’s possession, evidencing same. If the Facility has a written agreement with a wound care specialist or entity that specializes in providing wound care to residents of the Facility, provide a copy of the agreement in effect during the time of the Resident’s stay at the Facility. Provide copies of all nursing staffing information as required under 42 C. F. R. §483. 30(e) for the one year prior to the Resident’s stay and the Facility and the 6 month period after the Resident’s stay at the facility. Provide copies of all roster/sample matrix forms (CMS-802) prepared during the Resident’s stay at the Facility. Provide copies of all daily aide assignment sheets created during the Resident’s stay at the Facility, redacted to protect the identities, but not the care requirements, of other residents. Provide hard, paper copies of all electronic information, data, etc. , stored in any format, concerning the Resident. Provide a copy of the contract between the Facility and the medical director in existence at the time of the Resident’s stay at the Facility. **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was attached to and served with the Summons and Complaint herein. D this 24[th] day of October, 2024. By:________________________ William A. Dean, Esquire Florida Bar #118354 FORD, DEAN, & ROTUNDO, P. A. Attorneys for Plaintiff 3323 NE 163[rd] Street, Suite 605 Miami, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 670-2000 / Fax: (305) 670-1353 Bill@forddean. com Samantha@forddean. com Service@forddean. com By:________________________ -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND ##### FOR PALM BEACH JOHN SMITH, Plaintiff, v. STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , P. A. a Florida corporation, and PERIODONTICS OF THE PALM BEACHES, P. A. , a Florida corporation, Defendants. ______________________________________ / **COMPLAINT** COMES NOW the Plaintiff, JOHN SMITH, and sues the Defendants, STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , and STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , P. A. a Florida corporation, and PERIODONTICS OF THE PALM BEACHES, P. A. , a Florida corporation, and alleges: This is an action for damages in excess of$ 15, 000. 00, exclusive ofcosts, interest, and ##### attorney’s fees, against Defendants, STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , P. A. a Florida corporation, and PERIODONTICS OF THE PALM BEACHES, P. A. , a Florida corporation. PlaintiffJOHN SMITH (hereinafter “Plaintiff’ or “SMITH”) is a resident ofQuebec, Canada. At all times material hereto Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , was a ##### dentist licensed to practice in the state of Florida and actively practicing dentistry in Palm Beach County, Florida. ----- At all times material hereto, Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , P. A. , was a Florida corporation, organized and existing under the laws ofthe State ofFlorida, with a principal address of 1897 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 215, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Defendant PERIODONTICS OF THE PALM BEACHES, P. A. , was a Florida corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with a principal address of 1897 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 215, West Palm Beach, ##### Palm Beach County, Florida. Plaintiff has complied with the provisions of Florida Statute §766. 106 and all conditions precedent to the filing of this action. Plaintiff timely served written notice of intent to ##### initiate a medical negligence action on Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , and Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , P. A. , via certified mail, return receipt requested. Presuit was concluded on or about October 28, 2016. At all times material hereto, STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , bore a legal relationship to Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , P. A. , a Florida corporation, to a degree ##### that notice served upon STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , constitutes notice to STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , P. A. a Florida corporation. At all times material hereto, STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , bore a legal relationship to Defendant PERIODONTICS OF THE PALM BEACHES, P. A. , a Florida corporation, to a degree that notice served upon STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , constitutes notice to PERIODONTICS OF THE PALM BEACHES, P. A. , a Florida corporation. **FACTS** **COMMON** **TO** **ALL** **COUNTS** Plaintiff has been under the care and treatment of Defendant STUART A. ----- FELDMAN, D. D. S. , since 2012. On or about November 21, 2013, Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , in ##### Palm Beach County, Florida, placed dental implants in the area oftooth #12 and tooth # 15, for the purpose of supporting a 4-unit bridge from tooth # 12 to tooth #15. During the implant surgery, Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , negligent ##### placed the dental implant in the area of tooth # 12 in communication with the tooth root of tooth # The conduct of Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , resulted in the extraction and loss oftooth # 11, the loss of the dental implant in the area oftooth #12, and the loss ##### of the 4-unit bridge from tooth # 12 to tooth #15. On or about September 14, 2015, Plaintiffreceived a 5-unit bridge from Ngoc Tuan Dinh, D. M. D. The cost of the 5-unit bridge was in excess of $12, 000, including lab fees. This action has been commenced within 2 years from the time Plaintiff had knowledge ofthe loss oftooth #11; within 2 years from the time Plaintiffhad knowledge ofthe loss ##### ofthe dental implant in the area oftooth # 12; within 2 years from the time Plaintiffhad knowledge of the loss of the 4-unit bridge from tooth # 12 to tooth #15; and, within 2 years from the time Plaintiff had knowledge of the reasonable possibility that the losses were caused by medical malpractice. This action has also been commenced within 4 years from theof the incident giving rise to Plaintiffs causes of action. On or about March 24, 2016, Plaintiff purchased a 90-day extension of time of the applicable statute of limitations. **COUNT** **I** ##### NEGLIGENCE AGAINST STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. ----- ##### For his cause of action against Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , individually, in Count I, Plaintiff states: Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count I, the allegations of ##### paragraphs 1 through 15. Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , owed a duty to the Plaintiffto exercise reasonable care commensurate with his skill and training in the care and treatment of Plaintiff s dental needs. The care and treatment provided by Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , to Plaintiff, was negligent and fell below the prevailing professional standard of care in that Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , amongst other things: i. Failed to obtain appropriate and necessary pre- surgical and post-surgical radiographs; ii. Failed to properly treatment plan Plaintiffs dental implant surgery; iii. Failed to recognize and take into consideration the ##### location of one or more of Plaintiffs natural teeth prior to performing dental implant surgery; iv. Failed to properly prepare one or more osteotomy sites during dental implant surgery; v. Failed to properly perform Plaintiffs dental implant surgery; vi. Failed to properly place one or more dental implants; vii. Failed to take into consideration of the location of ----- ##### Plaintiffs existing teeth and root structure during dental implant surgery; viii. Failed to refer the Plaintiff to an appropriate dental specialist(s) when the Defendant knew or should have ##### known that such a referral was indicated; ix. Failed to protect the Plaintiff from serious physical harm. As a proximate result of the negligence of Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , suffered bodily injury, hospitalization, mental care and treatment, and resulting pain and suffering, disability, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses are either permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future. ##### WHEREFORE Plaintiff, JOHN SMITH, demands judgment against Defendant, STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , for damages in excess of $15, 000. 00, plus costs and interest. **COUNT** **II** **VICARIOUS** **LIABILITY** **-** **STUART** **A. ** **FELDMAN, ** **D. D. S. .** **P. A. ** ##### For his cause of action against Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , P. A. , in Count n, Plaintiff states: Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count n, the allegations of ##### paragraphs 1 through 15. At all times material to this action, Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , P. A. , was a Florida corporation and was engaged in the transaction of business in Palm Beach County, Florida. ----- _22. _ At all times material to this action, Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , was ##### the agent, servant, or employee of Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , P. A. , and was acting within the course and scope thereof. At all times material to this action, Defendant Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , P. A. , was vicariously liable for the acts, omissions, and conduct ofthe Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , as fully set forth in Paragraphs 17 through 19, which are incorporated herein ##### by reference. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , P. A. , for damages in excess of $15, 000. 00, plus costs and interest. ##### COUNT III **VICARIOUS** **LIABILITY** **-** **PERIODONTICS** **OF** **THE** **PALM** **BEACHES, ** **P. A. ** ##### For his cause of action against Defendant PERIODONTICS OF THE PALM BEACHES, P. A. , in Count HI, Plaintiff states: Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count HI, the allegations of ##### paragraphs 1 through 15. At all times material to this action, Defendant PERIODONTICS OF THE PALM BEACHES, P. A. , was a Florida corporation and was engaged in the transaction ofbusiness in Palm ##### Beach County, Florida. At all times material to this action, Defendant STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , was ##### the agent, servant, or employee of Defendant PERIODONTICS OF THE PALM BEACHES, P. A. , and was acting within the course and scope thereof. At all times material to this action, Defendant PERIODONTICS OF THE PALM ##### BEACHES, P. A. , was vicariously liable for the acts, omissions, and conduct of the Defendant ----- STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , as folly set forth in Paragraphs 17 through 19, which are incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffdemands judgment against Defendant PERIODONTICS OF THE ##### PALM BEACHES, P. A. , for damages in excess of $15, 000. 00, plus costs and interest. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES. **D** this 4th day of November, 2016. By: _/s/Hush_ _L. _ _Koerner_ Hugh L. Koerner Florida Bar No. : 716952 Email: [hlklaw@hughkoemer. com](mailto:hlklaw@hughkoemer. com) Hugh L. Koerner, P. A. ##### Sheridan Executive Centre 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 208 ##### Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 522-1235 Facsimile: (954)522-1176 ##### Attorneysfor PlaintiffJohn Smith **CERTIFICATE** **OF** **GOOD** **FAITH** I, Hugh L. Koerner, attorney for the Plaintiff herein, hereby states that a reasonable investigation of the incident herein complained ofhas given rise to a good faith beliefthat grounds exist for this action against the named Defendants. By: _/s/Hush_ _L. _ _Koerner_ Hugh L. Koerner -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND ### FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL JOHN SMITH, Plaintiff, Vs. STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , STUART A. FELDMAN, D. D. S. , P. A. ### A Florida corporation, and PERIODONTICS OF THE PALM BEACHES, P. A. , a Florida corporation, Defendants, _________________________________________/ ### DEFENDANT’S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO PLAINTIFF COME NOW the Defendants, by and through their undersigned counsel, and ### pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, requests the Plaintiff, JOHN SMITH, to provide to the undersigned the following documents within the time limits as prescribed by law: Photocopy of your Social Security Card. Photocopies of any and all marriage licenses. Photocopies of any and all divorce decrees, if any. ----- Photocopy of any and all drivers/operators licenses issued by any state and/or governmental agency. The names and addresses of all pharmacies where you have filled any prescriptions. Photocopies of each and every stamped paged of any and all passports used ### by you within the past five (5) years including the identification pages. Medical bills, dental bills, including but not limited to, doctors, hospitals, and ### prescriptions for the past five (5) years. Statements of the Defendant, or his agents, servants, and/or employees. Hospital records concerning any and all hospitalizations or emergency room visits of the Plaintiff, which are in the Plaintiff’s possession or control for the past five (5) years. Copies of all medical records for any and all treatment received by Plaintiff. Dental records, opinions or other written memoranda from doctors, nurses, ### other medical practitioners or expert witnesses containing information and which are in the Plaintiffs possession or control. Copies of all Income tax returns and earning records from all sources for the ### Plaintiffs, individually orjointly with another person, for the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 which document medical/dental expenses, if available. Any and all photographs, videotapes or films of the parties involved, etc. All experts' reports pertaining to the issues raised in this litigation. All records pertaining to drug and/or alcohol rehabilitation of the Plaintiff. ----- Any and all employment/personnel records or files of the Plaintiff for the ### past five (5) years. Copies of all insurance cards issued to or for the benefit of the Plaintiff and in effect at the time of the accident/incident. Any and all copies of x-rays, dental x-rays and scans, Panorex, x-ray reports, Dentascans, MRI films, CT scans and other films and/or reports thereon performed on ### Plaintiff which he or his attorneys have in their possession for the past five (5) years. All curriculum vitaes of any and all experts who have or are expected to ### render opinions as to the condition of the Plaintiff relative to injuries sustained in this incident. Any and all statements, whether oral, written, or otherwise by and between ### Plaintiff and Defendant relative to the incident. All photographs, motion picture film or video tape in an unedited form which depict the Plaintiffas oftheofthe incident which is the subject matter ofthis litigation. Any and all documents reflecting any amounts of any collateral sources paid to the Plaintiff on account of expenses incurred as a result of the incident complained of. This is to include but not be limited to Social Security, Income Disability, Auto Insurance, Group Employee Insurance, Wage Continuation Plans, etc. Copies of all applications for credit, loans, or financing executed by ### Plaintiff(s) and/or any business entity which Plaintiff(s) own(s) or has an interest in for the past five (5) years. Bank Statements for all accounts of the Plaintiff for the past five (5) years. ----- Applications of the Plaintiff executed in the past five (5) years for Life Insurance, Health Insurance, and Disability Insurance. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by E-service this 2nd day of December, 2016 to: HUGH KOERNER, ESQUIRE, 3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 208, Sheridan Executive Centre, Hollywood, FL 33021. ### PETERSON BERNARD 1550 Southern Boulevard, Suite 300 ### West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Telephone: (561) 686-5005 [Dennis. vandenberg@petersonbemard. com](mailto:Dennis. vandenberg@petersonbemard. com) By: /s/ Dennis A. Vandenberg DENNIS VANDENBERG ### Florida Bar No. 221880 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ABIGAIL E. SCHMIDT, ##### Plaintiff, v. LEVI COHEN, M. D. ; and SOUTH COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. , Defendants. **COMPLAINT** **FOR** **DAMAGES** **AND** **DEMAND** **FOR** **JURY** **TRIAL** The Plaintiff, Abigail E. Schmidt, sues the Defendants, Levi Cohen, M. D. and South County Mental Health Center, Inc. , and alleges as follows: **JURISDICTIONAL** **STATEMENT** **AND** **IDENTIFICATION** **OF** **PARTIES** This is an action for damages which exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of ##### this Court, exclusive of interest and costs. Venue is proper in Palm Beach County, Florida where the Defendants Levi Cohen, M. D. and South County Mental Health Center, Inc. committed the tortious acts described below. At all material times. Defendant Levi Cohen, M. D. was a psychiatrist employed at South County Mental Health Center, located at 16158 South Military Trail, Delray Beach, FL ----- Complaint for Damages Page 2 At all material times, Defendant South County Mental Health Center, Inc. was a Florida corporation located at 16158 South Military Trail, Delray Beach, FL 33484. Plaintiff Abigail E. Schmidt received medical treatment and medical services from ##### the Defendants as set forth more particularly below. **COMPLIANCE** **WITH** **ALL** **CONDITIONS** **PRECEDENT** **AND** **FLORIDA** **STATUTES** **766. 106(2)** Notice of Intention to Initiate Litigation against the Defendants named in this ##### Complaint was given and acknowledged in accordance with the requirements of Fla. Stat. 106(2). The Plaintiff has complied with all of the requirements of the Department of Health, Agency for Health Care Administration. A copy of the Complaint will be sent to the ##### Department of Health, Agency for Healthcare Administration at the time the Complaint is filed. This action is properly brought within two years of when the alleged negligent incident occurred or within two years from thethe alleged negligent incident could have been discovered with the exercise of due diligence and not later than four years from when the ##### incident occurred. The Plaintiff has met any and all conditions precedent to filing this lawsuit. **CERTIFICATE** **OF** **COUNSEL** Through counsel'sbelow, it is hereby certified, pursuant to Florida Statutes 766. 203, that counsel for the Plaintiff, prior to filing this action has made a reasonable investigation as permitted by the circumstances to determine that there are grounds for a good ##### faith belief that there was negligence in the care and treatment of Abigail E. Schmidt. Such ----- Complaint for Damages Page 3 reasonable investigation has given rise to a good faith belief that grounds exist for an action against the named Defendants. **AGENCY** Defendant Levi Cohen, M. D. was the employee of Defendant South County ##### Mental Health Center, Inc. and at all material times and places was acting within the course and scope of his employment. Defendant Levi Cohen, M. D. was the actual agent of Defendant South County ##### Mental Health Center, Inc. and at all material times and places was acting within the course and scope of his actual agency. **FACTS** **GIVING** **RISE** **TO** **CAUSE** **OF** **ACTION** On July 9, 2014, Ms. Schmidt became psychotic while receiving behavioral ##### treatment at Treatment Alternatives, LLC in Palm Beach County. On July 9, 2014, Ms. Schmidt agreed to a transfer to South County Mental Health Center, Inc. for psychiatric evaluation and treatment. Upon arrival, South County Mental Health Center, Inc. admitted Ms. Schmidt on a voluntary basis for observation, diagnosis, care, and treatment of her psychosis. Ms. Schmidt gave a past medical history of visual and auditory hallucinations to ##### the healthcare providers at South County Mental Health Center, Inc. She also provided a history of self-mutilation. ----- Complaint for Damages Page 4 Defendant Levi Cohen, M. D. conducted a psychiatric assessment on July 10, Defendant Cohen did not conduct a thorough assessment of Ms. Schmidt's ##### hallucinations. Defendant Cohen did not complete a thorough evaluation of her psychosis or risk for suicide. On July 10, 2014 at 12:45 p. m. , Defendant Cohen discharged Ms. Schmidt. Defendant Cohen discharged Ms. Schmidt in an unstable condition. Within hours of discharge, Ms. Schmidt was observed at Treatment Alternatives, LLC to be exhibiting florid psychotic behavior with visual hallucinations and thoughts of ##### grandeur. She was incoherently babbling without any logical content to her speech. She was not oriented to time, place, and, and appeared to be a threat to herself based on hallucinations and delusions. On July 10, 2014 at 2:00 p. m. , Ms. Schmidt was readmitted to South County Medical Health Center via Baker Act under police transport. Defendant Cohen did not reassess Ms. Schmidt's psychiatric condition upon readmission. Defendant Cohen and the health care providers at South County Medical Health Center, Inc. did not set forth an adequate plan for treating and monitoring Ms. Schmidt. The nursing providers at South County Medical Health Center, Inc. had a ##### responsibility to their patient to protect Ms. Schmidt from self-harm. ----- Complaint for Damages Page 5 The healthcare providers at South County Medical Health Center, Inc. , including ##### the nursing providers, had a responsibility to their patient to monitor Ms. Schmidt. On July 11, 2014 at 5:45 a. m. , Ms. Schmidt was found in the bathroom lying on ##### the floor in a fetal position with bright blood on her gown. Her two eyes were busted and bruised, and she had two large gashes on both arms with blood all over the floor. South County Medical Health Center, Inc. staff transferred Ms. Schmidt to the Delray Medical Center Emergency Room. On 7/11/14 at 6:29 a. m. , Delray Medical Center records indicate that Ms. Schmidt presented with a history/diagnoses of suicide attempts, self-inflicted ocular trauma ##### with blindness and laceration of both wrists. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants as set forth more particularly below, Plaintiff Abigail E. Schmidt has sustained the serious and permanent damages set forth more particularly below. **COUNT** **I** **CLAIM** **AGAINST** **DEFENDANT** **LEVI** **COHEN, ** **M. D. ** **NEGLIGENCE** The Plaintiffs adopt and reallege paragraphs 1 through 28 and further allege: Defendant Levi Cohen, M. D. held himself out to the public in general and the ##### Plaintiffs in particular as a physician capable of and who undertook the corresponding duty to Ms. Schmidt of providing medical care and services to her in accordance with that level of care, skill and treatment which in light of all relevant and surrounding circumstances is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar health care providers. ----- Complaint for Damages Page 6 Notwithstanding the duty undertaken, Defendant Cohen breached his duties and ##### fell below the applicable standard of care in one or more of the following ways: a. Negligently failing to conduct an appropriate psychiatric assessment of Ms. Schmidt on her first admission; b. Negligently discharging Ms. Schmidt in an unstable condition; c. Negligently failing to perform a reassessment of Ms. Schmidt's psychiatric ##### condition upon readmission hours after discharge; and d. Negligently failing to set forth an adequate plan of treatment and ##### monitoring for Ms. Schmidt. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant Cohen, the ##### Plaintiff has suffered serious and permanent injuries and the Plaintiff brings the below listed claims for damages. **COUNT** **II** **CLAIM** **AGAINST** **DEFENDANT** **SOUTH** **COUNTY** **MEDICAL** **HEALTH** **CENTER, ** **INC-** **VICARIOUS** **LIABILITY** **FOR** **THE** **NEGLIGENCE** **OF** **DEFENDANT** **LEVI** **COHEN, ** **M. D. ** The Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 32 and further alleges: As previously alleged, Defendant Levi Cohen, M. D. was the employee and actual agent of Defendant South County Mental Health Center, Inc. and at all material times and places was acting within the course and scope of his employment and actual agency. Thus, Defendant South County Mental Health Center, Inc. is vicariously liable for ##### the negligence of Defendant Cohen as pled in Count I. ----- Complaint for Damages Page 7 **COUNT** **III** **CLAIM** **AGAINST** **DEFENDANT** **SOUTH** **COUNTY** **MEDICAL** **HEALTH** **CENTER, ** **INC** **NEGLIGENCE** The Plaintiff adopts and realleges paragraphs 1 through 28 and further alleges: Defendant South County Medical Health Center, Inc. held itself out to the public in general and the Plaintiff in particular as a hospital capable of and which undertook the corresponding duty to Ms. Schmidt of providing nursing, mental health care and services to her in accordance with that level of care, skill and treatment which in light of all relevant ##### surrounding circumstances is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar health care providers. Notwithstanding the duty undertaken, Defendant South County Medical Health Center, Inc. , through its nurses, nursing aides, patient aides, mental health technicians, and ##### other employees with the responsibility for monitoring patients, breached its duties in each of the following ways: a. Failing to perform a reassessment of Ms. Schmidt's psychiatric condition upon her readmission; b. Failing to set forth an adequate plan of treatment for Ms. Schmidt upon readmission; c. Failing to adequately monitor Ms. Schmidt upon readmission; d. Failing to provide inpatient psychiatric treatment in a secure environment for ##### patient safety and protection; and e. Failing to place Ms. Schmidt on a safe observation level for patient safety and ##### protection. ----- Complaint for Damages Page 8 As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant South County Medical Health Center, Inc. , the Plaintiff has suffered serious and permanent injuries and the Plaintiff brings the below listed claims for damages. **CLAIMS** **FOR** **DAMAGES** **COMMON** **TO** **ALL** **COUNTS** **DAMAGES** **CLAIMED** **BY** **ABIGAIL** **E, ** **SCHMIDT** The Plaintiff, Abigail E. Schmidt, as a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, has in the past and will in the future continue to suffer the ##### following damages: a. Bodily injury; b. Pain and suffering; c. Disability; d. Disfigurement; e. Loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life; f. Aggravation of pre-existing conditions; g. Medical and hospital care and expenses; h. Loss of earnings; i. Loss of earning capacity in the future; j. Rehabilitation expenses; and k. Mental distress. ----- Complaint for Damages Page 9 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Abigail E. Schmidt, demands judgment against the Defendants for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional ##### limits of this Court, exclusive of interest and costs. **DEMAND** **FOR** **JURY** **TRIAL** The Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. D this 8th day of April, 2015. GROSSMAN ROTH, P. A. _Counsel_ _for_ _the_ _Plaintiff_ 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone (305) 442-8666 Facsimile (305) 285-1668 ##### /s/Stuart Z. Grossman Stuart Z. Grossman Florida Bar No. 156113 Primary email: [szg@grossmanroth. com](mailto:szg@grossmanroth. com) Secondary email: [dhe@grossmanroth. com](mailto:dhe@grossmanroth. com) -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ABIGAIL E. SCHMIDT, ##### Plaintiff, v. LEVI COHEN, M. D. ; and SOUTH COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC. , Defendants. _______________________________________ / **PLAINTIFF'S** **FIRST** **REQUEST** **FOR** **PRODUCTION** The Plaintiff, ABIGAIL E. SCHMIDT, by and through her undersigned counsel propounds ##### this First Request for Production to Defendant, LEVI COHEN, M. D. The Defendant is to respond to said Request for Production on or before forty five (45) days of receipt of service. A full and complete copy of any and all policies of insurance that provide coverage with respect to the incident set forth in this cause of action, including any and all excess policies of insurance. Any and all documents, writings, contracts, or agreements between you and any ##### other Defendant in this case who provided services to the patient at the time that the patient received care and treatment from you with respect to the provision of such services in general, including, but not limited to, contracts with hospitals, doctors, independent contractors, professional associations, emergency room care, radiology and nursing services. Any and all writings, documents, guidelines, booklets, pamphlets, and manuals indicating your policy, protocol, regulations, and procedures, with respect to the type of care ----- Plaintiff's First Request for Production To Defendant, Levi Cohen, M. D. Page 2 and treatment received by ABIGAIL E. SCHMIDT. Copies of any and all medical bills generated as a result of your care and ##### treatment of ABIGAIL E. SCHMIDT, including medical bills forwarded to health care insurance companies and/or the client, individually. Any and all office charts including hospital records, other physician's office charts, emergency room visits, out-patient services, laboratory testing, radiology films, ##### radiology reports, prescriptions, notes, memoranda, video-tapes, and any and all documentation generated as a result of your care and treatment of ABIGAIL E. SCHMIDT, from inception of your records to current. Any notes, memoranda, e-mail notes, or any other written documentation which relates to any care, treatments or communications concerning Abigail E. Schmidt. A copy of the Defendant's medical license. A copy of the Defendant's curriculum vitae. WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was eserved with the Complaint. GROSSMAN ROTH, P. A. _Counsel_ _for_ _the_ _Plaintiff_ 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd. , Ste. 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone (305) 442-8666 Facsimile (305) 285-1668 #### /s/ Stuart Z. Grossman Stuart Z. Grossman Fla. Bar No. 156113 Primary email: [szg@grossmanroth. com](mailto:szg@grossmanroth. com) Secondary email: [dhe@grossmanroth. com](mailto:dhe@grossmanroth. com) -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE `15th` JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION RICARDO A RODRIQUEZ AND GABRIELA P PULJOS CIVIDANES, Plaintiffs, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, ___________________________________ _I_ **COMPLAINT** **FOR** **DAMAGES** COME NOW the Plaintiffs, RICARDO A RODRIQUEZ AND GABRIELA P PULJOS CIVIDANES, (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned counsel and files their complaint for damages against the Defendant, CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) and states the following: **PARTIES, ** **JURISDICTION** **&** **VENUE** This is an action for damages that exceed $30, 000 exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendant is a Florida Corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Florida, qualified to do business in Florida, and has at all times material hereto conducting business in Palm Beach County, Florida. Venue is Proper in Palm Beach County, Florida because the contract, which forms the subject matter of this lawsuit, was executed in Palm Beach County, Florida, the subject **1** ----- ### property is located in Palm Beach County, Florida and Defendant has engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within Palm Beach County, Florida pursuant to Fla. Stat. §48. 193 (2). All conditions precedent to the filing of this lawsuit has occurred, have been waived, or have been performed. ### GENERAL ALLEGATIONS At all times material hereto, in consideration of a premium paid by Plaintiffs, ### there was in full force and effect a certain homeowners insurance policy issued by Defendant with a policy number of 04596765-1 (hereinafter referred to as “Policy”). Plaintiffs are not possession of a full copy of the insurance policy sued upon ### herein and is therefore unable to attach a copy of the entire policy that forms the basis of the Complaint. However, Plaintiffs hereby incorporates by reference the insurance policy pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1. 350(a). A copy of the Policy will be obtained via Discovery. Accordingly, under the terms of the Policy, the Defendant agreed to provide ### insurance coverage to Plaintiffs’ property against certain losses. The damaged property is located at 7892 Travels Tree Drive, Palm Beach County, Boca Raton, Florida 33433(hereinafter referred to as “Property”). On or about July 7, 2021, while the Policy was in full force and effect, the Property sustained damages due to Tropical Storm Elsa (hereinafter referred to as “Loss”) a ### covered peril under the policy. The high winds and rain produced by Tropical Storm Elsa damaged the roof causing water leaks throughout the home. The damage includes but is not ### limited to roof, living room, kitchen, hallway, front entry hallway, office, master bedroom, bedroom one, and general items. Shortly thereafter Plaintiffs reported the Loss to the Defendant. ----- Accordingly, Defendant assigned claim number and inspected the Property. Subsequently, Defendant failed to adequately indemnify Plaintiffs for the Loss. By its failure to tender an appropriate amount to repair the Property, Defendant ### has materially breached the Policy. Defendant has failed to properly indemnify Plaintiffs for their losses stemming from the Loss. Plaintiffs have suffered and continued to suffer damages resulting from ### Defendant’s breach of the Policy. Plaintiffs were obligated to retain the undersigned attorneys for the prosecution of ### this action and is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. §627. 428. **COUNT** **I** **BREACH** **OF** **CONTRACT** Plaintiffs reincorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 as if fully set forth herein. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a written contract, the Policy, wherein Plaintiffs agreed to pay a premium in exchange Defendant agreed to insure the Property. Plaintiffs have paid all premiums due and owing as contemplated by the Policy, ### thus, fully performing their obligation under the Policy. Further, at all times material hereto, Plaintiffs have satisfied all post-loss obligations accorded in the Policy, including but not limited to: (i) promptly reporting the Loss to Defendant; (ii) providing all documents in their possession and control; and (iii) making the ### property available for inspection. ----- Defendant has failed to properly indemnify Plaintiffs for their losses stemming ### from the covered peril. As a result of the foregoing, Defendant has breach the Policy. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the Policy, Plaintiffs ### have sustained damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, RICARDO A RODRIQUEZ AND GABRIELA P ### PULJOS CIVIDANES, hereby demand judgment against the Defendant, CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, for damages, plus interest, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Florida Statute §627. 428, and that the drafts for insurance proceeds comply with Fla. Stat. § 627. 70121. **DEMAND** **FOR** **JURY** **TRIAL** The Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable. ###d this 2nd day of February 2022 M. S. P. G. LAW GROUP, PA ### Attorney for the Plaintiffs 770 Ponce de Leon Blvd. , Suite 101 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: 305-444-1887 Facsimile: 305-666-8427 By: _/s/ Leo A. Manzanilla LEO A. MANZANILLA, ESQ. FLA BAR NO. : 0652921 ### For Service Document Only: Service@mspglawgroup. com -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE `15th` JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION RICARDO A RODRIQUEZ AND GABRIELA P PULJOS CIVIDANES, Plaintiffs, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, ___________________________________ _I_ **COMPLAINT** **FOR** **DAMAGES** COME NOW the Plaintiffs, RICARDO A RODRIQUEZ AND GABRIELA P PULJOS CIVIDANES, (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned counsel and files their complaint for damages against the Defendant, CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) and states the following: **PARTIES, ** **JURISDICTION** **&** **VENUE** This is an action for damages that exceed $30, 000 exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendant is a Florida Corporation, organized and existing under the laws of Florida, qualified to do business in Florida, and has at all times material hereto conducting business in Palm Beach County, Florida. Venue is Proper in Palm Beach County, Florida because the contract, which forms the subject matter of this lawsuit, was executed in Palm Beach County, Florida, the subject **1** ----- ### property is located in Palm Beach County, Florida and Defendant has engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within Palm Beach County, Florida pursuant to Fla. Stat. §48. 193 (2). All conditions precedent to the filing of this lawsuit has occurred, have been waived, or have been performed. ### GENERAL ALLEGATIONS At all times material hereto, in consideration of a premium paid by Plaintiffs, ### there was in full force and effect a certain homeowners insurance policy issued by Defendant with a policy number of 04596765-1 (hereinafter referred to as “Policy”). Plaintiffs are not possession of a full copy of the insurance policy sued upon ### herein and is therefore unable to attach a copy of the entire policy that forms the basis of the Complaint. However, Plaintiffs hereby incorporates by reference the insurance policy pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1. 350(a). A copy of the Policy will be obtained via Discovery. Accordingly, under the terms of the Policy, the Defendant agreed to provide ### insurance coverage to Plaintiffs’ property against certain losses. The damaged property is located at 7892 Travels Tree Drive, Palm Beach County, Boca Raton, Florida 33433(hereinafter referred to as “Property”). On or about July 7, 2021, while the Policy was in full force and effect, the Property sustained damages due to Tropical Storm Elsa (hereinafter referred to as “Loss”) a ### covered peril under the policy. The high winds and rain produced by Tropical Storm Elsa damaged the roof causing water leaks throughout the home. The damage includes but is not ### limited to roof, living room, kitchen, hallway, front entry hallway, office, master bedroom, bedroom one, and general items. Shortly thereafter Plaintiffs reported the Loss to the Defendant. ----- Accordingly, Defendant assigned claim number and inspected the Property. Subsequently, Defendant failed to adequately indemnify Plaintiffs for the Loss. By its failure to tender an appropriate amount to repair the Property, Defendant ### has materially breached the Policy. Defendant has failed to properly indemnify Plaintiffs for their losses stemming from the Loss. Plaintiffs have suffered and continued to suffer damages resulting from ### Defendant’s breach of the Policy. Plaintiffs were obligated to retain the undersigned attorneys for the prosecution of ### this action and is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. §627. 428. **COUNT** **I** **BREACH** **OF** **CONTRACT** Plaintiffs reincorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 as if fully set forth herein. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a written contract, the Policy, wherein Plaintiffs agreed to pay a premium in exchange Defendant agreed to insure the Property. Plaintiffs have paid all premiums due and owing as contemplated by the Policy, ### thus, fully performing their obligation under the Policy. Further, at all times material hereto, Plaintiffs have satisfied all post-loss obligations accorded in the Policy, including but not limited to: (i) promptly reporting the Loss to Defendant; (ii) providing all documents in their possession and control; and (iii) making the ### property available for inspection. ----- Defendant has failed to properly indemnify Plaintiffs for their losses stemming ### from the covered peril. As a result of the foregoing, Defendant has breach the Policy. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the Policy, Plaintiffs ### have sustained damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, RICARDO A RODRIQUEZ AND GABRIELA P ### PULJOS CIVIDANES, hereby demand judgment against the Defendant, CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, for damages, plus interest, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Florida Statute §627. 428, and that the drafts for insurance proceeds comply with Fla. Stat. § 627. 70121. **DEMAND** **FOR** **JURY** **TRIAL** The Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable. ###d this 2nd day of February 2022 M. S. P. G. LAW GROUP, PA ### Attorney for the Plaintiffs 770 Ponce de Leon Blvd. , Suite 101 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: 305-444-1887 Facsimile: 305-666-8427 By: _/s/ Leo A. Manzanilla LEO A. MANZANILLA, ESQ. FLA BAR NO. : 0652921 ### For Service Document Only: Service@mspglawgroup. com -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION RICARDO A RODRIGUEZ AND GABRIELA P PULJOS CJVIDANES, Plaintiffs, vs. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant. ### _________________________________I **PLAINTIFFS’** **FIRST** **REQUEST** **FOR** **PRODUCTION** **TO** **DEFENDANT** COMES NOW the Plaintiffs, RICARDO A RODRIGUEZ AND GABRIELA P PULJOS CIVIDANES, by and through their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 1. 350 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby request Defendant CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, to furnish copies of the following documents to the offices of the undersigned attorney with in the time prescribed by law. 1) All insurance policies which you contend would provide or exclude coverage to the Plaintiff, together with any declaration of coverage page. 2) A sworn statement of a corporate officer of Defendant attesting to the coverage and authenticity ofthe policy. 3) All documents (including but not limited to checks, statements, receipts, letters, emails or other correspondence), reflecting any payment made to any person or entity for any reason as a result ofPlaintiff’s claim. 4) All tapes and/or transcripts of statements taken of Plaintiffs, including but not limited to Examinations Under Oath, affidavits and other statements of any kind regarding Plaintiffs’ claim. 5) All documents and/or correspondence between Plaintiffs and/or any representative of Plaintiffs, and any representative of Defendant regarding Plaintiffs’ claim. 6) All documents which support any Affirmative Defense raised by the Defendant. 7) All documents which support any of the Defendant’s denials of any allegations in the complaint. 8) All documents which you believe support the Plaintiffs’ claims. ----- 9) All reports and current curriculum vitae from any expert(s) retained for any reason regarding Plaintiffs’ claim. 10) All correspondence regarding the claim not contained within the claims file, including but not limited to email or other written documents of any kind or correspondence with Plaintiff, Plaintiffs’ counsel, experts, independent adjusters, appraisers, inspector, and any other third party, or to anyone in the company for which the Adjuster works or provides services. 11) All correspondence regarding the claim contained within the claims file, including but not limited to; email or other written documents of any kind or correspondence with Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ counsel, experts, independent adjusters, appraisers, inspectors, and any other third party, or to anyone in the company for which the Adjuster works or provides services. 12) All writings, memoranda, notes, or other materials reflecting examination ofPlaintiffs’ dwelling by Defendant or its agents, including before and after the subjectof loss as set forth in the Complaint. 13) All photographs or video depiction of Plaintiffs’ property in the possession of the Defendant or any agent of Defendant, both before and after theof loss as set forth in the Complaint. 14) All proofs of loss received by Defendant from Plaintiffs or any representative of Plaintiffs. 15) All estimates received by Defendant from any source for repairs to Plaintiffs’ residence. 16) All documents sent to any governmental agencies related to this claim, and/or the reason it has not been fully settled or paid. 17) All time sheets, or start/stop time indications for site visits at Plaintiffs’ property. 18) Any documents reflecting any scientific or other authority (e. g. , treatises, books, studies, software programs, etc. ) relied upon by the Defendant in adjusting the claim or determining any amount Defendant would or would not pay. 19) Any documents that would more fully explain why the Defendant has not paid this claim in the amount requested by the Plaintiffs. 20) Any lists of experts regularly utilized by the Adjuster with the accompanying information showing the specific expertise sufficient to properly evaluate the claim, or that is directed by Defendant to Adjuster for any kind of consideration in the selection of experts. 21) Copies of all documents evidencing payments made to Plaintiffs relating to this claim, including those that simply reference such payments or refusal to pay or any other kind of payment ----- ### or refusal to pay. 22) A copy of any and all inspection reports of Plaintiffs’ property. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served along ### with Summons and Complaint to CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION. Respectfully Submitted. M. S. P. G. LAW GROUP, P. A. ### Attorney for the Plaintiffs 770 Ponce de Leon Blvd. , Suite 101 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: 305-444-1887 Facsimile: 305-666-8427 By: _/s/Leo_ _A. _ _Manzanilla, _ _Esq. _ LEO A. MANZANILLA, ESQ. FLA BAR NO. : 0652921 ### For Service Document Only: [Service@mspglawgroup. com](mailto:Service@mspglawgroup. com) -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "#### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEANINE TIERNEY, Plaintiff, v. NEIL MINTZ, Defendant. ### COMPLAI NT #### COMES NOW the Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY, by and through her undersigned counsel and hereby sues the Defendant, NEIL MINTZ, and alleges: **ALLEGATIONS** **COMMON** **TO** **ALL** **COUNTS** This is an action for damages which exceeds the sum of Fifteen #### Thousand Dollars ($15, 000. 00). On or about May 11, 2015, Defendant, NEIL MINTZ, owned and #### operated a motor vehicle at the intersection of NW 13th Street and NW 15th Court in Palm Beach County, Florida. At the time and place aforementioned. Defendant, NEIL MINTZ, so #### negligently operated and maintained his motor vehicle so as to cause it to collide and crash with a motor vehicle owned and operated by Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY. ----- **_Page_** **_2_** #### COUNTI As a direct and proximate result. Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY, was #### injured in and about her body, suffered aggravation of pre-existing condition, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, impairment of working ability, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and Plaintiff incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of said injuries; all of said injuries are permanent within a reasonable degree of medical probability. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY, demands judgment for damages against the Defendant and further demands trial by jury. d this 10th day of February, 2017 ### /s/Todd Fronrath, Esquire #### Todd Fronrath, Esquire Florida Bar No. : 547271 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lytal, Reiter, Smith, Ivey & Fronrath 515 N. Flagler Drive, 10th Floor #### West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 655-1990 Facsimile: (561) 832-2932 Email: tfronrath@foryourrights. com Email: kjanis@foryourrights. com -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE `15th` JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEANINE TIERNEY, Judge Meenu Sasser Plaintiff, vs. MILLER’S ALE HOUSE, INC. , a Foreign Profit Corporation, d/b/a EAST BOCA ALE HOUSE and NEIL MINTZ, Defendants. __________________________________ I_ **DEFENDANT, ** **NEIL** **MINTZ’S** **FIRST** **REQUEST** **TO** **PRODUCE** **TO** **PLAINTIFF** COMES NOW, Defendant, NEIL MINTZ, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 350, requests that Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY, produce and permit Defendant to inspect and photograph the following: A photocopy of the card for any and all health insurance you have carried in the past seven (7) years. Cancelled checks and receipts for any expenses incurred by you as a result of this accident. Copies of any documents reflecting any claim you have made in the past for personal injury, wages or other compensation, whether a lawsuit, written demand or for worker's compensation or Social Security benefits. A photocopy of any health insurance policies or insurance records in your possession for the last seven (7) years, or if unavailable, provide the name and address of any company who has custody of such documents. ----- A photocopy of any life insurance applications or other paperwork regarding applications or policies in the last seven (7) years, or if unavailable, the name and address of any company who has custody of such documents. Copies of any disability insurance applications or other paperwork regarding applications or policies in the last seven (7) years, or if unavailable, the name and address of any company who has custody of such documents. A copy of all pages of your passport. Copy or membership number of any frequent flyer program you have been involved in for the last five (5) years. Copies of any statements of any defendant or employee or agent of any defendant with regard to this incident. _(Ifyou_ _are_ _not_ _in_ _possession_ _of_ _any_ _statement, _ _but_ _know_ _who_ _made_ _such_ _written_ _statements, _ _please_ _provide_ _the_ _name, _ _address_ _and_ _telephone_ _number_ _ofthe_ _person_ _whom_ _you_ _believe_ _has_ _possession_ _ofthese_ _written_ _statements. )_ Copies of any statements of any witnesses; or the name, address and identity, includingstatement was taken, of any witnesses. _(Ifyou_ _are_ _not_ _in_ _possession_ ## ofany statement, but know who made such written statements, please provide the _name, _ _address_ _and_ _telephone_ _number_ _of_ _the_ _person_ _whom_ _you_ _believe_ _has_ _possession_ _ofthese_ _written_ _statements. )_ Any and all photographs, films or videotapes in your possession which depict or purport to depict the scene of the subject incident, any aspect of the subject incident scene with regard to this incident. (Defendant will pay reasonable cost for two (2) reprints. ) ----- Any and all photographs, films or videotapes in your possession which depict or purport to depict any aspect of Plaintiffs injuries herein. (Defendant will pay reasonable cost of two (2) reprints. ) Records from any and all non-party health care providers, including, but not limited to hospital records, specialist records, chiropractic records, osteopathic records, psychologist records, psychiatrist records, records from drug and/or alcohol programs, faith healers records, x-ray reports, test results, MRI scan reports, CT scan reports, nurses notes, physical therapy records, including copies ### of any radiographic materials such as x-ray films, CT films, MRI films which relate to or concern the Plaintiffs injuries alleged in the Complaint as a result of the subject incident. Any and all medical bills, receipts or invoices which you contend support or tend to support your damage claims in this case arising from the subject incident. Any and all documents, articles, writings, correspondence, recordings or memoranda which you contend support or tend to support any allegation set forth in the Complaint. Any and all written reports from any expert witness or consultant retained by the Plaintiff. Any and all Income Tax returns and W-2 forms for the past seven (7) years. Copy of the Driver's License of the Plaintiff. Copy of the Social Security card of the Plaintiff. Any and all Marriage Licenses of Plaintiff. Copy of the Birth Certificate of the Plaintiff. ----- Any and all accident or incident reports generated from any prior accidents which the Plaintiff was involved in prior to the subject incident, including any automobile accidents or other accidents or incidents. Any and all accident or incident reports generated from any accidents which the Plaintiff was involved in subsequent to the subject incident, including any automobile accidents, or other accidents or incidents. Any and all reports and records of any health care provider for any treatment to the Plaintiff as a result of the subject incident. Any and all reports and records of any health care provider for any treatment to the Plaintiff for seven (7) years prior to the subject incident. Any and all hospital records, nurses' notes, doctors' notes, progress notes, radiology reports, MRI films, x-rays, and MRI reports, and medical bills for any accidents in which the Plaintiffwas involved in prior to the subject incident. Any and all hospital records, nurses' notes, doctors' notes, progress notes, radiology reports, MRI films, x-rays, and MRI reports and medical bills for any accidents in which the Plaintiffs was involved in subsequent to the subject incident. Any and all records supporting a claim for lost wages as a result of the subject incident. Any and all current insurance policies, whether health, disability, life or other. A copy of the PIP payout sheet, and any and all proof of payments made on behalf of the Plaintiff, drafts and any evidence pertaining to paid or payables by the Plaintiffpursuant to their PIP policy of insurance. ----- Copies of any \"Mary Carter\" agreements, loan receipt agreements, settlement agreements, releases, or covenants not to sue, entered into by you, or on your behalf, with any other Defendant, person, firm or corporation, whom you contend may have some liability exposure to the incident of which you complain. Copies of any documents which relate in any way to prior accidents or claims, including prior demand letters, prior claim letters, prior lawsuits, depositions given or taken, prior injuries, prior settlements, prior medical records or opinions as to permanent impairments, prior PIP applications. Please sign and return the enclosed HIPAA Compliant Authorization for Release ### of Medical Information form. Please sign and return the enclosed Form SSA-7050-F4, Request for Social Security Earnings Information. Please sign and return the enclosed Form 4506, Request for Copy of Tax Return form. It is hereby requested that the aforesaid production be made at the offices of Shendell & Pollock, P. L. Inspection will be made by visual observation, examination and/or copying. (Plaintiffmay furnish copies of all documentation by mail to the Defendants’ counsel’s office). **SEE** **ATTACHED** **CERTIFICATE** **OF** **SERVICE** ----- **CERTIFICATE** **OF** **SERVICE** I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of Court via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal which will serve a notice of electronic filing on this 27th day of April, 2017 on the following: Todd Fronrath, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff Lytal, Reiter, Smith, Ivey & Fronrath 515 N. Flagler Drive, 10th Floor West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Email: [tffonrath@foryourrights. com](mailto:tffonrath@foryourrights. com) Email: [kianis@foryourrights. com](mailto:kianis@foryourrights. com) Respectfully submitted, LUKS, SANTANIELLO, PETRILLO & JONES 301 NE 51st Street, Suite 4150 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 893-9088 Fax: (561) 893-9048 Attorney for Defendant By: Zs/ William Peterffiend, Esq. WILLIAM PETERFRIEND, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 544647 [WPeterfriend@insurancedefense. net](mailto:WPeterfriend@insurancedefense. net) [Luksboca-pleadings@ls-law. com](mailto:Luksboca-pleadings@ls-law. com) -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "#### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEANINE TIERNEY, Plaintiff, v. NEIL MINTZ, Defendant. ### COMPLAI NT #### COMES NOW the Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY, by and through her undersigned counsel and hereby sues the Defendant, NEIL MINTZ, and alleges: **ALLEGATIONS** **COMMON** **TO** **ALL** **COUNTS** This is an action for damages which exceeds the sum of Fifteen #### Thousand Dollars ($15, 000. 00). On or about May 11, 2015, Defendant, NEIL MINTZ, owned and #### operated a motor vehicle at the intersection of NW 13th Street and NW 15th Court in Palm Beach County, Florida. At the time and place aforementioned. Defendant, NEIL MINTZ, so #### negligently operated and maintained his motor vehicle so as to cause it to collide and crash with a motor vehicle owned and operated by Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY. ----- **_Page_** **_2_** #### COUNTI As a direct and proximate result. Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY, was #### injured in and about her body, suffered aggravation of pre-existing condition, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, impairment of working ability, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and Plaintiff incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of said injuries; all of said injuries are permanent within a reasonable degree of medical probability. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY, demands judgment for damages against the Defendant and further demands trial by jury. d this 10th day of February, 2017 ### /s/Todd Fronrath, Esquire #### Todd Fronrath, Esquire Florida Bar No. : 547271 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lytal, Reiter, Smith, Ivey & Fronrath 515 N. Flagler Drive, 10th Floor #### West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 655-1990 Facsimile: (561) 832-2932 Email: tfronrath@foryourrights. com Email: kjanis@foryourrights. com -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "#### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEANINE TIERNEY, Plaintiff, v. NEIL MINTZ, Defendant. **PLAINTIFF'S** **REQUEST** **FOR** **PRODUCTION** **TO** **DEFENDANT** #### Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY, by and through her undersigned counsel, and in accordance with Rule 1. 350, Fla. R. Civ. P. , hereby requests Defendant, NEIL MINTZ, to produce the following documents, or copies thereof, within the time limits provided by said Rule, at the office of the undersigned: Color laser copies or duplicates from the negatives of all photographs taken by #### the defendant, attorneys, investigators, agents, servants or employees of the accident vehicles referred to in the complaint which are in any manner related to the subject matter of this lawsuit. All estimates and repair bills for the damage sustained in the subject accident to #### the vehicle operated by the Defendant. Copy of any and all liability insurance policies which were in effect on the#### of the subject accident. Copy of the Florida title for the vehicle operated by the defendant at the time of #### the subject accident. Bill of sale for the purchase of the vehicle operated by the defendant at the time #### of the subject accident. ----- **_Page_** **_2_** Copy of the Florida registration for the vehicle operated by the defendant at the #### time of the subject accident. Copy and any all statements of the Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY. Copy of Defendant's driver's license. Surveillance photographs and movies, surveillance reports, surveillance #### contracts, and invoices, charges, notes, and other documents from parties for any surveillance you reasonably expect to be used at trial in the subject case. It is hereby requested that the aforesaid production be made forty-five (45) days from theof service of process at the offices of the undersigned. d this 10th day of February, 2017. ### /s/Todd Fronrath, Esquire #### Todd Fronrath, Esquire Florida Bar No. : 547271 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lytal, Reiter, Smith, Ivey & Fronrath 515 N. Flagler Drive, 10th Floor #### West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 655-1990 Facsimile: (561) 832-2932 Email: tfronrath@foryourrights. com Email: kjanis@foryourrights. com -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "#### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEANINE TIERNEY, Plaintiff, v. NEIL MINTZ, Defendant. ### COMPLAI NT #### COMES NOW the Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY, by and through her undersigned counsel and hereby sues the Defendant, NEIL MINTZ, and alleges: **ALLEGATIONS** **COMMON** **TO** **ALL** **COUNTS** This is an action for damages which exceeds the sum of Fifteen #### Thousand Dollars ($15, 000. 00). On or about May 11, 2015, Defendant, NEIL MINTZ, owned and #### operated a motor vehicle at the intersection of NW 13th Street and NW 15th Court in Palm Beach County, Florida. At the time and place aforementioned. Defendant, NEIL MINTZ, so #### negligently operated and maintained his motor vehicle so as to cause it to collide and crash with a motor vehicle owned and operated by Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY. ----- **_Page_** **_2_** #### COUNTI As a direct and proximate result. Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY, was #### injured in and about her body, suffered aggravation of pre-existing condition, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, impairment of working ability, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and Plaintiff incurred medical expenses in the care and treatment of said injuries; all of said injuries are permanent within a reasonable degree of medical probability. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY, demands judgment for damages against the Defendant and further demands trial by jury. d this 10th day of February, 2017 ### /s/Todd Fronrath, Esquire #### Todd Fronrath, Esquire Florida Bar No. : 547271 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lytal, Reiter, Smith, Ivey & Fronrath 515 N. Flagler Drive, 10th Floor #### West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 655-1990 Facsimile: (561) 832-2932 Email: tfronrath@foryourrights. com Email: kjanis@foryourrights. com -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA JEANINE TIERNEY, Plaintiff(s), MILLER'S ALE HOUSE, INC. , a Foreign ### Profit Corporation, d/b/a EAST BOCA ALE HOUSE and NEIL MINTZ, ### Defendant(s). **PLAINTIFF'S** **REQUEST** **FOR** **PRODUCTION** **TO** **MILLER'S** **ALE** **HOUSE, ** **INC. ,** **d/b/a** **EAST** **BOCA** **ALE** **HOUSE** Plaintiff, JEANINE TIERNEY, by and through her undersigned counsel, and in ### accordance with Rule 1. 350, Fla. R. Civ. P. , hereby requests Defendant, MILLER'S ALE HOUSE, INC. , d/b/a EAST BOCA ALE HOUSE, to produce the following documents, ### or copies thereof, within the time limits provided by said Rule, at the office of the undersigned: A copy of the videotape of the area where JEANINE TIERNEY fell for the one- ### half hour period before and after her respective fall on July 1, 2014, including the videotape of her fall. A copy of your policies and procedures manual concerning the maintenance of ### the respective floors of the MILLER'S ALE HOUSE, which would include all safety procedures in existence as of July 1, 2014. A copy of the incident report pertaining to JEANINE TIERNEY'S fall on July 1, ----- **_Page_** **_2_** A copy of all policies and procedures that were in effect as of July _1, _ 2014, ### concerning cautions to be taken for water and/or any foreign substances that may be on the floor of the MILLER'S ALE HOUSE being used by the respective customers. It is hereby requested that the aforesaid production be made forty-five (45) days from theof service of process at the offices of the undersigned. d this 28th day of February, 2017 ## /s/Todd Fronrath, Esquire ### Todd Fronrath, Esquire Florida Bar No. : 547271 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lytal, Reiter, Smith, Ivey & Fronrath 515 N. Flagler Drive, 10th Floor ### West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 655-1990 Facsimile: (561) 832-2932 Email: [tfronrath@foryourrights. com](mailto:tfronrath@foryourrights. com) Email: [kjanis@foryourrights. com](mailto:kjanis@foryourrights. com) -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, vs. MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. and HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , Defendants. _____________________________________/ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO: **COMPLAINT** Plaintiffs, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife, by and through the undersigned attorneys, hereby sue the Defendants, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. and HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , and allege the following: **GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS** This is an action for damages in excess of the sum of Fifty Thousand ($50, 000. 00) Dollars exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, were and are residents of Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES were and remain legally married to one another. ----- COMPLAINT Morales vs. Morguard Management Company, Inc. and Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Page 2 At all times material hereto, Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. was and is a Florida Profit Corporation authorized and doing business in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. was the management company for The Home Depot, Store #6316 located 5750 S. Jog Road, Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. was and is a Foreign Profit Corporation authorized and doing business in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. owned and operated The Home Depot, Store #6316 located 5750 S. Jog Road, Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto, on or about December 13, 2022 at approximately 8:30 a. m. , Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, an invitee, went to The Home Depot, Store #6316 located at 5750 S. Jog Road, Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, parked her car and was walking in the parking lot in order to get into the store. Suddenly and without warning, her feet/foot got caught in a “pallet tie” causing her to violently fall to the ground. As a result, thereof, Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, suffered significant injuries including a large laceration to her nose, black right eye, contusion to her head, two broken kneecaps, broken left elbow, fractured left wrist and fractured right hand. ----- COMPLAINT Morales vs. Morguard Management Company, Inc. and Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Page 3 Venue is proper in Palm Beach County because the facts giving rise to this action occurred in Palm Beach County. **COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM AGAINST** **DEFENDANT, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. ** Plaintiffs, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife, reallege and incorporate each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 11 as if fully set forth herein, and further alleges: At all times material hereto, Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. , was and is the management company for The Home Depot, Store#6316, and had a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of any hazards about which it knew or should have known. At all times material hereto, Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. , knew or should have known, by and through the exercise of reasonable care in maintaining the parking lot area of The Home Depot, Store #6316, that individuals attempting to access the entrance to the building regularly traversed the parking lot of the premises. Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC, knew or should have known that that dangerous conditions existed to individuals attempting to access the entrance to the building, including but not limited to, Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES. Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC, had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in the parking lot and had a duty to protect invitees, like SUSAN MORALES, from the dangerous condition in the parking lot. Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC, had a duty to warn SUSAN MORALES of ----- COMPLAINT Morales vs. Morguard Management Company, Inc. and Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Page 4 concealed dangers which were or should have been known to Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC, and which were unknown to SUSAN MORALES. Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC, had a duty to use reasonable care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. The danger in the parking lot was not known to SUSAN MORALES and even if it had been hypothetically, Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC, should have anticipated the harm. Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. , individually, and by and through its employees, agents, servants, and/or apparent agents, was negligent and breached its aforementioned duty to Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES. Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. , breached its duty to Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, in one or more of the following ways: a. Negligently failing to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition; b. Negligently failing to warn SUSAN MORALES of the hidden danger; c. Negligently allowing a known dangerous condition to exist upon its premises for an unreasonable period of time; d. Negligently failing to correct a dangerous condition about which it knew or should have known by the exercise of reasonable care; e. Negligently allowing a dangerous condition, which failed to comply with applicable codes and regulations to exist and thereby exposed business invitees, including Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, to injury; f. Failing to maintain its parking lots and egress routes in a manner that provided for safe walking conditions for its business invitees, including Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES; and ----- COMPLAINT Morales vs. Morguard Management Company, Inc. and Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Page 5 g. Negligently failing to warn Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, of a dangerous condition about which Defendant had, or should have had, knowledge greater than that of the Plaintiff. As to Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES’ negligence claim: Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money in the future, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. These losses are either permanent or continuing, and Plaintiff will suffer these losses into the future. As to Plaintiff, JORGE L. MORALES’ consortium claim: As a result of the Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. ’s negligence, Plaintiff, JORGE L. MORALES, has been deprived of the consortium of his wife, Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, including but not limited to the loss of fellowship, companionship, society, attentions, services, affection, guidance, comfort and household services. These losses are permanent and continuing in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife, demand judgment for damages against Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. , in excess of $50, 000. 00, demand taxable costs, attorney’s fees, and further demand trial by jury. ----- COMPLAINT Morales vs. Morguard Management Company, Inc. and Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Page 6 **COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM AGAINST** **DEFENDANT, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. ** Plaintiffs, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife, reallege and incorporate each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 11 as if fully set forth herein, and further alleges: At all times material hereto, Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , owned and operated The Home Depot, Store#6316, and had a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of any hazards about which it knew or should have known. At all times material hereto, Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC knew or should have known, by and through the exercise of reasonable care in owning and/or maintaining the parking lot area of The Home Depot, Store #6316, that individuals attempting to access the entrance to the building regularly traversed the parking lot of the premises. Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC, knew or should have known that that dangerous conditions existed to individuals attempting to access the entrance to the building, including but not limited to, Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES. Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC, had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in the parking lot and had a duty to protect invitees, like SUSAN MORALES, from the dangerous condition in the parking lot. Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC, had a duty to warn SUSAN MORALES of concealed dangers which were or should have been known to Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC, and which were unknown to SUSAN ----- COMPLAINT Morales vs. Morguard Management Company, Inc. and Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Page 7 MORALES. Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC, had a duty to use reasonable care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. The danger in the parking lot was not known to SUSAN MORALES and even if it had been hypothetically, Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC, should have anticipated the harm. Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , individually, and by and through its employees, agents, servants, and/or apparent agents, was negligent and breached its aforementioned duty to Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES. Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , breached its duty to Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, in, but not limited to, one or more of the following ways: a. Negligently failing to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition; b. Negligently failing to warn SUSAN MORALES of the hidden danger; c. Negligently allowing a known dangerous condition to exist upon its premises for an unreasonable period of time; d. Negligently failing to correct a dangerous condition about which it knew or should have known by the exercise of reasonable care; e. Negligently allowing a dangerous condition, which failed to comply with applicable codes and regulations to exist and thereby exposed business invitees, including Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, to injury; f. Failing to maintain its parking lots and egress routes in a manner that provided for safe walking conditions for its business invitees, including Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES; and g. Negligently failing to warn Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, of a dangerous condition about which Defendant had, or should have had, knowledge greater than that of the Plaintiff. ----- COMPLAINT Morales vs. Morguard Management Company, Inc. and Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Page 8 As to Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES’ negligence claim: Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money in the future, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. These losses are either permanent or continuing, and Plaintiff will suffer these losses into the future. As to Plaintiff, JORGE L. MORALES’ consortium claim: As a result of the Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. ’s negligence, Plaintiff, JORGE L. MORALES, has been deprived of the consortium of his wife, Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, including but not limited to the loss of fellowship, companionship, society, attentions, services, affection, guidance, comfort and household services. These losses are permanent and continuing in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife, demand judgment for damages against Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , in excess of $50, 000. 00, demand taxable costs, attorney’s fees, and further demand trial by jury. D this 16[TH] day of March, 2023. ## /S/ KAREN E. TERRY Karen E. Terry Florida Bar No. : 45780 Primary E-Mail: _terryteam@searcylaw. com Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P. A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Phone: (561) 686-6300 Work Attorney for Plaintiffs -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "###### 23-423/jat/kpa IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, vs. MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. , and HOME DEPOT U. S. A. , INC. , d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , Defendants. / DEFENDANT, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. ’s FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, SUSAN M. MORALES Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. , pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 350, requests Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, to produce for inspection or copying within thirty (30) days the following documents, showing that Plaintiffs has possession, custody, and/or control of each of the documents and that each of them constitutes evidence without which the Defendant cannot safely proceed to trial, all as is seen more fully from an inspection of the pleadings herein: Conformed copies of all income tax returns, with all attached schedules and forms (such as W-2 forms), filed with the Internal Revenue Service for the five (5) years prior to theof the incident described in the Complaint and all years subsequent to theof the incident, together with a record of earnings toin the current year. ----- ###### 2. All bills or statements for medical treatment, medical devices and/or medicines, the cost of which is claimed to have been incurred by you as a result of the injuries sustained in this case. Any and all records and bills of hospitals, including X-rays, in which Plaintiff has been a patient or received treatment allegedly as a result of the injuries sustained in this case by Plaintiff, or written authorization to obtain such records at the cost of the Defendant. Copies of all medical reports received by Plaintiff, her attorneys, investigators, agents, servants, or employees, from any doctor, physician, or anyone else who has treated Plaintiff for injuries alleged to have been incurred as a result of the incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Copies of all medical reports received by Plaintiff, her attorneys, investigators, agents, servants, or employees from any doctor, physician, or anyone else who has examined the Plaintiff’s physical or mental conditions subsequent to the incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit, and who may be called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiff at the trial of this case. Complete copies of reports prepared by each physician that examined or treated Plaintiff for injuries alleged to have been incurred as a result of the incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Any and all drawings, graphs, charts, laser color copies of all photographs (actual reprints), digital copies (including all original digital files) of all photographs and videos pertaining to any of the issues described in the Complaint. All statements, recorded or written, obtained by you or your attorneys of the Defendant, taken at the time of or subsequent to the subject incident. Any and all business records, pay receipts, or other memoranda indicating gross income from self-employment, salary, commissions, bonuses, or other earnings in the past five (5) years. Copies of any and all insurance policies providing benefits or coverage to you for any claimed injury or damages arising from the subject incident. Copies of any and all documents reflecting whether or not you received any compensation from your own insurance company or from any other insurance company as a result of the subject incident. Any and all written or recorded statements taken from parties or witnesses concerning any issue in this lawsuit. ----- ###### 13. Any and all color photographs (actual reprints or original digital files), graphs, charts, and other documentary evidence in the possession, custody, and control of the Plaintiff, her attorneys, investigators, agents, servants, or employees showing the injury or damage sustained by Plaintiff, which Plaintiff intends to place into evidence or use at trial. Any and all color photographs (actual reprints or original digital files), graphs, charts, and other documentary evidence in the possession, custody, and control of the Plaintiff, her attorneys, investigators, agents, servants, or employees showing the scene of the subject incident or any property damage that allegedly resulted therefrom. All color photographs (actual reprints or original digital files) which depict conditions about the incident scene or other condition present which have changed since the photographs were taken. Copies of any and all documents evidencing the value of all benefits received by Plaintiff on her behalf, by or pursuant to the following sources: (a) United States Social Security Act. (b) Any Federal, State, or Local Income Disability, or any other public program providing medical expenses, disability payments, or other similar benefits. (c) Any health, sickness, or income disability insurance; automobile accident insurance that provides for income disability coverage; and any other similar insurance benefits except life insurance available to Plaintiff, whether purchased by her or provided by others. (d) Any contract or agreement of any group, organization, partnership, or corporation to provide, pay for, or reimburse the costs of hospital, medical, or other health care services. (e) Any contractual or voluntary wage continuation plan provided by Plaintiff’s employers or any other system intended to provide wages during a period of disability. All statements which Plaintiff intends to place into evidence or use at trial. All statements pertaining to issues in this litigation, the substantial equivalent of which cannot be obtained by Defendant without undue hardship. Copies of the front and back of any and all insurance cards for insurance providing medical insurance to the Plaintiff for the past ten (10) years to present. ----- ###### 20. Copies of any and all notices sent to any and all collateral sources notifying those collateral sources of Plaintiff’s intention to claim damages from Defendant and any and all statements received by Plaintiff from each and every such collateral source of that collateral source’s assertion of its right of subrogation or reimbursement pursuant to Fla. Stat. §768. 76. Any and all correspondence, text messages, emails, SMS messages, social media direct messages, etc. sent and/or received by Plaintiff concerning any of the issues in this lawsuit. Copies of any cellular telephone records and bills documenting the Plaintiff’s usage of any cellular telephone on theof the incident described in the Complaint. An original signed, fully executed attached authorization requesting income tax records (IRS 4506 Form & IRS 8821 Form). An original signed, fully executed attached Social Security Administration Consent for Release of Information (SSA-3288 Form). An original signed, fully executed attached Request for Social Security Earnings Information (SSA-7050-F4 Form). An original signed, fully executed attached Medicare authorization form. An original signed, fully executed attached Medicaid authorization form. All statutes, ordinances, standards, or regulations that Plaintiff contends the Defendant violated or that Plaintiff intends to use at trial. (Certificate of Service on following page) ----- ###### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing document has been furnished to: Boris L. Zhadanovskiy, Esq. , 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. , West Palm Beach, FL 33409, zhadanovskiyteam@searcylaw. com; [Counsel] for Plaintiff, by delivery [via the][ Court’s] E-Filing Portal on this 19th day of May, 2023. ROBERTS, REYNOLDS, [BEDARD][ &] TUZZIO, [PLLC] 470 Columbia Drive, Bldg. C101 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Phone: 561/688-6560 Fax: 561/688-2343 Email: shealy@rrbpa. com; lleiva@rrbpa. com, ituchman@rrbpa. com Service Email: service sAH@rrbpa. com Attorneysfor Defendant, Morguard Management /s/ [Jaimie][ A. ][ Tuchman] for SHELLI A. HEALY Florida Bar No. : 180556 Page [5][ of][ 5] ----- Form 4506 Request [for] Copy [of][ Tax][ Return] (Novmeber 2021) - Do not sign this form unless all applicable lines have been completed. OMB No. 1545-0429 - Request may be rejected if the form is incomplete or illegible. Department [of][ the] Treasury Internal Revenue Service - For more irfformation about Form 4506, visit www. irs. gov/form4506. Tip: [Get][ faster][ service:][ Online][ at] www. irs. gov, Get Your Tax Record (Get Transcript) or by calling 1-800-908-9946 for specialized assistance. We have teams available to assist. Note: Taxpayers may register to use Get Transcript to view, print, or download the following transcript types: Tax Return Transcript (shows most line items including Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) from your original Form 1040-series tax return as filed, along with any [forms][ and] schedules), [Tax][ Account] Transcript (shows basic data such as return type, marital status, AGI, taxable income and all payment types), Record of Account Transcript (combines the tax return and tax account transcripts into one complete transcript), Wage and Income Transcript (shows [data][ from][ information][ returns] we receive such as Forms W-2, 1099, 1098 and Form 5498), and Verification of Non-filing Letter (provides proof [that][ the][ IRS][ has][ no][ record][ of][ a][ filed][ Form] 1040-series tax return for the year you request). 1a Name shown on tax return. If a joint return, enter the name shown first. 1b First social security number on tax return, individual taxpayer identification number, or employer [identification][ number] (see instructions) SUSAN M. 2a If a jointMORALES_ return, enter spouse’s name shown on tax return. 2b Second social security number or individual taxpayer [identification][ number][ if] joint tax return 3 Current name, address (including apt. , room, or suite no. ), city, state, and ZIP code (see instructions) 4 Previous address shown on the last return filed if different from line 3 (see instructions) 5 If the tax return is to be mailed to a third party (such as a mortgage company), enter the third party’s name, address, and telephone number. ROBERTS, REYNOLDS, BEDARD & TUZZIO, PLLC, 470 COLUMBIA DRIVE, SUITE C-101, WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33409 PHONE * Caution: If561-688-6560___ the tax return is being sent to the third party, ensure that lines 5 through 7 are completed before signing, (see instructions). 6 Tax return requested. Form 1040, 1120, 941, etc. and all attachments as originally submitted to the IRS, including Form(s) W-2, schedules, [or] amended returns. Copies of Forms 1040, 1040A, and 1040EZ are generally available for 7 years from filing before they are destroyed by [law. ][ Other][ returns] may be available for a longer period of time. Enter only one return number. If you need more than one type [of] return, you [must] complete another Form 4506. - 1040 Note: If the copies must be certified for court or administrative proceedings, check 7 Year or period requested. Enter the endingof the tax year or period using thehere. [J mm/dd/yyyy format (see instructions). 12 / 31 / 2015 12 / 31 / 2016 12 / 31 / 2017 12 / 31 / 2018 12 / 31 / 2019 12 / 31 / 2020 12 / 31 / 2021 12 / 31 / 2022 8 Fee. There is a $43 fee for each return requested. Full payment must be included with your request or it will be rejected. Make your check or money order payable to “United States Treasury. ” Enter your SSN, ITIN, or EIN and “Form 4506 request” on your check or money order. a Cost for each $ 43. 00 b Number of returns requested on line 8 c Total cost. Multiplyreturn. line 8a by line $ 344. 00 we i, [we] refund should go to the third party listed on line 5, check here. . Caution: Do not sign this form unless all applicable lines have been completed. [of] taxpayers). [I] declare that[ I] am either the taxpayer whose name is shown on line 1a or 2a, or a person authorized to obtain the tax return requested. [If][ the] request applies [to][ a] joint return, 8b. at least one spouse must sign. If signed by a corporate officer, 1 percent or more shareholder, partner, managing member, guardian, [tax][ matters] partner, executor, receiver, administrator, trustee, or party other than the taxpayer, I certify that I have the authority to execute Form 4506 on behalf of the taxpayer. Note:7. This form must be received by IRS within 120 days of the. ###### □ Signatory [attests][ that] he/she has read the attestation clause and upon so reading declares that he/she has the authority to sign the Form 4506. See instructions. Phone number of taxpayer on line 1a or 2a k ###### r(see instructions)Sign Here T►-_L. Print/1 ype name Title (if line 1 a above is a corporation, partnership, estate, or trust) I r Spouse’sPrint/Type [name] For and #### k_ ----- Form 4506 (Rev. 11-2021) Page [2] Sectionunless otherwise references noted. are to the Internal Revenue Code Chart for all other returns beIndividuals. furnished to Copies either spouse. of jointly Only filed one taxreturns may is required. Sign [Form][ 4506] exactly [as] your [name] ###### Future Developments ForForm returns 1040 series, not in Mail to: appearedname, also[on]sign[ the] youroriginal current[return. ] name. [ If] you changed your For the latest information about Form 4506 and its if the address on Corporations. Generally, [Form][ 4506] can be instructions, go to www. irs. gov/form4506. the return was in: signed by: (1) [an][ officer] having legal authority [to][ bind] the corporation, (2) any person designated by the ###### General Instructions Connecticut, Delaware, board of directors or other governing body, or (3) Caution: Do not sign this form unless all applicable District of Columbia, any [officer][ or] employee [on][ written] request by any completed. lines, including [lines][ 5] through 7, have been Georgia, Kentucky, Illinois, Maine, Indiana, otherprincipal officer. [officer] A bona[ and][ attested] fide shareholder[ to] by [the] ofsecretary record [or] Maryland, owning [1] percent [or][ more][ of][ the] outstanding [stock] Designated Recipient [Notification. ][ Internal] Massachusetts, Internal Revenue Service of the corporation may submit a Form 4506 but must Revenue Code, Section 6103(c), limits disclosure Michigan, [New] RAIVSTeam provide [documentation][ to] support [the] requester's and use of return information received pursuant to Hampshire, [New] Jersey, Stop [6705][ S-2] right [to][ receive][ the][ information. ] thesubjectotherexpress taxpayer’s use, permission[to] orpenalties redisclosure consent[or][for] andrequest. any without holds[unauthorized] the the recipient taxpayer'saccess, Carolina, NewPennsylvania, Island, York, South Ohio, NorthCarolina, [Rhode] 64999Kansas City, MO signedrequestedpartnershipPartnerships. by any[on] during[ line] person Generally, [ 7. ] any[who] part[ was][of][Form][ the][ a][ member][ 4506][ tax] period[ can][ of][ be][ the] Taxpayer [Notification. ][ Internal] Revenue Code, Tennessee, Vermont, Section 6103(c), limits disclosure and use of return Virginia, [West] Virginia, All others. See section 6103(e) if the taxpayer has Information provided pursuant to your consent and Wisconsin died, [Is] Insolvent, [is][ a][ dissolved] corporation, or[ if] a holdsprivate the right recipient[of] action, subject[for] any to penalties, [unauthorized] broughtaccess, by Alabama, Alaska, trustee, administrator guardian, Is acting executor, for the receiver, taxpayer. or other use, or redisclosure without your express Arizona, Arkansas, Note: If you are Heir at law, Next of kin, or permission [or] request. California, Colorado, Beneficiary you [must][ be][ able][ to][ establish][ a][ material] Purpose [of][ form. ][ Use][ Form][ 4506] to request a copy Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, interest In the estate or trust. of your tax return. You can also designate (on line 5) Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Documentation. For entities other than individuals, a third party to receive the tax return. Minnesota, Mississippi, you [must][ attach][ the][ authorization][ document. ][ For] calendarHow long days will for it take? us to It process may take your up request. to 75 Missouri, Nebraska, Mexico, [North] Montana, Nevada, Dakota, [New] Internal Revenue Service theexample, officer letters authorizing[this] testamentary[ could] an[ be] employee[ the] authorizing[ letter] of[ from] the an[ the] corporation individualprincipal to or Where to file. Attach payment and mail Form 4506 Oklahoma, Oregon, RAIVSTeam act for an estate. to the address below for the state you lived in, or the South Dakota, Texas, P. O. Box 9941 filed. state There your business are two address was in, when charts: that one return for was Wyoming, Utah, Washington, [a] foreign Ogden, Mail Stop[UT] 6734[ 84409]can sign Form by [a] 4506representative. for a taxpayer[A] onlyrepresentative if this individual returns (Form 1040 series) and one for all country, [American] authority [has][ been] specifically delegated [to][ the] other returns. Samoa, Puerto Rico, representative [on][ Form] 2848, [line][ 5a. ][ Form][ 2848] If you are requesting a return for more than one Guam, the showing4506. [the] delegation [must][ be][ attached][ to][ Form] year [or] period [and][ the][ chart][ below][ shows][ two] Commonwealth of the differentaddress of addresses, your most send recent your return. request based on the NorthernIslands, Islands, [the][or] Mariana[ A. P. O. ][ U. S. ] Virginor PrivacyNotice. We[Act] ask[ and] forPaperwork the Information[Reduction] on thisAct form to ###### Chart for individual returns F. P. O. address establish your right to gain access to the requested return(s) [under][ the][ Internal][ Revenue][ Code. ][ We][ need] (Form [1040] series) this information to properly identify the return(s) and If you filed an Specific [Instructions] taxrespond return, [to] sectionsyour request. 6103 and[If] you 6109 request require[a] copy you to[of][ a] individual return Mail to: Line 1b. Enter the social security number (SSN) or provide [this] information, including your [SSN] or EIN, and lived in: individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN) for to process your request. If you do not provide this the individual listed on line 1 a, or enter the employer information, we may not be able to process your Florida, Louisiana, identification number (EIN) for the business listed on request. Providing [false][ or][ fraudulent][ information] Mississippi, [Texas, ][ a] line 1 a. For example, if you are requesting Form may subject you [to] penalties. foreign country, [American] Internal Revenue Service 1040 that includes Schedule C (Form 1040), enter Routine uses of this information include giving it to Samoa, Puerto Rico, RAIVSTeam your [SSN. ] the Department of Justice for civil and criminal theA. P. O. Guam, CommonwealthNorthern U. S. or the Virgin Mariana F. P. O. Islands, of address Islands, the or Austin, Stop [6716AUSC][TX][ 73301] filedLinebox, Line if please 4. 3. different Enter Enter[include] the your from address current[ it] the on address this shown address. line entered on 3. If the you last on use return line a P. O. 3. anddiscloselitigation, in administering U. S. this commonwealths[and] informationcities, their states, tax to laws. and other[the] possessions We[ District] countries may[ of] alsoColumbia, under for use a Note. If the addresses on lines 3 and 4 are different taxfederal treaty, nontax to federal criminal and laws, state or agencies to federal to law enforce Alabama, Arkansas, andIRS, you[file] haveForm not 8822, changed Change your of Address, address or with Form the terrorism. enforcement and intelligence agencies to combat Delaware, Georgia, 8822-B, Change [of][ Address][ or] Responsible Party [-] Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Business, [with][ Form] 4506. You are not required to provide the information Massachusetts, Kentucky, Maine, Internal Revenue Service Line 7. Enter the endof the tax year or period requestedReduction Act[on][ a] unless[ form][ that] the[ is] formsubject displays[to][ the] a validPaperwork OMB Minnesota, Missouri, RAIVS Team requested [in] mm/dd/yyyy [format. ][ This] may be[ a] control number. Books or records relating to a form New Hampshire, New Stop [6705][ S-2] calendar year, fiscal year or quarter. Enter each or its instructions must be retained as long as their Jersey, [New] York, [North] Kansas City, MO 64999 quarter requested [for] quarterly [returns. ] Example: contents may become material in the administration Carolina, Oklahoma, Enter 12/31/2018 for a calendar year 2018 Form of any Internal Revenue law. Generally, tax returns Tennessee, South Carolina, Vermont, 9411040 return. return, or 03/31/2017 for a first quarter Form andby [section] return[ 6103. ] information are confidential, as required Virginia, Alaska, Arizona, [Wisconsin]dIRS must by the receive[and] taxpayer. ] Form[ Form] listed 4506[ 4506] on within linemust 120 1 a be or days 2a. signed The of the and willestimatedThe vary time depending average needed time to on complete individual is: Learning and circumstances. file about Form the 4506 law The California, Connecticut, Colorado, [District][ of]Ensure signed that all by applicable the taxpayer lines, or it including will be rejected. lines 5 orand the Copying, form, 10 assembling, min. ; Preparing and sending the form, the 16 form min. ; Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, through 7, [are] completed [before] signing. to the IRS, 20 min. Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Mexico, Maryland, [North] Montana, Nevada, Dakota, [New] RAIVSP. O. MailInternal Stop Box Team Revenue 9941 6734 ServicehaveYou must the authority check[area][ to] theacknowledge to box sign in and request the you theseFormIf you 4506 time have estimates simpler, comments we or would suggestions concerning be happy for the to making accuracy hear from of Ohio, Oregon, Ogden, [UT][ 84409] CAUTION the information. The form will not be you. [You][ can][ write][ to:] Island, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, [Rhode] processedunchecked. [and] returned[ to] you [if] the box is TaxInternal Forms Revenue and Publications Service Division Utah, Washington, West 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, IR-6526 Virginia, Wyoming Washington, [DC][ 20224. ] ----- Form Tax Information Authorization ForOMB IRS No. Use 1545-1165 Only ###### 8821 ► Go to for instructions and the latest information. Received by: (Rev. DepartmentInternal January Revenue[of] 2021)[ the] ServiceTreasury - Don’t►or signDon’t to authorize this use form Form someone unless 8821 to all to request applicable represent copies you. lines of See have your instructions. tax been returns completed. Telephone_Name_Function_1 Taxpayer [information. ] Taxpayer [must] sign [and][ this][ form][ on] line Taxpayer [name][ and][ address] Taxpayer [identification] number(s) ###### 6. _ Daytime telephone [number][ Plan][ number] (if applicable) SUSAN M. MORALES 2 Designee(s). If you wish to name more than two designees, attach a list to this form. Check here if a list of additional ###### designees [is][ attached][ ►] □ Name and. address CAF No. PTIN ROBERTS, REYNOLDS, BEDARD, [&] TUZZIO, PLLC 470 COLUMBIA DR, BLDG C-101 Telephone [No. ] 561-688-6560 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33409 Fax No. 561-688-2343 Check if to be sent copies of notices and communications 0 Check if new: Address □ Telephone [No. ] - Fax No. □ Name and address CAF No. TelephonePTIN____[No. ] Fax No. Check if to be sent copies of notices and communications 0 Check if new: Address □ Telephone [No. ] - Fax No. □ 3 Tax information. Each designee is authorized to inspect and/or receive confidential tax information for the type of tax, forms, periods, [and] specific [matters] you [list][ below. ][ See][ the][ line][ 3][ instructions. ] ###### 0 By checking here, I authorize access to my IRS records via an Intermediate Service Provider. (a) (b) (c) (d) Type [of][ Tax][ Information] (Income, Tax Form Number Year(s) [or] Period(s) Specific [Tax][ Matters] Employment, Payroll, Excise, Estate, Gift, (1040, 941, 720, etc. ) Civil Penalty, Sec. 4980H Payments, etc. ) Income 1040 2015-2022 4 Specific use not recorded on the Centralized Authorization File (CAF). If the tax information authorization is for a specific [use][ not][ recorded][ on] CAF, check[ this] box. See the instructions. If you check this box, skip line - ###### 5. ► 5 of prior tax information authorizations. If the line 4 box is checked, skip this line. If the line 4 box isn’t checked, the IRS will automatically revoke all prior tax information authorizations on file unless you check the line 5 box and attach a copy of the tax information authorization® that you want to 0 To revoke a prior tax information authorization(s) without submitting a new authorization, r e t a i see the line 5 Instructions. 6 Taxpayer. If signed by a corporate officer, partner, guardian, partnership representative (or designated individual, [if] applicable), executor, receiver, administrator, trustee, or individual other than the taxpayer, I certify that I have the legal authority to execute this form with respect to the tax matters and tax periods shown on line 3 above. - IF NOT COMPLETED, SIGNED, ANDD, THIS TAX INFORMATION AUTHORIZATION WILL BE RETURNED. - DON’T SIGN THIS FORM IF IT IS BLANK OR INCOMPLETE. Print Name Title (If applicable) For Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the instructions. Cat. No. 11596P Form 8821 (Rev. 01-2021) ----- Discontinue Prior Editions Page [1][ of][ 3] Social Security Administration OMB No. 0960-0566 ###### Consent for Release of Information Instructions for Using this Form Complete [this][ form] only [if] you [want][ us][ to] give [information][ or][ records][ about] you, [a] minor, [or][ a] legally incompetent adult, [to][ an] individual or group (for example, a doctor or an insurance company). You may complete this form to release only the minor's non¬ medical records, if you are the natural or adoptive parent or legal guardian, acting on behalf of a minor child. We require proof of relationship, [if] you [are][ not][ the] subject [of][ the][ record. ][ We] may charge [a][ fee][ for] providing [the] information, [if] you [are] requesting [the] information for a purpose unrelated to the administration of a program under the Social Security Act. If you are requesting information, [such][ as][ a][ Social] Security [Statement][ or][ benefit][ verification] letter, you [can][ also][ access][ this][ information] by creating [an] ###### account at https://www. ssa. gov/myaccount/. NOTE: Do NOT use this form to request: - The release of a minor child's medical records. Instead, visit your local Social Security office or call our toll-free ###### number, [1-800-772-1213] (TTY-1-800-325-0778), [or] - Detailed information about your earnings or employment history. Instead, complete and mail form SSA-7050-F4. You can obtain form SSA-7050-F4 from your local Social Security office or online at ###### www. ssa. gov/online/ssa-7050. Ddf. How to Complete this Form We will not honor this form unless all required fields are completed. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field. Also, we will not honor blanket requests for \"any and all records\" or the \"entire file. \" You must specify the information you are requesting and you must sign andthis form. - Fill in the name, of birth, and social security number of the subject of the record. - Fill in the name and address of the person or organization of where you want us to send the requested information. - Specify [the][ reason] you [want][ us][ to][ release][ the][ information] (e. g. , litigation, investigation, determining eligibility [for] benefits). If you are the natural or adoptive parent or legal guardian, acting on behalf of a minor child or legally incompetent adult, you [must][ state][ how][ the][ release][ of][ information][ is][ in][ the][ best][ interest][ of][ the][ minor][ child][ or] legally incompetent [adult. ] - Check the box next to the type(s) of information you want us to release including specificranges, where applicable. NOTE: Unless otherwise specified, the consent form is valid for one-time use only. Also, it is valid for one year from theof, [unless] you [are] requesting [medical][ records. ][ A][ consent][ form][ that][ includes][ a] request [for][ medical][ records][ is][ valid][ for][ 90] ###### days [from][ the][ of]. Send or bring the completed form to the subject of the record's local servicing office. To locate the appropriate servicing office, visit https://secure. ssa. gov/ICON/main. jsp. and input the subject of the record's ZIP code. ----- ( ) ###### Consent for Release of You must complete all requiredUF_PageInformation_. fields. We will not honor your request unless all required fields are completed. (*Signifies a ###### required [field. ][ **These][ are][ not] mandatory [fields][ for] the consent form[ to] be acceptable. Please complete these fields in case we need to contact you about the consent form). TO: Social Security Administration ###### Consent for Release of You must complete all requiredInformation_. fields. We will not honor your request unless all required fields are completed. (*Signifies a ###### required [field. ][ **These][ are][ not] mandatory [fields][ for] the consent form[ to] be acceptable. Please complete these fields in case we need to contact you about the consent form). TO: Social Security Administration SUSAN M. MORALES ###### Tull Name *of Birth Tull Social Security Number (MM/DD/YYYY) I authorize the Social Security Administration to release information or records about me to: ‘NAME OF PERSON OR ORGANIZATION: ‘ADDRESS OF PERSON OR ORGANIZATION: ###### “ PHONE NUMBER OF PERSON OR ORGANIZATION: Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard, & Tuzzio, PLLC 470 Columbia Drive, Bldg C-101 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 *1 want this information released because: We may charge a fee to release information for non-program purposes. ###### Litigation ‘Please release the following information selected from the list below: Check at least one box. If requesting medical records, do not check both boxes 7 and 8. We will not disclose records unless you include specificranges where applicable. 0 Verification of Social Security Number 0 Current monthly Social Security benefit amount 0 Current monthly Supplemental Security Income payment amount 0 Social Security benefit amounts from2011 to[2023] 0 Supplemental Security Income payment amounts from2011 to[2023] 0 Medicare entitlement from2011 to[2023] [3 Medical records from2011' to2023 |3 Complete medical records 9- S Other Social Security record(s) (We will not honor a request for \"any and all records\" or \"the entire file. \" You must specify which records you are seeking. For example, award/denial notices, benefit applications, appeals) ###### All reports, medical records, billing records, liens, applications, evaluations, questionnaires, award notices, denial notices, appeals I am the individual, to whom the requested information or record applies, or the parent or legal guardian of a minor, or ###### the legal guardian of a legally incompetent adult. I declare under penalty of perjury (28 CFR § 1746) that I have examined all the information on this form and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that anyone who ###### knowingly [or] willfully [seeks][ or][ obtains] access to records about another person under false pretenses is punishable by a fine of up to $5, 000. ‘: ‘: “Address: “Daytime [Phone:] “Relationship (if [not][ the] subject [of][ the] record): “Daytime [Phone:] Witnesses must sign this form ONLY if the aboveis by mark (X). If signed by mark (X), two witnesses to the signing who know the signee must sign below and provide their full addresses. Please print the signee's name next to the mark (X) on the ######[line][ above. ] ~~[of][ witness] 2. [of][ witness] ###### Address (Number and street, City, State, and ZIP Code) Address (Number and street, City, State, and ZIP Code) ----- ###### Privacy [Act][ Statement] Collection and Use of Personal Information The Privacy Act (5 U. S. C. 552a) and Section 205(a) of the Social Security Act, as amended, allow us to collect this information. Furnishing [us][ this][ information][ is] voluntary. However, failing [to] provide [all][ or] part [of][ the][ information] may prevent [us][ from] honoring ###### the request to release information or records about you. We will use the information you provide to respond to the request for Social Security Administration (SSA) records. We may share the information for the following purposes, called routine uses: - To contractors and other Federal agencies, as necessary, for the purpose of assisting SSA in the efficient administration of its programs. In addition, we may share this information in accordance with the Privacy Act and other Federal laws. For example, where authorized, [we] may [use][ and][ disclose][ this][ information][ in] computer matching programs, [in] which our records are compared with ###### other records to establish or verify a person's eligibility for Federal benefit programs and for repayment of incorrect or delinquent debts under these programs. A list of additional routine uses is available in our Privacy Act System of Records Notices (SORN) 60-0089, entitled Claims Folders System, as published in the Federal Register (FR) on April 1, 2003, at 68 FR 15784; 60-0320, entitled Electronic Disability [Claim] File, [as] published [in][ the][ FR][ on][ December] 22, 2003, [at][ 68][ FR] 71210; [and] 60-0340, [entitled][ FOIA][ and] Privacy [Act] Record Request and Appeal System, as published in the FR on July 13, 2016, at 81 FR 45352. Additional information, and a full listing [of][ all][ our] SORNs, [is][ available][ on][ our][ website][ at] ###### Paperwork [Reduction][ Act][ Statement] This information collection meets the requirements of 44 U. S. C. § 3507, as amended by section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. You do not need to answer these questions unless we display a valid Office of Management and Budget control number. We estimate that it will take about 5 minutes to read the instructions, gather the facts, and answer the questions. You may [send][ comments][ on][ our][ time][ estimate][ above][ to:] SSA, [6401] Security Blvd. , Baltimore, [MD][ 21235-6401. ][ Send] only ###### comments relating to our time estimate to this address, not the completed form. ----- Discontinue Prior Editions Page [1][ of][ 4] Social Security Administration OMB No. 0960-0525 ###### REQUEST FOR SOCIAL SECURITY EARNING INFORMATION \"Use This Form If You Need DO NOT USE THIS FORM TO REQUEST Certified/Non-Certified Detailed Earnings Information YEARLY EARNINGS TOTALS Includes periods of employment or self-employment ###### and the names and addresses of employers. Yearly earnings [totals][ are][ free][ to][ the] public if you do not require certification. Certified Yearly Totals of Earnings Includes total earnings for each year but does not To obtain FREE yearly totals of earnings, include the names and addresses of employers. visit our website at www. ssa. gov/myaccount. ###### Privacy [Act][ Statement] Collection and Use of Personal Information Section 205 of the Social Security Act, as amended, allows us to collect this information. In addition, the Budget and Accounting [Act][ of][ 1950][ and][ Debt][ Collection][ Act][ of] 1982 authorize us to collect credit card information, if you choose to pay [for][ the] earnings [information] you [have] requested with a credit card. Furnishing us this information is voluntary. However, failing [to] provide [all] or part of the information may prevent us from processing your request. We will use the information to identify your records, process your request, and send the earnings information you request. We may also share the information for the following purposes, called routine uses: To the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for auditing SSA's compliance with the safeguard provisions of the Internal ###### Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. To contractors and other Federal agencies, as necessary, for the purpose of, assisting the Social Security Administration (SSA) in the efficient administration of its programs. To banks enrolled in the Treasury credit card network to collect a payment or debt when the individual has given his/her credit card number for this purpose. In addition, we may share this information in accordance with the Privacy Act and other Federal laws. For example, ###### where authorized, we may use and disclose this information in computer matching programs, in which our records are compared [with][ other][ records][ to][ establish][ or] verify a person’s eligibility for Federal benefit programs and for repayment of incorrect or delinquent debts under these programs. A list of additional routine uses is available in our Privacy Act System of Records Notices (SORNs) 60-0059, entitled Earnings Recording [and] Self-Employment Income System, 60-0090, entitled Master Beneficiary Record, 60-0224, entitled SSA-lnitiated Personal Earnings and Benefit Estimate Statement, and 60-0231, entitled Financial Transactions of SSA Accounting and Finance Offices. Additional information and a full listing of all our SORNs are available on our ###### website at www. socialsecurity. gov/foia/bluebook. Paperwork [Reduction][ Act] Statement -This information collection meets the requirements of 44 U. S. C. § 3507, as amended by section 2 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. You do not need to answer these questions unless we display [a][ valid][ Office][ of] Management [and] Budget control number. We estimate that it will take about 11 minutes to read ###### the instructions, gather the facts, and answer the questions. Send only comments relating to our time estimate above to: SSA, 6401 Security Blvd, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401. ----- ###### REQUEST FOR SOCIAL SECURITY EARNING INFORMATION Provide your name as it appears on your most recent Social Security card or the name of the individual whose ###### earnings you [are] requesting. First Name: s U S A N Middle Initial: M Last Name: M O R A L E S Social Security Number (SSN) One SSN per requestof Birth:of Death: Other Name(s) Used Maiden Name What kind of earnings information do you need? (Choose ONE of the following types of earnings or SSA must return this request. ) [X] [Itemized][ Statement][ of] Earnings [$100. 00] Year(s) Requested: 2 0 1 1 to 2 0 2 3 (Includes [the][ names][ and][ addresses][ of] employers) If you check this box, tell us why you need this Year(s) Requested: to information below. ###### Litigation Check this box if you want the earnings □ [information][ CERTIFIED][ for][ an][ additional] $44. 00 fee. ###### Q [Certified] Yearly [Totals][ of] Earnings [$44. 00] Year(s) Requested: (Does [not][ include][ the][ names][ and][ addresses][ of] employers)Yearly earnings [totals][ are][ FREE][ to][ the] public [if] you do not require certification. To obtain FREE yearly totals of Year(s) Requested: earnings, [visit][ our][ website][ at] www. ssa. gov/myaccount. If you would like this information sent to someone else, please fill in the information below. I authorize the Social Security Administration to release the earnings information to: Name Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard, & Tuzzio, PLLC ###### Address 470 Columbia Drive, Bldg C-101 State FL City West Palm Beach ZIP Code [33409] I am the individual to whom the record pertains (or a person authorized to sign on behalf of that individual). I declare under penalty of perjury that I have examined all the information on this form, and on any accompanying ###### statements or forms, and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. SSA must receive this form within 120 days ######[AND][ Printed][ Name][ of][ Individual][ or] Legal [Guardian] from thesignedRelationship (if applicable, you [must][ attach] proof) Daytime [Phone:] ###### Address State City ZIP Code ###### Witnesses must sign this form ONLY if the aboveis by marked (X). If signed by mark (X), two witnesses to the signing [who][ know][ the] signee [must] sign [below][ and] provide [their][ full][ addresses. ][ Please] print [the] signee's [name][ next][ to][ the] mark (X) on theline above. of Witness 2. of Witness ###### Address (Number and Street, City, State and ZIP Code) Address (Number and Street, City, State and ZIP Code) ----- Form SSA-7050-F4 (11-2022) Page [3][ of][ 4] ###### REQUEST FOR SOCIAL SECURITY EARNING INFORMATION INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR REQUEST You may use this form to request earnings information for one ONE Social Security Number (SSN) How do I get my earnings statement? Is There A Fee For Earnings Information? You must complete the attached form. Tell us the Yes. We charge a $100. 00 fee for providing information specific years [of] earnings you want, type [of] earnings for purposes unrelated to the administration of our record, [and] provide your mailing address. The itemized programs. ###### statement of earnings will be mailed to ONE address, therefore, [if] you [want][ the] statement sent to someone 1. Certified or Non-Certified Itemized Statement of ###### other than yourself, provide their address in section 3. Earnings Mail the completed form to SSA within 120 days of In most instances, individuals request Itemized. [If] you sign [with][ an] \"X\", your [mark][ must][ be] Statements of Earnings for purposes unrelated to ###### witnessed by two impartial persons who must provide our programs such as a private pension plan or their name and address in the spaces provided. personal injury [suit. ][ Bulk][ submitters] may [email] ###### Select ONE type of earnings statement and include the OCO. Pension. Fund@ssa. gov [for][ an][ alternate] appropriate [fee. ] method of obtaining itemized earnings information. Certified/Non-Certified Itemized Statement of We will certify the itemized earnings information for ###### Earnings an additional $44. 00 fee. Certification is usually not This statement includes years of self-employment or necessary [unless] you [are] specifically requested [to] employment [and][ the][ names][ and][ addresses][ of] obtain a certified earnings record. employers. Sometimes, [there][ is][ no] charge for itemized earnings Certified Yearly Totals of Earnings information. If you have reason to believe your This statement includes the total earnings for each earnings [are][ not][ correct] (for example, you [have] ###### year requested [but][ does][ not][ include][ the][ names][ and] previously [received] earnings [information][ from][ us] addresses of employers. and it does not agree with your records), we will supply you [with][ more][ detail][ for][ the] year(s) [in] If you require one of each type of earnings statement, question. [Be][ sure][ to][ show][ the] year(s) involved[ on] you [must] complete [two] separate [forms. ][ Mail] each form the request form and explain why you need the to SSA with one form of payment attached to each information. If you do not tell us why you need the request. information, [we][ will] charge [a] fee. How do I get someonestatement? else's earnings 2. Certified Yearly Totals of Earnings We charge $44. 00 to certify yearly totals of You may get someone else's earnings information if you earnings. However, [if] you [do][ not][ want][ or][ need] ###### meet one of the following criteria, attach the necessary certification, you may [obtain] yearly totals FREE of documents to show your entitlement to the earnings charge [at] www. ssa. gov/myaccount. [Certification][ is] information and include the appropriate fee. usually [not] necessary [unless] you [are][ advised] specifically [to][ obtain][ a][ certified] earnings [record. ] Someone Else's Earnings The natural or adoptive parent or legal guardian of a Method of Payment minor child, or the legal guardian of a legally This Fee Is Not Refundable. DO NOT SEND CASH. ###### declared incompetent individual, may obtain earnings [information][ if] acting [in][ the][ best] interest of You may pay by credit card, check or money order. the minor child or incompetent individual. You must • Credit Card Instructions include proof of your relationship to the individual Complete [the][ credit][ card][ section][ on] page [4][ and] with your request. The proof may include a birth return it with your request form. certificate, [court] order, adoption decree, or other legally binding [document. ] - Check or Money Order Instructions Enclose one check or money order per request A Deceased Person's Earnings form payable to the Social Security You can request earnings information from the Administration and write the Social Security record of a deceased person if you are: number in the memo. - The legal representative of the estate; - A survivor (that is, the spouse, parent, child, How long will it take SSA to process my request? divorced spouse of divorced parent); or - An individual with a material interest (e. g. , Please allow SSA 120 days to process this request. financial) [who][ is][ an][ heir][ at] law, [next][ of] kin, After 120 days, you may contact 1-800-772-1213 to beneficiary [under][ the][ will][ or][ donee][ of] property [of] leave an inquiry regarding your request. the decedent. You must include proof of death and proof of your relationship [to][ the][ deceased][ with] your request. ----- Form SSA-7050-F4 (11 -2022) Page [4][ of][ 4] ###### REQUEST FOR SOCIAL SECURITY EARNING INFORMATION - Where do I send my complete request? Mail the completed form, supporting documentation, If using private contractor such as FedEx mail form, and applicable fee to: supporting documentation, [and] application [fee][ to:] ###### Social Security Administration Social Security Administration P. O. Box 33011 P. O. Box 33011 Baltimore, Maryland [21290-33011] Baltimore, Maryland [21290-33011] - How much do I have to pay for an Itemized Statement of Earnings? ###### Non-Certified Itemized Statement of Earnings Certified Itemized Statement of Earnings $100. 00 $144. 00 - How much do I have to pay for Certified Yearly Totals of Earnings? Certified yearly totals of earnings cost $44. 00. You may obtain non-certified yearly totals FREE of charge at www. ssa. gov/myaccount. [Certification][ is] usually [not] necessary [unless] you [are] specifically asked to obtain a certified earnings record. YOU CAN MAKE YOUR PAYMENT BY CREDIT CARD As a convenience, we offer you the option to make your payment by credit card. However, regular credit card rules will apply. [You][ also] pay by [check][ or] money [order. ][ Make][ check] payable [to][ Social] Security Administration. ###### □ [Visa] Q [American][ Express] CHECK ONE ###### □ [MasterCard] [J [Discover] Credit Card Holder's Name (Enter [the][ name][ from][ the][ credit] card) First Name, Middle Initial, Last Name Credit Card Holder's Address Number & Street City, State, [&][ ZIP][ Code] Daytime Telephone [Number] Area Code Credit Card Number Credit Card Expiration(MM/YY) Amount Charged ###### See above to select the correct fee for your request. Applicable [fees][ are] $44. 00, $100. 00, or $144. 00. $ SSA will return forms without the appropriate fee. Credit Card Holder'sAuthorization ###### DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE NameOFFICE USE ONLY Remittance Control # ----- ###### MEDICARE AUTHORIZATION FORM **ALL SECTIONS REQUIRED** ###### SECTION A: BENEFICIARY INFORMATION Enter beneficiary name as it appears on Medicare card. First Name: Middle Name: Last Name: ###### SUSAN M. MORALESof Birth Medicare Identification Number: ###### (mmlddlyyyy)_ Address: City: Staff*: Zip [code:] ###### SECTION B: RECORD DETAILS DEFINITION Medicare will only disclose the claim information identified below for the individual in Section A. cSelect�. one option:. . - Release all records toQ2/16/2012 to end: [02/16/2024] ###### ° lnclude a\" records NY residents only: LJ Exclude information about alcohol and drug abuse, mental health treatment, and HIV Indicate whether authorization release is for a one-time disclosure, or Identify a futureor event when the authorization will expire. ###### □ One-time disclosure Select one option: ® Expiration upon specified02/16/2024_ El Expiration upon specified event ###### SECTION C: RELEASE INFORMATION TO Identify [the] name, [address][ and][ contact][ information][ of][ the] person and/or organization to whom you want[ Medicare] to disclose ###### the claim records. Medicare will only release claim records to those listed. Release claim records to beneficiary at mailing address above. Organization/lndividual 1 Name Recipient [1][ Email][ Address] ###### Roberts Reynolds Bedard Tuzzio PLLC service BLB@rrbpa. com Recipient [1] Mailing [Address:] ###### 470 Columbia Drive, Suite C-101, West Palm_ Beach, Florida 33409 SECTION D: PURPOSE FOR REQUEST This section helps Medicare understand the reason or intent for use for this record request. At the request of the individual - Litigation ###### SECTION E: AUTHORIZATION AGREEMENT I authorize Medicare to disclose claim records to the person(s) or organization(s) documented in Section C. I understand that ###### these claim records may be re-disclosed by the recipient and may no longer be protected by law. I understand I have the right to revoke this authorization at any time, in writing, except to the extent that Medicare has already [acted][ based][ on] my permission. I understand that signing this authorization is voluntary. Treatment, payment, enrollment in a health plan or eligibility for benefits will not be conditioned on my authorization of this disclosure. [of] Beneficiary [or] Representative Authorized by Law:Signed: Legal [Role][ of] Representative (Requires [Additional] Documentation): ----- MEDICARE AUTHORIZATION FORM - AU SECTIONS REQUIRED4* SECTION A; BENEFICIARY INFORMATION Lr’» [’] hi ><•r ifv/, time ant p •>d«c’, M<? du im'd First Wam. K? . MkidteN. AW'-; 1 Wst haw*:. baf? af girth Ms«j'raf<Hdcrp|fi«(|on Niimis^ tip SECTION B: RECORD DETAILS DEFINITION Mrih Jie a’IjI unty h i m! . - » » ■11k Halm lr formation Idrfit'be-u L~iov< tu> ’hr -nd - ‘ Sc^ct <w<! option: RrIsakRelease wordsintiwehwifi ait rewreis to data frOftiswH dat? )n «rxt NY rwdervta <s*ty; fo-lutfe [Hifarmat«aBM>^^] and drug abuMb mental health Heatmenl, and HIV itidirjt iMtflu* jlUlKtkvtnl'feHO hfv (I t hr J 111 ur I fitK, i 'arm (M\" t r - � ht Itio <9J5hCifiwiC^ Opp time d|Kle»ure one wimp: ^pkatippuprinp - tit4 tfoli Ex? ) [at][ (] l/( [th] spe* [tb][ (] n SECTION C RELEASE INFORMATION TO l-to< i ’i H * 'unH - us d ri-ritei/ mt sHnjtijn - ” e Md vr i. yon n» %»l [i<~] Whufil yesf! «5r>i M*tJlvat«r Sa liiKlui^ KP<|| mr >H‘ M< fi i ite wji| < ruy r*1>»i<w m [»-. rra•»>] (p -'»>», * Jt03t* Rditose o»hrt twiidi to wnefrow *t fcddnm «ww. Orq^ftfrahiwiWhildaal 1 Na«i» RiK'p? «f>s. [I] email Address Redp^nt [l] eading Addms- SECTION D: PURPOSE FOR REQUEST Tt i. (. MHcn bt- ps undmVnd’ht tftwn wr nts’r. r t. n t <«' thuirrofrj rpr|wr Al-tha. teguoiKut [ton][ irtdiVidUat] | Utejaticft SECTION E: AUTHORIZATION AGREEMENT I auihadzi Mcilkafe to disclose, claim records to the petsards? or oryahizatitoi^ documented hi Section Ciunderstand that tiwe sWto fecpjdj may be re-dl. «iu«ed by W't« recipient. and may nn longer be protected by law, I under^Utid I havr the right to revoke th s nutomuMfc-n at aa> time in utItlrg, rM'“pl te the extent that Meditate has already [acted][ b«ted][ on] my permission. - I understand that signing this authorization is Treatment payment; ewellmenl, in a health pinrs or eligibility for beneflu will not be conditioned bn my authorization at this disclosure. 5|goatufe [of] Bertehbary &( ReurtseriUtive Aucbuto'^d by iiyp5i^ned. Legal [Sols][ of] kepHiHinv, iWs (Requires Adddiito^bciriitoem^ ###### 1. BENEFICIARY INFORMATION 5. SPECIFY ORGANIZATION TO RELEASE TO Add beneficiary name and ID number as printed Specify individual(s) [to][ whom][ records][ should][ be] on Medicare identification card, of birth, and released. First name, last name, and address are ###### address. required. [Additional][ contact][ information] provided 2. RECORD TIMEFRAME will be used only to follow up on questions related Indicaterange of records to release, or select to your application submission. \"release all records. \" 6. SELECT REASON FOR REQUEST 3. NY RESIDENTS: EXCLUSIONS OPT-IN Select purpose for record release request to help (NY residents only) Specify whether to exclude Medicare understand how records will be used. ###### records related to alcohol and drug abuse, mental 7. BENEFICIARYhealth treatment, and HIV. [and] by beneficiary [or][ authorized] 4. SELECT EXPIRATIONOR EVENT representative [in] acceptance [of][ HIPAA][ clauses] Indicateor event information release required [to][ release][ information. ][ If][ form][ not] signed authorization will expire, if you are not requesting by beneficiary, [attach][ notarized][ Power][ of] Attorney a one-time disclosure. (living individual), [or][ Letters] Testamentary [and/][ or] ###### Letters of Administration from the court (deceased individual). ----- ###### Consent to Release Liability [Insurance] (Including Self-Insurance), [No-Fault] Insurance, or Workers’ Compensation Where to find Information on “Consent to Release” vs. “Proof of Representation” Please refer to the PowerPoint document on this website titled: “Rules and Model Language for ‘Proof of Representation’ [vs. ][ ‘Consent][ to][ Release’][ for][ Medicare] Secondary Payer Liability [Insurance] (Including Self- Insurance), [No-Fault] Insurance, [or][ Workers’] Compensation” [for][ detailed][ information][ on] • When to use a “consent to release” document vs. a “proof of representation” document, • Appropriate [content][ for][ both] documents, • The need for appropriate documentation when there are two layers of representatives involved (examples: attorney [1][ refers][ a][ case][ to] attorney 2; [the] beneficiary’s guardian [hires][ an] attorney [to] pursue [a] liability insurance claim) or when a beneficiary’s representative signs a “consent to release” document on the beneficiary’s behalf, • What liability insurers (including self-insurers), no-fault insurers, and workers’ compensation entities must have in order to obtain conditional payment information, and • Use of agents by insurers’ or workers’ compensation. General A “consent to release” document is used by an individual or entity who does not represent the Medicare beneficiary [but][ is] requesting [information] regarding [the] beneficiary’s [conditional] payment information. A “consent to release” does not authorize the individual or entity to act on behalf of the beneficiary or make decisions on behalf of the beneficiary. Model Language See attached. Use of the model language is not required, but any documentation submitted as a “Consent to Release” must include the information the model language requests. Where to Submit a [“] Consent to Release” document: Liability Insurance, [No-Fault] Insurance, [Workers’] Compensation: NGHP PO Box 138832 Oklahoma City, OK 73113 Fax: (405) 869-3309 ----- ###### MODEL LANGUAGE CONSENT TO RELEASE The language below should be used when you, a Medicare beneficiary, want to authorize someone other than your attorney [or][ other] representative [to][ receive] information, including [identifiable] health information, from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) related to your liability insurance (including self-insurance), no-fault insurance or workers’ compensation claim. I, (print your [name] exactly [as][ shown][ on] your [Medicare] card) ###### hereby [authorize][ the] CMS, [its] agents [and/or][ contractors][ to] release, upon request, [information] related to my injury/illness [and/or][ settlement][ for][ the] specified [ of] injury/illness [to][ the][ individual][ and/or] entity listed below: CHECK ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TO INDICATE WHO MAY RECEIVE INFORMATION AND THEN PRINT THE REQUESTED INFORMATION: (If you [intend][ to][ have] your [information][ released][ to][ more][ than][ one] individual or entity, you must complete a separate [release][ for][ each] one. ) Insurance Company Workers’ Compensation Carrier [Other] Firm J (Explain) Name of entity: Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard, [&] Tuzzio, PLLC Contact for above entity: Benjamin [L. ] Bedard, Esquire Address: 470 Columbia Drive, Suite C101 Address Line 2: City/State/ZIP: West Palm Beach, FL 33409 561-688-6560 Telephone: CHECK ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TO INDICATE HOW LONG CMS MAY RELEASE YOUR INFORMATION (The period you [check][ will][ run][ from][ when] you sign [and] below. ): One Year Two Years Other (Provide [a] specific period [of] time) I understand that I may revoke this “consent to release information” at any time, in writing. ###### MEDICARE BENEFICIARY INFORMATION AND: Beneficiary:_ signed:_ Note: If the beneficiary is incapacitated, the submitter of this document will need to include documentation establishing [the] authority [of] [the][ individual] signing [on][ the] beneficiary’s [behalf. ][ Please][ visit] https://go. cms. gov/cobro [for][ further][ instructions. ] Medicare ID (The number on your Medicare card. ): ----- ###### Authorization for the Use and Disclosure of Protected Health Information Information Identifying the Individual Whose Records Are Being Requested SUSAN M- MORALES Name of Individual: SSN: Disclosure of your Social Security Number is not mandatory. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Agency) may request your [Social] Security [Number] pursuant [to][ Section] 119. 071, [Florida] Statutes. [ If] provided, the Agency will use your information for purposes of finding the requested information. Individual's Street City: Address:_State: Zip [Code:] Medicaid ID or Gold Card Phone Number:_of Birth: ###### Number:; Provide the specifics of service included. From: To: Purpose [for][ this][ disclosure:]I wish this authorization Litigation_ to expire (expires in one year if nois provided): I direct AHCA to mail the requested hard copy records to the below person(s), group or entity: ###### 0 Documents Requested: LZlPaid Claims Records I IDenied Claims Records I IAll Claims Records I. I Name: Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard, [&] Tuzzio, ###### Other:_ Street Address: [470][ Columbia] Drive, Bldg PLLC_ qty: [West][ Palm][ Beach] state:C-101_FL zip Code: 33409 | | I authorize the below person(s), group or entity to verbally discuss specific topics with AHCA: The specific topics to be discussed Name: I understand the following: I have theare:_ right to revoke this authorization at any time by writing to the Agency's Privacy Officer or completing [the][ revocation][ section][ on][ the][ second] page [of][ this][ form][ and] sending it to the address listed for the Agency’s Privacy Officer. I understand that any information previously disclosed would not be subject to my revocation request. The information described above may be re-disclosed by the person or group that I am giving the Agency permission to disclose to and therefore my information may no longer be protected by [Federal] privacy regulations. I may inspect or request copies of any information disclosed by this authorization if the Agency initiated this request for disclosure. I may refuse to sign this authorization and my refusal to sign will not affect my ability to obtain treatment, payment [for][ health][ care] services or eligibility for benefits. This form specifically includes authorization to provide documents related to sensitive health conditions including: drug, alcohol or substance abuse, psychological or psychiatric treatment, sickle cell anemia, birth control or family planning, genetic diseases or tests, tuberculosis, [and] HIV/AIDS [or][ STDs. ] To restrict sensitive information, see Page 2. I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THAT THE INFORMATION ON THIS FORM IS TRUE AND CORRECT. :: Printed Name: Legal Authority (If [Other][ Than] ###### Individual):_ If you are a legal representative of the person whose information you are requesting disclosure of, you must provide documentation__ proving your legal authority to request this information (for example, power of attorney, guardianship papers, health care surrogate form, Custody Order, Order Appointing Personal Representative, Letters of Administration). AHCA Form 1000-3003, Revised (AUG 2018) Page [1][ of][ 2] ----- ###### Authorization for the Use and Disclosure of Protected Health Information Instructions for Completing this Form Complete [the][ first] page [of][ this][ form][ and][ return][ it][ to:][ HIPAA] Privacy Officer, Agency for Health Care Administration, 2727 Mahan Dr. , MS #4, Tallahassee, FL 32308, Phone: 850-412-3960, Fax 850-414-6837 Email: HIPAAComplianceOffice@AHCA. MyFlorida. com. Special types [of][ health][ information][ have] specific [laws] and rules that must be followed before that information may be disclosed: HIV/AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD): All information about HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases is protected [under][ Federal][ and][ State][ laws][ and][ cannot] be disclosed without your written authorization unless otherwise provided in the regulations. To release HIV/AIDS or STD information, this authorization must include a statement of the specific HIV/AIDS or STD information you are giving the Agency permission to disclose. Re-disclosure of HIV/AIDS information is not allowed except in compliance [with][ law][ or][ with] your [written] permission. [To][ NOT][ INCLUDE] this information, initial here_ Alcohol or Drug Treatment: Alcohol and/or drug treatment records are protected under Federal and State laws and regulations and cannot be disclosed without your written authorization, unless otherwise provided for in Federal and State laws or regulations. To release alcohol and/or drug treatment information, this authorization must include a statement of the specific Information that you are giving the Agency permission to disclose (for example, \"For the purposes of my assessment, treatment plan, attendance, [or] discharge plan. \") Re-disclo$ure of your alcohol and/or drug treatment records is not allowed except in compliance with law or with your written permission (see 45 CFRPart 2). To NOT INCLUDE this information, initial here_ Mental Health Treatment: Mental health treatment records are protected under Federal and State laws and regulations and cannot be disclosed without your written authorization unless otherwise allowed in Federal or State laws or regulations. To release mental health treatment information, this authorization must include a statement of the specific Information that you are giving the Agency permission [to][ disclose] (for example, [\"For] the purposes of my assessment, treatment plan, attendance, or discharge plan. \") [Disclosure][ of] your psychotherapist's [notes] needs separate written permission. Re-disclosure of your mental health treatment records is not allowed except in compliance with law or with your writtenpermission. To NOT INCLUDE this information, initial ###### here_ Revocation of Authorization DO NOT COMPLETE FOR A NEW AUTHORIZATION. THIS SECTION IS ONLY FOR REVOKING A PREVIOUS AUTHORIZATION. Disclosure of your Social Security Number is not mandatory. The Agency for Health Care Administration may request your Social Security Number pursuant to Section 119. 071, Florida Statutes. Nameof Birth Phone Social Security Number Medicaid ID Number or Gold Card Number Street Address City State Zip [Code] 1 hereby revoke my authorization for the Agency for Health Care Administration to disclose my protected health information to the following person(s), group [or] entity:Printed Name Legal Relationship to Individual If you are the subject's legal representative, you must provide documentation proving your legal authority to revoke this authorization. (For example, an authorization, power of attorney, guardianship papers, health care surrogate form, Order Appointing [Personal] Representative, [Letters][ of] Administration). AHCA Form 1000-3003, Revised (AUG 2018) Page [2][ of][ 2] -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, vs. MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. and HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , Defendants. _____________________________________/ IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CASE NO: **COMPLAINT** Plaintiffs, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife, by and through the undersigned attorneys, hereby sue the Defendants, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. and HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , and allege the following: **GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS** This is an action for damages in excess of the sum of Fifty Thousand ($50, 000. 00) Dollars exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, were and are residents of Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES were and remain legally married to one another. ----- COMPLAINT Morales vs. Morguard Management Company, Inc. and Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Page 2 At all times material hereto, Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. was and is a Florida Profit Corporation authorized and doing business in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. was the management company for The Home Depot, Store #6316 located 5750 S. Jog Road, Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto, Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. was and is a Foreign Profit Corporation authorized and doing business in Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. owned and operated The Home Depot, Store #6316 located 5750 S. Jog Road, Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto, on or about December 13, 2022 at approximately 8:30 a. m. , Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, an invitee, went to The Home Depot, Store #6316 located at 5750 S. Jog Road, Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, parked her car and was walking in the parking lot in order to get into the store. Suddenly and without warning, her feet/foot got caught in a “pallet tie” causing her to violently fall to the ground. As a result, thereof, Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, suffered significant injuries including a large laceration to her nose, black right eye, contusion to her head, two broken kneecaps, broken left elbow, fractured left wrist and fractured right hand. ----- COMPLAINT Morales vs. Morguard Management Company, Inc. and Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Page 3 Venue is proper in Palm Beach County because the facts giving rise to this action occurred in Palm Beach County. **COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM AGAINST** **DEFENDANT, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. ** Plaintiffs, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife, reallege and incorporate each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 11 as if fully set forth herein, and further alleges: At all times material hereto, Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. , was and is the management company for The Home Depot, Store#6316, and had a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of any hazards about which it knew or should have known. At all times material hereto, Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. , knew or should have known, by and through the exercise of reasonable care in maintaining the parking lot area of The Home Depot, Store #6316, that individuals attempting to access the entrance to the building regularly traversed the parking lot of the premises. Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC, knew or should have known that that dangerous conditions existed to individuals attempting to access the entrance to the building, including but not limited to, Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES. Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC, had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in the parking lot and had a duty to protect invitees, like SUSAN MORALES, from the dangerous condition in the parking lot. Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC, had a duty to warn SUSAN MORALES of ----- COMPLAINT Morales vs. Morguard Management Company, Inc. and Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Page 4 concealed dangers which were or should have been known to Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC, and which were unknown to SUSAN MORALES. Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC, had a duty to use reasonable care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. The danger in the parking lot was not known to SUSAN MORALES and even if it had been hypothetically, Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC, should have anticipated the harm. Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. , individually, and by and through its employees, agents, servants, and/or apparent agents, was negligent and breached its aforementioned duty to Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES. Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. , breached its duty to Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, in one or more of the following ways: a. Negligently failing to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition; b. Negligently failing to warn SUSAN MORALES of the hidden danger; c. Negligently allowing a known dangerous condition to exist upon its premises for an unreasonable period of time; d. Negligently failing to correct a dangerous condition about which it knew or should have known by the exercise of reasonable care; e. Negligently allowing a dangerous condition, which failed to comply with applicable codes and regulations to exist and thereby exposed business invitees, including Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, to injury; f. Failing to maintain its parking lots and egress routes in a manner that provided for safe walking conditions for its business invitees, including Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES; and ----- COMPLAINT Morales vs. Morguard Management Company, Inc. and Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Page 5 g. Negligently failing to warn Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, of a dangerous condition about which Defendant had, or should have had, knowledge greater than that of the Plaintiff. As to Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES’ negligence claim: Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money in the future, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. These losses are either permanent or continuing, and Plaintiff will suffer these losses into the future. As to Plaintiff, JORGE L. MORALES’ consortium claim: As a result of the Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. ’s negligence, Plaintiff, JORGE L. MORALES, has been deprived of the consortium of his wife, Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, including but not limited to the loss of fellowship, companionship, society, attentions, services, affection, guidance, comfort and household services. These losses are permanent and continuing in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife, demand judgment for damages against Defendant, MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. , in excess of $50, 000. 00, demand taxable costs, attorney’s fees, and further demand trial by jury. ----- COMPLAINT Morales vs. Morguard Management Company, Inc. and Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Page 6 **COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM AGAINST** **DEFENDANT, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. ** Plaintiffs, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife, reallege and incorporate each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 11 as if fully set forth herein, and further alleges: At all times material hereto, Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , owned and operated The Home Depot, Store#6316, and had a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of any hazards about which it knew or should have known. At all times material hereto, Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC knew or should have known, by and through the exercise of reasonable care in owning and/or maintaining the parking lot area of The Home Depot, Store #6316, that individuals attempting to access the entrance to the building regularly traversed the parking lot of the premises. Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC, knew or should have known that that dangerous conditions existed to individuals attempting to access the entrance to the building, including but not limited to, Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES. Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC, had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in the parking lot and had a duty to protect invitees, like SUSAN MORALES, from the dangerous condition in the parking lot. Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC, had a duty to warn SUSAN MORALES of concealed dangers which were or should have been known to Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC, and which were unknown to SUSAN ----- COMPLAINT Morales vs. Morguard Management Company, Inc. and Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Page 7 MORALES. Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC, had a duty to use reasonable care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. The danger in the parking lot was not known to SUSAN MORALES and even if it had been hypothetically, Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC, should have anticipated the harm. Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , individually, and by and through its employees, agents, servants, and/or apparent agents, was negligent and breached its aforementioned duty to Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES. Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , breached its duty to Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, in, but not limited to, one or more of the following ways: a. Negligently failing to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition; b. Negligently failing to warn SUSAN MORALES of the hidden danger; c. Negligently allowing a known dangerous condition to exist upon its premises for an unreasonable period of time; d. Negligently failing to correct a dangerous condition about which it knew or should have known by the exercise of reasonable care; e. Negligently allowing a dangerous condition, which failed to comply with applicable codes and regulations to exist and thereby exposed business invitees, including Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, to injury; f. Failing to maintain its parking lots and egress routes in a manner that provided for safe walking conditions for its business invitees, including Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES; and g. Negligently failing to warn Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, of a dangerous condition about which Defendant had, or should have had, knowledge greater than that of the Plaintiff. ----- COMPLAINT Morales vs. Morguard Management Company, Inc. and Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Page 8 As to Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES’ negligence claim: Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money in the future, and aggravation of a previously existing condition. These losses are either permanent or continuing, and Plaintiff will suffer these losses into the future. As to Plaintiff, JORGE L. MORALES’ consortium claim: As a result of the Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. ’s negligence, Plaintiff, JORGE L. MORALES, has been deprived of the consortium of his wife, Plaintiff, SUSAN M. MORALES, including but not limited to the loss of fellowship, companionship, society, attentions, services, affection, guidance, comfort and household services. These losses are permanent and continuing in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife, demand judgment for damages against Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , in excess of $50, 000. 00, demand taxable costs, attorney’s fees, and further demand trial by jury. D this 16[TH] day of March, 2023. ## /S/ KAREN E. TERRY Karen E. Terry Florida Bar No. : 45780 Primary E-Mail: _terryteam@searcylaw. com Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P. A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Phone: (561) 686-6300 Work Attorney for Plaintiffs -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. Wife, Plaintiffs, vs. MORGUARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. and HOME DEPOT U. S. A, INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , Defendants. _____________________________________/ **PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE AND REQUEST FOR INSPECTION** **TO DEFENDANT, HOME DEPOT U. S. A. , INC. D/B/A THE HOME DEPOT, INC. ** Plaintiffs, SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife, by and through the undersigned counsel, request, pursuant to Rule 1. 350 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, that Defendant, HOME DEPOT U. S. A. , INC. d/b/a THE HOME DEPOT, INC. , produce and permit SUSAN M. MORALES and JORGE L. MORALES, Individually and as Husband and Wife to inspect and copy each of the following documents*: Ê Any and all policies of insurance, including excess insurance, that may provide coverage to Plaintiffs for the injuries sustained in the above-styled action. Ê Any and all recordings, including video recordings, that depict the fall occurring on December 13, 2022, which is the subject of the Complaint. Ê Copies of any and all surveillance video of any part of The Home Depot, Store #6316 located at 5750 S. Jog Road, Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida or surrounding area, ----- Plaintiff’s First Request to Produce and Request for Inspection to Defendant, Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Morales v. Morguard Management Company, et. al. including but not limited to, the parking lot, for the two hours prior to the fall which is the subject of the Complaint. Ê Any and all documents showing changes, additions, or improvements made to The Home Depot, Store #6316, the parking lot located at 5750 S. Jog Road, Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida for six months preceding theof the subject incident. Ê Copies of all repair and maintenance records including but not limited to invoices for The Home Depot, Store #6316 or surrounding area, including but not limited to, the parking lot, located at 5750 S. Jog Road, Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida where the incident took place as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint for six months preceding theof the subject incident. Ê Copies of all incident reports for any falls occurring at The Home Depot, Store #6316 in the parking lot, located at 5750 S. Jog Road, Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida for three years preceding theof the subject incident. Ê A complete copy of the incident report for the incident which is the subject of the Complaint. Ê A copy of any witness statements pertaining to the incident which is the subject of the Complaint. Ê Any indemnification agreements between you and/or your insurer and/or Morguard Management Company Inc. in effect in 2022. Ê All documentation including but not limited to a copy of the contract or agreement between you and Morguard Management Company Inc. in effect in 2022 which set forth duties and obligations. 2 ----- Plaintiff’s First Request to Produce and Request for Inspection to Defendant, Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Morales v. Morguard Management Company, et. al. Ê Inspection logs demonstrating what inspections were performed by Defendant from November 13, 2022, to December 13, 2022 prior to the incident alleged in the Complaint. Ê Inspection logs demonstrating the results of the inspection, if any, performed by Defendant after Plaintiff’s fall on December 13, 2022. Ê The index to all policies and procedures and/or rules and regulations in effect in *\"Documents\" shall include, but not be limited to all non-identical copies of writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phono-records, recordings, and/or any other data compilations from which information can be obtained, translated, if necessary, by the party to whom the request is directed through detection devices into reasonably usable form. “Documents” also include all electronic data as well as application metadata and system metadata. All inventories and rosters of your information technology (IT) systems-e. g. , hardware, software and data, including but not limited to network drawings, lists of computing devices (servers, PCs, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, with data storage and/or transmission features), programs, data maps and security tools and protocols. It is requested that the aforesaid production be made within forty-five days of service of this request at the offices of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P. A. , 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, FL 33409Inspection will be made by visual observation, examination and/or copying. If any document responsive to a request has been lost or destroyed, produce all documents describing or referencing: 3 ----- Plaintiff’s First Request to Produce and Request for Inspection to Defendant, Home Depot U. S. A. , Inc. d/b/a The Home Depot, Inc. Morales v. Morguard Management Company, et. al. Ê The identity of each document sufficient to describe each; including theof the document, the author of the document; the intended recipient of each document; and the title of each document. Ê The content of the lost or destroyed document. Ê All locations in which any copy of the lost or destroyed document had been maintained. Ê Theof the loss or destruction of each document. Ê The name of each person who ordered, authorized, and carried out the destruction of any responsive document. Ê All document retention and destruction policies in effect at the time any requested document was destroyed. Ê All efforts made to locate any responsive document alleged to have been lost. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via Service of Process with the Summons and Complaint. ## /s/ KAREN E. TERRY Karen E. Terry Florida Bar No. : 45780 Primary E-Mail: _terryteam@searcylaw. com Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P. A. 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Phone: (561) 686-6300 Fax: (561) 383-9441 Attorney for Plaintiffs 4 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA NICHOLAS DOUGHERTY, Plaintiff, v. LINDA ANNIBALE, Defendant. ###### COMPLAINT Plaintiff, NICHOLAS DOUGHERTY, hereby files this Complaint against Defendant, ## _/ LINDA ANNIBALE, and states as follows: ###### JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS This Court has subject matter jurisdiction because the matter in controversy is greater [than][ the][ sum][ of] Fifty [Thousand][ and][ One] Dollars ($50, 001) exclusive of interests and costs. Plaintiff, [NICHOLAS] DOUGHERTY (hereinafter “Plaintiff’ or “Dougherty”), is currently [a][ resident][ of] Allegheny County, residing at 1281 Beagle Drive, Bethel Park, PA 15102. At all times material to the Complaint, he was a resident of Palm Beach County, and resided at 5357 Stonybrook Lane, Boynton Beach, FL 33437 (the “Subject Property”). Defendant, [LINDA] ANNIBALE (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Annibale”), is a resident of Palm Beach County residing at 5357 Stonybrook Lane, Boynton Beach, FL 33437. Venue is proper in Palm Beach County because Defendant resides in Palm Beach County, [and][ the][ action][ occurred][ in][ Palm][ Beach] County. ----- Dougherty [v. ][ Annibale] Complaint ###### Page | [2] GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff and Defendant met and began dating in approximately 2002, which quickly progressed [into][ a][ committed] relationship. At that time, Plaintiff and Defendant each owned their own residence but for all intents and purposes, they eventually resided together at Defendant’s residence. Plaintiff and Defendant moved to Florida in 2017 where they planned to retire. While working for NVR Settlement Services as a settlement officer, Defendant transferred to one of their Florida locations. Plaintiff resigned from his position as a bartender at Andora Restaurant after 16 years, [his][ last] day [of] employment being April 4, 2017, but remained in Pittsburgh for the purpose ###### of performing the work required to list both properties for sale. Both Plaintiff s and Defendant’s Pittsburgh properties sold between 2017 and early 2018, [at][ which][ time] Plaintiff joined Defendant in Florida as planned, where he and Defendant resided in Defendant’s aunt’s unoccupied residence until such time as they found and purchased a house. Plaintiff and Defendant met their realtor, Darcy LaFountain, at the Subject Property on November 3, 2017, which property they subsequently purchased. The closing on the Subject Property occurred on December 17, 2017. Plaintiff made two (2) wire transfers to Defendant which went toward the downpayment [of][ the] Subject Property [on] December 19, 2017, in the total amount of $14, 407. 02 (see [“Exhibit][ A”] attached). ----- Dougherty [v. ][ Annibale] Complaint ###### Page | [5] As Plaintiff was employed as a bartender, and his entire income not being considered, [Defendant] recommended using only Defendant’s name on the Deed to the Subject Property, [at][ which][ time] (and subsequent times) Defendant stated that it was simple to do, and that ###### Plaintiffs name would be added after the closing. The realtor, Darcy LaFountain, was fully aware that Plaintiff and Defendant were purchasing [the][ house] together, [as][ were][ both] Plaintiffs[ and] Defendant’s families, as well as the neighbors [who][ became][ friends][ with][ Plaintiff][ and][ Defendant. ] From January through April of 2018, Plaintiff and his brother worked four (4) months completely renovating the Subject Property, the materials for which were purchased by ###### Plaintiff either by cash or his credit cards. The parties moved into the Subject Property in May 2018. Each time Plaintiff asked Defendant why she hadn’t added his name to the Deed as agreed (and [that][ Defendant][ stated][ was] simple [and] inexpensive to do), Defendant would offer some excuse why she hadn’t, but continued to state that she would. Defendant never took the necessary and agreed-upon steps to officially make ###### Plaintiff a joint owner of the Subject Property. In approximately August 2019, Defendant told Plaintiff that she wanted him to move out of the Subject Property. Plaintiff, [after] finally realizing that he had no recourse, reluctantly vacated the Subject Property [on][ October] 1, [2019. ] ----- Dougherty Complaint ###### Page | [4] Plaintiff invested all of his funds on the Subject Property and was left with no money [and][ nowhere][ to][ live][ as][ he][ had][ sold][ his] Pittsburgh duplex [to][ relocate][ in] Florida with Defendant. COUNT 1 [-] UNJUST ENRICHMENT Dougherty re-alleges [and] incorporates by [reference][ the][ statements][ made][ and] contained in paragraphs 1 through 22 above. This is a count for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff has conferred a benefit on Defendant by improving the Subject Property. Defendant has knowledge of the benefit. Defendant accepted the benefit. It would be inequitable for the Defendant to retain the benefit without paying fair value for it. In bringing this action, Plaintiff has become obligated to pay costs for which the Defendant is liable pursuant to §57. 041, Florida Statutes. COUNT II- BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT Dougherty re-alleges [and] incorporates by [reference][ the][ statements][ made][ and] contained in paragraphs 1 through 29 above. ----- Dougherty Complaint ###### Page | [5] The parties had an oral contract that Plaintiff would perform work on the Subject Property [and][ Defendant][ would] add Plaintiffs name on the title to the Subject Property. Defendant breached the oral contract with Plaintiff Plaintiff sustained damages in excess of $56, 000 (see “Exhibit “B” attached). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, NICHOLAS DOUGHERTY, demands judgment against Defendant, [LINDA] ANNIBALE, for damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and costs, and award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Nicholas Dougherty, Pro Se Plaintiffd: September 28, 2023 ----- PNC Bank Primary [account] number: Page [1][ of][ 3] For the period 12/06/2017 to 01/04/2018 Number of enclosures: 0 NICHOLAS D DOUGHERTY - [For][ 24-hour] banking, and transaction or interest rate information, sign on to 5357 STONYBROOK LANE PNC Bank Online Banking at pnc. com. BOYNTON BEACH FL 33437-1618 S For customer service call 1-888-PNC-BANK Monday [-] Friday: [7][ AM][ -10][ PM][ ET] Saturday [&] Sunday: 8 AM [-] 5 PM E. T Para servicio en esparfol, 1-866-HOLA-PNC Moving? Please contact us at 1-888-PNC-BANK S3 Write to: Customer Service PO Box 609 Pittsburgh [PA][ 15230-9738] ###### Q [Visit][ us][ at][ PNC. com] TDD terminal: 1-800-531-1648 For hearing impaired clients only ###### Standard Checking Account Summary NICHOLAS D DOUGHERTY Account number: Overdraft Protection i Overdraft Coverage - Your account is currently Opted-Out. You or your joint owner may revoke your opt-in or opt-out choice at any time. To learn more about PNC Overdraft Solutions visit us online at pnc. com/overdraftsolutions Call 1-877-508-3605, visit any branch, or Sign on to PNC Online Banking. and select the \"Overdraft ' ProtectionSolutions” link settings. under the Account Services section to manage both your Overdraft Coverage and Overdraft Balance Summary f Transaction Summary Checks paid/ Check Card POS Check Card/Bankcard withdrawals signed transactions POS PIN transactions 0 4 2 TOtal ATM PNC Bank Other Bank transactions ATM transactions ATM transactions 2 2 Activity [Detail] Deposits [and][ Other] AdditionsAmount Oescriotion 12/13 12/14 12, 000. 00 Book Trn Credit RED CTED RED 12/19 2. 40Q. Q0 Deposit Reference No. 03537946S 2/26 EXHIBIT ----- For the period 12/06/2017 to 01/04/2018 ###### □ on[For] pnc. com. [ 24-hour] information, sign on to PNC Bank Online Banking NICHOLAS D DOUGHERTY Primary account number: Account number: j Page [2][ of][ 3] Deposits [and] Other Additions - continuedAmount Description 01/03 ualesanKing/uheck CardAmount WithdrawalsDescription and Purchases There was 1 Banking Machine Withdrawal totaling $60. 00 12/11 12/18 There were 2 Check Card/Bank card PIN PCS 12/18 purchases totaling $81. 91 12/18 12/19 There were 4 other Banking Machine/Check 12/19 Card deductions totaling $31. 54 01/03Online and Electronic• Banking• - Deductions There were 17 Online or Electronic Banking Deductions totaling $15, 763. 99 1207 12/08 1208 1213 1218 1218 1218 1219 12, 000. 00 Fed Wire Out 17Cj, i1102KsaQDD2 1219 2, 407. 02 Fed Wire Out T7Cjj51073H91 Diz 1220 1220 1221 1222 1226 1226 1229 01/03 Other Deductions Oate Amount Description There$60. 00 were. 2 Other Deductions totaling i2/19 30. 00 Wire Transfer Fee - Outgoing Wire 12/19 30. 00 Wire Transfer Fee - Outgoing Wire Daily Balance Detail ----- ###### Nicholas D. Dougherty _ Totals Cash and Cash Purchases $ -5^0&00- Checking [Account] $ 24, 957. 42 Discover $ 4, 217. 11 Capital [One] Quicksilver $ 329. 94 State Farm Visa $ 63. 01 Capital [One][ Teamsters] $ 34. 94 Bank of America MC $ 181. 55 Labor $ 21, 390. 00 $ 56. 381. 97 ###### Sb. m 77 ### ----- EXHIBIT ###### b n [H] ----- ###### [to][ Linda][ Annibale] from Nick Dougherty _Zelle 5/18/2018 $100 6/18/2018 $100 6/19/2018 $180 7/16/2018 $253 8/20/2018 $700 9/18/2018 $400 10/1/2018 $40 10/5/2018 $160 10/26/2018 $1, 000 11/19/2018 $400 11/29/2018 $110 12/28/2018 $175 1/4/2019 $110 < ###### 1/9/2019 djo $3, 858 Cash Purchases: Ladders (tohieh I hdi/i Master Bath Vanity $750 < ###### Marble Top >400 <$1, 350 ###### Cash Total _2$ [5, 208] ----- ###### Nicholas D. Dougherty Standard Checking Account (December [2017][ to] June 2019) _ 12/19/2017 Wire transfer (down payment) $ 12, 000. 00 12/19/2017 Wire transfer (down payment) $ 2, 407. 00 12/19/2017 Wire transfer (down payment) $ 30. 00 12/19/2017 Wire transfer (down payment) L 30. 00 $ 14, 467. 00 ###### 1/22/2018 Home Depot $ 1, 002. 00 1/25/2018 Alpha Dumpsters $ 299. 00 1/29/2018 Home Depot $ 100. 00 1/29/2018 Home Depot $ 5. 30 1/29/2018 Home Depot $ 1. 00 1/29/2018 Home Depot $ 141. 74 1/29/2018 Lowe's $ 78. 97 1/29/2018 Lowe's $ 117. 02 1/30/2018 Lowe's $ 69. 79 1/30/2018 Lowes $ 116. 54 $ 1, 931. 36 ###### 2/1/2018 Home Depot $ 575. 52 2/1/2018 Home Depot $ 94. 87 2/1/2018 Home Depot $ 35. 65 2/1/2018 Home Depot $ 4. 25 2/2/2018 Home Depot $ 21. 37 2/5/2018 Lowe's $ 171. 35 2/5/2018 Lowe's $ 70. 67 2/5/2018 Lowe's $ 77. 00 2/13/2018 Home Depot $ 243. 71 2/15/2018 Lowe's $ 232. 71 2/15/2018 Home Depot $ 11. 71 2/20/2018 Home Depot $ 36. 76 2/20/2018 Lowe's $ 12. 81 2/21/2018 Sherwin Williams $ 14. 98 2/22/2018 Sherwin Williams $_ 52. 90 $ 1, 656. 26 ###### 3/28/2018 Lowe's $ 8. 52 3/30/2018 Lowe's $_ 13. 06_ $ 21. 58 ----- - ~] ###### 4/18/2018 _ Synochrony [Bank] $ 158. 00 4/24/2018 Lowe's 1, 000. 00 £ $ 3, 609. 20 ###### 5/25/2018 City [Furniture] (sectional] $ 2, 139. 95 $ 2, 139. 95 ###### 6/18/2018 Home Depot $ 11. 24 $ 11. 24 ###### 8/13/2018 Home Depot $ 111. 51 8/15/2018 Home Depot $ 110. 17 $ 221. 68 ###### 9/6/2018 Lowe's $ 21. 84 9/7/2018 Lowe's $ 34. 31 9/7/2018 Lowe's $ 25. 66 9/12/2018 Home Depot $ 20. 30 9/28/2018 Lowe's $ 67. 08 $ 169. 19 ###### 10/16/2018 Home Depot $ 8. 00 10/16/2018 Lowe's $ 105. 93 10/24/2018 Home Depot $ 17. 53 $ 131. 46 ###### 11/5/2018 Home Depot $ 24. 50 11/8/2018 Home Depot $ 9. 57 $ 34. 07 ###### 12/18/2018 Lowe's $ 43. 82 $ 43. 82 ###### 1/16/2019 4ome Depot $ 4. 25 - 1/16/2019 lome Depot $ 85. 20 1/18/2019 ^we's $ 60. 75 $ 150. 20 ----- ###### 2/5/2019 Lowe's $ 23. 52 $ 23. 52 ###### 4/29/2019 Tuesday Morning $ 320. 99 $ 320. 99 ###### 5/29/2019 Home Depot $_4. 52 $ 4. 51 ###### 6/19/2019 Tuesday Morning $ 21. 39. $ 21. 39 ###### Checking [account][ total] $ 24, 957. 42 ----- ###### Nicholas D. Dougherty Discover Card Statement (February [2019][ to][ October] 2019] 2/9/2019 Lowe's $ 6. 36 2/23/2019 Lowe's 1 48. 04 $ 54. 40 ###### 3/5/2019 Lowe's $ 59. 11 3/9/2019 Lowe's $ 4. 80 3/10/2019 Home Depot $ 12. 14 3/15/2019 Lowe's $ 38. 48 3/18/2019 Drillscutter $ 24. 56 3/22/2019 Home Depot $ 27. 79 3/23/2019 Home Depot $ 10. 64 3/30/2019 Home Depot $ 31. 72 3/30/2019 Home Depot $ 27. 72 3/31/2019 Home Depot 8. 54 $_ $ 245. 50 ###### 4/15/2019 Lowe's $ 53. 78 4/16/2019 Lowe's $ 77. 47 4/16/2019 Lowe's $ 116. 63 4/18/2019 Lowe's $ 8. 54 4/21/2019 Lowe's $ 56. 66 4/22/2019 Home Depot $ 211. 07 $ 524. 15 ###### 5/1/2019 Home Depot $ 59. 46 5/3/2019 Home Depot $ 29. 72 5/11/2019 Home Depot $ 15. 68 5/11/2019 Lowe's $ 214. 44 5/13/2019 Lowe's $ 60. 85 5/14/2019 Lowe's $ 60. 99 5/18/2019 Lowe's $ 104. 35 5/19/2019 Home Depot $ 50. 33 5/22/2019 Lowe's $ 41. 77 5/29/2019 Home Depot 6. 38 $_ $ 643. 97 ----- ###### 6/12/2019 Lowe's $ 72. 98 6/16/2019 Lowe's $ 81. 91 [-] 6/17/2019 Lowe's $ 39. 57 6/26/2019 Lowe's L 32. 58 $ 227. 04 ###### 7/22/2019 Lowe's $ 11. 95 7/29/2019 Lowe's $ 10. 68 7/30/2019 Lowe's $ 64. 18 $ 86. 81 ###### 8/22/2019 Lowe's $ 76. 70 8/22/2019 Lowe's $ 29. 03 8/29/2019 Lowe's S 32. 08 $ 137. 81 ###### 9/13/2019 Lowe's $ 11. 43 9/28/2019 American Airlines 233. 50 $_ $ 244. 93 ###### 10/1/2019 ’enske $ 1, 326. 65 10/1/2019 Motel 6 $ 61. 93 10/1/2019 Super [8] $ 61. 01 10/2/2019 Motel 6 $ 60. 47 10/2/2019 Shell $ 80. 01 10/2/2019 lacetrac $ 69. 50 10/3/2019 jetGo $ 30. 02 10/3/2019 Marathon $ 74. 60 10/3/2019 Pride Mart $ 52. 50 10/4/2019 Extra Space $ 167. 81 10/6/2019 Sunoco $ 68. 00 $ 2, 052. 50 ###### Discover Total 1_4, 217. 11 ----- ###### Nicholas D. Dougherty Capital One Quicksilver MC (January [2018][ to] January 2019) _ 12/30/2017 Home Depot $ 20. 10 1/2/2018 Lowe's 61. 59 $_ $ 81. 69 ###### 1/26/2018 Home Depot [18. 16] $_ $ 18. 16 ###### 10/9/2018 Lowe's $ 45. 96 10/9/2018 Home Depot $ 47. 38 10/9/2018 Home Depot $ 44. 77 $ 138. 11 ###### 1/6/2019 Lowe's $ 54. 06 1/6/2019 Home Depot $ 37. 92 $ 91. 98 Capital [One] Quicksilver [MC] Total $ 329. 94 ###### -- ----- ###### Nicholas D. State Farm Vi (September 2019) 9/23/2019 Lowe's $ 63. 01 $ 63. 01 ###### State Farm Visa Total 63. 01 ----- ###### _Nicholas [D. ] Dougherty Capital One Teamsters MC (April [-] June 2018) 4/7/2018 Lowe's $ 22. 45 $ 22. 45 ###### 6/7/2018 Home Depot $ 12. 49 49 Capital [One][ Teamsters][ MC] Total £ 34. 94 ----- ###### _Nicholas [D. ] Dougherty Bank of America MC (August 2019) ##### _ ###### 8/7/2019 Lowe's $ 11. 75 8/9/2019 Lowe's $ 36. 67 8/10/2019 Lowe's $ 5. 33 8/10/2019 Lowe's $ (3. 71) 8/12/2019 Home Depot $ 19. 89 8/15/2019 Home Depot $ 58. 80 8/19/2019 Lowe's $ 52. 82 $ 181. 55 ###### Bank of America MC Total $_ 181. 55 ----- ###### Nicholas D. Dougherty [-] Labor Tile [-] removal and installation @ $5. 50 sf $8, 800 ###### Paint walls, ceilings, trim, doors, crown and baseboard (1, 700 sf) $5, 100 Crown [-] $600 install_ Bathroom vents [-] install $300 Knockdown $1, 300 Popcorn removal_ $1, 300 French drain $400 Gutters, down spouts $140 Drywall, [bath] $150 Atrium (walls, trim, floor, pergola) $1, 000 Roof [-] repair leak $200 Install outlets, switches $400 ###### nstall baseboards_ $600 Sand livingroom vaulted ceiling_ _$300 Hang [doors] (including [barn] door) $200 nstall toilets (2) $100 3lumb ###### vanities_ $100 nstall livingroom $100 fan_ Remove wallpaper (2 bedrooms walls, 2 bathrooms) $300 ###### $21, 390 #### ____ -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA **MCKENNA S HARMENING, a minor, by and through** **her parent and natural guardian, SAMANTHA** **ROSENTHAL, ** **Plaintiff, ** v. **URBAN AIR WELLINGTON LLC** **and URBAN AIR** CIVIL DIVISION **TRAMPOLINE & ADVENTURE PARK, ** Defendants. ____________________________________________/ **COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL** The Plaintiff, MCKENNA S HARMENING, a minor, by and through her parent and natural **guardian, SAMANTHA ROSENTHAL, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby sues the, ** **URBAN AIR WELLINGTON LLC** **and URBAN AIR TRAMPOLINE & ADVENTURE PARK, and alleges:** **ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS** This is an action for damages which exceeds Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50, 000. 00) exclusive of interests and costs, and is otherwise within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff, MCKENNA S HARMENING, a minor, by **and through her parent and natural guardian, SAMANTHA ROSENTHAL, was and is a resident of** Palm Beach County, Florida and is otherwise sui juris. At all times material hereto, the Defendant, URBAN AIR WELLINGTON LLC, was and is a Florida Corporation organized under the Laws of the State of Florida and doing business in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. ----- At all times material hereto, the Defendant, **URBAN AIR TRAMPOLINE &** **ADVENTURE PARK was and is a Florida Corporation organized under the Laws of the State of** Florida and doing business in Wellington, Palm Beach County, Florida. Venue is proper in this County in that the Defendants do business in Palm Beach County, Florida and/or all of the acts complained of herein occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida. That on or about July 30, 2022, the Plaintiff, MCKENNA S HARMENING, a minor, **by and through her parent and natural guardian, SAMANTHA ROSENTHAL, was a business** invitee of the Defendant, URBAN AIR TRAMPOLINE & ADVENTURE PARK. **COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM OF URBAN AIR WELLINGTON LLC** Plaintiff re-alleges and restates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 6 as if fully set forth herein. That at all times material hereto and specifically on July 30, 2022, Defendant, **URBAN AIR WELLINGTON LLC, owned, managed, controlled, operated, and/or maintained the** premises located at 10560 Forest Hill Blvd, Wellington, Florida, 33414, in Palm Beach County. That on or about July 30, 2022, the Plaintiff, **MCKENNA S HARMENING, ** was patron of the subject premises at **URBAN AIR TRAMPOLINE & ADVENTURE PARK** located at 10560 Forest Hill Blvd, Wellington, Florida, 33414, in Palm Beach County, when improper supervision which led to serious injuries when another patron invaded her trampoline and caused her to fall. That the Defendant owed to its business invitees a duty to provide a reasonably safe environment. ----- That the Defendant, its agents, servants or employees, breached its duty owed to the Plaintiff by negligently maintaining its premises in the following manner: a. By failing to maintain the the premises in a reasonably safe condition, allowing other patrons to invade others trampolines, and to prevent dangerous conditions from occurring; and/or b. By failing to warn of the dangerous condition that existed at the time of the Plaintiff’s incident; and/or c. Failing to place barricades, signs, or other marking devices utilized to alert customers such as the Plaintiff of the dangerous condition that existed at the time of Plaintiff’s incident; and/or d. By failing to correct the hazardous condition of the premises when the Defendant knew or should have known that the general public visits said premises and specifically the Plaintiff herein; and/or e. Was otherwise negligent in the care, maintenance, and upkeep of the premises. That the Defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the existence of the hazardous and dangerous condition which constituted a dangerous condition to the Plaintiff, and the condition had existed for a sufficient length of time that the Defendant knew or should have known of the condition and could have easily remedied it; and/or That the hazardous and dangerous condition which constituted a dangerous condition to the Plaintiff occurred with such frequency that owner should have known of its existence. ----- The Defendant had actual notice of the dangerous condition. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff, MCKENNA S HARMENING, suffered significant and severe bodily injury that is permanent within a reasonable degree of medical probability, along with resulting pain and suffering, disability, aggravation of pre-existing injuries, scarring and/or disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings and loss of ability to earn money in the future. The losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiff, MCKENNA S HARMENING will suffer the losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, **MCKENNA S HARMENING, a minor, by and through her** **parent and natural guardian, SAMANTHA ROSENTHAL, hereby demands judgment for damages, ** costs and interest from the Defendant, URBAN AIR WELLINGTON LLC, together with whatever other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. **COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM OF URBAN AIR TRAMPOLINE** **& ADVENTURE** **PARK** Plaintiff re-alleges and restates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 6 as if fully set forth herein. That at all times material hereto and specifically on July 30, 2022, Defendant **URBAN AIR TRAMPOLINE & ADVENTURE PARK, owned, managed, controlled, operated, and/or** maintained the premises located at 10560 Forest Hill Blvd, Wellington, Florida, 33414, in Palm Beach County. That on or about July 30, 2022, the Plaintiff, MCKENNA S HARMENING, was in Defendant, **URBAN AIR TRAMPOLINE & ADVENTURE PARK’s** premises, when improper ----- supervision led to serious injuries when staff allowed other patrons to invade her trampoline, causing her to fall. That the Defendant owed to its business invitees a duty to provide a reasonably safe environment. That the Defendant its agents, servants or employees, breached its duty owed to the Plaintiff by negligently maintaining its premises in the following manner: a. By failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, allowing other patrons to invade others trampolines, and to prevent dangerous conditions from occurring; and/or b. By failing to warn of the dangerous condition that existed at the time of the Plaintiff’s incident; and/or c. Failing to place barricades, signs, or other marking devices utilized to alert customers such as the Plaintiff of the dangerous condition that existed at the time of Plaintiff’s incident; and/or d. By failing to correct the hazardous condition of the premises when the Defendant knew or should have known that the general public visits said premises and specifically the Plaintiff herein; and/or e. Was otherwise negligent in the care, maintenance, and upkeep of the premises. That the Defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the existence of the hazardous and dangerous condition which constituted a dangerous ----- condition to the Plaintiff, and the condition had existed for a sufficient length of time that the Defendant knew or should have known of the condition and could have easily remedied it. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff, MCKENNA S HARMENING, suffered significant and severe bodily injury that is permanent within a reasonable degree of medical probability, along with resulting pain and suffering, disability, aggravation of pre-existing injuries, scarring and/or disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings and loss of ability to earn money in the future. The losses are either permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiff, MCKENNA S HARMENING will suffer the losses in the future. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, **MCKENNA S HARMENING, a minor, by and through her** **parent and natural guardian, SAMANTHA ROSENTHAL, hereby demands judgment for damages, ** costs and interest from the Defendant, URBAN AIR TRAMPOLINE & ADVENTURE PARK, together with whatever other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. ----- **DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL** The Plaintiff, MCKENNA S HARMENING, a minor, by and through her parent and **natural guardian, SAMANTHA ROSENTHAL, hereby demands trial by jury of all issues so triable** as a matter of right. d: March 19[th], 2023 **RUBENSTEIN LAW, P. A. ** Attorneys for 9130 S Dadeland Blvd Miami, Florida 33156 Tel: (305) 661-6000 Fax: (305) 670-7555 Email: phunt@rubensteinlaw. com jdamiani@rubensteinlaw. com eservice@rubensteinlaw. com By: _/s/ Peter Hunt Florida Bar No. : 107350 -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "**IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT** **IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA** **MCKENNA S. HARMENING, a minor** **By and through her parent and natural** **Guardian, SAMANTHA ROSENTHAL, ** **Plaintiff, ** **v. ** **URBAN AIR WELLINGTON, LLC AND** **URBAN AIR TRAMPOLINE & ADVENTURE** **PARK, ** **Defendants. ** **__________________________________________/** **DEFENDANTS’ FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFF** COMES NOW the Defendants, URBAN AIR WELLINGTON, LLC and URBAIN AIR TRAMPOLINE & ADVENTURE PARK (“Defendant”), by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1. 350, hereby serves its First Request for Production, the responses of which are due within thirty (30) days. **REQUESTS** Individual and/or joint income tax returns, corporate tax returns and any other supporting documentation, including W-2 forms, evidencing income, for the five (5) years preceding the alleged accident/incident to. All documentation, which would reflect Plaintiff's earnings for the present year to(this would include payroll stubs, canceled checks, computer printouts of earnings to, etc. ). Any and all medical, doctor, hospital, drug, nursing, pharmacy, and ambulance bills (including any members of the healing arts and related fields: i. e. , drugs, prosthetics, supports, etc. ) incurred as a result of the injuries which are or may be the subject matter of this lawsuit. All bills and/or invoices relating to any other expenses that you claim you have incurred as a result of this accident/incident, including but not limited to property damage claim estimates, household assistance, and out-of-pocket expenses. Any and all photographs depicting any and all parties and/or witnesses, the injury and the damages sustained by the person(s) involved in the accident/incident herein, the scene and/or site of the accident/incident as described in your Complaint. ----- All reports, evaluations, recommendations and/or analysis submitted by any expert and/or treating physician which relate to or cover the accident/incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit and/or any injuries, damages or losses alleged caused by the accident/incident. Copies of any and all medical reports and/or records from doctors, physicians (including chiropractors), hospitals, or anyone else of the healing arts that has rendered treatment to you or examined you subsequent to the accident/incident herein which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. (This would include both treating physicians as well as independent medical exams). Copies of any and all writings, recordings, memorandums, notes, depositions and all other materials reflecting statements made by the Defendant. Copies of all applications filled out by you for any type of insurance coverage for which you are submitting an Application to obtain benefits for any of your damages and/or wages for the accident/incident as alleged in your Complaint. Copies of each and every document, chart, paper, graph, employment record, payroll record, time sheets and/or other writings of any type evidencing each and every day, or partial day, you claim to have missed from work as a result of the accident/incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Copies of any and all checks, payout sheets and/or writings that indicate the amount of money, if any, that you have received as reimbursement for lost wages, medical bills (or other bills) from any collateral sources. Copies of all letters of subrogation rights or liens being asserted by any third party/entity as a result of any damages you have sustained as a result of the accident/incident as described in the Complaint. Copies of any and all reports, charts, graphs, or other writings from any vocational specialist, rehabilitative consultants and/or other experts that have assisted you or evaluated you with regard to damages claimed in this lawsuit. Copies of all diagnostic test results, including but not limited to x-rays, CT scans, thermograms, MRI films, EMG, NCS and other electrical studies that were performed on the claimant(s) as a result of the accident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. All diagnostic films including but not limited to x-rays, CAT scans, CT scans, MRI scans, ultrasounds, thermograms, EMG and NCS studies taken of you as a direct result of the accident/incident described in your Complaint. All diagnostic test results/reports of any and all x-rays, CAT scans, CT scans, MRI scans, ultrasounds, thermograms, EMG and NCS studies that were performed on you during the fifteen (15) year period prior to the accident/incident as described in your Complaint. Copies of the front and back of any and all insurance identification cards and union employment identification cards which would depict the name, address, policy number, claim number and/or identification number of any insurance company and/or employers which will ----- provide you with any benefits to compensate you for any of the damages that you are alleging as a result of the accident/incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Any and all statements, documents, correspondence, charts or other writings of any type taken from Plaintiff’s employers and/or their agents pertaining to employment, wage loss, loss of future earning capacity or the loss of the ability to earn money in the future which would support your allegations in the Complaint. Copies of any and all accident reports, incident reports, police reports or other reports that were generated as a result of the accident/incident that is the subject matter of your Complaint. Traffic accident reports for any and all automobile accidents that you have been involved in within the ten (10) year period before the accident/incident giving rise to this case, and for any and all automobile accidents that you have been involved in since the occurrence of the accident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Copies of any Notice of Injury forms that you have filled out for any workman's compensation claim, or workman's compensation notice, that you are required to fill out as a result of any type of on-the-job injury or incident for the past five (5) years to. If you filled one out as a direct result of the accident/incident which is described in your Complaint, produce that one as well. Copies of any and all life, health, or disability insurance policies covering the claimant in this lawsuit that was in full force and effect on theof the accident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Copies of any and all statements taken of any witnesses (written or recorded) as a result of the accident/incident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit. Copies of the front and back of all drivers’ licenses in your possession. Copies of any Florida identification cards, front and back. A complete copy of your passport including all stamped pages. Copies of any Releases you may have executed to any party, person, entity for personal injuries you may have sustained or property damage you suffered in the past ten (10) years. Copies of all medical reports and records that were made by any physician or chiropractor regarding any examination that was conducted upon you at the request of any insurance company, worker’s compensation claim, or insurance adjusting company (otherwise known as IME's, independent evaluations, medical evaluations, or physical examinations) which occurred as a consequence of the accident/incident as described in your Complaint. Copies of all medical reports and records that were made by any physician or chiropractor regarding any examination that was conducted upon you at the request of any insurance ----- company or insurance adjusting company (otherwise known as IME's, independent evaluations, medical evaluations, or physical examinations) for the past ten (10) years. Copies of any calendars, diaries, notes or other documentation made by you which memorializes any appointments, your condition, thoughts, damages or any other item of damages you intend to present to the jury at the trial of this case. Please sign and return the enclosed Authorization for Release of Medical Information form. Please sign and return the enclosed Form SSA-7050-F4, Request for Social Security Earnings Information. Please sign and return the enclosed Form 4506, Request for Copy of Tax Return form. Any and all correspondence sent in compliance with Florida Statute 768. 76(6) whereby the provider of any collateral sources were sent by certified registered mail notifying of the Plaintiff’s intent to claim damages from a tortfeasor. Any and all documents received from the provider of collateral sources, pursuant to Florida Statute § 768. 76(7), specifically copies of statements asserting the collateral source provider’s right to payment of collateral source benefits and right of subrogation or reimbursement, notification by the provider of collateral sources that no right of subrogation or reimbursement exists for the collateral sources paid and/or notification by the collateral source provider of its intent to waive right of subrogation or reimbursement. Any and all letters of protection relating to damages/expenses you incurred as a result of the incident alleged in the complaint. Any and all documentation sent to Medicare and/or Medicaid advising Medicare and/or Medicaid that the Plaintiff has made a claim for personal injury and/or has filed suit with regard to the injury(ies) sustained in the subject accident. Any and all documentation received by the Plaintiff or on behalf of the Plaintiff from Medicare and/or Medicaid advising of an intent to assert a lien, the amount of the lien or an intent to waive right of its lien. If the Plaintiff received benefits from a plan administered by ERISA, a copy of the summary plan description, reimbursement agreement executed by the Plaintiff and copy of the policy. Copies of any reports prepared as a result of the Plaintiff submitting to a compulsory medical examination and/or independent medical examination made pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, request by insurance carrier or government entity to include examinations performed at the request of Personal Injury Protection (PIP) carrier, Social Security, workers’ compensation carrier, disability income carrier or any other insurer or provider of government benefits. ----- If the Plaintiff was covered under a group health policy at the time of the accident alleged in the Complaint, a copy of the group health insurance policy and declarations page. If the Plaintiff was covered by a disability income policy at the time of the accident alleged in the Complaint, a copy of the disability income policy and declarations page. If the Plaintiff has ever applied for Social Security Disability benefits, a copy of any application or documents submitted to Social Security upon which the Plaintiff based his claim for disability benefits. If the Plaintiff has ever applied for workers’ compensation benefits, a copy of any application or documents submitted to workers’ compensation upon which the Plaintiff based his/her claim for workers’ compensation. If the Plaintiff has ever applied for unemployment benefits, a copy of any application or documents submitted to unemployment upon which the Plaintiff based his claim for benefits. If the Plaintiff has ever applied for long term disability benefits, a copy of any application or documents submitted upon which the Plaintiff based his claim for benefits. Copies of any and all writings, recordings, memorandums, notes, depositions and all other materials reflecting how the incident alleged in the complaint occurred. All transcripts of any recorded statements and/or EUOs you provided in relating to the incident alleged in the complaint. All documents relating to the allegation that Defendant knew or should of known of the dangerous condition. Copies of any and all social media profiles from 3 years before theof the incident to the present. **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the above and foregoing has been furnished by E-Mail to E-Filing Portal on 07/31/2023. By: /s/ Carlo D. Marichal Carlo D. Marichal, Esquire Banker Lopez Gassler P. A. Service: service-cmarichal@bankerlopez. com 1200 S. Pine Island Rd. Suite 170 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) 703-3597 Fax: (954) 533-3051 FBN: 0099034 Attorney for the Defendant -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA NICHOLAS RODKIN AND BRANDI RODKIN, Plaintiff(s), v. TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ### ______________________________________ I **COMPLAINT** COMES NOW, Plaintiff(s), NICHOLAS RODKIN AND BRANDI RODKIN, by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendant, TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY, and states: **GENERAL** **ALLEGATIONS** This action is for breach of contract. This action exceeds $30, 000. 00, exclusive of attorney’s fees and costs. All allegations are at all times material hereto unless otherwise stated. Plaintiffresides, and Defendant is doing business, in PALM BEACH, Florida. Venue is proper in this court. Defendant insured Plaintiffs property as follows: a. Address: 5640 American Cir Delray Beach, FL, 33484-8565 b. Policy No: 12-1010400-02. Defendant’s claim number is: 12-3002078-20. Plaintiffs home was damaged by a wind event that occurred on 6/19/2020. Plaintiffnotified Defendant of the resulting loss. ----- On February 12, 2021, Defendant sent correspondence indicating they had completed their ### inspection of the insured’s property. The February 12, 2021 correspondence indicated that Defendant is denying coverage for ### Plaintiffs damages. Plaintiffs loss is covered under the policy. Plaintiff retained counsel to protect all rights under the policy. Plaintiff is responsible for all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to recover under the policy. **COUNT** **I:** **BREACH** **OF** **CONTRACT** Allegations 1 through 15 above are adopted and incorporated herein. The parties had a valid policy-i. e. , contract. Defendant materially breached its duty to pay Plaintiffs loss under the policy. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered loss and resulting damages. **WHEREFORE, ** Plaintiff(s) demand (a) judgment against defendant for all damage and ### resulting loss set forth above, these losses are ongoing and will continue in the future; (b) attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 627. 428 (attorney’s fees), 57. 041 (costs) and 92. 231 (expert witness fees), Florida Statutes, or otherwise; and (c) trial by jury. d: February 22, 2021. Zs/ _Lindsay_ _Karten_________________ ### Lindsay Karten, Esq. Florida Bar No. 30869 Keller, Melchiorre & Walsh, PLLC 3900 Military Trail, Suite 600 Jupiter, FL 33458 (561) 295-5825 Telephone (561) 766-7054 Facsimile ### lindsay@kmwlegal. com pleadings@kmwlegal. com -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE `15th` JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA NICHOLAS RODKIN and BRANDI RODKIN, CASE NO: 2021-CA-2383 Plaintiffs, v. TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, ___________________________________ /_ **DEFENDANT’S, ** **TYPTAP** **INSURANCE** **COMPANY, ** **FIRST** **REQUEST** **FOR** **PRODUCTION** **TO** **PLAINTIFF** COMES NOW, Defendant, TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby requests that Plaintiffs, NICHOLAS RODKIN and BRANDI RODKIN, produce the following within the time prescribed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure: **DEFINITIONS** “Plaintiff’ means: NICHOLAS RODKIN and/or BRANDI RODKIN. “Property” or “residence” refers to the insured property or the insured residence located. Unless otherwise specified herein, all references to “loss” or “damages” refer to the loss Plaintiff reported to Typtap Insurance Company at the property, which is the subject of this lawsuit, and the damages Plaintiff is claiming resulted therefrom, respectively. **REQUEST** **FOR** **PRODUCTION** Photographs depicting any of the damages claimed by you. Photographs depicting the cause of the damages claimed by you. All documents that evidence damage to the property from the subject loss. All correspondence and documents submitted by you and your representatives to Typtap Insurance Company as part of the subject claim. 1 of 5 ----- Any and all assignments signed by Plaintiff for the subject claim. Any and all documents supporting your answers to interrogatories. All leases for the rental of the residence and/or any aspect of it since Plaintiff has owned the residence. All documents pertaining to changes in title or occupancy of the property during the term of the subject policy and/or after theof loss. The accurate record of repair expenses required by your insurance policy. All documents and correspondence exchanged between you and any contractor or service provider concerning the subject claim. All correspondence and documents exchanged between you and your Public Adjuster (or loss consultant) for the subject claim. All correspondence and documents exchanged between you and representatives of #### D’Agostino Roofing. Copies of any appraisal or applications for mortgage financing in the past four (4) years. A copy of your most recent mortgage invoice. Copies of real estate tax payments for the past two years. Any and all documents regarding any and all bankruptcy filed by Plaintiff. Any and all insurance policies covering the property affected by this loss. All non-privileged documents pertaining to the issues raised in your Complaint. All estimates for the repair of the property Plaintiff or anyone on Plaintiffs behalf has prepared since 2010. All documents that evidence expenditures by Plaintiff and/or anyone on Plaintiffs behalf for all repairs, mitigation, reconstruction, modification, renovation, remodeling, construction and/or restoration of the property related to the damage and/or loss - including but not 2 of 5 ----- limited to - receipts, invoices, proposals, contracts, subcontracts, blueprints, and/or canceled checks for repairs. All documents that evidence the repair, replacement, maintenance, modification, renovation, remodeling and/or restoration of the plumbing system in the property - by or on behalf of Plaintiff at any time. All documents that evidence the repair, replacement, maintenance, modification, renovation, remodeling and/or restoration of the roof system in the property - by or on behalf of Plaintiff at any time All contracts, estimates, invoices, proposals, statements, receipts, canceled checks and all other document(s) for all repair(s), replacement(s), reconstruction, modification, renovation, remodeling, construction and/or restoration performed at the property in the last five (5) years from theof this Request for Production not already provided in response to one or more of the preceding paragraphs. All documents and photographs and pictorial representations that evidence the state and/or condition of the property Plaintiff claims were damaged by the loss before the loss occurred ## - including but not limited to cancelled checks, contracts, estimates for repairs, proposals, subcontracts, invoices, reports, brochures, appraisals, receipts, purchase orders, and operator manuals - that have not already been produced in response to one or more of the preceding paragraphs. The written results of all inspections and examinations of the property from all industrial hygienists, restoration contractors, mold and mildew specialists, and all other professionals and experts that have been generated in the past seven (7) years and that have not already been produced in response to one or more of the preceding paragraphs. 3 of 5 ----- All permits issued for the repair, replacement, reconstruction, modification, renovation, remodeling, construction and/or restoration of any part of the residence in the past seven (7) years that have not already been produced in response to one or more of the preceding paragraphs. All permit applications submitted for any construction services performed or to be performed in relation to the subject claim All engineering reports, incident reports, statements and investigative materials obtained regarding the cause of the loss. All documents that evidence wind related damage to the roof of the subject property. Any and all copies of home inspection reports and/or evaluations that were prepared pursuant to Plaintiff’s purchase of the property and/or that were prepared at any time since Plaintiff has owned the property that have not already been produced in response to one or more of the preceding paragraphs. All utility bills for the property for twelve months prior to theof the alleged loss up to the present. All documents that have not already been produced in response to one or more of the preceding paragraphs that show and/or evidence the existence of the damage and that supports Plaintiffs complaint. Any and all documentation of any other insurance claims to any insurance company filed in the last fifteen (15) years. All estimates, proofs of loss and other documents Plaintiff has submitted to any insurance carrier for any insurance claim Plaintiff has had other than the insurance claim that is the subject of this lawsuit within the last seven (7) years. 4 of 5 ----- All documents showing Plaintiff complied with Plaintiffs post-loss contractual duties as stated in the subject insurance contract and made part of Plaintiff s Complaint. All documents regarding all claims filed by Plaintiff with any and all Property Insurance Companies. **CERTIFICATE** **OF** **SERVICE** The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served by electronic mail delivery to [pleadings@kmwlegal. com, ](mailto:pleadings@kmwlegal. com) on the 14th day of September, 2021. **TYPTAP** **INSURANCE** **COMPANY** P. O. Box 22967 Tampa, FL 33622 Office: 954-830-7406 Email: [mgonzalez@hcpci. com](mailto:mgonzalez@hcpci. com) By:/s/ Miredys Gonzalez Portieles MIREDYS GONZALEZ PORTIELES, ESQ. Florida Bar No. : 95324 5 of 5 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA NICHOLAS RODKIN AND BRANDI RODKIN, Plaintiff(s), v. TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ### ______________________________________ I **COMPLAINT** COMES NOW, Plaintiff(s), NICHOLAS RODKIN AND BRANDI RODKIN, by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendant, TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY, and states: **GENERAL** **ALLEGATIONS** This action is for breach of contract. This action exceeds $30, 000. 00, exclusive of attorney’s fees and costs. All allegations are at all times material hereto unless otherwise stated. Plaintiffresides, and Defendant is doing business, in PALM BEACH, Florida. Venue is proper in this court. Defendant insured Plaintiffs property as follows: a. Address: 5640 American Cir Delray Beach, FL, 33484-8565 b. Policy No: 12-1010400-02. Defendant’s claim number is: 12-3002078-20. Plaintiffs home was damaged by a wind event that occurred on 6/19/2020. Plaintiffnotified Defendant of the resulting loss. ----- On February 12, 2021, Defendant sent correspondence indicating they had completed their ### inspection of the insured’s property. The February 12, 2021 correspondence indicated that Defendant is denying coverage for ### Plaintiffs damages. Plaintiffs loss is covered under the policy. Plaintiff retained counsel to protect all rights under the policy. Plaintiff is responsible for all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to recover under the policy. **COUNT** **I:** **BREACH** **OF** **CONTRACT** Allegations 1 through 15 above are adopted and incorporated herein. The parties had a valid policy-i. e. , contract. Defendant materially breached its duty to pay Plaintiffs loss under the policy. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered loss and resulting damages. **WHEREFORE, ** Plaintiff(s) demand (a) judgment against defendant for all damage and ### resulting loss set forth above, these losses are ongoing and will continue in the future; (b) attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 627. 428 (attorney’s fees), 57. 041 (costs) and 92. 231 (expert witness fees), Florida Statutes, or otherwise; and (c) trial by jury. d: February 22, 2021. Zs/ _Lindsay_ _Karten_________________ ### Lindsay Karten, Esq. Florida Bar No. 30869 Keller, Melchiorre & Walsh, PLLC 3900 Military Trail, Suite 600 Jupiter, FL 33458 (561) 295-5825 Telephone (561) 766-7054 Facsimile ### lindsay@kmwlegal. com pleadings@kmwlegal. com -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA NICHOLAS RODKIN AND BRANDI RODKIN, Plaintiff(s), v. TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ### ______________________________________! **NOTICE** **OF** **SERVICE** **OF** **PLAINTIFF’S** **FIRST** **REQUEST** **FOR** **PRODUCTION** **TO** **DEFENDANT** COMES NOW the Plaintiff, NICHOLAS RODKIN AND BRANDI RODKIN, by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby gives notice that Plaintiff’s First Request for Production directed to Defendant, TYPTAP INSURANCE COMPANY, was served on said Defendant with the initial pleading. ## /s/ Lindsay Karten_________ Lindsay Karten, Esq. Florida Bar # 30869 Keller, Melchiorre & Walsh, PLLC 3900 Military Trail, Suite 600 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 295-5825 Facsimile: (561) 766-7054 [lindsay@kmwlegal. com](mailto:lindsay@kmwlegal. com) [pleadings@kmwlegal. com](mailto:pleadings@kmwlegal. com) ----- ### GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Re: Rule 1. 350 Request for Production **INFORMED** **ANSWERS:** **PRIMARY** **PURPOSE** **OF** **DISCOVERY:** “The primary purpose of discovery under the rules ofprocedure is to prevent the use of surprise, trickery, ### bluff and legal gymnastics. Revelation through discovery procedures of the strength and weakness of each side before trial encourages settlement of cases and avoids costly litigation. Each side can make an intelligent evaluation of the entire case and may better ### anticipate the ultimate results. ” Grinnell Corp, v. Palms 2100 Ocean Blvd. , 924 So. 2d 887, 893 (Fla. 4DCA 2006). **INFORMED** **ANSWERS:** Before answering this discovery, please review all ### documentation or information so that your answers are accurate, complete and truthful. **DEFINITIONS:** ### a. YOU or YOUR means defendant or anyone acting on its behalf. b. POLICY means the policy pled under the pleadings. C. **PROPERTY** **DAMAGE** is defined under the policy. ### d. DOCUMENT means any document, whether computer generated or otherwise, defined by Rule 1. 350, Fla. R. Civ. P. , including emails. **IF** **YOU** **OBJECT** **ORWITHHELD** **INFORMATION:** Please identify the facts, documents and each person that you rely on in support so that we can evaluate your objection and attempt to avoid motion practice. 1 1 Defendant must disclose “all facts supporting” its objection, denial or defense as well as “any ### records that support those facts and every person who has knowledge of those facts. ” Grinnell Corp, v. Palms 2100 Ocean Blvd. , 924 So. 2d 887, 890 & 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(“[T]he work ### product concept furnishes no shield against discovery, by interrogatories or by deposition, of the facts that the adverse party's lawyer has learned, or the persons from whom he has learned such facts, or the existence or nonexistence of documents, even though the documents themselves may ### not be subject to discovery. ”). Homeowners Choice Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. , Inc, v. Avila, 248 So. 3d 180, 184 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2018)(there is no “claims file” privilege in Florida). ----- ### PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION **PREFACE:** When producing documents, please identify which documents are responsive to each request to produce and subpart as required under Rule 1. 350(b), ### Fla. R. Civ. P. (\"[w]hen producing documents, the producing party. .. shall identify them to correspond with the categories in the request”), whether by bate stamp, insertion of page divider or otherwise. Please produce each inspection report and all resulting photographs and videos in digital format (JPEG) if you inspected plaintiffs residence: a. Before binding or issuing the policy-e. g. , limited to underwriting. b. During any policy period. c. For this claim. Produce each document “upon which you rely for each affirmative defense in your answer. ”2 Note: Please identify which documents or objections are responsive to each ### affirmative defense. As for any communications between the parties: a. All correspondence. b. All emails. c. All summaries of each phone or in person conversation, if any. d. All recorded conversations; if so, please include each audio. e. **SCOPE:** Limited tothis claim. 2 Document is defined under Rule 1. 350. You are required to disclose “the existence or nonexistence of documents, even though the ### documents themselves may not be subject to discovery. ” Grinnell Corp, v. Palms 2100 Ocean Blvd. , 924 So. 2d 887, 890 & 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)(“[T]he work product concept furnishes no shield against discovery, by interrogatories or by deposition, of the facts that the adverse party's ### lawyer has learned, or the persons from whom he has learned such facts, or the existence or nonexistence of documents, even though the documents themselves may not be subject to discovery. ”)(Emphasis Added). There is “no difference between a fact ‘pertaining’ to an incident. .. and a document or fact ‘supporting’ an affirmative defense. .. .” Grinnell Corp. , 924 So. 2d at 893 (Emphasis Added). ----- As for any communications between defendant’s insurance agent and plaintiff: a. All correspondence. b. All emails. c. All summaries of each phone or in person conversation, if any. d. All recorded conversations; if so, please include each audio. e. **SCOPE:** Limited tothis claim. All written and recorded statements from: a. Any plaintiff. b. Any witness. c. Anyone not covered above. d. Each audio for each recorded statement. e. **SCOPE:** Limited to this claim, plaintiffs dwelling, policy or any similar claim. f. **TIME** **PERIOD:** i. During the application process before issuing policy. ii. From inception of policy through present. Certified copy of complete policy for each policy period: a. **EXPLANATION:** We know that coverage, endorsements and exclusions may change from one policy period to the next during any 12 month policy period and hence this request. b. **TIME** **PERIOD:** i. policy first issued to plaintiff. ii. Each renewal. If the policy was not renewed, all documents that identify each reason. If the policy was cancelled, all documents that identify each reason. For each contractor, engineer, roofer, plumber, inspector, trade professional, company or person who inspected, examined or evaluated plaintiffs residence for defendant (“consultant”), we need to know how much money defendant has paid to each consultant for all work performed for defendant during the last 3 years. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993, 997 (Fla. l999)(“A jury is entitled to know the extent of the financial connection between the party and the witness, and the cumulative amount a party has paid ### an expert during their relationship. ”). ----- ### For purposes of this request, the term \"defendant\" shall include any and all related insurance companies. 3 As a result, please produce copies of all IRS Forms 1099 from defendant to each consultant during the last 3 years. Further to plaintiff s interrogatories, we asked you to identify each underwriting guideline, manual or informational materials that were in effect when policy was first issued to ### plaintiff and each renewal that address any of the enumerated policy areas. As a result, please produce each underwriting guideline, manual and informational materials for each policy area (a) filed with the state4 and (b) not filed with the state. Note: Please identify which documents or objections, if any, are responsive to each policy area. Defendant’s complete underwriting file regarding: a. Issuing policy for this risk-i. e. , plaintiffs residence. b. Each renewal. c. **TIME** **PERIOD:** Beforeof loss in this case. Defendant’s complete claim file: a. Limited to this claim. b. Non-privilege documents only, if any. 3 By way of example only, we will use Allstate as an example: Allstate Corporation owns and operates 18 companies around the United States, Canada and India which include Allstate Fire and ### Casualty Insurance Company; Allstate Insurance Company; Allstate Indemnity Company; among others. If one of these companies was the named defendant, it would disclose all money paid by any and all 18 related companies to each consultant. 4 For example, defendant’s underwriting guidelines are public record since it is required to file ### them with the Florida Department of Financial Services, Office of Insurance Regulation, pursuant to Rule 690 170. 013(l)(b), “Underwriting guidelines for. .. homeowners' insurance, for both new and renewal business shall be filed pursuant to this rule. ” (Emphasis Added). The Florida Department of Financial Services then explains a peril and underwriting as follows: “A peril is something that causes or may cause injury, loss, or destruction, such as a fire, tornado, or hurricane. Underwriting guidelines vary between insurers. However, below are a few of the ### most common things an insurer reviews when determining whether to insure a new property or how much to charge. They also use this same underwriting to determine whether or not to offer a renewal policy. The insurer may consider the age of the home, roof, plumbing, electrical wiring or the heat and air. ” See myfloridacfo. com/Division/Consumers/UnderstandingCoverage. ----- All notices of change in policy terms that defendant provided to plaintiff pursuant to §627. 43141, Florida Statutes, that pertain to: a. Each policy provision identified under defendant’s letter to plaintiff denying coverage in this case. b. Each affirmative defense raised by defendant in response to plaintiffs current pleading. (Collectively referred to as “notice of change”). For each notice of change in policy terms identified above that defendant provided to ### plaintiff pursuant to §627. 43141, Florida Statutes, please produce proof that each notice was actually delivered to plaintiff. **TIME** **PERIOD:** Inception of policy throughof loss. -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "**FORM 1. 997. CIVIL COVER SHEET** The civil cover sheet and the information contained in it neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other documents as required by law. This form must be filed by the plaintiff or petitioner with the Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting uniform data pursuant to section 25. 075, Florida Statutes. (See instructions for completion. ) **I. ** **CASE STYLE** IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Nicholas Roselli Plaintiff Case # Judge vs. Olympus Insurance Company Defendant **II. ** **AMOUNT OF CLAIM** Please indicate the estimated amount of the claim, rounded to the nearest dollar. The estimated amount of the claim is requested for data collection and clerical processing purposes only. The amount of the claim shall not be used for any other purpose. ``` ☐ $8, 000 or less ☐ $8, 001 - $30, 000 ☐ $30, 001- $50, 000 ☐ $50, 001- $75, 000 ☒ $75, 001 - $100, 000 ☐ over $100, 000. 00 ``` **III. ** **TYPE OF CASE** (If the case fits more than one type of case, select the most definitive category. ) If the most descriptive label is a subcategory (is indented under a broader category), place an x on both the main category and subcategory lines. ----- **CIRCUIT CIVIL** ``` ☐ Condominium ☐ Contracts and indebtedness ``` `☐` Eminent domain `☐` Auto negligence ``` ☐ Negligence-other ☐ Business governance ☐ Business torts ☐ Environmental/Toxic tort ☐ Third party indemnification ☐ Construction defect ☐ Mass tort ☐ Negligent security ☐ Nursing home negligence ☐ Premises liability-commercial ☐ Premises liability-residential ☐ Products liability ☐ Real Property/Mortgage foreclosure ☐ Commercial foreclosure ☐ Homestead residential foreclosure ☐ Non-homestead residential foreclosure ☐ Other real property actions ☐Professional malpractice ☐ Malpractice-business ☐ Malpractice-medical ☐ Malpractice-other professional ☒ Other ☐ Antitrust/Trade regulation ☐ Business transactions ☐ Constitutional challenge-statute or ordinance ☐ Constitutional challenge-proposed amendment ☐ Corporate trusts ☐ Discrimination-employment or other ☒ Insurance claims ☐ Intellectual property ☐ Libel/Slander ☐ Shareholder derivative action ☐ Securities litigation ☐ Trade secrets ☐ Trust litigation ``` **COUNTY CIVIL** ☐ Small Claims up to $8, 000 ☐ Civil ``` ☐ Real property/Mortgage foreclosure ``` ----- ☐ Replevins ☐ Evictions ☐ Residential Evictions ☐ Non-residential Evictions ☐ Other civil (non-monetary) **COMPLEX BUSINESS COURT** This action is appropriate for assignment to Complex Business Court as delineated and mand by the Administrative Order. Yes ☐ No ☒ **IV. ** **REMEDIES SOUGHT (check all that apply):** ``` ☒ Monetary; ☐ Nonmonetary declaratory or injunctive relief; ☐ Punitive ``` **V. ** **NUMBER OF CAUSES OF ACTION: [ ]** (Specify) 1 **VI. ** **IS THIS CASE A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT? ** ``` ☐ yes ☒ no ``` **VII. ** **HAS NOTICE OF ANY KNOWN RELATED CASE BEEN FILED? ** ``` ☒ no ☐ yes If “yes, ” list all related cases by name, case number, and court. ``` **VIII. ** **IS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT? ** ``` ☒ yes ☐ no ``` **IX. ** **DOES THIS CASE INVOLVE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE? ** ``` ☐ yes ☒ no ``` I CERTIFY that the information I have provided in this cover sheet is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I have read and will comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2. 425. : s/ Erin R. Dix Fla. Bar # 108062 Attorney or party (Bar # if attorney) Erin R. Dix 06/26/2024 (type or print name)-----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "**IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE** **FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR** **PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA** **CASE NUMBER:** **NICHOLAS ROSELLI, ** **Plaintiff, ** **v. ** **OLYMPUS INSURANCE COMPANY, ** **Defendant. ** **___________________________________/** **PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO DEFENDANT** Plaintiff, Nicholas Roselli, by and through the undersigned counsel, under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1. 350 and 1. 280(a), submits to Defendant, Olympus Insurance Company, the following Request to Produce and requests that Defendant furnish copies to Plaintiff at 350 North Lake Destiny Road, Maitland, Florida, 32751, or via E-Mail, within forty-five (45) days of service of the Complaint herein. **DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS** For purposes of this Request to Produce, the following terms and definitions are provided: Plaintiff: The term “Plaintiff” as used herein shall mean Nicholas Roselli and their representatives as defined below. Defendant: The term “Defendant” shall mean Olympus Insurance Company, whether by that name or any other, and its representatives as defined below. Representatives: The term \"representatives\" shall mean any and all present or former partners, agents, employees, servants, officers, directors, attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnificators, insurers, independent contractors and other persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of the entity referred to. You and Your: The terms \"you\" and \"your\" shall refer to Defendant (defined above) and any other person or entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf. ----- Document: The term \"document\" shall mean any written, printed, typed or other graphic or photographic matter (including without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotapes, recordings and motion pictures and data stored on a computer disc or computer hard drive) and shall include the originals, identical copies and all non-identical copies, whether different from the original by reason of any notation made on each copy or otherwise and shall include, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, all letters, telegrams, teletypes, correspondence, contracts, agreements, notes, mechanical and electronic sound recordings and transcripts thereof (including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and discs), computer records, computer printouts, other printed matter produced through computers, calendar and diary entries, memoranda, notes and records of all telephone or personal conversations, meetings and other communication, inter-office and intra-office communications, statements, manuals, summaries and compilations, minutes of meetings, charges, maps, reports, analysis, studies, graphs, prospectus, returns, statistics, pamphlets, books, offers, bulletins, order papers, articles, catalogs, records, tables, books of account, ledgers, vouchers, canceled checks, invoices, bills, receipts, tickets, worksheets and all drafts, alterations, modifications and changes to any of the foregoing, as well as all digitally stored and generated documents and notes. Communication: The term \"communication\" as used herein shall mean any contact between or among the parties indicated, including but not limited to, all documents (defined above), telephone or personal conversations, meetings, e-mails or electronic contacts, conferences and discussions. Once identified, a communication may be subsequently identified by use of a common description. ----- Identify: The term “identify” when used with reference to a person shall mean to: a. State the full name of the person; b. State the full name of the last known employer of the person; c. State the last known occupation or title of the person with such employer; d. State the last known business telephone number of the person; e. State the last known home address of the person; and f. State the last known home telephone number of the person. Once identified, a person may be subsequently identified by uniform use of a standard name. Identify: The term “identify” when used with reference to a document shall mean to: a. State a complete description of the document; b. Identify the person who prepared the document; c. State theon which the document was prepared; d. State the location at which the document was prepared; and e. Identify the person who presently has care, custody and control of the document. Once identified, a document may be subsequently identified by uniform use of a standard description. Person: The term “person” as used herein shall mean a natural person other than an entity and shall be construed to include groups of natural persons. **INSTRUCTIONS** Should Defendant object to a Request to Produce or not respond pursuant to a claim of privilege, Defendant is required to: a. State the basis of the claim of privilege; b. Identify the subject matter of the information to which a claim of privilege is made; c. Identify all persons or entities who have had access to or claimed to be privileged or were present when the privileged information was discussed, and d. Identify all persons or entities to which the privileged information has been disclosed. ----- **PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO DEFENDANT** A true and correct copy of all DEC pages and the full and complete insurance policy(s) referenced in Plaintiff’s Complaint and a sworn statement of a corporate officer of Defendant attesting to the coverage and authenticity of the policy. **RESPONSE:** A copy of any and all other DEC pages and insurance policy(s) that may provide coverage to either Plaintiff for the damages claimed in Plaintiff’s Complaint. **RESPONSE:** A copy of each and every document (defined above) that you reasonably anticipate may be introduced into evidence at the trial of this matter. **RESPONSE:** A copy of any and all documents that you allege may support any affirmative defense which you have raised in this matter. **RESPONSE:** A copy of any and all documents that you allege may support any Motion to Dismiss which you have filed in this matter. **RESPONSE:** ----- Copies of any and all statements, and any transcripts from any person who has knowledge of the facts in this matter including any expert witness or Defendant (defined above) herein. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any and all recorded statement(s) and telephone conversations, as well as any transcripts for the same that have been reduced to writing and/or transcribed, including but not limited to Examinations Under Oath, which were taken of or provided by any insured or their representatives (defined above) that are in your possession or control. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any and all recorded statement(s) and telephone conversations, as well as any transcripts for the same that have been reduced to writing and/or transcribed, which were taken of or provided by any witness that are in your possession or control. **RESPONSE:** Each and every document, report, chart, graph, object, summary, compilation of data or other thing relied upon by any of your experts, in whole or in part, in the formulation of any opinions and conclusion in this case. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any photographs of Plaintiff’s Property located 4015 Sabal Lakes Rd, Delray Beach, Florida, 33445-1218 which are in your possession or control. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any photographs that reflect any damage at Plaintiff’s Property located at 4015 Sabal Lakes Rd, Delray Beach, Florida, 33445-1218 that are in your possession or control. **RESPONSE:** ----- Copies of any photographs of any work performed at Plaintiff’s Property located at 4015 Sabal Lakes Rd, Delray Beach, Florida, 33445-1218 that are in your possession or control. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any and all estimates and damage appraisals and other documents (defined above) referencing damage appraisals regarding Plaintiff’s Property located at 4015 Sabal Lakes Rd, Delray Beach, Florida, 33445-1218 that are in your possession or control. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any and all documents (defined above) upon which you based any denials of coverage for the loss described in Plaintiff’s Complaint. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any and all documents (defined above) upon which you based any denials of all or part of the amount of loss claimed by Plaintiff. **RESPONSE:** If there are any denials of insurance coverage by Defendant, then copies are requested of any and all applications for insurance, insurance forms, data sheets, correspondence, notices, facsimile, e-mails and other documents (defined above) that reference in any way any the insurance policy at issue in this matter. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any and all correspondence, facsimile, notices, e-mails and other documents (defined above) that reference in any way any notices that you provided to Plaintiff regarding cancellation of the insurance policy at issue in this matter. **RESPONSE:** ----- Copies of all PORS, Proof of Mailing and other documents (defined above) that reflect in any way mailings made by you to Plaintiff regarding cancellation of the policy of insurance at issue in this matter. **RESPONSE:** All reports and current curriculum vitae from any expert(s) retained by you for any reason regarding Plaintiff’s claim. **RESPONSE:** Any and all e-mails, letters, facsimile, and other correspondence regarding any claims made by Plaintiff for property insurance benefits as a result of the Wind and/or Hail event of November 16, 2023, including but not limited to, correspondence with experts, correspondence with experts, independent adjusters, appraisers, inspectors, and any other third party. **RESPONSE:** All documents reflecting any payment made to any person (defined above) or entity for any reason as a result of the Wind and/or Hail event described in Plaintiff’s Complaint. **RESPONSE:** All books, treaties or authority used by Defendant’s adjuster in determining what amount to pay or deny regarding the claim at issue. **RESPONSE:** All writings, memoranda, notes or other materials reflecting examination of Plaintiff’s Property by Defendant or its agents. **RESPONSE:** All proofs of loss received by Defendant from Plaintiff. **RESPONSE:** ----- All estimates received by Defendant from any source for repairs to Plaintiff’s Property. **RESPONSE:** Defendant’s latest claims manual or statement of policies and procedures on the processing or handling of property damage claims. **RESPONSE:** Any training manuals, guides and documents that Defendant has provided to its adjusters regarding adjusting Wind and/or Hail damage claims from the past three years to the present. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any peer reviews, estimates, or comparative estimates generated by anyone on Defendant’s behalf regarding the amount of loss at issue. **RESPONSE:** All documents showing the total amount paid during the past three years to any third parties providing services, analyses, or opinions regarding Plaintiff’s claim. **RESPONSE:** A copy of the contract/agreement/document (if any) that Defendant has with anyone, including but not limited to contractors, engineers, adjusters, or experts, who may provide testimony at the trial of this matter. **RESPONSE:** ----- A copy of each resume, curriculum vitae, and other document listing the qualifications of each and every expert and/or consultant hired by you or your representatives (defined above) who may testify at trial. **RESPONSE:** All documents that relate to the drafting, meaning, and interpretation of any language, terms, or provisions, used in the policy at issue. **RESPONSE:** Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1. 310(b)(6), please produce three (3) alternatives for deposition to occur no earlier than thirty (30) days but no later than one hundred-twenty (120) days from service for the deposition of the corporate representative(s) with the most knowledge of the claim asserted by the Plaintiff’s Complaint as well as the individual(s) primarily responsible for the decision to deny indemnifying Plaintiff’s amount of loss. A designation of the information upon which such examination will proceed will be provided under separate cover. **RESPONSE:** Copies of any and all notices sent by you or your representatives (defined above) to any insured to participate in a mediation program under Fla. Stat. § 627. 7015 and copies of any and all PORS, Proof of Mailing and other documents (defined above) which reflect in any way mailings made by you to any insured regarding the same. **RESPONSE:** **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** **I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this document will be served on** Defendant along with the Summons and the Complaint in this action. **: June 26, 2024** _/s/Erin Dix_ **COHEN LAW GROUP** Erin Dix, Esq. _FOR THE FIRM_ Florida Bar Number: 108062 350 North Lake Destiny Road Maitland, Florida 32751 Phone: (407) 478-4878 Fax: (407) 478-0204 ----- Primary: edix@itsaboutjustice. law Secondary: lyndon@itsaboutjustice. law -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "**IN** **THE** **COUNTY** **COURT, ** **IN** **AND** **FOR** **PALM** **BEACH** **COUNTY, ** **FLORIDA** **CASE** **NO. ** **BEATRICE** **SMITH** **AND** **JOHN** **A. ** **SMITH, ** **Plaintiffs, ** **vs. ** **UNIVERSAL** **PROPERTY** **AND** **CASUALTY** **INSURANCE** **COMPANY, ** **Defendant. ** ### __________________________________ I ## COMPLAINT **COMES** **NOW** the Plaintiffs, **BEATRICE** **SMITH** **AND** **JOHN** **A. ** **SMITH, ** by and through the undersigned attorney and sues the Defendant, **UNIVERSAL** **PROPERTY** **AND** **CASUALTY** **INSURANCE** **COMPANY, ** a corporation authorized and doing business in the state of Florida, and alleges as follows: This is an action for damages which do not exceed Fifteen Thousand and 00/100 ($15, 000. 00) Dollars, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs and interest. On or about September 10, 2017, Plaintiffs’ dwelling, located at 5600 N. Flagler Drive, Apt. 1501, W. Palm Beach, Florida 33407, sustained damage due to Hurricane Irma during the policy period. A policy of homeowners’ insurance with policy number 592-471-139, including the coverages to protect Plaintiffs against the above losses, was issued by Defendant and was in full force and effect as to Plaintiffs when Plaintiffs’ dwelling was damaged. A copy of the policy is in the exclusive control of Defendant, and will be produced during discovery. ----- Plaintiffs notified Defendant of the damages, and Defendant assigned claim number FL17-0148644-E317. Plaintiffs have complied with all conditions precedent to entitle Plaintiffs to recover under the policy. Defendant refused to pay to replace and/or repair the full amount of Plaintiffs’ damages to her dwelling. Defendant’s refusal to pay to replace and/or repair the full amount of damages to Plaintiffs’ dwelling is a breach of contract. Because of Defendant's refusal to pay to replace and/or repair the full ### amount of damages to Plaintiffs’ dwelling, it has become necessary that Plaintiffs retain the services of the undersigned attorney. Plaintiffs are obligated to pay a reasonable fee for the attorneys’ services in bringing this action, plus necessary costs. **WHEREFORE, ** Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant for Plaintiffs’ losses with interest on any overdue payments, attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to _Florida_ _Statutes_ §§ 627. 428, 57. 041, and 92. 231, and demands a trial by jury. **d:** May 25, 2018 ### MORGAN & MORGAN, P. A. _Attorneysfor_ _Plaintiffs_ 703 Waterford Way, Suite 1050 Miami, FL 33126 Phone: (305)929-1907 Fax: (305)929-1925 Email: [ft)ve@forthepeople. com](mailto:ve@forthepeople. com) (Primary) Email: [blargaespada@forthepeople. com](mailto:blargaespada@forthepeople. com) (Secondary) By: /s/ Frederick Pye III, Esq. ### FREDERICK PYE, ESQ. Florida Bar No. : 124221 -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "**IN** **THE** **COUNTY** **COURT, ** **IN** **AND** **FOR** **PALM** **BEACH** **COUNTY, ** **FLORIDA** **CASE** **NO. ** **BEATRICE** **SMITH** **AND** **JOHN** **A. ** **SMITH, ** **Plaintiffs, ** **vs. ** **UNIVERSAL** **PROPERTY** **AND** **CASUALTY** **INSURANCE** **COMPANY, ** **Defendant. ** _______________________________________I_ **REQUEST** **TO** **PRODUCE** Plaintiffs, pursuant to _Florida_ _Rule_ _of_ _Civil_ _Procedure_ 1. 350, requests the Defendant, **UNIVERSAL** **PROPERTY** **AND** **CASUALTY** **INSURANCE** **COMPANY, ** a corporation authorized and doing business in the state of Florida, to furnish copies of the following documents to the offices of the undersigned attorney within forty-five (45) days from theof service hereof: All insurance policies that would inure to the benefit of the Plaintiffs herein, together with any declaration of coverage page and sworn statement of a corporate officer of Defendant attesting to the coverage and authenticity of the policy. All non-privileged portions of the claim file with regard to this claim. For any items withheld, please set forth the nature of the privilege or protection allowing you to withhold the document, theof the document, the drafter, recipient, and a general description of the document. Copies of any and all forms, correspondence, or reports received by you or any of your agents on your behalf concerning the Plaintiffs’ losses from anyone. Any and all statements taken by the Defendant of any witnesses with ----- regard to any fact relevant to any fact in this case, such as were taken prior to the filing ### of suit in this matter. Any and all photographs in the Defendant’s possession related to Plaintiffs’ claim in their native digital format. All audiotapes and transcripts of any statement given by Plaintiffs. Copies of all IRS Forms 1099 from Defendant to any consultants who examined Plaintiffs’ home (whether engineers, contractors or roofers) for past 5 years ### for the evaluation of claims submitted to Defendant by Defendant’s insureds. All reports in your possession that support Defendant’s contention that any ### of Plaintiffs’ charges are not covered or proper. The complete underwriting file with regard to Defendant’s issuance of insurance on the subject risk, and all renewals. **IT** **IS** **HEREBY** requested that the aforesaid production be made within forty-five (45) days from theof service at the office of Morgan & Morgan, P. A. , 703 Waterford Way, Suite 1050, Miami, Florida 33126. Inspection will be made by visual observation, examination and/or copying. ----- **CERTIFICATE** **OF** **SERVICE** **I** **HEREBY** **CERTIFY** that on May 25, 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served upon the Defendant’s Registered Agent: State of Florida, Chief Financial Officer, 200 E. Gaines St. , Tallahassee, FL 32399. **d:** May 25, 2018 ### MORGAN & MORGAN, P. A. _Attorneysfor_ _Plaintiffs_ 703 Waterford Way, Suite 1050 Miami, FL 33126 Phone: (305)929-1907 Fax: (305)929-1925 Email: [fpye@forthepeople. com](mailto:fpye@forthepeople. com) (Primary) Email: [blargaespada@forthepeople. com](mailto:blargaespada@forthepeople. com) (Secondary) By: /s/ Frederick Pye III, Esq. ### FREDERICK PYE, ESQ. Florida Bar No. : 124221 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15[TH] JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA MONIQUE SHOREY-FOLEY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GAIL S. SHOREY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN EDGAR SMITH, JR. Defendant. __________________________________________________/ **COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF** Plaintiff, MONIQUE SHOREY-FOLEY (“Plaintiff”), as personal representative of the estate of Gail S. Shorey (“Decedent”), by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby brings this suit against JOHN EDGAR SMITH, JR. (“Defendant”) and allege as follows: **JURISDICTION AND VENUE** Plaintiff has filed this action for damages exceeding $50, 000. 00 for Exploitation of a Vulnerable under Fla. Stat. § 415. 1111 and conversion, and for equitable relief, including for Quiet Title under Florida Statutes, Chapter 65, and declaratory relief under Florida’s Declaratory Judgment Act, Chapter 86. Plaintiff is an individual over the age of 18, sui juris, and is the personal representative of the estate of Decedent (the “Estate”), pursuant to Letters of Administration issued on May 21, 2023, in the probate matter 50-2023-CP-002565 XXXX-MB. Defendant is an individual over the age of 18, sui juris, and a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. ``` 1 ``` CHEPENIK|TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 Miami, Florida 33181 Tel 305. 981. 8889 eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- This litigation involves the Decedent’s real property located at 107 Lake Anne Dr, West Palm Beach, FL 33411: Private Dwelling No. 107, GOLDEN LAKES VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM THIRTEEN “C”, A CONDOMINIUM, together with an undivided interest in the common elements, according to the Declaration of Condominium thereof recorded in Official Records Book 3567, Page(s) 1748, as amended from time to time, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Parcel Identification Number: 00-42-43-28-23-000-1070 (hereinafter, the “Property”). This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Fla. Sta. § 26. 012. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have been satisfied or waived. **GENERAL ALLEGATIONS** The Decedent died on May 7, 2023, at the age of 72, and was a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida at the time of her death. In the months leading up to her death, the Decedent was terminally ill and suffered from medical conditions that dramatically impaired both her physical and cognitive functioning. The Decedent was also taking numerous prescription medications that further impaired her cognition. Eventually, the Decedent began receiving in-home hospice care, on April 14, 2023, for end of life care due to her failing health from her terminal illness. During the time when the wrongful acts of the Defendant, as set forth herein, were perpetrated, the Decedent was mostly bedbound, very weak, had stopped eating, and was experiencing drowsiness, forgetfulness, and confusion. ``` 2 ``` CHEPENIK|TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 Miami, Florida 33181 Tel 305. 981. 8889 eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- The Decedent had four children: Nicole Whitlock, Kimberly McKay, Michael Shorey (stepson), and the Plaintiff, none of whom live in South Florida. Defendant was the Decedent’s brother and is Plaintiff’s uncle. Defendant had a confidential, fiduciary relationship with the Decedent, as the Decedent relied upon the Defendant to act in the Decedent’s behalf and guarantee her best interests, as described more fully herein, and Defendant accepted that undertaking. Defendant lives in Palm Beach Florida, a short distance from the Decedent’s home, i. e. , the Property. Defendant had a key to the Decedent’s Property. During the final months of the Decedent’s life, the Defendant controlled access to the Property and the Decedent, including when the Decedent was receiving in home hospice care. When Defendant’s actions described herein took place, there existed significant mental inequality between Defendant and the Decedent. In the months leading up to the Decedent’s death, Defendant took advantage of the Decedent’s weakened physical and mental state to exert control over the Decedent. The Decedent purchased the Property in 2018 as the sole owner, pursuant to a Warranty Deed (“Valid Deed”). A true and correct copy of the Valid Deed is attached hereto as Exhibit “1. ” On April 21, 2023, after the Decedent was receiving end-of-life hospice care and about two weeks prior to her death, Defendant coerced the Decedent into signing a Quit Claim Deed (“Fraudulent Deed”) that purports to grant only a life estate to the ``` 3 ``` CHEPENIK|TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 Miami, Florida 33181 Tel 305. 981. 8889 eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- Decedent with the final remainder interest in the Property going to Defendant upon the Decedent’s death. A true and correct copy of the Fraudulent Deed, is attached hereto as **Exhibit “2. ”** Upon information and belief, the Defendant had knowledge of the contents of the Fraudulent Deed before it was executed, recommended the attorney that drafted the Fraudulent Deed, gave instructions for the preparation of the Fraudulent Deed, secured witnesses for the Fraudulent Deed, and retained the Fraudulent Deed after it was executed. Defendant’s wife, Marie Miclaus-Smith, served as a witness to the execution of the Fraudulent Deed. Defendant waited to record the Fraudulent Deed until it was clear that the Decedent’s death was imminent. The Fraudulent Deed was recorded on May 5, 2023, two days prior to Decedent’s death. At the time the Fraudulent Deed was executed, the Decedent lacked the requisite mental capacity to execute the Fraudulent Deed. Alternatively, if the Decedent technically had capacity to execute a deed, Defendant took advantage of Decedent’s diminished capacity to exert undue influence over the Decedent, in order to procure the Fraudulent Deed, such that the Fraudulent Deed is the product of Defendant’s mind and will, and not the Decedent’s. During her life, the Decedent had repeatedly expressed her desire for her children to inherit the Property. But for the Fraudulent Deed, the Valid Deed would have conveyed the Property to the Estate upon Decedent’s death, and the Property would have been devised ``` 4 ``` CHEPENIK|TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 Miami, Florida 33181 Tel 305. 981. 8889 eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- to Decedent’s four children per her Last Will and Testament UAD March 18, 2002 (“Will”), which has been filed with the Court and an Order admitted the Will to probate was entered on May 21, 2023. A true and correct copy of the Will is attached hereto as Exhibit “3. ” Prior to her death, the Decedent asked Defendant to safekeep her jewelry, including her 18 karat Rolex watch with diamonds, so none of the hospice staff would steal it and it could be inherited by the Decedent’s children. After the Decedent died, Plaintiff asked Defendant to return the Decedent’s jewelry to the Estate. After initially claiming that the Decedent had gifted the jewelry to Defendant and/or his family, Defendant reluctantly turned over the jewelry, except for the Rolex watch, which upon information and belief, is still in the possession of, or has been sold by, Defendant. Defendant is also currently exercising wrongful control and dominion over the Decedent’s other tangible personal property that is located in the Property. The Rolex and the Decedent’s other tangible personal property rightfully belong to the Estate and, pursuant to the Decedent’s express wishes during her life, including as memorialized in her Will, are to go to her children. However, that has not occurred, because Defendant is currently in wrongful possession of the Rolex watch, as well as the other tangible personal property located in the Property, or the sales proceeds of same. Defendant also caused the Decedent, through incapacity and/or undue influence, to sign over the Decedent’s car to the Defendant, thereby depriving the Decedent and her Estate of the automobile. ``` 5 ``` CHEPENIK|TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 Miami, Florida 33181 Tel 305. 981. 8889 eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- Plaintiff has been required to obtain the services of the undersigned attorneys to represent the Estate in this cause and has incurred and will incur expenses for legal fees and costs. **COUNT I -EXPLOITATION OF A VULNERABLE ADULT UNDER CHAPTER** **415, FLORIDA STATUTES** The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37 are reincorporated and realleged herein. Defendant’s actions constitute exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult under Chapter 415, Florida Statutes, and this count is being asserted under Fla. Stat. § 415. 1111. The Decedent qualifies as a “vulnerable adult, ” as defined in Fla. Stat. § 415. 102(28): “a person 18 years of age or older whose ability to perform the normal activities of daily living or to provide for his or her own care or protection is impaired due to a mental, emotional, sensory, long-term physical, or developmental disability or dysfunction, or brain damage, or the infirmities of aging. ” Plaintiff is bringing this action as the personal representative of the Estate, in accordance with Fla. Stat. § 415. 1111. Defendant qualifies as a “caregiver, ” as defined in Fla. Stat. § 415. 102(5): a person who has been entrusted with or has assumed the responsibility for frequent and regular care of or services to a vulnerable adult on a temporary or permanent basis and who has a commitment, agreement, or understanding with that person. .. that a caregiver role exists. ” Defendant stood in a position of trust and confidence with the Decedent. Defendant knowingly, by deception or intimidation, obtained, used, and/or endeavored to obtain or use the Decedent’s funds, assets, and/or property with ``` 6 ``` CHEPENIK|TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 Miami, Florida 33181 Tel 305. 981. 8889 eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive the Decedent of the use, benefit, or possession of the funds, assets, and/or property for the benefit of someone other than Decedent. Defendant had a fiduciary relationship with the Decedent, and owed her fiduciary duties implied by law, as a result of the trust and confidence that the Decedent reposed in Defendant, the Decedent’s reliance upon the Defendant to act for her and look out for her best interests, and the Defendant’s acceptance of that trust, confidence, and reliance. Defendant committed exploitation, as defined in Fla. Stat. § 415. 102, including by breaching the fiduciary relationship with the Decedent, which deprived the Decedent, and now deprives her Estate, of the use, benefit, and/or possession of the Decedent’s assets and property. Defendant’s exploitation of the Decedent includes, but is not limited to, wrongfully causing the Decedent to sign the Fraudulent Deed, through incapacity, undue influence, and/or trickery, thereby depriving the Decedent of her ownership interest in the Property and the choice of who to leave the Property to when she died, and, by extension, depriving the Decedent’s Estate of the Property. Damage sustained by the Estate, which stands in the shoes of the Decedent, includes lost rental income that the Property could have generated following the Decedent’s death. Defendant’s exploitation of the Decedent also includes wrongfully causing the Decedent to sign over title of her car to Defendant, through incapacity, undue influence, and/or other deception or trickery. ``` 7 ``` CHEPENIK|TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 Miami, Florida 33181 Tel 305. 981. 8889 eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- Defendant’s exploitation of the Decedent includes stealing her Rolex watch and not returning it to the Estate following the Decedent’s death. Defendant knew, or should have known, that the Decedent lacked capacity to consent to the transfer of the Property or the Decedent’s automobile to Defendant, but the Defendant nevertheless obtained or used the Decedent’s assets and property, with the intent to permanently deprive the Decedent, and for the use of someone other than the Decedent. Defendant engaged in the unauthorized taking of the Decedent’s assets, in a manner that constitutes statutory exploitation of a vulnerable adult under Chapter 415, Florida Statutes. Defendant’s acts of exploitation and violations of Chapter 415, Florida Statutes, proximately caused damage to the Decedent and her Estate. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages (including lost rental income), costs, attorney’s fees pursuant to Chapter 415. 1111, Florida Statutes, interest, and such further relief as is deemed just and proper. **COUNT II - QUIET TITLE** The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37 are reincorporated and realleged herein. This action is founded upon two written instruments, the Fraudulent Deed and the Valid Deed, and seeks to quiet title in favor of the Estate under the Valid Deed. Defendant purports to be the owner of the Property pursuant to the improperly procured Fraudulent Deed. Title to the Property should be quieted in favor of the Estate, as the Fraudulent Deed is void ab initio, because it was improperly procured through undue ``` 8 ``` CHEPENIK|TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 Miami, Florida 33181 Tel 305. 981. 8889 eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- influence or trickery, is the product of incapacity, and/or was not validly signed, witnessed, and notarized. Defendant and the Decedent had a close, personal, and confidential relationship that Defendant took advantage of to procure the Fraudulent Deed. Two weeks prior to the Decedent’s death, Defendant took advantage of the Decedent’s weakened mental and physical state and/or lack of capacity and, through persuasion, pressure, duress, force, and/or coercion, destroyed the Decedent’s free agency and will power for Defendant’s own personal gain, and wrongfully caused the Decedent to execute the Fraudulent Deed. At the time the Fraudulent Deed was executed, the Decedent’s weakened physical and mental state made her highly susceptible to the will of others, and Defendant took advantage of this to obtain the Fraudulent Deed that conveyed him an ownership interest in the Property, and complete ownership of the Property upon the Decedent’s death. Defendant procured the witnesses to the Fraudulent Deed, one of the witnesses being his wife, either directly or through someone acting on his behalf. Defendant, or someone acting on his behalf, procured the notary for the Fraudulent Deed. Defendant, or someone acting on his behalf, selected the attorney who drafted the Fraudulent Deed. Defendant, or someone acting on his behalf, gave instructions to the attorney with regard to the drafting of the Fraudulent Deed. Defendant had knowledge of the contents of the Fraudulent Deed prior to its execution. ``` 9 ``` CHEPENIK|TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 Miami, Florida 33181 Tel 305. 981. 8889 eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- Defendant, or someone acting on his behalf, retained the Fraudulent Deed after it was executed. The Fraudulent Deed is the result of undue influence and is void, as it is the product of Defendant’s mind and will, and not the Decedent’s. Additionally or alternatively, the Fraudulent Deed is invalid because the Decedent did not possess testamentary capacity to execute the Fraudulent Deed on April 21, 2023, as she was not mentally competent to understand the nature and extent of her assets, the natural objects of her bounty, and/or the effect of the Fraudulent Deed. The Fraudulent Deed is a dramatic departure from the Decedent’s previously and repeatedly expressed intent that her children inherit the Property. As a direct and proximate result of the undue influence of Defendant upon the Decedent, the Fraudulent Deed is void. The Valid Deed applies and therefore, the Property should pass through the Estate per the terms of the Will. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that (1) the Fraudulent Deed purporting to convey the Property to Defendant be canceled and declared and adjudged void; (2) the Estate’s title to the Property be quieted against Defendant; (3) the Estate be adjudged the owner of the Property and entitled to its possession pursuant to the Valid Deed and the Decedent’s Last Will and Testament; (4) Defendant be adjudged to have no estate or interest whatever in or to the Property and be ordered to leave the Property if he is in possession of it; (5) Plaintiff be awarded costs; and (6) the Court provide such further relief as may be deemed just and proper. **COUNT III - DECLARATORY ACTION** ``` 10 ``` CHEPENIK|TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 Miami, Florida 33181 Tel 305. 981. 8889 eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37 are reincorporated and realleged herein. Plaintiff/the Estate and Defendant have a bona fide, actual, present, and practical need for a declaration as to their rights relating to the Property, the Fraudulent Deed, the Valid Deed, and the Decedent’s tangible personal property. The rights of Plaintiff/the Estate and Defendant depend upon a present and ascertainable state of facts, and there is a present controversy as to the state of facts and the law applicable to those facts. Plaintiff/the Estate and Defendant have an actual, present, adverse, and antagonistic interest with regard to the Property, the Fraudulent Deed, the Valid Deed, the Decedent’s automobile, the Decedent’s Rolex watch, and the Decedent’s tangible personal property located in the Property. The antagonistic and adverse interests are all before the Court by proper process. The relief sought herein is not merely the giving of legal advice by the courts. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests declarations that: a. The Fraudulent Deed is invalid and void; b. The Fraudulent Deed is void ab initio; c. The Valid Deed is valid and controlling as to rightful title to the Property; d. Defendant has no legal or equitable interest in the Property; e. The Property is an asset of the Estate; ``` 11 ``` CHEPENIK|TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 Miami, Florida 33181 Tel 305. 981. 8889 eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- f. The Estate has the right to rental income from the Property, including any prior rental income collected by Defendant; g. The Decedent’s automobile, or the sale proceeds from the automobile, rightfully belong to the Estate; h. The Decedent’s Rolex watch, or the sales proceeds from same, is wrongfully in the possession of the Defendant, and the Estate is the rightful owner, and entitled to possession, of same; i. The Decedent’s tangible personal property in the Property, or the sales proceeds from same, are wrongfully in the possession of the Defendant, and the Estate is the rightful owner, and entitled to possession, of same; and j. Plaintiff further requests an award of costs, and all such further relief as is deemed just and proper. **COUNT IV - CONVERSION** The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37 are reincorporated and realleged herein. Defendant is in the wrongful possession of the Decedent’s Rolex watch with diamonds, the Decedent’s automobile, and the Decedent’s tangible personal property located in the Property (collectively, “Stolen Property”). The Decedent was the rightful owner of the Stolen Property at the time of her death. The Decedent’s Estate is rightfully entitled to the Stolen Property. A demand has been made to Defendant for return of the Stolen Property, but the demand went unheeded. ``` 12 ``` CHEPENIK|TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 Miami, Florida 33181 Tel 305. 981. 8889 eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- Defendant has refused and/or failed to return the Stolen Property. Defendant has asserted and continues to assert wrongful acts of dominion or authority over the Stolen Property, and as a result, the Estate has been damaged. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for return of the Rolex, the automobile, and the Decedent’s other tangible personal property, or damages in the form of the sales proceeds should any of it have been sold, interest, costs, and such further relief as is deemed just and proper. **DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL** Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues triable as of right by a jury. Respectfully submitted on this 4[th] day of August, 2023 by: CHEPENIK TRUSHIN LLP _Attorneys for Plaintiff_ 12550 Biscayne Blvd. , Suite 805 North Miami, FL 33181 Tele: (305) 981-8889 Fax: (305) 405-7979 /s/ Daniel F. Bachman _________________________________ Daniel F. Bachman, Esq. Florida Bar No. : 97786 Primary e-mail: dbachman@ctllp. com Secondary e-mail: phoskin@ctllp. com Glenn Marks, Esq. Florida Bar No. : 1024809 Primary e-mail: gmarks@ctllp. com Secondary e-mail: service@ctllp. com ``` 13 ``` CHEPENIK|TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 Miami, Florida 33181 Tel 305. 981. 8889 eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- ## Exhibit 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- ## Exhibit 2 ----- ----- ## Exhibit 3 ----- ----- ----- ----- -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15[TH] JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA MONIQUE SHOREY-FOLEY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GAIL S. SHOREY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN EDGAR SMITH, JR. Defendant. __________________________________________________/ **PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO DEFENDANT** Plaintiff, MONIQUE SHOREY-FOLEY, as personal representative of the Estate of Gail S. Shorey (“Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1. 350, hereby serves Plaintiff’s First Request for Production to Defendant, JOHN EDGAR SMITH, JR. (“Defendant”), and states: **INSTRUCTIONS** In producing documents requested herein, please produce documents in full, without abridgement, abbreviation or expurgation of any part. With respect to all documents requested, please segregate such documents in accordance with the numbered and lettered paragraphs and subparagraphs herein. If a document is called for under more than one request, it should be produced in response to the first request and a notice appended to it stating the other request(s) to which it is claimed that such document is responsive. If copies or drafts exist of documents, the production of which has been requested herein, please produce and submit for inspection and copying each and every copy and draft which differs in any way from the original document or from any other copy or draft. If a document is not produced on the basis of a claim of privilege or statutory authority, please identify the type of document and reason for not producing same by stating with respect to such document: a) its author(s), 1 CHEPENIK | TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 x Miami, Florida 33181 x Tel 305. 981. 8889 x eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- b) addressee(s), c), d) type of document, e) subject matter, f) number of pages, g) number of attachments or appendices, h) all persons to whom shown or explained, i) the present custodian, and j) the factual or legal basis for the claimed privilege or specific statutory authority which provides the claimed basis for non-production. If any document(s) requested herein have been destroyed, or otherwise disposed of, please identify such document by: author(s), addressee(s), , type of document, subject matter, number of pages, number of attachments or appendices, indicated or blind copies, all person(s) to whom distributed, shown or explained, of destruction or other disposition, reason for destruction or other disposition, person(s) authorizing destruction or other disposition, person(s) destroying or otherwise disposing of document, and if not destroyed, the person(s) in possession of the document otherwise disposed of. In compiling documents requested herein, You are required by Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to exercise due diligence in attempting to secure documents requested herein that are not only in Your custody and possession, but also documents that are within Your control. A document is deemed to be in Your “control” if You have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If any documents requested herein have been placed beyond Your control (a document is deemed to be in Your control if You have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or public or private entity having actual possession thereof), identify the person(s) or entities with possession or custody, and why. If any documents requested herein are no longer in Your possession or custody, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and theors or approximateors on which such disposition was made, and why. **LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE AND DUTY TO PRESERVE SOCIAL MEDIA** **INFORMATION AND OTHER ELECTRONICALLY** **STORED** **INFORMATION** Consider Yourself to hereby be on notice that You and Your attorney have a joint obligation to immediately protect and preserve potentially relevant electronically stored information (“ESI”), documents, and tangible things, which in any way relate to this litigation. 2 CHEPENIK | TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 x Miami, Florida 33181 x Tel 305. 981. 8889 x eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- With respect to electronic information, ESI includes all information which is electronically, magnetically, or optically stored on a computer, voice mail, cellphone, and/or on any portable storage such as CD, DVD, thumb drive, etc. It would include (by way of example, and not as an exclusive list) emails, as well as word processing documents, spreadsheets, online access data (e. g. Temporary Internet Files, History, Cookies), back-up, and archival files. All ESI should be maintained in the forms in which it is ordinarily maintained (i. e. such data should be preserved in its native format). Your duty to preserve this evidence extends to current and former computers and other media devices (including personal digital assistants; voice-messaging systems; online repositories; portable devices and media, such as zip drives, thumb drives, and CDs or floppy disks; and cell phones). If information exists in both electronic and paper forms, both forms must be preserved. Data residing on social media platforms is subject to the same duty to preserve as other types of ESI. Your duty to preserve is triggered when You reasonably foresee that evidence may be relevant to issues in this litigation. All evidence in Your “possession, custody, or control” is subject to the duty to preserve. Evidence generally is considered to be within a party’s “control” when the party has the legal authority or practical ability to access it. Based on the above, You are additionally notified that adequate preservation of ESI requires more than simply refraining from efforts to destroy or dispose of such evidence. You must also take steps to prevent loss of ESI due to routine operations and must employ proper techniques and protocols suitable to the protection of ESI. For example, Facebook offers the ability to “Download Your Info. ” With just one click of the mouse, You can download a zip file containing timeline information, posts, messages, and photos. Twitter users can download all Tweets posted to an account by requesting a copy of the user’s Twitter “archive. ” The foregoing are but two examples of steps You must take in order to preserve ESI, and by no means constitute the full extent of Your obligation to preserve social media ESI and ESI generally. Although these self-help methods can be an excellent start, they do not address all possible data. Therefore, it may be prudent to employ the assistance of a third-party vendor in order to ensure complete preservation. Regardless of the method employed, preservation of social media evidence and other ESI is critically important and the consequences of failing to preserve can be significant. Both You and Your counsel may be subject to sanctions for a failure to preserve relevant evidence, should a court determine that You engaged in spoliation of such evidence. Even if You believe certain discovery requests to which ESI would be responsive are objectionable, Your failure to preserve such ESI prior to a court ruling on Your objections may subject You and Your counsel to sanctions. Therefore, You would be well advised to take measures to preserve all ESI pending the resolution of this litigation, and we urge You to engage the services of an expert in electronic evidence and 3 CHEPENIK | TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 x Miami, Florida 33181 x Tel 305. 981. 8889 x eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- computer forensics to ensure that there is no spoliation of evidence. Having been explicitly put on notice of the desirability of retaining such an expert, Your failure to do so in conjunction with the loss or destruction of ESI will necessitate the conclusion that such loss or destruction was Your intent. **DEFINITIONS** \"Document(s)\" or \"written communication(s)\" as used in this Request for Production are used in the broad and liberal sense and means written, typed, printed, recorded or graphic matter, however produced or reproduced, including electronic data, of any kind and description, and whether an original, master, duplicate or copy, including, but not limited to, accounts, advertisements, agreements, appointment books, bank checks, bills, books, books of account, bulletins, cablegrams, cancelled checks, cashier's checks, catalogs, charts, check stubs, communications, computer printouts, contracts, corporate records, correspondence, desk calendars, diaries, diary entries, drawings, e-mail, graphic records, guarantees, inter-office communications, intra-office communications, invoices, ledger books, letters, logs, mailgrams, magazines, manuals, marginal notes (appearing on any document), memoranda, minutes (e. g. , board of directors, committee), models, motion pictures, notations, notebooks, notes, offers, pamphlets, papers, photographs, physical objects, plans, printed matter, projections, prospectuses, publications, receipts, reports, returns, sketches, sound recordings (including, by way of example, any type of personal or telephone conversation, meeting or conference) specifications, statements, statistics, studies, summaries, surveys, tape recordings, tapes, telegrams, tele-faxes, teletypes, transcriptions (including, by way of example, any type of personal or telephone conversation, meeting or conference), transcripts, video tapes, vouchers, warranties, working papers, worksheets; and all amendments, changes, drafts, modifications of any of the foregoing, of which You have knowledge or which are now or were formerly in Your actual or constructive possession, custody or control. The responses concerning documents requested shall include information regarding whether such document is an original, a duplicate, or a copy thereof. \"Electronic data\" as used in this Request for Production means computerized files and any non-identical copies (whether non-identical because of notes made on copies or attached comments, annotations, marks, transmission notations, or highlighting of any kind) of writings of every kind and description whether inscribed by mechanical, facsimile, electronic, magnetic, digital, or other means. Electronic data includes, but is not limited to output resulting from the use of any software program, including word processing programs such as Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, Notepad, Wordpad, PowerPoint, MS Excel, MS Access, Adobe Acrobat, Outlook, spreadsheets, database files (including descriptive information regarding tables, fields and values), charts, graphs and outlines, electronic mail, photographs, pictures, and any and all miscellaneous files and/or file fragments, regardless of the media on which they reside and regardless of whether said electronic data consists in an active file, deleted file or file fragment. Electronic data includes any and all items stored on computer memories, hard-disks, floppy disks, CD-ROMs, DVDs, removable media such as Zip disks, thumb drives, digital memory cards and their equivalent, magnetic tapes of all types, on or in any other vehicle for digital data storage and/or transmittal. The term electronic data 4 CHEPENIK | TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 x Miami, Florida 33181 x Tel 305. 981. 8889 x eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- also includes the file, folder tabs and/or containers and labels appended to, or associated with, any physical storage device associated with each original and/or copy. \"Computer\" as used in this Request for Production shall include, but is not limited to, microchips, personal computers, laptop computers, portable computers, notebook computers, palmtop computers (also known as personal digital assistants or PDA’s), minicomputers, mainframe computers, and all other electronic storage devices that store electronic data. \"Concern, \" \"concerning, \" \"evidencing, \" \"regard, \" \"regarding, \" \"reflecting, \" \"relates, \" “relating to, ” \"relates to, \" “pertain, ” or “pertains to” as used in this Request for Production shall mean relating to, referring to, connected with, commenting on, responding to, containing, evidencing, memorializing, describing, analyzing, comprising, constituting, reflecting, discussing, showing, supporting, contradicting, refuting, embodying, identifying, pertaining, or in any way logically or factually connected with the matter discussed. “Decedent” means Gail S. Shorey, the decedent referenced in the Estate of Gail S. Shorey, Case. No. 50-2023-CP-002565 in the Probate Division of the 15[th] Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida. If an individual, \"You\" and \"Your\" as used in this Request for Production shall refer to and include yourself, together with your employees, agents, attorneys, experts, investigators, representatives and all others, whether past or present, who have obtained information for or on behalf of You. If a corporation or other business entity, \"You\" and \"Your\" as used in this Request for Production shall refer to corporation or business entity, together with the corporation or business entity’s affiliates and subsidiaries, employees, agents, associates, attorneys, directors, employees, experts, independent contractors, representatives, servants, and all others, whether past or present, who have obtained information for or on behalf of the corporation. The words \"and\" and \"or\" shall be construed conjunctively and disjunctively as necessary to make the request inclusive rather than exclusive. \"Identify, \" or \"state the identity of\": (a) When used in reference to a natural person means to please state: i. His/her full name; ii. Present or last known business and residence address; iii. His/her present or last known occupation and position; iv. His/her present or last known employer or business affiliation; v. His/her occupation or position at the time in question specified in the particular request. (b) When used in reference to a \"document\" means to please state: 5 CHEPENIK | TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 x Miami, Florida 33181 x Tel 305. 981. 8889 x eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- i. A description of the type of document (e. g. , letter, memorandum, telegram, etc. ); ii. The identity of the person or persons who authored or prepared it; iii. In the case of an agreement or contract, the identity of the parties' signatory; iv. The identity of the addressee(s), if any, and the recipient(s) of the original and a copy thereof; v. The title thereof, if any, and a description of the general nature of its subject matter; vi. Theof the document, or, if none, the approximateof its preparation; vii. The manner of distribution and publication, if any; viii. The present location or custodian of the original and each copy thereof; ix. The identity of any persons who can identify it; x. Whether such documents contained, enclosed, were attached to or accompanied by any other documents, and if so, state the identity thereof; xi. If a privilege is claimed, the specific basis therefore. (c) In lieu of identifying a particular document when such identification is requested, a copy of such document may, at Your option, be attached to the response to these requests; provided that any specific information required pursuant to the foregoing definition which is not fully set forth on the face of such copy of a document must be separately provided in response to these requests. “Person\" as used in this Request for Production shall mean any natural person, firm, corporation, partnership, joint venture or any other form of business entity. “All” as used in this Request for Production means \"any and all\"; \"any\" means \"any and all; \" \"Including\" means \"including but not limited to. ” Masculine pronouns shall not connote any particular gender but shall be taken to mean masculine, feminine or neuter gender, as the case may be, in this Request for Production. “” as used in this Request for Production shall mean the exact day, month, and year, if ascertainable, or, if not, the best approximation thereof (including relationship to other events) but only when, exactcannot be supplied. Any approximation should be identified as such. “Agent” as used in this Request for Production shall include any person or company employed, designated, and/or contracted by Defendant to perform any job or task on Defendant’s behalf as it relates to this lawsuit. “Petition” as used in this Request for Production shall mean the Petition filed in this case, as styled above, or if any subsequent amended petitions have 6 CHEPENIK | TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 x Miami, Florida 33181 x Tel 305. 981. 8889 x eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- been filed, \"Petition\" shall refer to the last amended petition filed in this case, unless it is otherwise specified in a particular request that “Petition” shall include all petitions filed in this case. “Defendant, ” “You, ” “Your, ” and “Yourself, ” as used in this Request for Production, shall mean John Edgar Smith, Jr. , individually, and, where applicable, any employees, independent contractors, representatives, or agents acting on Defendant’s behalf. \"The subject matter of this lawsuit, \" as used herein, shall refer to all facts and issues as set forth in the pleadings, including the Petition, any amendments thereto, and any responses thereto, in Adversary “Property” shall refer to the property located at 107 Lake Anne Drive, West Palm Beach, Florida 33411. “of Death” shall refer to Gail S. Shorey’s death on May 7, 2023. 7 CHEPENIK | TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 x Miami, Florida 33181 x Tel 305. 981. 8889 x eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- **REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION** **These Requests seek not just documents and tangible items within** **Defendant’s immediate possession, but also those that are within Defendant’s** **custody, Defendant’s control, or reasonably available to Defendant’s, such as** **documents and tangible items within the possession, custody, or control of** **Defendant’s agents or representatives, or that may be located and obtained** **through a reasonable and diligent search of Defendant’s records. If Defendant’s** **does not produce responsive documents pursuant to a claim of privilege, a** **privilege log must be provided containing the information required by Florida Rule** **of Civil Procedure 1. 280(b)(6). Unless entirely unavailable, these Requests seek** **production of electronically created documents, photographs, and videos in native** **format, i. e. , the format in which the record was created, or in which the** **originating** **application** **stores** **records** **electronically, ** **without** **any** **alteration. Production may be made via email, a secure link to a cloud storage** **site, or a peripheral storage device (e. g. , a CD, DVD, or USB flash drive). ** All documents and written communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages) referencing, memorializing, or relating to Decedent’s estate plan and estate planning up through theDecedent’s Last Will and Testament UAD March 28, 2002 was executed, including without limitation, wills, trusts, advanced directives, drafts of documents, memoranda, notes, and billing records. In answering this Request #1 and all other requests herein which refer to “documents” or “written communications, ” please include all of the information listed in Definition #1 in the “DEFINITIONS” section. All documents and written communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages) referencing, memorializing, or relating to Decedent’s estate plan and estate planning beginning from the day after the Decedent’s Last Will and Testament UAD March 28, 2002 was executed through theof Death, including without limitation, wills, trusts, advanced directives, drafts of documents, memoranda, notes, and billing records. Defendant’s telephone records (including without limitation call logs indicating incoming and outgoing calls) for any communications with Decedent and/or her caregivers from January 1, 2022 to theof Death. All documents and written communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages) which memorialize, reference, or pertain to the Defendant’s personal relationship with Decedent from January 1, 2022 to theof Death, including but not limited to documents which in any way address the frequency with which Defendant spoke to and/or visited Decedent during this time period. All written communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages) between Defendant and 8 CHEPENIK | TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 x Miami, Florida 33181 x Tel 305. 981. 8889 x eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- any attorney or any attorney’s office, including but not limited to Juan J. Perez, Esq. of J. Perez Legal PA, who provided legal services to or on behalf of Decedent, from January 1, 2022 to theof Death. All written communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages) between Defendant and Decedent relating to the Property and/or any of Decedent’s assets and/or Decedent’s children, from January 1, 2022 to theof Death. All written communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages) between Defendant and Mary E. Nickles, a witness and notary to the deed for the Property signed on April 21, 2023, relating to the Property and/or Decedent’s assets, from January 1, 2022 to theof Death. All written communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages) between Defendant and Marie Miclaus-Smith, a witness to the deed for the Property signed on April 21, 2023, relating to the Property and/or Decedent’s assets, from January 1, 2022 to theof Death. All written communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages) between Defendant and Decedent’s medical or health care providers, from January 1, 2022 to theof Death. All written communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages) between Defendant (or anyone acting on his behalf) and anyone relating to the Property and/or Decedent’s assets, from January 1, 2022 to theof Death, not already responsive to prior requests. All photographs, video, audio, or any other audiovisual records of Decedent from January 1, 2022 to theof Death. All documents and written communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages) which memorialize, reference, or pertain to Decedent’s 2019 Mazda CX9, from January 1, 2022 to theof Death. All documents and written communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages) which memorialize, reference, or pertain to Decedent’s 18 karat Rolex watch with diamonds, from January 1, 2022 to theof Death. All documents and written communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages) which memorialize, reference, or pertain to Decedent’s testamentary intent and/or assets, from January 1, 2022 to theof Death. 9 CHEPENIK | TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 x Miami, Florida 33181 x Tel 305. 981. 8889 x eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- All documents and written communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages) which memorialize, reference, or pertain relating to Decedent’s tangible personal property, from January 1, 2022 to theof Death, not responsive to prior requests. All of Decedent’s medical records from January 1, 2022 to theof Death. All documents that were or are currently located in the Property from January 1, 2022 to theof Death. All documents and written communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, text messages, WhatsApp messages, and social media messages) which memorialize, reference, or pertain to Decedent and/or the Property and/or Decedent’s assets, from January 1, 2022 to theof Death, not responsive to prior requests. 10 CHEPENIK | TRUSHIN LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 x Miami, Florida 33181 x Tel 305. 981. 8889 x eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com ----- ##### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ###### WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this document will be ##### served on Defendant along with the Complaint in this action. ###### CHEPENIK TRUSHIN, LLP. ##### Attorneys for [the] Plaintiff 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 North Miami, FL 33181 ###### Tele: (305) 981-8889 Fax: (305) 405-7979 ## / s/ [Daniel][ F. ][ Bachman] ##### Daniel F. Bachman, Esq. Florida Bar No. : 97786 Primary [e-mail:] dbachman@ctllp. com Secondary: service@ctllp. com Glenn Marks, Esq. Florida Bar No. 1024809 Primary [E-mail:] gmarks@ctllp. com Secondary [E-mail:] phoskin@ctllp. com 11 Chepenik | Trushin LLP 12550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 805 • Miami, Florida 33181 • Tel 305. 981. 8889 • eFax 305. 405. 7979 www. ctllp. com -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "###### IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 1 STH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND ###### FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ROBERT NEUVELT 50 2009 CA03 4222 XXXXNB Plaintiff, ys. ^3 LORIDA INTERNATIONAL TITLE AND 'SCROW COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, ROBERT SMALO3HN WALTER SMITH, and MITH & GROMANN, an Interstate Partnership of > rofessional Associations/d/b/a SMITH & GROMANN, P. A. ``` co Defendants. ## 'VN? ###### COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Robert Neuvelt, (hereinafter “Neuvelt, ”) by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby sues the Defendants, Florida International Title and Escrow Company (hereinafter “Florida International”), Robert Small (hereinafter “Small”), John Walter Smith and Smith & Gromann an Interstate Partnership of Professional Associations/d/b/a Smith & Gromann, P. A. (collectively referred to as “Smith”) for damages, and as grounds therefore states as follows: This is a cause of action for damages in excess of $15, 000. 00 and is within the jurisdiction of this court. At all times material hereto, Robert Neuvelt, is and was sui juris. At all times material hereto, the Defendant, Florida International Title and Escrow Company, is and was a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of ``` ----- ###### Florida, with its principal place of business in Boca Raton, Palm Beach County Florida. At all times material hereto, the Defendant, Robert Small, was and is sui juris and a resident of Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County Florida. All of the acts committed by Small as alleged herein, occurred in Palm Beach County Florida. At all times material hereto, Small was the mortgage broker for the borrower Jirah Investment, Inc. (hereinafter “Jirah”) and its guarantor, Carole E. Garcia (hereinafter “Garcia”). Jirah Investment, Inc. , is and was a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business in Dade County Florida. Carole E. Garcia was and is sui juris and a resident of Dade County Florida and a principal of Jirah Investment, Inc. Upon Information and belief, Garcia filed for bankruptcy protection on September 22, 2009. At all times material hereto, John Walter Smith, was and is sui juris, and an active member of the Florida Bar, with a principal place of business in Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto, John Walter Smith, was and is a partner, principal, shareholder and/or employee of Smith & Gromann registered with the state ofFlorida as an Interstate Partnership ofProfessional Associations, which was and is doing business within the state ofFlorida as Smith & Gromann, P. A. , with a principal place of business in Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, Florida. At all times material hereto, John Walter Smith individually, and as a partner, principal, shareholder and/or employee of Smith & Gromann, P. A. , undertook to provide legal services to the Plaintiff, and did in fact provide legal services to the Plaintiff, in the transactions set forth more fully 2 ----- ###### below. All actions taken, or not taken, by John Walter Smith were performed, or failed to be performed, during the course and scope of his employment with Smith & Gromann, P. A. , which is responsible for his actions or inactions under the doctrine of Respondeant Superior. All of the acts committed by each Defendant as alleged herein, occurred in Palm Beach County Florida and Florida International and Smith have offices in Palm Beach County. Venue is therefore appropriate in Palm Beach County. COUNT I BREACH OF ESCROW AGREEMENT (LOAN #1) AGAINST FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL TITLE AND ESCROW COMPANY, AND ROBERT SMALL, Plaintiffs reallege and reaver the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 11 as if set forth more fully herein. On or about January 26, 2007, Neuvelt loaned Jirah $210, 000. 00 to be used to purchase and improve a certain parcel of real property (hereinafter referred to as Loan#l). Of the amount loaned, $77, 058. 87 was to be used for improvements to the property and was to be released from escrow pursuant to a draw schedule. A copy of the Construction Loan Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, its terms and conditions incorporated herein by reference. Pursuant to the terms of the loan construction agreement, Jirah, Florida International and Small were to enter into an Escrow Agreement, whereby Florida International and Small agreed to hold the construction funds in escrow and disburse them to Jirah pursuant to the draw schedule set forth therein. Jirah and Small did execute the agreement, however Florida International, while aware of the agreement and its obligation to execute and be bound by same, failed to sign the agreement. A copy of the Escrow Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, its terms and conditions incorporated herein by reference. 3 ----- ###### 14. At closing, Jirah and Florida International executed a Settlement Statement, which also evidences the draw schedule contained in the Escrow Agreement. A copy of the Settlement Statement is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”, its terms and conditions incorporated herein by reference. Pursuant to the terms of the promissory note executed on January 26, 2007, which is attached hereto as Exhibif’D”, Jirah was to make monthly interest payments commencing March 1, If the note was not paid in full by February 1, 2008, Jirah was to repay the principal loan amount of $210, 000. 00 in full. Jirah made the monthly interest payments, however failed to pay the principal loan amount of $210, 000. 00 when due and therefore defaulted on the note. Contrary to the terms of the Construction Loan Agreement, Escrow Agreement and Settlement Statement, unbeknownst to, and without the consent of, Neuvelt, Florida International provided checks to Small at closing for the entire amount of construction funds, $77, 058. 87, which Small disbursed to Jirah at, or shortly after, closing, thereby breaching the escrow agreement. Jirah did not use the disbursed construction funds to improve the subject property. Consequently, as a direct and proximate result of the breach of the escrow agreement, Neuvelt sustained damage in the amount of $77, 058. 87. The Plaintiff has been forced to retain undersigned counsel and has agreed to pay a reasonable attorney’s fee, for which he is entitled to recovery, pursuant to the terms of the escrow agreement. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffdemandsjudgment against the Defendants, Florida International Title and Escrow Company and Robert Small in the amount of $77, 058. 87, pre and post judgment 4 ----- ###### interest, court costs, attorney’s fees and any and all other relief this Court deems just and proper. COUNT II BREACH OF ESCROW AGREEMENT (LOAN #2) AGAINST FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL TITLE AND ESCROW COMPANY, AND ROBERT SMALL, Plaintiffs reallege and reaver the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 11 as if set forth more fully herein. On or about January 4, 2008, Neuvelt loaned Jirah $ 198, 000. 00 to be used to purchase and improve a certain parcel of real property (hereinafter referred to as loan #2). Of the amount loaned, $ 144, 025. 56, was to be used for improvements to the property and was to be released from escrow pursuant to a draw schedule. A copy of the Construction Loan Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”, its terms and conditions incorporated herein by reference. Pursuant to the terms of the promissory note executed on January 4, 2008, which is attached hereto as Exhibit’T”, Jirah was to make monthly interest payments commencing March 1, If the note was not paid in full by February 1, 2009, Jirah was to repay the principal loan amount of $198, 000. 00 in full. Jirah made the monthly interest payments, however failed to pay the principal loan amount of $198, 000. 00 when due and therefore defaulted on the note. Pursuant to the terms of the loan construction agreement, Jirah, Florida International and Small were to enter into an Escrow Agreement, whereby Florida International and Small agreed to hold the construction funds in escrow and disburse them to Jirah pursuant to the draw schedule set forth therein. Jirah and Small did execute the agreement, however Florida International, while aware of the agreement and its obligation to execute and be bound by same, failed to sign the agreement. (Plaintiff believes the escrow agreement is identical, or essentially similar, to the terms 5 ----- ###### of the escrow agreement for loan #1 attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, however Plaintiff is not in possession ofthis agreement and therefore cannot attach a copy hereto. Upon information and belief, a copy of the escrow agreement is in the possession of one or more of the named Defendants. ) The terms and conditions of said escrow agreement is incorporated herein by reference. At closing, Jirah and Florida International executed a Settlement Statement, which also evidences the draw schedule contained in the Escrow Agreement. A copy of the Settlement Statement is attached hereto as Exhibit “G”, its terms and conditions incorporated herein by reference. Contrary to the terms of the Construction Loan Agreement, Escrow Agreement and Settlement Statement, unbeknownst to, and without the consent of, Neuvelt, Florida International provided checks to Small at closing for the entire amount of construction funds, $144, 025. 56, which Small disbursed to Jirah at, or shortly after, closing, thereby breaching the escrow agreement. Jirah did not use the disbursed construction funds to improve the subject property. Consequently, as a direct and proximate result of the breach of the escrow agreement, Neuvelt sustained damage in the amount of $144, 025. 56. The Plaintiff has been forced to retain undersigned counsel and has agreed to pay a reasonable attorney’s fee, for which he is entitled to recovery, pursuant to the terms of the escrow agreement. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffdemandsjudgment against the Defendants, Florida International Title and Escrow Company and Robert Small in the amount of $144, 025. 56, pre and postjudgment interest, court costs, attorney’s fees and any and all other relief this Court deems just and proper. 6 ----- ###### COUNT III BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL TITLE AND ESCROW COMPANY ROBERT SMALL Plaintiffs reallege and reaver the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 27 as if set forth more fully herein. Florida International, as the escrow agent, and Small, as the disbursement agent, held positions of trust with regard to Neuvelt, and therefore had respective fiduciary duties to make decisions that were in the best interests of Neuvelt. In that regard, Florida International and Small had a duty to handle the construction loan proceeds in a reasonable and prudent manner and to disburse said funds to Jirah in accordance with the schedule contained in the subject agreements. 29 Florida International breached its fiduciary duty to Neuvelt by failing to properly supervise the closings for both loan # 1 and loan #2, by providing Small, borrower’s mortgage broker, checks made payable to Jirah for all of the construction loan proceeds at closing, thereby providing him, as borrower’s agent, control of the construction loan proceeds in violation of standard general practices in the mortgage lending and real estate industry. Small breached his fiduciary duty owed to Neuvelt by disbursing all of the construction funds to Jirah at, or shortly after, closing rather than in accordance with the terms of the Escrow Agreement and the Settlement Statement. It is apparent that based on the manner in which Small disbursed the proceeds to Jirah, that it was the intent of Jirah and Small to take as much of the loan proceeds as possible as quickly as possible, without performing construction on the property. Accordingly, if the transactions had not been structured in way to provide immediate access to these funds, Jirah would not have taken or closed the loans. 7 ----- ###### 32. Consequently, had Florida International in accordance with its fiduciary duty, advised Neuvelt that the disbursal ofthe escrow funds to Small was in violation of standard general practices in the mortgage lending and real estate industry, or had Florida International refused to disburse the escrow funds in a manner it knew or should have known was improper, the subject loans would not have closed and Neuvelt would be whole. Subsequent to the providing of the loans, the value of the underlying properties have greatly decreased, and as a result, Plaintiff has sustained damages equal to the loss of such value. As a direct and proximate result of Florida International’s and Small’s breach of their fiduciary duty owed to Neuvelt, Neuvelt has been damaged in the amount of $221, 084. 43, which was improperly disbursed to Jirah. The Plaintiffs have been forced to retain undersigned counsel and have agreed to pay him a reasonable attorney’s fee, for which they are entitled to recovery. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demandjudgment against the Defendants Florida International Title and Escrow Company and Robert Small in the amount of $408, 000. 00, less the fair market value of the properties, pre and post judgment interest, court costs, attorney’s fees and any and all other relief this Court deems just and proper. COUNT IV PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE AGAINST JOHN WALTER SMITH, AND SMITH & GROMANN, AN INTERSTATE PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS D/B/A SMITH & GROMANN, P. A. Plaintiffs reallege and reaver the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 26 as if set forth more fully herein. Sometime approximately in January 2007 with regard to loan #1 and again in approximately January 2008 with regard to loan #2. , Small requested Smith represent Neuvelt in the 8 ----- ###### afore -described transactions with Jirah. Smith agreed to represent Neuvelt who acquiesced to said representation, although Neuvelt did not speak to Smith nor did he receive any written communication from Smith regarding said representation. Smith and Neuvelt acted under an attomey/client relationship in which Smith undertook to represent Neuvelt. At all times, Smith held himself out as competent in the areas of the law dealing with the legal matters for which he undertook to represent Neuvelt. Smith was required to exercise the same legal skill as a reasonably careful and competent attorney would under like circumstances and to use reasonable care in determining and implementing a strategy to be followed to achieve the Plaintiffs legal goals. Smith was obligated to zealously represent Plaintiffs interests and had a fiduciary obligation to disclose any conflicts of interest that might impair his ability to represent the Plaintiff. In accordance with the representation ofNeuvelt undertaken by Smith, Smith prepared all documents for the closing of the loan transactions, including, but not limited to, Exhibits “A”, “B” “C” “D” “E” “F” & “G” attached hereto, as well as the escrow agreement for loan#2, of which Plaintiff does not have a copy. All of the documents prepared by Smith relative to loan #1 are set forth in the letter of closing instructions provided by Smith to Florida International in January 2007 (Plaintiffbelieves the closing letter for loan#l is identical, or essentially similar, to the closing letter for loan#2 attached hereto as Exhibit “H”, however Plaintiffis not in possession of the January 2007 closing letter and therefore cannot attach a copy hereto. ) Upon information and belief, a copy of the January 2007 closing letter is in the possession of Smith, its terms and conditions incorporated herein by reference. All of the documents prepared by Smith relative to loan #2 are set forth in the January 4, 2008 letter of closing instructions provided by Smith to Florida International. A copy of 9 ----- ###### the closing letter is attached hereto as Exhibit “H”, its terms and conditions incorporated herein by reference. In the course ofhandling the subject loan transactions for the Plaintiff, Smith negligently failed to act with the degree of competence generally possessed by attorneys in the state of Florida who handle legal matters similar to Plaintiffs. Smith was negligent, committed malpractice, and/or breached his fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff with regard to both Loan #1 and Loan #2 in ways including, but not limited to, the following: A. Designing the transactions so that the borrower’s mortgage broker, Robert Small, would obtain control of the construction loan proceeds; B. Permitting the borrower’s mortgage broker, Robert Small, to serve as disbursement agent for the construction loans; C. Instructing the closing agent to issue checks at closing for each of the construction loan draws, even though none ofthe requirements of the Escrow Agreement had, or could have, been met as of those respectives; D. Instructing the closing agent to deliver the construction draw checks, at closing, to the borrower’s mortgage broker, Robert Small; E. Failing to implement any process or other safeguards to insure that disbursements would be made in accordance with the Escrow Agreement draw schedule; F. Failing to communicate with his client on any matter relative to the transaction and instead, taking directions from the borrower’s mortgage broker, Robert Small; and G. Failing to disclose a personal conflict of interest with Jirah Investment, Inc. that would 10 ----- ###### have prevented Smith from representing Plaintiff in these transactions. Due to the negligence of Smith as described above, Small disbursed the entire amount ofconstruction funds, $221, 084. 43, to Jirah at, or shortly after the closings, although no construction had ever been performed on either of the properties as required by the construction loan and escrow agreements. Jirah did not use the disbursed construction funds to improve either of the subject properties and subsequently defaulted on the notes. Plaintiffs cause of action against Smith with regard to loan #\\ accrued on February 1, 2008 and with regard to loan #2 accrued on February 1, 2009 when Jirah and Garcia defaulted on the notes respectively, the malpractice was discovered, and Plaintiff was damaged thereby. It is apparent that based on the manner in which Small disbursed the proceeds to Jirah, that it was the intent of Jirah and Small to take as much of the loan proceeds as possible as quickly as possible, without performing construction on the properties. Accordingly ifthe transactions had not been structured in way to provide immediate access to these funds, Jirah would not have taken or closed the loans, an Neuvelt would be whole. Subsequent to the providing of the loans, the value of the underlying properties have greatly decreased and as a result, Plaintiff has sustained damages equal to the loss of such value. As a direct and proximate result of Smith and Smith & Gromann’s negligence and breach of their fiduciary duty owed to Neuvelt, Neuvelt has been damaged in the amount of the $221, 084. 43 which was improperly disbursed to Jirah, together with the loss in value of the underlying properties, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum pursuant to the notes, from February 1, 2008 with regard to loan#! and February 1, 2009 with regard to loan #2. 11 ----- ###### WHEREFORE the Plaintiff demands judgment against John Walter Smith and Smith & Gromann an Interstate Partnership of Professional Associations d/b/a Smith & Gromann, P. A. in the amount of $ 408, 000. 00, less the fair market value of the underlying properties, pre and post judgment interest, court costs, and any further relief this Court deems just and proper. COUNT V NEGLIGENCE PER SE AGAINST JOHN WALTER SMITH, AND SMITH & GROMANN, AN INTERSTATE PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS D/B/A SMITH & GROMANN, P. A. Plaintiffs reallege and reaver the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 26 and 36 through 47 as if set forth more fully herein. At the time Smith structured the subject transactions, Florida Statute F. S. 494. 004 provided as follows: 4) Any money from a noninstitutional investor for disbursement at a mortgage loan closing shall be deposited with and disbursed by an attorney duly licensed in this state or by a title company duly licensed in this state. A person acting as a mortgage broker may not have control of any money from a noninstitutional investor. This subsection does not prohibit a licensee under ss. 494. 003-494. 0043 from receiving a mortgage brokerage fee upon the closing of the mortgage loan funded by the noninstitutional investor, [emphasis added] Not withstanding the above statute, of which Smith, as a practicing member of the Florida Bar, is deemed to have notice, he: a) structured the transaction in a manner to provide Robert Small, the Borrower’s mortgage broker, control over the construction loan proceeds; b) as set forth in his closing instruction letters to Florida International Title, specifically instructed the closing agent, Florida International, to issue checks at closing for each of the construction loan draws, even though none of the requirements of the Escrow Agreements had, or could have, been met as of those respectives; and 12 ----- ###### c) instructed the closing agent, Florida International, to deliver the construction draw checks, at the closings, to the bonower’s mortgage broker, Robert Small. Small thereafter disbursed the entire amount ofconstruction funds, $221, 084. 43, to Jirah at, or shortly after the closings, although no construction had ever been performed on either of the properties as required by the construction loan and escrow agreements. Jirah did not use the disbursed construction funds to improve either of the subject properties and subsequently defaulted on the notes. The subject statute was enacted to protect against the exact kind of injury that occurred in this case. Accordingly, Smith’s violation of the above statute constitutes negligence per se. As a direct and proximate result of Smith and Smith & Gromann’s negligence per se, Neuvelt has been damaged in the amount of the $221, 084. 43 which was improperly disbursed to Jirah, together with the loss in value of the underlying properties, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum pursuant to the notes, from February 1, 2008 with regard to loan #1 and February 1, 2009 with regard to loan #2. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against John Walter Smith and Smith & Gromann an Interstate Partnership of Professional Associations d/b/a Smith & Gromann, P. A. in the amount of $408, 000. 00, less the fair market value of the underlying properties, pre and post judgment interest, court costs, and any further relief this Court deems just and proper. COUNT VI NEGLIGENCE PER SE AGAINST FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL TITLE AND ESCROW COMPANY Plaintiffs reallege and reaver the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 35 as if set forth more fully herein. 13 ----- ###### 54. At the time Florida International handled the closing of the subject transaction, Florida Statute F. S. 494. 004 provided as follows: 4) Any money from a noninstitutional investor for disbursement at a mortgage loan closing shall be deposited with and disbursed by an attorney duly licensed in this state or by a title company duly licensed in this state. A person acting as a mortgage broker may not have control of any money from a noninstitutional investor. This subsection does not prohibit a licensee under ss. 494. 003-494. 0043 from receiving a mortgage brokerage fee upon the closing of the mortgage loan funded by the noninstitutional investor, [emphasis added] Not withstanding the above statute, of which the principals of Florida International, as title agents, are deemed to have notice, Florida International closed the transaction and issued checks at the closings for each of the construction loan draws, even though none of the requirements of the escrow agreements had, or could have, been met as of those respectives, and delivered the construction draw checks, at the closings, to the borrower’s mortgage broker, Robert Small. Small thereafter disbursed the entire amount ofconstruction funds, $221, 084. 43, to Jirah at, or shortly after the closings, although no construction had ever been performed on either of the properties as required by construction loan and escrow agreements. Jirah did not use the disbursed construction funds to improve either of the subject properties and subsequently defaulted on the notes. The subject statute was enacted to protect against the exact kind of injury that occurred in this case. Accordingly, Florida International’s violation of the above statute constitutes negligence per se. As a direct and proximate result of Florida International’s negligence per se, Neuvelt has been damaged in the amount of $221, 084. 43, which was improperly disbursed to Jirah, together with the loss in value of the underlying properties, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum 14 ----- ###### pursuant to the notes, from February 1, 2008 with regard to loan # 1 and February 1, 2009 with regard to loan #2. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment against Florida International Title and Escrow Company in the amount of $408, 000. 00, less the fair market value of the underlying properties, pre and post judgment interest, court costs, and any further relief this Court deems just and proper. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right by jury. d this day of October, 2009. ANDREW E. PASTOR, P. A. Andrew E. Pastor, Esq. Florida Bar. No. : 095140 1 1380 Prosperity Farms Road ###### Suite 118 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 (561) 624-4900(telephone) (561) 624-5393 (facsimile) LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN M. WEISS, P. A. 11380 Prosperity Farms Road Suite 118 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 (561) 630-9777 (telephone) (561) 630-903dl2facsimite) STEVEN'M. ST M. WEISS, WEISS, ESQ. Florida Bar No. : 437212 ----- C0NTRUCT10N LOAN AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, made JANUARY 26, 2007, by and between J1RAH INVESTMENT, INC. (Borrower), and ROBERT NEUVELT (Lender). The Borrower has applied to the Lender for a loan, the proceeds of which are to be used solely for the purpose of constructing the Improvements on the Property according to the Plans as hereinafter set _forth; _ _and_ The Lender is willing to make such loan on the terms contained herein; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and the mutual convents and agreements set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: Representations and Warranties. In order to induce the Lender to enter into this Construction Loan Agreement, the Borrower hereby represents and warrants that: 1 Borrower is the owner of the Property in fee simple. 2 There are no unrecorded claims, liens, and encumbrances against the Property. 3 The proposed Improvements have been approved, to the extent required by any applicable law, and the use of the Property and the Improvements comply with all applicable zoning and environmental ordinances, regulations and restrictive covenants affecting the Property. 4 As of thehereof, there are no Improvements to the Property, construction of the Improvements has not commenced and a Notice of Commencement has not been posted upon the Property or-recorded in the Public Records of MIAMI-DADE County, Florida. 5 No violation of any local law, ordinance, regulation or requirement exists with respect to the Property. 6 There are no actions, suits or proceedings pending or threatened against or affecting it or the Property, or involving the validity or enforceability of the Mortgage or the priority of the lien thereof. 7 All utility services necessary for the construction of the Improvements and the operation thereof for their intended purpose are available at the boundaries of the Property, including water, storm and sanitary sewer, drainage, gas, electric, and telephone facilities. Commitment of Lender and Agreement to Borrower. ###### 2. 1 The Lender hereby lends to the Borrower an amount not to exceed the sum of210, 000. 00. The Contractor is not a beneficiary of the provisions of this Section and shall not have any rights to request an advance under the Note. Advances and Disbursements. 1 The Borrower represents that the sum of the cost acquiring the Property and the hard and soft costs of constructing the Improvements thereon is $210, 000. 00. 2 The Borrower shall submit to Lender and closing agent, written draw requests in accordance with the Escrow Agreement of evenherewith. 3 Upon request for disbursement by the Borrower the funds shall be disbursed by the disbursing agent according to the Escrow Agreement of evenherewith. Within five (5) business days from receipt of such draw request and certifications, the Lender shall advance to the closing agent, the amounts certified by the Borrower to be currently payable, provided that Lender shall have the right, at its option, to refuse to make advances should it detennine that an Event of Default has occurred as defined in Section 5 hereof. 4 The disbursing agent, shall disburse all funds advanced to it in accordance with this Agreement and the Escrow Agreement of evenherewith. 5 The disbursing agent shall not disburse any advance hereunder if there have been any changes in the status of title as set forth in die mortgagee’s policy of title insurance which have not been consented to in writing by Lender. Closing agent shall in any event promptly notify Lender of any change in the status of title to the Property or Improvements. ----- 6 The form of draw request, mechanic’s lien waivers, certificates, and any and all other instruments or documents required to be delivered in connection with an advance hereunder shall be in a form and substance satisfactory to Lender and closing agent. The Lender shall have the right to make an advance of proceeds without the request, approval or order ###### of the Borrower in an amount sufficient to obtain the release of Property or Improvements, from the lien of any mechanic’s lien, provided, however, that the Lender shall first give the Borrower not less than ten (10) days’ prior written notice of its intentions to procure such a release. The failure to the Borrower to obtain the release of the lien within the foregoing ten (10) day period shall relieve the Lender of responsibility for the foregoing payment. Affirmative Covenants. To induce the Lender to make the requested loan, the Borrower hereby covenants and agrees that it will: 1 Erect and complete in a good workmanlike manner the Improvement in accordance with the Plans and complete the Improvements on or before the Completionin accordance with the provision of the Construction Contract. 2 Promptly pay and discharge all taxes, assessments and other governmental charges imposed upon it or upon its income and profits or upon the Property, and any and all claims for labor, material or supplies or rental charges or charges ###### of any kind which, if unpaid, might by law become a lien or charge upon the Property, provided, however, that Borrower shall not be required to pay any such tax, assessments, charge or claim so long as the validity thereofshall be contested in good faith, by appropriate proceedings and Borrower shall have placed in escrow with Attorney, an amount equal to 150% of the amount then in dispute, or such lesser amount acceptable to the Lender and Attorney. 3 If at any time prior to completion of the Improvements, the amount remaining to be advanced against the Note appears to the Lender to be insufficient to pay for completion of the Improvements, the Borrower shall deposit with Lender within ten (10) days after the demand therefore, the amount of money which Lender, in its discretion, determines is need to cover such insufficiency. 4 Construct the Improvements within the boundary lines of the Property and in compliance with all zoning, building codes, and regulations. 5 Construct the Improvements at the cost not to exceed the amounts set forth in the Paragraph 3. 1 hereof. 6 Not make or approve any change in the Plans or the Construction Contract without the Lender’s prior written consent. Events of Default, Lender’s Remedies. 1 If Improvements are not completed on or before the Completion; or 2 If at any time prior to full completion of, and payment for, the Improvements, the amount of undisbursed loan funds becomes, in Lender’s opinion, insufficient for said purpose, and Borrower does not deposit with the Lender, funds in the amount of the insufficiency, within ten (10) days after Lender makes demand therefore; or 3 If Borrower fails to duly and punctually perfonn the covenants contained herein, or in any document executed or delivered hereunder and such failure to perform continues fora period often (10) days after Lender gives notice to Borrower of such default; or 4 If any financial statement, certificate, representation, or warranty furnished pursuant to or made under this Agreement proves to be materially false as of thethereof or any representation made herein is untrue when made or becomes untrue when made or becomes untrue with the passage of time; or 5 If Borrower fails to pay any installment of principal or interest on the Note within ten (10) days after such installment becomes due, or, if Borrower otherwise defaults under the terms of the Note, Mortgage, or any such other documents delivered herewith or executed pursuant to the Agreement and such other default continues to exist ten (10) days after Lender gives notice to Borrower of such default; or 6 If the Borrower makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, admits in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they mature, files or has filed against it a petition in bankruptcy or a petition or answer seeking a reorganization, arrangement with creditors or other similar relief under Federal Bankruptcy Laws or under any other applicable law of the United States of America or any state thereof, consents to the appointment of a trustee or receiver; or takes any action for the purpose of effecting or consenting to any of the foregoing; THEN, in any such event, an “Event of Default\" shall be deemed to have occurred and the Lender may, at its option (in addition to the Lender’s rights under the Note and Mortgage, or any other documents executed and delivered herewith or pursuant hereto), take any one or more of the following actions: a. Terminate Lender's obligation to advance any further sums pursuant hereto; b. Declare all amounts advanced against the Note plus interest thereon to be immediately due and payable and demand payment in full of the then principal balance plus accrued interest owing on the Note; ----- c. Enter the Property and Improvements to complete same and _use_ _the_ _funds_ _undisbursed_ _on_ _the_ _Note_ together with such other sums as may, in Lender’s discretion, be necessary to pay for remaining costs of such completion and, in such event, Borrower shall be responsible for all amounts outstanding on the Note together with all additional amounts advanced by Lender in excess of the amounts outstanding on the Note. Miscellaneous. _6. 1_ The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the Borrower has retained the Contractor and, as a result, the Lender is not responsible for the Contractors actions. In addition, the Borrower and the Contractor have selected the architect, materials, supplies, and equipment used in the construction of the Improvements and, as a result, they are solely responsible for the selection. All inspections and other services rendered by or on behalf of the Lender are intended solely for the protection and benefit of the Lender and the Borrower and Contractor shall not be entitled to claim any loss or damage against the Lender for waiving or for failing to comply with any provision of this Construction Loan Agreement. 2 The Lender shall not be liable for the failure of any dealer, contractor, sub-contractor, craftsman, or laborer to deliver the goods or perform the services required to be delivered or performed by them, whether pursuant to the terms of the Construction Contract or otherwise. Nor shall this agreement be construed to make the Lender liable to the Contractor, materialmen, ci'aftsmen, laborers, or others for goods or services delivered by them or for debts or claims accruing to the said parties against that Borrower or the Contractor. 3 Time is of the essence under this Construction Loan Agreement. 4 The Borrower agrees, whether or not the transaction hereby contemplated is consummated, to pay the fees and expenses and disbursements of the Inspecting Party and all of Lender’s out-of-pocket expenses, including recording fees, taxes imposed for recording of Mortgage, and all title insurance charges, including title insurance, commitment fees and premiums incurred in connection with the transaction which is the subject of this Agreement. 5 All representations and warranties contained herein or made in writing by or on behalf of the Borrower in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby shall survive the execution _and_ _delivery_ _of_ this Agreement _and_ _the_ advances hereunder. All statements contained in any certificate or other instrument delivered by or on behalf of Borrower pursuant thereto or in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby shall constitute representations and warranties by Borrower. 6 This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns except that the rights of the Borrower are not assignable without the prior written consent of the Lender, in its absolute discretion. 7 No amendment, change, waiver or modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by all of the parties hereto, and no waiver by Lender of any breach or default by the Borrower of any of Borrowers obligations, agreements or covenants under this _Canstniclion_ Loan _Agreement_ shall be deemed to be _a_ waiver of any subsequent breach, or any other obligation, agreement or covenant, nor shall any forbearance by Lender to seek or enforce a remedy for such breach be deemed a waiver of its rights and remedies with respect to such breach. Any waiver, amendment, change or modification of any covenants, requirements, duties or conditions of this Agreement to be performed by any person or entity other than Lender, included herein for the benefit of Lender, shall be binding on closing agent and shall not relieve closing agent from any of its obligations to provide insurance and make disbursements as set forth herein. 8 This construction Loan Agreement shall be governed by, interpreted, and construed in accordance with the laws ###### of the State of Florida. 9 This Agreement from and after thehereof supersedes and has merged into it all prior oral and written agreements (including any commitment) on the same subjects by or between some or all of the parties hereto with the effect that this agreement shall control the subject matter covered herein. 10 Any notices required or contemplated hereunder shall be effective upon the placing thereof in the United States mails, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: ###### If to Borrower: J1RAH INVESTMENT, INC. 29)2 TARPON DRIVE, MIRAMAR, FL 33023 ###### If to Lender: ROBERT NEUVELT 6004 VALERIAN LANE, ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 ----- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Construction Loan Agreement to be executed theand year first above written. Borrower: J1RAH INVESTMENT, INC. A FLORIDA CORPORATION CAROL E. GARCIA PRESIDENT Lender: ROBERT NEUVELT ----- Exhibit “A\" Legal Description The real property located in MIAMI-DADE County, Florida, described as follows: The East _'A_ _of_ the Northwest % of the Northwest _'A_ _of_ the Northeast _'A_ _of_ the Southwest _'A, _ LESS the North 30 feet thereof for road right-of-way, and LESS the East 50 feet thereof, and LESS the North 100 feet of the South 130 feet of the West 116. 5 feet thereof, of Section 32, Township 55 South, Range 40 East, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Said lands situate, lying and being in Miami-Dade County, Florida. ----- ###### LENDER: ROBERT NEUVELT BORROWER: JIRAH INVESTMENT, INC. ESCROW AGENT: FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL TITLE & ESCROW PROPERTY ADDRESS: 13060 SW 176 STREET, HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA ESCROW AGREEMENT The undersigned agree that the Disbursement Agent, Mr. Robert Small of Simplex Mortgage Brokers, Inc, shall hold the sum of $76, 653. 87 from closing to be disbursed as follows: The sum of $ 15, 000. 00 completion of footers, slab, block, tie beam, and trusses; 2. The sum of $ 15, 000. 00 shall be disbursed to Borrower upon completion of /decking/facia, framing; 3. The sum of $ 15, 000. 00 shall be disbursed to Borrower upon electrical rough, mechanical rough, plumbing, insulation, drywall, and exterior doors and windows; 4. The sum of $7, 500. 00 shall be disbursed to Borrower upon completion of painting, cabinetry, trim, fixtures; and 5. The sum of $24, 153. 87 shall be disbursed to Borrower upon completion ofjob; PROVIDED, the title to said property has been checked down to the time of each disbursement and the title remains clear of any liens or encumbrances. In the event any lien or encumbrance remains unsatisfied after fifteen (15) days notice thereof to the Borrower, upon the written request offender or the Lenders disbursement agent, the balance of the amount in escrow shall be disbursed to Lender and the Escrow Agent shall be released of all further liability therefore. All fee and expenses incurred under this Escrow Agreement shall be the expense of the Borrower. The Borrower agrees to pay all costs of collection and enforcement of this Escrow Agreement, the Mortgage, and the Note, including all of the Lender's attorney's fees and court costs. As used in this Escrow Agreement, \"attorney's fees\" shall include attorney's fees, if any, which may be awarded by an appellate court. This Escrow Agreement shall be construed under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. d: JANUARY 26, 2007 JIRAH INVESTMENT, INC. CAROL E. GARCIA FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL TITLE & ESCROW ----- **B. ** **Type** **of** **Loan** **1. OFHA** **2. DRHS** **3. 8Conv. ** **UnIns. ** **6. ** **File** **Number** **7. ** **Loan** **Number** **8. ** **Mortgage** **Insurance** **Case** **Number** **06-0404** **J2325** **4. 0** **VA** **5. 0** **Conv. ** **Ins. ** **C. ** **Note:** **This** **form** **is** **furnished** **to** **give** **you** **a** **statement** **of** **actual** **settlement** **costs. ** **Amounts** **paid** **to** **and** **by** **the** **settlement** **agent** **are** **shown. ** **Items** **marked** **’(p. o. c. )“** **were** **paid** **outside** **the** **dosing; ** **they** **are** **shown** **here** **for** **information** **purposes** **and** **are** **not** **induded** **in** **the** **totals. ** **D. ** **Name** **and** **Address** **of** **Borrower** **E. ** **Name** **and** **Address** **of** **Seller** **F. ** **Name** **and** **Address** **of** **Lender** **Jirah** **Investment. ** **Inc. ** **The** **West** **Perrine** **Community** **Robert** **Neuvelt** **2912** **Tarpon** **Drive** **Development** **Corporation, ** **Inc. ** **6004** **Valerian** **Lane** **Miramar, ** **FL** **33023** **17600** **Homestead** **Avenue** **Rockville, ** **MD** **20852** **Miami, ** **FL** **33157** **G. ** **Property** **Location** **H. ** **Settlement** **Agent** **10360** **SW176** **Street** **Florida** **International** **Title** **&** **Escrow** **Miami, ** **FL** **Place** **of** **Settlement** **1. ** **Settlement** **** **1877** **South** **Federal** **Highway** **01/26/07** **Suite** **108** **Boca** **Raton, ** **Florida** **33432** **J. ** **SUMMARY** **OF** **BORROWER'S** **TRANSACTION:** **K. ** **SUMMARY** **OF** **SELLER'S** **TRANSACTION:** **100. ** **GROSS** **AMOUNT** **DUE** **FROM** **BORROWER** **400. ** **GROSS** **AMOUNT** **DUE** **TO** **SELLER** **101. ** **Contract** **sales** **price** **125, 000. 00** **401. ** **Contract** **sales** **price** **125, 000. 00** **102. ** **Personal** **property** **402. ** **Personal** **property** **103. ** **Settlement** **charges** **to** **borrower** **(line** **1400)** **12, 944. 70** **403. ** **104. ** **Draw** **1** **15, 000. 00** **404. ** **105. ** **Draw** **2** **15, 000. 00** **405. ** **Adjustments** **for** **Items** **paid** **by** **seller** **in** **advance** **Adjustments** **for** **Items** **paid** **by** **seller** **in** **advance** **106. ** **City/town** **taxes** **to** **406. ** **City/town** **taxes** **to** **107. ** **County** **taxes** **to** **407. ** **County** **taxes** **to** **108. ** **Assessments** **to** **408. ** **Assessments** **to** **109. ** **Draw** **3** **15. 000. 00** **409. ** **110. ** **Draw4** **7. 500. 00** **410. ** **111. ** **Draw5** **24, 558. 87** **411. ** **11Z** **412. ** **120. ** **GROSS** **AMOUNT** **DUE** **FROM** **BORROWER** **215, 003. 57** **420. ** **GROSS** **AMOUNT** **DUE** **TO** **SELLER** **125, 000. 00** **200. ** **AMOUNTS** **PAID** **BY** **OR** **IN** **BEHALF** **OF** **BORROWER** **500. ** **REDUCTIONS** **IN** **AMOUNT** **TO** **SELLER** **201. ** **Deposit** **or** **earnest** **money** **5, 000. 00** **501. ** **Excess** **Deposit** **(see** **instrudions)** **202. ** **Prindpal** **amount** **of** **new** **loan(s)** **210, 000. 00** **502. ** **Settlement** **charges** **to** **seller** **(line** **1400)** **8, 619. 00** **203. ** **Existing** **loan(s)** **taken** **subjed** **to** **503. ** **Existing** **loan(s)** **taken** **subject** **to** **'** **204. ** **504. ** **Payoff** **of** **first** **mortgage** **loan** **17, 239. 80** **SunTrust** **Bank** **205. ** **505. ** **Payoff** **of** **second** **mortgage** **loan** **6, 788. 73** **LISC** **Payoff** **206. ** **506. ** **207. ** **507. ** **208. ** **508. ** **209. ** **509. ** **Adjustments** **for** **Items** **unpaid** **by** **seller** **Adjustments** **for** **items** **unpaid** **by** **seller** **210. ** **City/town** **taxes** **to** **510. ** **City/town** **taxes** **to** **211. ** **County** **taxes** **01/01** **to** **01/26** **3. 57** **511. ** **County** **taxes** **01/01** **to** **01/26** **3. 57** **212. ** **Assessments** **to** **512. ** **Assessments** **to** **213. ** **513. ** **214. ** **514. ** **2006** **R. E. ** **Taxes** **52. 07** **215. ** **515. ** **216. ** **516. ** **217. ** **517. ** **218. ** **518. ** **219. ** **519. ** **220. ** **TOTAL** **PAID** **BY** **/** **FOR** **BORROWER** **215, 003. 57** **520. ** **TOTAL** **REDUCTION** **AMOUNT** **DUE** **SELLER** **32, 703. 17** **300. ** **CASH** **AT** **SETTLEMENT** **FROM** **OR** **TO** **BORROWER** **600. ** **CASH AT** **SETTLEMENT** **TO** **OR** **FROM** **SELLER** **301. ** **Gross** **amount** **due** **from** **borrower** **(line** **120)** **215, 003. 57** **601. ** **Gross** **amount** **due** **to** **seller** **(line** **420)** **125, 000. 00** **302. ** **Less** **amounts** **paid** **by/for** **borrower** **(line** **220)** **215, 003. 57** **602. ** **Less** **redudion** **amount** **due** **to** **seller** **(line** **520)** **32, 703. 17** **303. ** **CASH** **FROM** **BORROWER** **503. ** **CASH** **TO** **SELLER** **92, 296. 83** ----- **701, ** **$________3, 750. 00** **to** **AREYCO, Inc. ** **702. ** **$** **3, 750. 00** **to** **Royal** **Florida** **Realty** **703. ** **Commission** **paid** **at** **Settlement** **7, 500. 00** **704. ** **800. ** **ITEMS** **PAYABLE** **IN** **CONNECTION** **WITH** **LOAN** **P. O. C. ** **801. ** **Loan** **Origination** **Fee** **%** **802. ** **Loan** **Discount** **%** **803. ** **Appraisal** **Fee** **to** **804. ** **Credit** **Report** **to** **805. ** **Lender's** **Inspection** **Fee** **to** **806. ** **Mtq. ** **Ins. ** **Application** **Fee** **to** **807. ** **Assumption** **Fee** **to** **_808. _** **_Mortgage_** **Broker** **_Fee_** **_Simplex_** **_Mortgage_** **_Brokers. _** **_Inc. _** **6, 300. 00** **809. ** **Document** **Preparation** **Fee** **Smith** **&** **Gromann, ** **PA** **475. 00** **810. ** **811. ** **812. ** **813. ** **814. ** **815. ** **900. ** **ITEMS** **REQUIRED** **BY** **LENDER** **TO** **BE** **PAID** **IN** **ADVANCE** **901. ** **_Interest_** **_from_** **_01/26/07_** **o** **02/01/07** **@5** **87. 50** **/day** **6** **dayfs)** **525. 00** **_902. _** **Mortgage** **Insurance** **Premium** **to** **903. ** **Hazard** **Insurance** **Premium** **yrs. ** **to** **904. ** **905. ** **1000. ** **RESERVES** **DEPOSITED** **WITH** **LENDER** **FOR** **1001. ** **Hazard** **Insurance** **mo. ** **@S** **/mo. ** **1002. ** **Mortgage** **Insurance** **mo. ** **3S** **/mo. ** **1003. ** **City** **property** **taxes** **mo. ** **@S** **/mo. ** **1004. ** **County** **property** **taxes** **mo. ** **3S** **/mo. ** **1005. ** **Annual** **Assessments** **mo. ** **@$** **Zmo. ** **1006. ** **mo. ** **@$** **/mo. ** **1007. ** **mo. ** **/mo. ** **1008. ** **Aggregate** **Reserve** **for** **Hazard/Flood** **Ins, ** **City/County** **Prop** **Taxes, ** **Mortgage** **Ins** **&** **Annual** **Assessments** **1100. ** **TITLE** **CHARGES** **1101. ** **Settlement** **or** **closing** **fee** **to** **Florida** **International** **Title** **A** **Escrow** **125. 00** **1102. ** **Abstract** **or** **title** **search** **to** **First** **American** **Title** **Insurance** **Company** **100. 00** **1103. ** **Title** **examination** **to** **Florida** **International** **Title** **A** **Escrow** **95. 00** **1104. ** **Title** **insurance** **binder** **to** **11105. ** **Document** **preparation** **to** **1106. ** **Notary** **fees** **to** **1107. ** **Attorney's** **fees** **to** **(includes** **above** **item** **No:** **)** **1108. ** **Title** **insurance** **to** **Florida** **International** **Title** **A** **Escrow** **1, 350. 00** **(includes** **above** **item** **No:** **)** **1109. ** **Lender's** **coverage** **210, 000. 00** **- 650. 00** **Ind** **450. 00** **Risk** **Prem** **1110. ** **Owner's** **coverage** **125, 000. 00** **- 700. 00** **1111. ** **FF9** **Florida** **International** **Title** **A** **Escrow** **135. 00** **1112. ** **ALTA** **8. 1** **Florida** **International** **Title** **A** **Escrow** **25. 00** **1113. ** **1200. ** **GOVERNMENT** **RECORDING** **ANO** **TRANSFER** **CHARGES** **1201. ** **Recordinqfees** **Deed** **$** **27. 60** **; Mortgages** **87. 10** **; ** **Releases** **S** **114. 70** **1202. ** **City/county/stamps** **Deed** **S** **; ** **Mortgage** **S** **1203. ** **State** **tax/stamps** **Deeds** **875. 00** **; ** **Mortgages** **735. 00** **735. 00** **875. 00** **1204. ** **Intangible** **Tax** **Deed$** **; ** **Mortgage** **$** **420. 00** **420. 00** **1205. ** **1300. ** **ADDITIONAL** **SETTLEMENT** **CHARGES** **1301. ** **Survey** **to** **1302. ** **Pest** **inspection** **to** **1303. ** **Wire** **Fee** **Florida** **International** **Title** **A** **Escrow** **25. 00** **1304. ** **Courier** **Fee** **Florida** **International** **Title** **A** **Escrow** **35. 00** **1305. ** **Document** **Scanning** **&** **Storage** **Pagestream** **45. 00** **1306. ** **Uen** **Search** **Florida** **Property** **Search, ** **Inc. ** **184. 00** **1307. ** **ReferralFee** **Roger** **Garcia** **2, 500. 00** **1308. ** **1400. ** **TOTAL** **SETTLEMENT** **CHARGES** **(enter** **on** **lines** **103** **and** **502, ** **Sections** **J** **and** **K)** **12, 944. 70** **8, 619. 00** **I hav«** **caratuty** **ravtowad** **lha** **HUD-1** **Saldanwt** **Statamact** **and** **to** **the** **bait** **of** **my** **knowtadga** **and** **baBaf, ** **it b** **a** **trua** **and** **accurate** **ctatemani** **of** **sU** **receipti** **and** **diibureamanta** **made** **on** **my** **account** **or** **by** **ma** **in** **thia** ----- NOTE JANUARY 26, 2007 13060 SW 176 STREET, HOMESTEAD, FLORIDA [Property Address] BORROWER'S PROMISE TO PAY. In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay U. S. $210, 000. 00 this amount is called \"principal\"), plus interest, to the order of the Lender as hereinafter defined. _The_ Lender is ROBERT NEUVELT and is sometimes hereinafter referred to as the “Mortgagee”. I understand that the Lender may transfer this Note. The Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this Note is called the \"Note Holder\". INTEREST. Interest will be charged on unpaid principal until the full amount of principal has been paid. 1 will pay interest at a yearly rate of Fifteen percent (15%) per annum. The interest rate after any default described in Section 6(B) ###### of this Note, and after the maturityas hereinafter set forth, is Eighteen percent (18%) per annum. PAYMENTS. (A) Time and Place of Payments. I will pay interest only by making monthly payments. 1 will make my monthly payments beginning on MARCH 1, 2007. 1 will make these payments monthly until I have paid all of the interest and any other charges described below that I may owe under this Note. My payments will be applied to interest only. If, on FEBRUARY 1, 2008, 1 still owe amounts under this Note, J will pay those amounts in fiilJ on that, which is called the \"maturity\". I will make my payments at 6004 VALERIAN LANE, ROCKVILLE, MD 20852, or at a different place if required by the Note Holder. (B) Amount of Monthly Payments. My monthly payments will be in the amount of U. S. $2, 625. 00. BORROWER'S RIGHT TO PREPAY. I have the right to make payments ofprincipal at any time before they are due. A payment of principal only is known as a \"prepayment\". When I make a prepayment, I will tell the Note Holder in writing that I am doing so. I may make a full prepayment or partial prepayments without paying any prepayment charge. The Note Holder will use all of my prepayments to reduce the amount of principal that 1 owe under this Note. If I make a partial prepayment, there will be no charges in the dueor in the amount ofmy monthly payment unless the Note Holder agrees in writing to those changes. LOAN CHARGES. If a law, which applies to this loan and which sets maximum loan charges, is finally interpreted so that the interest or other Joan charges collected or to be collected in connection with this loan exceed the permitted limits, then: (i) any such loan charge collected shall be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the charge to the permitted limit; and (ii) any sums already collected from me which exceeded permitted limits will be refunded to me. The Note Holder may choose to make this refund by reducing the principal I owe under this Note or by making a direct payment to me. If a refund reduces principal, the reduction will be treated as a partial prepayment. BORROWER'S FAILURE TO PAY AS REQUIRED. (A) Late Charge for Overdue Payments. If a Note Holder has not received the full amount of any monthly payment by the end of Five (5) calendar days after theit is due, I will pay a late charge to the Note Holder. The amount of the charge will be Ten percent (10%) of my overdue payment ofinterest. I will pay this late charge promptly but only once on each late payment. In the event that 1 shall make any payment by check, which check shall be returned to the Note Holder for any reason other that improper endorsement, I shall be responsible for a $50. 00 processing charge for returning said check, in addition to any late charge or penalty provided herein. I understand that upon full payment and satisfaction ###### ofthis obligation, the remaining balance due hereunder shall be paid by a local bank cashier's check. (B) Default. If I do not pay the full amount of each monthly payment on theit is due, 1 will be in default. (C) Waiver of Notice of Default I hereby waive Notice of Default by the Note Holder. I understand that if 1 am in default the Note Holder may require me to pay immediately the full amount of principal which has not been paid and all the interest that I owe on that amount. (D) No Waiver By Note Holder. Even if, at a time when I am in default, the Note Holder does not require me to pay immediately in full as described above, the Note Holder will still have the right to do so if I am in default at a later time. (E) Payment ofNote Holder's Costs and Expenses. If Note Holder has required me to pay immediately in full as described above, the Note Holder will have the right to be paid back by me for all of its costs and expenses in enforcing ----- this Note to the extent not prohibited by applicable law. These expenses include, for example, reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. GIVING OF NOTICE. Unless applicable law requires a _different_ method, any notice that must be given to me under this Note will be given by delivering it or by mailing it by first class mail to me at the Property Address above or at a different address if I give the Note Holder a notice ofmy different address. Any notice that must be given to the Note Holder under this Note will be given by mailing it by first class mail to the Note Holder at the address stated in Section 3(A) above or at a different address if I am given a notice of that different address. OBLIGATIONS OF PERSONS UNDER THIS NOTE. If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the fiill amount owed. Any person who is a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these things. Any person who takes over these obligations, including the obligations of a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note, is also obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note. The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against each person individually or against all of us together. This means that any one of us may be required to pay all of the amounts owed under this Note. WAIVERS. I and any other person who has obligations under this Note waive the rights of presentment and notice of dishonor. ’’Presentment\" means the right to require the Note Holder to demand payment of the amounts due. \"Notice of dishonor\" means the right to require the Note Holder to give notice to other persons that amounts due have not been paid. SECURED NOTE. In addition to the protections given to the Note Holder under this Note, a Mortgage, Deed of Trust or Security Deed (the \"Security Instrument\"), d the sameas this Note, protects the Note Holder from possible losses which might result if I do not keep the promises which 1 make in this Note. That Security Instrument describes how and under what conditions I may be required to make immediate payment in full if all amounts I owe under this Note. Some of those conditions are described as follows: Any transfer by sale, gift, devise, operation of law, or otherwise of the fee title interest in all or any portion of the Mortgaged Premises shall have the same consequences as an event of default respecting the indebtedness secured hereby, and upon such transfer, Mortgagee, without prior notice or the elapse of any period of grace or the right to cure, shall have the right to declare all sums secured hereby immediately due and payable, and, upon failure by Mortgagor to make such payment within ten (10) days ofwritten demand therefore, Mortgagee shall have the right to exercise all remedies provided in the Note, this Mortgage, or otherwise at law. MODIFICATION. This note may be modified only by an agreement in writing signed by the party against whom enforcement ofany waiver, change, modification or discharge is sought. CONSTRUCTION. The words \"Borrower, \" Maker, \" \"Signer, \" \"I, \" and \"Holder\" as used herein include singular or plural, individual or corporation, and the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of Borrower and Holder, as the case may be. The use of any gender applies to all genders. If more that one party is named as Borrower, the obligation hereunder of each such party is joint and several. WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL. The undersigned hereby knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally waives any right which the undersigned may have to a trial by jury in respect to any litigation based hereon or arising out of, under or in connection with this note and any documents contemplated to be executed in conjunction herewith, or any course of conduct, course of dealing, statement (whether verbal or written) or actions of either the undersigned or the holder hereof. This provision is a material inducement for the holder hereofto make a loan to the undersigned in the principal amount hereinbefore provided above. WITNESS THE HAND(S) AND SEAL(S) OF THE UNDERSIGNED. JIRAH INVESTMENT, INC. , A FLORIDA CORPORATION. (Seal) CAROL E. GARCIA, PRESIDENT ----- In consideration of the loan and extension ofcredit by the Lender of the within Note to the maker thereof, the undersigned (jointly and severally) upon maker’s request, hereby unconditionally guarantee(s) to the Lender and to the successors and assigns of the Lender (Note Holder), irrespective of the genuineness, validity, regularity or enforcement thereof, that all obligations set forth in the within Note due from the maker to the Lender (Note Holder) shall be paid when due by acceleration or otherwise, in accordance with the provision thereof; and hereby consent(s) without notice to the undersigned, to any and all extensions of time or terms of payment or modification of any of the terms thereof, and agree(s) to indemnify and hold the Lender (Note Holder) thereof harmless against all losses, costs, damages, liabilities, and expenses incurred or paid by the Lender (Note Holder) as a result of or in any way arising out of the obligations set forth in the within Note. Theof the undersigned hereto (is) (are) intended as an endorsement of the within Note as well as the execution of a guaranty by the undersigned, who hereby waive(s) presentment, demand for payment by the Lender (Note Holder) or anyone else, protest or other notice of any kind and any and all demands whatsoever. The undersigned, (jointly and severally) waive trial by jury in any action arising on. and out of or by reason hereof, and expressly waive the right to interpose any defense based on any statute of limitations or any claim of laches or any set-off, counterclaim, or cross-claim of any nature or description. The provisions hereof may not be changed orally, but only by a writing signed by the Lender or Note Holder. CAROL E. GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY ----- dONTaUCTION LOAN ACREGMGNT I. ’ AORBEMEN’r, mode JANUAKY _4, 200‘8, _ by and between JIRAI1 INVESTMENT, INC. (Borrower), and ROBERT NEUVELT (Lender). | Tlie'BorTOwcr. hns appiied Io the Lender for n loan, the proceeds of which nre lo be used solely for (he purpose of constructing die Intproveriients on the Property according to the Plans as hereinafter sd forth; and The Lender is trilling to rnakc such loan brr rhe leans contnined herein; NOW. TI IEREPORE, in consideration of rite abovopreinises mxl the mutual convcnls nnd agreements set forth herein, thcporlics hereto agree as follows: ###### I. Representations and Warranties^ Inonlerto induce the Lender to enter into this Construction Loan Agreement, the Borrower hereby rcpresenls and warrants that: 1 Borrower is Ute owner of the Property in fee simple; 12 There are-no unrecorded claims, Jicns, and ciicnmbrances againsi Ibe Property. 13 'Hie proposed Improvements have been approved, toihe extent required by any applicable law, -and the use of the Property and the Improvements comply witlr nil applicable zoning and environmental ordinances, regulations and restrictive covenants affecting tire Rropcr|y. . f; 4 As ofthe dale hereof, there are no Improvements to the Properly, construction of tliedmprovemenlsJtns not commenced and a Notice of Comnicncemcnt has not been posted upon the Property or recorded iit the Public Records of MlAMMJADE County, Plorida. I S No violalion of any local law, ordinance, regulation or requirement exists with respect to the Property. 6 There nre no actions, suits or prdceedings pending or threatened:agninst. or affecting lt or the Property, or Involvingihcivalidily or enforceability of the Mortgage or thepriorily of the lien thereof. 7 Al) ulility services necessary forithe construction of the Improvements and the operation thereof for lheir - ntended purpose are available nt the boutitlnries of the Property, including waler, storm and sanitary sewer, drainage, gas, electric, and lelepltone facilities. ; Commitment of Lender and Agreement to Borrower. 1 TheLender hereby lends lo the Qorrower an amount not to exceed the sum of 198, 000. 00. Thc Contraetor is not nbencftciuryof the provisions ofthis Section and shall not have atty rights to request an advance tindertlie Note. Advances and Disbursements. .’ _3. 1_ TTie Borrower represents that ihostim of the cost acquiring the Property and the hard and. soft costs of constructing the Improvements thereon _is_ <$198, 000. 00. 2 The. _Borrower_ shall submit to Lender and closing agent, writlen. dniw requesls in acco’rdancc wiih the-Escrow Agreemenl ofevenherewith. 3:3 Upon request for disbursement by the Borrower (he funds shsilf be disbursed by (he disbursing-ogent according. to. the-Escrow Agreement of even dote herewith. Within five (5) business driys from receipt of such draw request and certifications, (he Lender sltull advance to (lie closing agent, (he amounts certified by the Borrower to be currently payable, provided that Lender shiill have the fighi, ht its ontron, .to refuse to make advances shouldiit determine (lint an Event of Defnuil has occurred ns defined in Seciion 5 hereof. 4 The disbursing agent, shall disburse all funds advanced to it in accordance with this Agreement and the Escrow Agreement ofeven dale herewith. 5 The disbursing ngent shall not disburse any advance hereunder if there have been any changes in the status of title as set forth in the mortgagee's policy pf title insurance which have not been consented to in writing by Lender. Closing agent shall in any event promptly polity Lendcrof any change in the status of title to the Properly or Improvements. ----- **3** **<j** The (bnp dfdraw request, 'inocluinio's lien waivers, certificates; .arid'ii»y:nnd’nil other iosirwhenisior-docuinenis- required to f>c delivered in. conncction wiih. ari advance hweiinder shall lx: In'aform anii. stibsiance salisfactdry (o'Lender andfcloslng aftehl The'. Leitdcr. shali have the rigluTo make aivndyance of proceeds without Uie request, approval or order ###### ofilie Borrovyer b an amount sufficient to obtain the’releose of Property dr Improvements, from t|ie lien of (|ny rnedianic’s liar, provided, however, that She Lender shall first give the Borrower not less tlihn lci). ( IO) days’ prior written notice of its intentions to procure such n release. The failure to the Borrower (o obtain the release of the iienwilhin die foregoing ten (10)day period shall relicvb the Lender of resoonsibility. fnr the foregoing payment. 4, Affirautlivo Covenants. To induce the Lender Io make the requested loaii, the Borrower Itereby covenants and agrees (hat il will: 44 ’ Erect mid complete In a good workmanlike manner the Improvement In accordance with the Plans and complete- tlielmprovcments on or before the Completionin accordance with lire provision of the Construction Contract 2 Promptly pay rind discliarge. all (axes, assessments and other governmental charges imposed upon. it or upon its incqmo nnd profits or upon the Properly, and any and all claims forhtbor, material or supplies or renlnt charges or charges ofany kihd. whlch, .ifunpaid, might by Jniv become n lien or charge upon the Property, provided, however, ihal. Bon-ower shall riot be required to pay any such tax. lasscssments, charge or claim _so_ long ns the validity thereofshall be contested in good faith, by appropriate proceedings nnd Borrower shall have placed in escrow with Attorney, tut amount equal (o 150% of (he amount then in dispute, or such lesser amount acceptable Io the Lender and Attorney. 4J If hl any time prior to completion of the Improvements, (he mnotml remaining to be advanced against the Note appears to the Lender to be insufficient In pny for completion of (lie Improvements, the Borrower shall deposit with Lender within ten (10) days alter the demand therefore, the amount of money which Lender, in its discretion, determines Is needto cpv. ersiich insufficiency. 4*. 4 Construct the Improvements within Hie boundary lilies of the Propertyand in compliance with all zoning, btiildingcodcs. nnd regulations. dis Construct the Iritprovo/itenls nl (hc cost not to exceed (he amounts set forth tn die'Paragraph 3. 1 hereof. 4'4 Novmake or approve any. change in Ute Plans or Ute Construction Contract without lite lender's prior written conserii. . Eycnts of Default, Lender’s Remedies. $, .| If Iniprovcincnts nro not completed on or before the Complctiori Dale; or **5. 2** Ifat any lime prior to full completion of, and payment for, (he Improvemenis, the amount of undisbursed loan funds becomes, in Lender's opinion, insufficient _for_ _said_ purpose, and Borrower does not deposit-with the Lender, funds in-the amduril of thc'lnsufficiency, williinjlcn (lO) dnys irflcr Lender makes demand therefore; or 3 If Borrower fails to duly nnd punctually perform die covenants contained herein, or in tiny document executed or delivered hereunder nnd such failure to perform continues for a period of ten ((0) days nftcr Lender gives notice to Borrower of such default; or 4 If any finnneiol statement, certificate, representation, or warranty furnished pursuant to or mode under this Agreeinanlproves Id be materially false ris of Ihothereofor any representation made herein is untrue when made or - becomes untrue when ntndc or becomes untrue with the passage of time; or 5 If Borrower (nils to pny any instalhncnl of principal or interest on IheNole within ten (ID) days after such installment becomes due, or, if Borrower otherwise defaults umler the terms of Ihe Nole, Mortgage, or any such other documcrils delivercd herewith or executed pursuant to the Agreement and such other default continues (o exist len (10) days aflerLcndcr gives notice Io Borrower of such default; or ###### 54 Ifthe Borrower makes a general -assignment for the benefit of creditors, admits in writing itsinabilily to pay its debts generally os they mature, fiics or has filed ngninst it a petition in bankruptcy or n petition or answer seeking a reorganization, arrangement with creditors or other similar relief under Federal Bankruptcy Laws or under any other applicable law. of (he United Slates of America or any stale thereof, consents to the appointment of a trustee or receiver; or-takes any notion for the purpose of cffebtlng or consenting to any of the foregoing; THEN; imany such event, ah ‘‘Event of Pefaiilt” _shall_ _be_ _deemed_ to have occurred nnd the Lender may, al ils option (in addition to liie. Lcndcr’s rights under thchslote nnd Mortgage, or any oilier documents executed and delivered herewith Or pufsiiaiit hereto), trike any one or more ofAlte following actions:. n. Tenninote Lender's obligation tq' advnncc any further sums pursuant hereto; b, Declare al) amounts advanced ngiiinst the Note plus interest thereon Io be immediately due and payable and demand payment in full of (ho (lien principal balance plus accrued interest owing on the Note; ----- c. Enter the Properly and IniproverhcnU to complete same and use the hinds undisbursed bn the Note together with. such oilier sums os-may, in Lender’s discretion, be neccssaiy to pay for remaining costs-Of such completion and, in such event, Borrower shall be responsible for all amounts outstanding on the Note together with all additional amounts advanced by Lender In excess of the amounts outstanding on the Note. Miscellaneous. 6; I The parties hereto acknowledge iind agree that the Borrower has retained the Cohlraclor and, ns a result, the _Lenderit_ _not_ _responsible_ _far_ _the_ _Conlmctprs_ actions. In addition, the _Borrower_ _and_ the Contraclor. have selected lite architect, materials, supplies, and equipment used in the construction of (he Improvements and, as n result, (hey are solely responsibfefor iho selection. All inspections and other services rendered, by or on behalfofShe Lender nro-lhtendcd soielyTor. lhe protection and benefit ol'thi Lender and the Borrower and Contractor shall not be entilled to claim any loss, or damage ngainst the Lender for waiving or for failing to comply with any provision of lliis ConsIructiomLoan Agreement. ###### di The Lender shal l. nol be liable foj- the failure of any dealer, contractor, sub-contractor, crallsman, or laborer to 'deliver tlte godds or perform llic services required to-be delivered or performed by (Item, - whether pursuant to die terms of IheConstructionConlroct or otherwise. - j^or shall Ulis agreement be. construed to inake-thc Lender liabie to. lhc Contractor, materialmen, craftsmen, laborers, or others for goods or services' delivered by (hem or for debts or clitims accruing to the said parties ngninst ihnl Borrower or die Contractor. _63_ _Time_ _Is_ _ofthe_ essence under th isj Construction Loan Agreement '6. 4 The Borrower agrees, whether or iiotthe transaction hereby contemplated is-consumtnated, to pay the. fees and ex|icnscs and disbursements of the Inspecting Party and all of Lender's out-of-pocket expenses, including recording fees, taxesjmposed for recording of Mortgage, ^ and all title insurance charges, including title insurance; coinmhmem-fccs. ahd premiums incun-cd in connection with the transaction which is Iho subject of this Agreement. 5' Ail representations and warranties contained herein or made in writing by or on beltalf of tl>e Borrower in connection with the Iratisnciions contemplated hereby shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreemeni-andthe advances hereunder. All statements conlijiucd in any certificate or oilier instrument delivered by or on behalf of Borrower pursuant thereto or in connection with the transactions contemplated hereby shall constitute representations and warranties by Borrower. _6:6_ 'fliis Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of lhe parties hereto and their respective successors hnd assigns except that the rights of the Borrower orc not assignable without the prior written consent of (he l^ender. in _its_ absolute discretion. 7 No amendment, change, waiver dr modification ofthis Agrecmenl-shali be valid unless it-is in writing and signed, by till of-thc parties hereto, and no iwaiver by Lender of any breach or default by the Borrower of any of Borrowers obligalionsingroomcntsor covenants under this Conslniclion Loan Agreement sh’nll be deemed Io be a waiver of any subsequent brcach. or any other obligation, agreement _or_ covcnanl, nor shall any forbearancc by Lender to; scck-or enforce a rcmedy for such, breqch bc deemed a waiver of its rights and remedies with respect to such breach. Any wbiver, amendment, change-or modification ofany covenants, requirements, duties or conditions of th is. Agreement to be perfo'mied by any person or enlily oilier tlinn Lender, Included herein for the benefit of Lender, shall be binding on closing. agenl and shall not relieve closing agent from any of iks obligations Io provide insurance and make disbursemems ns'sel forth herein. _SiS_ This construclion Lorin Agreement shall be governed by, interpreted, and construed hi accordance with (he laws ###### of die Stale ofFlorida. 9 This Agreement from and atler trie rlato hereof supersedes nnd. hns merged into it nil prior oral and written agreements (including any commitment) on lhe same subjects by or between some or all of the panics hereto with the effect. that this agreement shall control tlieisubject matter covered herein. fiilO Any notices required or contemplated hereunder dial! be effective upon the placing. thcreof in the United Slates mails; certified _mail, _ return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and addressed ns follows: ###### If to Borrower: I JIRAH INVESTMENT, INC. ! 2912 TARPON DRIVE, MIRAMAR, FL 33023 ###### If 10 Lender: J ROBERT NEUVELT; 6004 VALERIAN LANE, ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 ----- ##### 9. IN WITNESS WHEREO! ’, tl>c panics hereto have caused this Cotislrucliou Loan-Agreement-to bc. cxeculed (he dntc and year first above wnllcn. Borrower. **JIR'AH** **INVESTMENT, ** **INC. ** **A** **FLORIDa** **CORPORATION** **CAROL** **B. ** **GARCIA** **PRESIDENT** ----- ###### NOTE JANUARY 4, 2008 11600 SW 216TH STREET, HOMESTEAD, FL 33175 [Property Address] BORROWER'S PROMISE TO PAY. In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay U. S. $ 198, 000. 00 this amount is called \"principal\"), plus interest, to the order of the Lender as hereinafter defined. The Lender is ROBERT NEUVELT and is sometimes hereinafter referred to as the “Mortgagee”. I understand that the Lender may transfer this Note. The Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this Note is called the \"Note Holder\". INTEREST. Interest will be charged on unpaid principal until the full amount of principal has been paid. I will pay interest at a yearly rate of Fifteen percent (15%) per annum. The interest rate after any default described in Section 6(B) of this Note, and after the maturityas hereinafter set forth, is Eighteen percent (18%) per annum. PAYMENTS. (A) Time and Place of Payments. I will pay interest only by making monthly payments. 1 will make my monthly payments beginning on MARCH 1, 2008. 1 will make these payments monthly until I have paid all of the interest and any other charges described below that I may owe under this Note. My payments will be applied to interest only. If, on FEBRUARY 1, 2009, 1 still owe amounts under this Note, I will pay those amounts in full on that, which is called the \"maturity\". I will make my payments at 6004 VALERIAN LANE, ROCKVILLE, MD 20852, or at a different place if required by the Note Holder. (B) Amount of Monthly Payments. My monthly payments will be in the amount of U. S. $2, 475. 00. BORROWER'S RIGHT TO PREPAY. I have the right to make payments of principal at any time before they are due. A payment of principal only is known as a \"prepayment\". When I make a prepayment, I will tell the Note Holder in writing that I am doing so. 1 may make a full prepayment or partial prepayments without paying any prepayment charge. The Note Holder will use all of my prepayments to reduce the amount of principal that I owe under this Note. If I make a partial prepayment, there will be no charges in the dueor in the amount of my monthly payment unless the Note Holder agrees in writing to those changes. LOAN CHARGES. If a law, which applies to this loan and which sets maximum loan charges, is finally interpreted so that the interest or other loan charges collected or to be collected in connection with this loan exceed the permitted limits, then: (i) any such loan charge collected shall be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the charge to the permitted limit; and (ii) any sums already collected from me which exceeded permitted limits will be refunded to me. The Note Holder may choose to make this refund by reducing the principal I owe under this Note or by making a direct payment to me. If a refund reduces principal, the reduction will be treated as a partial prepayment. BORROWER'S FAILURE TO PAY AS REQUIRED. (A) Late Charge for Overdue Payments. If a Note Holder has not received the full amount of any monthly payment by the end of Five (5) calendar days after theit is due, I will pay a late charge to the Note Holder. The amount of the charge will be Ten percent (10%) of my overdue payment of interest. I will pay this late charge promptly but only once on each late payment. In the event that I shall make any payment by check, which check shall be returned to the Note Holder for any reason other that improper endorsement, I shall be responsible for a $50. 00 processing charge for returning said check, in addition to any late charge or penalty provided herein. 1 understand that upon full payment and satisfaction of this obligation, the remaining balance due hereunder shall be paid by a local bank cashier's check. (B) Default. If I do not pay the full amount of each monthly payment on theit is due, I will be in default. (C) Waiver of Notice ofDefault. 1 hereby waive Notice of Default by the Note Holder. I understand that if I am in default the Note Holder may require me to pay immediately the full amount of principal which has not been paid and all the interest that I owe on that amount. (D) No Waiver By Note Holder. Even if, at a time when I am in default, the Note Holder does not require me to pay immediately in full as described above, the Note Holder will still have the right to do so if 1 am in default at a later time. (E) Payment ofNote Holder's Costs and Expenses. If Note Holder has required me to pay immediately in full as described above, the Note Holder will have the right to be paid back by me for all of its costs and expenses in enforcing ----- ###### this Note to the extent not prohibited by applicable law. These expenses include, for example, reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. GIVING OF NOTICE. Unless applicable law requires a different method, any notice that must be given to me under this Note will be given by delivering it or by mailing it by first class mail to me at the Property Address above or at a different address if I give the Note Holder a notice of my different address. Any notice that must be given to the Note Holder under this Note will be given by mailing it by first class mail to the Note Holder at the address stated in Section 3(A) above or at a different address if I am given a notice of that different address. OBLIGATIONS OF PERSONS UNDER THIS NOTE. If more than one person signs this Note, each person is fully and personally. obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note, including the promise to pay the full amount owed. Any person who is a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note is also obligated to do these things. Any person who takes over these obligations, including the obligations of a guarantor, surety or endorser of this Note, is also obligated to keep all of the promises made in this Note. The Note Holder may enforce its rights under this Note against each person individually or against all of us together. This means that any one of us may be required to pay all of the amounts owed under this Note. WAIVERS. I and any other person who has obligations under this Note waive the rights of presentment and notice of dishonor. \"Presentment\" means the right to require the Note Holder to demand payment of the amounts due. \"Notice of dishonor\" means the right to require the Note Holder to give notice to other persons that amounts due have not been paid. SECURED NOTE. In addition to the protections given to the Note Holder under this Note, a Mortgage, Deed of Trust or Security Deed (the \"Security Instrument\"), d the sameas this Note, protects the Note Holder from possible losses which might result if I do not keep the promises which I make in this Note. That Security Instrument describes how and under what conditions I may be required to make immediate payment in full if all amounts I owe under this Note. Some of those conditions are described as follows: Any transfer by sale, gift, devise, operation of law, or otherwise of the fee title interest in all or any portion of the Mortgaged Premises shall have the same consequences as an event of default respecting the indebtedness secured hereby, and upon such transfer. Mortgagee, without prior notice or the elapse of any period ofgrace or the right to cure, shall have the right to declare all sums secured hereby immediately due and payable, and, upon failure by Mortgagor to make such payment within ten (10) days of written demand therefore. Mortgagee shall have the right to exercise all remedies provided in the Note, this Mortgage, or otherwise at law. MODIFICATION. This note may be modified only by an agreement in writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of any waiver, change, modification or discharge is sought. CONSTRUCTION. The words \"Borrower, \" Maker, \" \"Signer, \" \"I, \" and \"Holder\" as used herein include singular or plural, individual or corporation, and the respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of Borrower and Holder, as the case may be. The use of any gender applies to all genders. If more that one party is named as Borrower, the obligation hereunder of each such party is joint and several. WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL. The undersigned hereby knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally waives any right which the undersigned may have to a trial by juiy in respect to any litigation based hereon or arising out of, under or in connection with this note and any documents contemplated to be executed in conjunction herewith, or any course of conduct, course of dealing, statement (whether verbal or written) or actions of either the undersigned or the holder hereof. This provision is a material inducement for the holder hereof to make a loan to the undersigned in the principal amount hereinbefore provided above. WITNESS THE HAND(S) AND SEAL(S) OF THE UNDERSIGNED. JIRAH INVESTMENT, INC. , A FLORIDA CORPORATION G /Z-------< (Seal) CAROL E. GARCIA, PRESIDENT ----- ###### In consideration of the loan and extension of credit by the Lender of the within Note to the maker thereof, the undersigned (jointly and severally) upon maker’s request, hereby unconditionally guarantee(s) to the Lender and to the successors and assigns of the Lender (Note Holder), irrespective of the genuineness, validity, regularity or enforcement thereof, that all obligations set forth in the within Note due from the maker to the Lender (Note Holder) shall be paid when due by acceleration or otherwise, in accordance with the provision thereof; and hereby consent(s) without notice to the undersigned, to any and all extensions of time or terms of payment or modification of any of the terms thereof, and agree(s) to indemnify and hold the Lender (Note Holder) thereof harmless against all losses, costs, damages, liabilities, and expenses incurred or paid by the Lender (Note Holder) as a result of or in any way arising out of the obligations set forth in the within Note. Theof the undersigned hereto (is) (are) intended as an endorsement of the within Note as well as the execution of a guaranty by the undersigned, who hereby waive(s) presentment, demand for payment by the Lender (Note Holder) or anyone else, protest or other notice of any kind and any and all demands whatsoever. The undersigned, (jointly and severally) waive trial by jury in any action arising on and out of or by reason hereof, and expressly waive the right to interpose any defense based on any statute of limitations or any claim of laches or any set-off, counterclaim, or cross-claim of any nature or description. The provisions hereof may not be changed orally, but only by a writi signed by the Lepjler or Note Holder. (Seal) CAROL E. GARCIA, ’ INDIVIDUALLY ----- **B. ** **Type** **of** **Loan** **■** **1. CFHA** **2. 0** **RHS** **3. (3** **Conv. ** **Unins. ** **6. ** **File** **Number** **7. ** **Loan** **Number** **8. ** **Mortgage** **Insurance** **Case** **Number** **07-0318** **J2504** **4. 0** **VA** **5. ** **Conv. ** **Ins. ** **C. ** **Note:** **This** **form** **is** **furnished** **to** **give** **you** **a** **statement** **of** **actual** **settlement** **costs. ** **Amounts** **paid** **to** **and** **by** **the** **settlement** **agent** **are** **shown. ** **Items** **marked** **\"(p. o. c. )\"** **were** **paid** **outside** **the** **closing; ** **they** **are** **shown** **here** **for** **information** **purposes** **and** **are** **not** **included** **in** **the** **totals. ** **D. ** **Name** **and** **Address** **of** **Borrower** **E. ** **Name** **and** **Address** **of** **Seller** **F. ** **Name** **and** **Address** **of** **Lender** **Jirah** **Investment. ** **Inc. ** **Land** **Acquisition** **Group** **Robert** **Neuvelt** **2912** **Tarpon** **Drive** **2580** **S** **122** **Ct** **6004** **Valerian** **Lane** **Miramar, ** **FL** **33023** **Miami. ** **FL** **33175** **RockviHe. ** **MD** **20852** **6. ** **Property** **Location** **H. ** **Settlement** **Agent** **11600** **SW** **216** **St** **1** **Florida** **International** **Title** **&** **Escrow** **Homestead, ** **FL** **33175** **Place** **of** **Settlement** **1. ** **Settlement** **** **1877** **South** **Federal** **Highway** **01/04/08** **Suite** **108** **Boca** **Raton, ** **Florida** **33432** **J. ** **SUMMARY** **OF** **BORROWER’S** **TRANSACTION:** **K. ** **SUMMARY** **OF** **SELLER’S** **TRANSACTION:** **100. ** **GROSS** **AMOUNT** **DUE** **FROM** **BORROWER** **400. ** **GROSS** **AMOUNT** **DUE** **TO** **SELLER** **! ** **101. ** **Contract** **sales** **price** **40, 000. 00** **401. ** **Contract** **sales** **price** ***** **40, 000. 00** **102. ** **Personal** **property** **402. ** **Personal** **property** **|** **103. ** **Settlement** **charges** **to** **borrower** **(line** **1400)** **24, 012. 06** **403. ** **i** **'** **104. ** **404. ** **i** **105. ** **405. ** **I** **Adjustments** **for** **Items** **paid** **by** **seller** **In** **advance** **Adjustments** **for** **Items** **paid** **by** **seller** **in** **advance** **106. ** **City/town** **taxes** **to** **406. ** **City/town** **taxes** **to** **107. ** **County** **taxes** **to** **407. ** **County** **taxes** **to** **108. ** **Assessments** **to** **408. ** **Assessments** **to** **109. ** **Draw** **1** **26, 000. 00** **409. ** **110. ** **Draw** **2** **49, 000. 00** **410. ** **111. ** **Draw3** **38, 000. 00** **411. ** **__________________** **112. ** **Draw4** **21, 000. 00** **412. ** **1** **120. ** **GROSS** **AMOUNT** **DUE** **FROM** **BORROWER** **198, 012. 06** **420. ** **GROSS** **AMOUNT** **DUE** **TO** **SELLER** **j___** **40, 000, 00** **200. ** **AMOUNTS** **PAID** **BY** **OR** **IN** **BEHALF** **OF** **BORROWER** **500. ** **REDUCTIONS** **IN** **AMOUNT** **TO** **SELLER** **201. ** **Deposit** **or** **earnest** **money** **501. ** **Excess** **Deposit** **(see** **instructions)** **__________________ J** **202. ** **Principal** **amount** **of** **new** **loan(s)** **198, 000. 00** **502. ** **Settlement** **charges** **to** **seller** **(line** **1400)** **i** **2, 211. 861** **203. ** **Existing** **loan(s)** **taken** **subject** **to** **503. ** **Existing** **loan(s)** **taken** **subject** **to** **204. ** **504. ** **Payoff** **of** **first** **mortgage** **loan** **205. ** **505. ** **Payoff** **of** **second** **mortgage** **loan** **i** **206. ** **506. ** **207. ** **507. ** **208. ** **508. ** **209. ** **509. ** **Adjustments** **for** **Items** **unpaid** **by** **seller** **■** **Adjustments** **for** **items** **unpaid** **by** **seller** **2-10. ** **City/town** **taxes** **to** **510. ** **City/town** **taxes** **to** **211. ** **County** **taxes** **01/01** **to** **01/04** **12. 06** **511. ** **County** **taxes** **01/01** **to** **01/04** **12. 06 j1** **212. ** **Assessments** **to** **512. ** **Assessments** **to** **213. ** **513. ** **1** **214. ** **514. ** **215. ** **515. ** **216. ** **516. ** **217. ** **517. ** **218. ** **518. ** **Sil_______________________ ___________________** **519. ** **-I** **520. ** **TOTAL** **REDUCTION** **AMOUNT** **DUE** **SELLER** **I** **220. ** **TOTAL** **PAID** **BY** **_I_** **FOR** **BORROWER** **198. 01? ** **05** **2, 223. 97:** **300. ** **CASH** **AT** **SETTLEMENT** **FROM** **OR** **TO** **BORROWER** **600. ** **CASH** **AT** **SETTLEMENT** **TO** **OR** **FROM** **SELLER** **I** **301. ** **Gross** **amount** **due** **from** **borrower** **(line** **120)** **198, 012. 06** **501. ** **Gross** **amount** **due** **to** **seller** **(line** **420)** **40. 000. 00! ** **302. ** **Less** **amounts** **paid** **by/for** **borrower** **(line** **220)** **198, 012. 06** **502. ** **Less** **reduction** **amount** **due** **to** **seller** **(line** **520)** **2, 223. 92** **303. ** **CASH** **FROM** **BORROWER** **503. ** **CASH** **TO** **SELLER** **________ 37, 776. 08** ----- **701. ** **$** **to** **702. ** **$** **to** **703. ** **Commission** **paid** **at** **Settlement** **704. ** **800. ** **ITEMS** **PAYABLE** **IN** **CONNECTION** **WITH** **LOAN** **P. O. C. ** **801. ** **Loan** **Origination** **Fee** **%** **802. ** **Loan** **Discount** **%** **803. ** **Appraisal** **Fee** **to** **804. ** **Credit** **Report** **to** **805. ** **Lender's** **Inspection** **Fee** **to** **806. ** **Mtq. ** **Ins. ** **Application** **Fee** **to** **807. ** **Assumption** **Fee** **to** **808. ** **Mortgage** **Broker** **Fee** **Simplex** **Mortgage** **Brokers, ** **Inc. ** **5, 940. 00** **809. ** **Prepaid** **Interest** **Robert** **Neuvelt** **2, 310. 00** **810. ** **Document** **Preparation** **Fee** **Smith** **&** **Gromann, ** **P. A. ** **475. 00** **811. ** **Digital** **Imaging** **Fee** **Smith** **&** **Gromann, ** **PA** **25. 00** **812. ** **813. ** **814. ** **815. ** **900. ** **ITEMS** **REQUIRED** **BY** **LENDER** **TO** **BE** **PAID** **IN** **ADVANCE** **901. ** **Interest** **from** **to** **^day** **902. ** **Mortgage** **Insurance** **Premium** **to** **903. ** **Hazard** **Insurance** **Premium** **yrs. ** **to** **904. ** **905. ** **1000. ** **RESERVES** **DEPOSITED** **WITH** **LENDER** **FOR** **1001. ** **Hazard** **Insurance** **mo. ©$** **7mo. ** **1002. ** **Mortgage** **Insurance** **mo. ** **/rno. ** **1003. ** **City** **property** **taxes** **mo. ** **(5)$** **/mo. ** **1004. ** **County** **property** **taxes** **mo. ** **@$** **/mo. ** **1005. ** **Annual** **Assessments** **mo. @$** **/mo. ** **1006. ** **mo. ** **/mo. ** **1007. ** **mo. @$** **/mo. ** **1008. ** **Aggregate** **Reserve** **for** **Hazard/Flood** **Ins, ** **City/County** **Prop** **Taxes, ** **Mortgage** **Ins** **&** **Annual** **Assessments** **1100. ** **TITLE** **CHARGES** **1101. ** **Settlement** **or** **closing** **fee** **to** **Florida** **International** **Title** **&** **Escrow** **350. 00** **1102. ** **Abstract** **or** **title** **search** **to** **First** **American** **Title** **Insurance** **Co. ** **250. 00** **1103. ** **Title** **examination** **to** **1104. ** **Title** **insurance** **binder** **to** **1105. ** **Document** **preparation** **to** **1106. ** **Notary** **fees** **to** **1107. ** **Attorney's** **fees** **to** **(includes** **above** **item** **No:** **)** **1108. ** **Title** **insurance** **to** **Florida** **International** **Title** **4** **Escrow** **1. 390. 00** **(includes** **above** **item** **No:** **)** **1109. ** **Lender's** **coverage** **198, 000. 00** **-** **1, 160. 00** **ind** **860. 00** **Risk** **Prem** **1110. ** **Owner's** **coveraqe** **40, 000. 00** **-** **230. 00** **1111. ** **FF9** **Florida** **International** **Title** **&** **Escrow** **139. 00** **1112. ** **ALTA** **8. 1** **Florida** **International** **Title** **&** **Escrow** **25. 00** **1113. ** **1** **1200. ** **GOVERNMENT** **RECORDING** **AND** **TRANSFER** **CHARGES** **1201. ** **Recordinq** **fees** **DeedS** **27. 00** **; ** **Mortqaqe** **$** **171. 50** **; ** **Releases** **S** **198. 50** **1202. ** **City/county/stamps** **DeedS** **180. 00** **; ** **Mortqaqe** **$** **180. 00** **1203. ** **State** **tax/stamps** **DeedS** **240. 00** **; ** **Mortqaqe** **S** **693. 00** **693. 00** **240. 00** **1204. ** **Intangible** **Tax** **DeedS** **; ** **Mortgage** **$** **396. 00** **396. 00** **1205. ** **1300. ** **ADDITIONAL** **SETTLEMENT** **CHARGES** **1301. ** **Survey** **to** **1302. ** **Pest** **inspection** **to** **1303. ** **Document** **Scanning** **A** **Storage** **Pagestream** **45. 00** **1304. ** **Lien** **Search** **Florida** **Property** **Search, ** **Inc. ** **100. 00** **1305. ** **Assignment** **Fee** **Roger** **Garda** **2, 000. 00** **1** **1306. ** **2007** **R. E. ** **Taxes** **Miami** **Dade** **Tax** **Collector** **1, 441. 86** **1307. ** **Draw** **5** **10, 025. 56** **1308. ** **1400. ** **TOTAL** **SETTLEMENT** **CHARGES** **(enter** **on** **lines** **103** **and** **502, ** **SectionsK). ** **24, 012. 06** **2, 211. 86|** **hav*** **carahAy** **ravie*ed** **tha** **HUD-1** **Satltament** **Siatemanl** **and** **to** **the** **_best_** **of** **my** **knnvfadpe and** **baf** **•fl** **receipts** **«na** **dulxr»ement»** **mad*** **on my aceant** **or** **by** **me** **in** **this** **_tansadicn. _** **I further** **certify** **(hrf** **I** **have** **received** **a** **copy** **of** **the** **HUD-1** **Settlement** **Statement** **/** **•d** **is** **• true and** **accurate** **accouil** **of** **bis** **funds** **to** **be** **disbursed** **in** **accordance** **with** **this** **statement. ** ----- ###### Smith & Gromann, P. A. **An** **Interstate** **Partnership** **of** **Professional** **Associations** **Reply** **to:** **X** **Main** **Offlee/Corn. ** **Bird. ** **Federal** **Consumer, ** **Bankihg** **and** **Creditor** **law** **_Town** **Cehter'Rd. /Boca** **Boca** **Financial** **&** **Technology** **Center** ###### _New Jersey 2201 NW Corporate Blvd. , Suite 200 _ Newarlc/NewJersey SMITH & GROMANlsI, P. A. Boca Raton, Florida'33431 TOWN CliNTEROFHCE/BOGA ###### Tel: (561)372-2700 5295 Town Ccnlcr Road, 4* Hbbr Fax: (561) 997-2879 Boca Raton, ftioriila-3348<S **JOHN** **W. ** **SMITH+** **GLENN** **E. ** **OROMANN’** **SMITH** **&** **GROMANN, ** **P. A. ** **+** **Admiltcd** **m** **FL** **snd** **MI** **Only** **NEW** **JERSEY** **OFFICE** **Florida'Managing** **Penner** **60** **Pompton** **Avenue** ###### ’Adnlillcd to NY. Nj. TX, MO. Ml. DC & III Only Verona, New Jersey 07044 **NewJcrscy** **Managing** **Partner, ** **OfCounsel** **LL. M, ** **Real** **Property** **Development** **SMITH** **&** **GROMANN, ** **P. A. ** **_U. S, _** **_SUPREME_** **COURT** **NEWARK, ** **NEW** **JERSEY** **OFFICE** **U. S. ** **_COURT’OF_** **INTERNATIONAL** **TIIADI-** **100** **Verona** **Avenue** **U** **S:** **_COtlRT_** **OF** **CLAIMS** **Newark:** **New** **Jersey** **07104** **U. S'. ** **TA^it** **COURT** **U. S; .FEDERAL** **CIRCUIT** **COURT** **D. C. ** **CIRCUIT** **COURT** **OF** **APPEALS** **U. S, ** **IT. «** **_CIRCUIT_** **COURT** **_di'_** **_APPEALS_** **JANUARY** **4, 2008** ###### PAT HARDCASTLE FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL TITLE & ESCROW 561-392-0173 ###### flintcrtitle@bellsoulh. net icss@floridainternationaltitle. com Borrower: JIRAH INVESTMENT, INC. Stateofinc: A FLORIDA CORPORATION Signer: CAROL E. GARCIA Corp, office: PRESIDENT Corp; address: - 2912 TARPON DRIVE, MIRAMAR, FL 33023 Property address: 11600 SW 2I6TH STREET, HOMESTEAD, FL 33175 Loan amourit: 198, 000. 00 Intercst rate: 15 Firstpayment: MARCH 1, 2008 Last paymehtdalc: FEBRUARY 1, 2009 Paymentamount: 2, 475. 00 Lender: ROBERT NEUVELT Lender address: 6004 VALERIAN LANE, ROCKVILLE; MD 20852 Ctosing-: JANUARY 4, 2008 Pilenumber: J2504 Enclosed are the following mortgage documents for (he above closing: Note Mortgage ----- NonrApplicability orTnjth in Lending Payment letter Substitute W-9 Ami coercion affidavit 7; Borrowers. offidavit 8: Gapaffidavit Compliance agreement - Conditional assignment of rents Attorney fee disclosure Privacypcilicy-ndtice Noorniiliiary'affidavit Disburscmcnt authorization Corporate resolution 16; Glosingagent certification Lender fees for. closing are as follows: Mortgage broker fee to SIMPLEX MORTGAGE BROKERS, INC. , in the amount of $5, 940. 00. Prepaid interest to ROBERT NEUVELT, in the amount of$2, 310. 00. Document preparation fee to SMITH & GROMANN, P. A. , in the amount of$475. 00. Digital imaging fee to SMITH & GROMANN, P. A. , in the amount of $25. 00. Priortoclosing this loan, you must conduct a full name search on the borrower. The lender will not acceptjunior liens of any type, including but not limited to slate or federal judgments, state or federal lax liens, or codc enforcement liens. ###### Prior to closlng tbis loan, you must obtain for each governing authority a signed esloppcl letter showing Ibat there arc no open or pending code violations, citations, or case numbers pending against subject property. The lender ###### will not accepLany open or pending code violations. They must be released prior to closing. Short. form Mortgage Policies are not acceptable. Long form policies must be issued with exceptions listed in Schedule B. Endorsements 4. 1, 5. 1, 8. 1, and Florida form 9 arc required if applicable. You may delete Items I. (b)(1), l. (b)(3. ). l. (bX4), Item 3:(a), ’ltem 4. , aitd Item 5. , from the Florida form 9 if no survey is provided. The-Lender does not require s survey-for this loan, . If you cannot issue a Florida form 9 without a survey the Lender will waive the Florida form 9. Please advise me as soon as possible if that is (he case. Do not order a survey for this. Icnderl / Prior 10 closing this loan, you must fax Robert “Bob\" SniaH (954-565-2867), and myself (direct _efax_ 561 r892^0743), both a copy of(l). your marked up iitie commitment, (2) a copy of the licit and code violation estoppel letters-from each governing authority, (3) the closing protection letter from your underwriter for this lender, and (4) your closing statement. Borrower is-required to bring _proof_ _of_ insurance to closing. Do not close this transaction unless borrower brings a Certificate of Insurance. with lender named as Mortgagee, and coverage of at least the loan amount Proof of payment of the first years premium is required. Please. atlach the legal description to the Mortgage, Borrowers Affidavit, and Conditional Assignment of Rents. You may copy, type _or_ _tape_ your legal description on the enclosed Exhibit “A\", or you may use your own attachment. When you record the. Mortgage please attach a copy of the executed note. The Note and Mortgage combined nrc twelve (12) pages. The Assignment of Rents should not be recorded. At closing you will need to have the borrower complete paragraph 4. 22 ###### of the Mortgage designating an agent for service of process. Mr. Robert “Bob\" Small (954-415-0106) of SIMPLEX MORTGAGE BROKERS, INC. , will attend closing. Please give the following:items to Mr. Small at closing for delivery to the lender and myself: The original lenders package, prepaid interest check, marked up title commitment, closing protection letter from your underwriter, and:receipi that you have received the original documents for closing; A copy package for myself, along with the document preparation check; A. copy package for the Simplex Mortgage Brokers, inc. , and the mortgage broker check. ----- **Jfyou'cannot** **comply** **with** **the** **above** **copy** **package** **requirements, ** **please** **notify** **Mr. ** **Small** **nnd** **myself** **prior** **to** **closing. ** **The-original** **recorded** **mortgage** **and** **the** **mortgage** **title** **policy** **should** **be** **mailed** **directly** **to** **the** **Lender** **at** **the** **address-shown** **ondheMortgage. ** ###### Ifyou have, any questions, pleasecontact me at: direct line 561-372-2700; cell phone 561-289-2985; efax>-561 -892-0743; - cmail ismith@smilhiironianii:com: or alternate entail isinith25l4(qlaol. cflm. SPECIAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS: **1. The** **Borrower** **is** **to** **receive** **zero** **cash** **at** **closing. ** **The** **excess** **loan** **proceeds** **arc** **to** **be** **cut** **In** **live** **construction** **draw** **checks** **payable** **to. the** **Borrower** **and** **delivered** **to** **Mr. ** **Small** **at** **closing. ** **He** **will** **disburse. ** **Five** **construction** **ups** **will** **be** **required. ** **The** **checks** **arc** **to** **be** **in** **the** **following** **amounts:** **526, 000. 00; ** **$49, 000. 00; ** **$38, 000. 00; ** **$21, 000. 00; ** **and. the. lMlaticc** **to** **equal** **zero** **cash** **to** **close. ** **2. ** **The** **attached** **three** **page** **Notice** **of** **Commencement** **is** **to** **be** **recorded** **aftcr-the** **Mortgage** **and** **a** **certified** **copy** **_furnished_** **_to_** **the** **contractor** **for** **posting** **at** **the** **property. ** **3. ** **Cdde'violations** **must** **be** **complied** **and** **all** **liens** **paid** **at** **dosing. ** ###### SMITH & GROMANN, P. A. **JOHN** **W. ** **SMITH** -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15™ JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA ROBERT NEUVELT, Plaintiff, vs. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL TITLE AND ESCROW COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, ROBERT SMALL, JOHN WALTER SMITH, and SMITH & GROMANN, an Interstate Partnership of Professional Associations, d/b/a SMITH & GROMANN, P. A. , `■o` Defendants. _3_ ______________________________ **REQUEST** **FOR** **PRODUCTION** **OF** **DEFENDANT** **SMITH** **&** **GROMANN** Defendant Smith & Gromann by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure request that the plaintiff produce the following at the offices of the undersigned within 30 days; Your complete file with regard to the subject transaction. This shall include any and all correspondence, notes, memoranda, loan documents, drafts of loan documents, notes and mortgage and any and all other documents maintained by your or your attorneys or agent with regard to the subject transaction. Any and all documents produced by other parties in discovery in this litigation including but not limited to the files of Robert Small and/or Florida International Title and Escrow Company. ----- Copies of any and all depositions previously taken in this matter. Copies of any and all communications and/or correspondence between you or anyone acting on your behalf and Florida International Title and Escrow Company, Robert Small, Jirah Investments, Inc. , Carol E. Garcia or Smith & Gromann. Copies of any and all notes and mortgages for any loans made by you or on your behalf in the five years preceding the loan that is the subject matter of this action. Any and all correspondence between you and/or anyone acting on your behalf and any mortgage broker for the purposes of soliciting mortgage business in the five years preceding the transaction which gives rise to this lawsuit. Any and all documents supporting your claim for damages in this case. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBYCERTIFY/that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was sent by U. S. Mail on | 2^4 _L_ _f_, to: Steven M. Weiss, Esq. , Law Offices of Steven M. Weiss, -TTa” 11380 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 118, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410; Andrew E. Pastor, Esq. , Andrew E. Pastor, P. A. , 11380 Prosperity Farms Road, Suite 118, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 and Barry N. Klein, Esq. , Attorney for Small, 600 Biscayne Drive, West Palm Beach, FL 33401. LAW OFFICE OF HUGH BEHAN Attorneys for Defendants JOHN WALTER SMITH and SMITH & GROMANN, P. A. Presidential Circle, Suite 705-South 4000 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33021 PH: (954) 989-8775/FAX: (954^67-6536 BY:? ---------------------------------------- MARK C. BURTON Fla. Bar No. : 650145 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "**IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT** **IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA** SARAH SMITH, Plaintiff, v. JUSTIN STAER, VALENTINA PARRISH, and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. ________________________________________/ **COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL** Plaintiff, SARAH SMITH, by and through undersigned counsel, sue the Defendants, JUSTIN STAER, VALENTINA PARRISH, and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, as grounds thereof, states as follows: **PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE** This is an action for damages that exceeds the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($50, 000. 00), exclusive of costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees (The estimated value of Plaintiff’s claim is in excess of the minimum jurisdictional threshold required by this Court). Accordingly, Plaintiff has entered “$50, 001” in the civil cover sheet for the “estimated amount of the claim” as required in the preamble to the civil cover sheet for jurisdictional purposes only (the Florida Supreme Court has ordered that the estimated “amount of claim” be set forth in the civil cover sheet for data collection and clerical purposes only). The actual value of Plaintiff’s claim will be determined by a fair and just jury in accordance with Article 1, Section 21, Fla. Const. At all times material hereto and at the time of the incident complained of, Plaintiff, SARAH SMITH (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), was a resident of Broward County, Florida, and was otherwise sui juris. Page | 1 ----- At all times material hereto and at the time of the incident complained of, the Defendants, JUSTIN STAER (hereinafter “STAER”), and VALENTINA PARRISH (hereinafter “PARRISH”), were residents of Palm Beach County, Florida and were otherwise sui juris. At all times material hereto and at the time of the incident complained of, Defendant, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter “ACE AMERICAN”) was and is an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Florida and was so doing. The subject matter that forms the basis this Complaint in occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida; therefore, venue is proper. **GENERAL ALLEGATIONS** At all times material hereto and at the time of the incident complained of, Defendants, STAER, and PARRISH, were the registered owners, who controlled and maintained a 2015 Chevrolet Silverado K1500 LT, bearing Florida Tag No. Y94NRK, (hereinafter “2015 Chevy Truck”). At all times material hereto and at the time of the incident complained of the Plaintiff operated a 2022 Ford E350 Utility Vehicle, bearing Florida Tag No. MIM93N (hereinafter “2022 Ford” or “vehicle”). At all times material hereto, and at the time of the incident complained of, Defendant, ACE AMERICAN, issued an automobile insurance policy, bearing policy number: ISAH25562434 (hereinafter “policy”) which insured the 2022 Ford that Plaintiff operated. At all times material hereto, and at the time of the incident complained of, the policy which Defendant, ACE AMERICAN, issued provided for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits coverage, among other coverages, which was in full force and effect by virtue of payment of the policy premiums. Page | 2 ----- On November 30, 2022, Defendant, STAER, operated the 2015 Chevy Truck, while traveling on West Drive, from the intersection of Okeechobee Boulevard, in unincorporated Palm Beach County, Florida, when he crashed into the 2022 Ford that Plaintiff operated, causing the motor vehicle accident to occur (referred to throughout the instant Complaint as “the crash”). As a result of the crash, the Plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injuries and damages as described below. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been satisfied, met, and/or waived, regarding the policy issued by Defendant, ACE AMERICAN, which insured the 2022 Ford. **COUNT I** **PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE CLAIM AGAINST** **DEFENDANT, JUSTIN STAER** Plaintiff, reavers and adopts all allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 12 as though more fully set forth herein, and further states as follows: At the time of the crash, Defendant, STAER, owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff to operate the 2015 Chevy Truck in a safe and prudent manner; to maintain a proper lookout; to maintain control of the 2015 Chevy Truck; to obey all traffic regulations; and to maintain a safe distance between the 2015 Chevy Truck and the vehicle that Plaintiff operated. At the time of the crash, Defendant, STAER while operating the 2015 Chevy Truck breached his duty of care by crashing into the vehicle that Plaintiff operated, causing Plaintiff to sustain serious and permanent injuries and damages. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant, STAER’s negligence, Plaintiff suffered bodily injuries and damages, and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, scarring, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, medical treatment and care, Page | 3 ----- future cost of medical treatment and care, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money in the future, property damage and/or aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses and damages are either permanent or continuing, and they will suffer such losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SARAH SMITH, demands judgment against the Defendant, JUSTIN STAER, for damages that exceeds Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50, 000. 00), taxable costs, pre-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and any other such relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled. The Plaintiff further demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. **COUNT II** **PLAINTIFF’S VICARIOUS LIABILITY CLAIM AGAINST** **DEFENDANT, VALENTINA PARRISH** _(Doctrine of Dangerous Instrumentality)_ Plaintiff reavers and adopts all allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 12 as though more fully set forth herein, and further states as follows: At the time of the crash, Defendant, PARRISH, was the legal co-owner of the 2015 Chevy Truck that Defendant, STAER, operated. At the time of the crash, Defendant, STAER, operated the 2015 Chevy Truck with the complete permission and full consent of Defendant, PARRISH. At the time of the crash, Defendant, PARRISH, by and through Defendant, STAER, owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff to operate the 2015 Chevy Truck in a safe and prudent manner; to maintain a proper lookout; to maintain control of the 2015 Chevy Truck; to obey all traffic regulations; and to maintain a safe distance between the 2015 Chevy Truck, and Plaintiff’s 2015 Chevy Truck. At the time of the crash, Defendant, STAER, while operating the 2015 Chevy Truck breached his duty of care by crashing into the vehicle that Plaintiff operated, causing Plaintiff’s serious and permanent injuries and damages. Page | 4 ----- As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, STAER, Plaintiff suffered bodily injuries and damages, resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, scarring, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, medical treatment and care, future cost of medical treatment and care, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money in the future, property damage and/or aggravation of a previously existing condition. The losses and damages are either permanent or continuing, and they will suffer such losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SARAH SMITH, demands judgment against the Defendant, VALENTINA PARRISH, for damages that exceeds Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50, 000. 00), taxable costs, pre-judgment interest, attorney’s fees and any other such relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled. Plaintiff further demands trial by jury. **COUNT III** **PLAINTIFF’S UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST CLAIM AGAINST** **DEFENDANT, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY** Plaintiff reavers and adopts all allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 12, as though more fully set forth herein, and further states: The policy issued by Defendant, ACE AMERICAN, provided uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage (hereinafter “UM”). On theof the crash, and pursuant to the policy language, Plaintiff was considered a “covered person” as more fully defined in the terms and conditions of the subject insurance company issued by Defendant, ACE AMERICAN. On theof the crash, Defendants, STAER and PARRISH were either uninsured, and/or underinsured, based upon the value of Plaintiff’s personal injury damages. Plaintiff has brought this cause of action, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy issued by Defendant, ACE AMERICAN, which provides for payment of compensatory Page | 5 ----- damages for bodily injuries that Plaintiff sustained and is legally entitled to recover under the policy. As a result of Defendants, STAER, and PARRISH’s negligence, Plaintiff, sustained permanent injuries and damages which are permanent and/or continuing in nature. Plaintiff and Defendant, ACE AMERICAN, have been unable to agree on the value of Plaintiff’s compensatory damages, which Plaintiff further contends should include pain, suffering, and mental anguish, since Plaintiff has suffered serious and permanent injuries and damages. Therefore, Plaintiff brings this action to determine the value of the damages and to obtain the UM benefits available from Defendant, ACE AMERICAN. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, SARAH SMITH, demands judgment against Defendant, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, for the compensatory damages for which he is entitled to under the policy, in an amount that exceeds Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50, 000. 00) and no/cents, plus interest and costs, and any such other relief the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiff further demands a trial by jury all of issues so triable. **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been electronically filed with Florida’s Court E-Filing Portal on March 23, 2023. **LONG, JEAN & WECHSLER, P. A. ** Attorneys for Plaintiff 1937 E. Atlantic Blvd. , #205 Pompano Beach, FL 33060 Phone: (954) 597-6770 pleadings@ljwlegal. com (designated service email) [lyle@ljwlegal. com](mailto:lyle@ljwlegal. com) [renee@ljwlegal. com](mailto:renee@ljwlegal. com) By: /s/ Lyle R. Long Lyle R. Long, Esq. Florida Bar No. 101740 Page | 6 -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15[th] JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA SARAH SMITH, Plaintiff, v. JUSTIN STAER, VALENTINA PARRISH, and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. ____________________________________/ **FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO DEFENDANT, ** **ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY** The Plaintiff, SARAH SMITH, by and through undersigned counsel, and files this First Request for Production, directed to Defendant, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1. 350, and requests said Defendant respond in accordance with Rule 1. 350 and produce the following items: **INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS** a) The Responding Party, “Defendant” and \"you\" mean Defendant, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, its agents, consultants, representatives, employees, servants, and all other persons acting or purporting to act on its behalf or under the responding party's control. b) The term \"possession, custody and/or control\" refers to ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY's possession, custody and/or control and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY 's consultants, representatives, employees, servants and all other persons acting or its behalf. c) In the event a response includes any person(s) or entity different from the Responding Party of, please indicate the identity of such person or entity. d) Document means each and every document, as defined by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1. 340, in the possession, custody or control of the Responding Party, however and by whomever prepared, produced, reproduced, disseminated, or made, in any form, wherever located, whether a ----- copy, draft or original, including, but not limited to, the following: letters, minutes, correspondence, notes or summaries of conversation, inter and intra office memoranda, contracts, agreements, desk calendars, appointment books, diaries, books, manuals, bulletins, circulars, catalogs, charts, transcripts, reports, studies, evaluations, analyses, graphs, worksheets, notices, notes, notebooks, journals, statistical records, maps, surveys, drawings, blueprints, sketches, data sheets, data compilations, computer data sheets, photographs, movie film, video tape, sound recordings, microfilm, microfiche and any other written, printed, typed, recorded or graphic matter from which information can be obtained or can be translated through detection devices in a reasonably usable form. e) Identify and identification when used in reference to an individual person mean to state his full name, present address, if known, and his present employment position and business affiliation. When used in reference to a person other than an individual person, identify or organization, and the name, present and last known address and principal place of its business. Once any person has been identified properly, it shall be sufficient thereafter when identifying that person to state only his name. f) Identify and identification when used in reference to a document or documents mean to state the, the author (or, if different, the signor or signors), the address, type of document (e. g. , letter, memorandum, telegram, chart, sketch, or diagram) and any other means of identifying with sufficient particularity to meet the requirements for its inclusion in a request for production of documents pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1. 350. If any such document was but no longer is in possession or subject to control, state what disposition was made of it and the reason for that disposition. In lieu of identifying any document, a true and correct copy may be annexed to and incorporated herein. If any document has already been furnished to the Plaintiff, only one reference to it is necessary to enable the Plaintiff to identify it. g) The term \"communication\" means each and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information, whether oral or in writing, and whether in person, by telephone, by mail or otherwise, including, but not limited to, discussions, statements, negotiations, inquiries, requests, notices, responses, demands or complaints. h) The term \"crash\" refers to the motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 30, 2022, in Palm Beach Gardens, Palm Beach County, Florida as more fully described in Plaintiff’s complaint. i) The term \"and/or\" shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to make the Request for Production inclusive rather than exclusive. j) The term \"any and all” shall be considered to include each and every item requested. k) If you do not clearly understand, or have any questions about, these definitions or instructions, please have your attorney contact undersigned counsel promptly for clarification. ----- l) The term \"policy\" or \"insurance policy\" shall include any and all policies of insurance issued by ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, which were in full force and effect on November 30, 2022. m) The term \"policy of insurance\" refers to the complete policy including all endorsements, declaration's page, and exclusions and contract thereof. ----- **PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE** Any and all statements, whether written, taped or videotaped or otherwise taken from Plaintiff. Any and all statements, whether written, taped or videotaped taken from any person or potential witness regarding the facts of this lawsuit. All insurance policies, including liability, excess, umbrella, uninsured/under insured, and the like, including the declaration page or face sheet showing the dollar limits of coverage for all policy(ies) of insurance, that cover or that may cover damages sustained by the Plaintiff in the subject accident as described in the Plaintiff’s complaint. Any and all photographs in the possession, custody and/or control of this Defendant, its agents, servants and/or attorneys, depicting the property damage to all motor vehicles involved in the subject accident; the occurrence of the subject accident; the scene of the subject accident and/or the intersection scene of the subject accident; the Plaintiff; street view or aerial view where the subject accident occurred; and any other photographs in your possession, custody and/or control relating to all subject matter set forth in the Plaintiff’s complaint. Any and all medical records showing that Plaintiff suffered from any preexisting injuries of any kind. Any and all letters sent to or received from the Plaintiff or Plaintiff's representative regarding the subject accident; Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist claim; Plaintiff’s personal injury protection claim; and any other subject matter in connection with the subject accident as described in Plaintiff’s complaint. Any and all documents of any kind that you contend must be filled out or completed as a condition precedent to perfecting an uninsured/under insured motorist claim or to bringing this lawsuit. Any and all property damage estimates, valuation reports, supplemental property damage estimates, bills, invoices, and photographs showing the extent of damage to the any of the motor vehicles involved in the subject accident. All documents regarding any prior or subsequent losses or claims made by Plaintiff in the possession custody, and/or control of Defendant. Any and all surveillance photographs, movies, video, and any other type of electronic data which depicts the Plaintiff performing any type of activity subsequent to theof the subject accident. (If claiming work product, please provide a privilege log pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1. 280, and please provide the name ----- of the surveillance company or individual retained to perform surveillance, and alls that surveillance was conducted). Any and all reports prepared by a retainer individual that the Defendant may rely upon during the litigation of this case. (If claiming work product, please provide a privilege log pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1. 280 and include the name of the expert retained, the subject upon which the expert was retained for, and thethat the work was performed). All crash data documents and/or electronic digital data files, that were retrieved or anyone on your behalf, after the occurrence of the subject accident for the vehicle operated by Plaintiff at the time of the crash. Copies of all independent medical examination reports which the Defendant has received in connection with Plaintiff's uninsured/underinsured motorist claim. The Defendant's uninsured/underinsured motorist claim file, which is not work product or privilege, such as the adjusters’ daily activity sheets, correspondence, status sheets, status ups, and any other discoverable materials under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1. 350 and Rule 1. 280. Any and all tangible evidence, material and document used in preparation of the valuation of the Plaintiff's uninsured/underinsured claim upon any offer communicated by Defendant, its agents, employees, and representatives, which sent to Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s attorneys prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit. Any other documents whatsoever referred to in Defendant's Answers to Interrogatories which have not been produced in your responses herein. Color photographs of any vehicle involved in the subject accident. All incident reports, crash reports, police reports, CAD reports, body cam videos obtained from the policing authorities, and any other documents or materials which describes and/or memorializes the occurrence of the subject accident. All documents reflecting any settlement with any other person, firm or corporation arising out of the subject accident. All reports made by, for, or on behalf of any expert witness employed by the Defendant, his attorneys, or other representatives, and which such opinions relate in any way to the subject accident. All documents obtained during Defendant’s asset investigation into SARAH SMITH. All documents obtained during Defendant’s investigation into SARAH SMITH’s financial health. ----- **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served upon the Defendant along with the Complaint and Summons. **LONG, JEAN & WECHSLER, P. A. ** **Attorneys for Plaintiff** 1937 East Atlantic Boulevard, Suite 205 Pompano Beach, FL 33060 Phone: (954) 597-6770 Fax: (954) 691-3906 Email: lyle@ljwlegal. com By: **_/s/ Lyle R. Long______** LYLE R. LONG, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 101740 Service email: pleadings@ljwlegal. com -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA PATRICK MICHAEL MOORE AND BRIANNA RENELLE YEBOAH-HEMANS; ERIC GUEVARA AND JOHANNA GUEVARA; SHANE FITZGERALD B. THOMPSON AND KARINA THOMPSON; SILVIU TARAN AND TONI BIANCA TARAN; ANDREI MATA QUINTAN AND ANA PAULA FERREIRA QUINTAN; MARCELO CARRERA AND MARIUXI CARRERA; SHEILA MARIE FORTSON; KARINA DELGADO AND JOHNNY VOLMY; PABLO ELORRIAGA AND MARICEL COLON-SANTIAGO; SARA LOGSDON AND WESLEY LOGSDON; JASON MATTSON; EDNA NOEL AND AUGUSTIN COLIN; DANE RINGLER AND HUI YEE NGOH; LOI TRAN AND BINI TRAN; and SREENIVASULU POLAGGARI, Plaintiffs, v. MINTO PBLH, LLC, Defendant. _______________________________/ **AMENDED COMPLAINT** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans, Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara, Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson, Silviu Taran and Toni ----- Bianca Taran, Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan, Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera, Sheila Marie Fortson, Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy, Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago, Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon, Jason Mattson, Edna Noel and Augustin Colin, Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh, and Loi Tran and Bini Tran, file this Complaint against Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, and allege as follows: **INTRODUCTION** This action arises from Defendant’s breach of contracts to sell new homes to Plaintiffs. Defendant breached the respective contracts by failing to build and sell to Plaintiffs homes with the specified square footage under air (a/k/a Total Living Area or TLA) required by such contracts. Defendant knew, and at worst should have known, prior to entering such contracts, that the homes it was constructing and would sell to Plaintiffs contained meaningfully less TLA then Defendant advertised and marketed to Plaintiffs to induce them to enter contracts to buy homes, and then included in the terms of such contracts. Defendant materially breached the contracts, which included each home’s purported TLA, by failing to build and sell to Plaintiffs homes that complied with their respective contracts. **JURISDICTION AND VENUE** This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute because this complaint seeks damages in excess of $50, 000. 00 dollars, exclusive of interest and attorneys’ fees. Venue is proper in Palm County, Florida, because the cause of action arose in Palm Beach County, Florida. **PARTIES** Plaintiff Patrick Michael Moore is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. 2 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiff Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Eric Guevara is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Johanna Guevara is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Karina Thompson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Silviu Taran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Toni Biana Taran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Andrei Mata Quintan is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Marcelo Carrera is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Mariuxi Carrera is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age 3 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Karina Delgado is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Johnny Volmy is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Pablo Elorriaga is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Maricel Colon-Santiago is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sara Logsdon is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Wesley Logsdon is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Jason Mattson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Edna Noel is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Augustin Colin is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Dane Ringler is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Hui Yee Ngoh is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. 4 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiff Loi Tran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Bini Tran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sreenivasulu Polaggari is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, is a Florida Limited Liability Company licensed to and conducting business in the State of Florida, including but not limited to Palm Beach County, and is otherwise sui juris. **GENERAL ALLEGATIONS** Minto PBLH, LLC is part of the Minto Group, which represents itself as “a fully integrated real estate company offering new homes and condos, apartment rentals, furnished suites, commercial spaces, property and investment management. ”[1] Minto Group claims to have “expertise in home building, construction, property and investment management” and advertises that it has “built over 95, 800 homes, manage 14, 600 rental units and carry 2. 4 million square feet of commercial space. ”[2] Minto promotes itself “[a]s one of North America’s leading builders with more than 30, 000 homes built in southern USA including more than 30, 000 homes in the southern USA. ”[3] Minto claims to be a company that does the right thing for its customers, stating in the “Our Values” section of its website that: 1 [https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Company-Leadership~767. html](https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Company-Leadership~767. html) 2 _Id. _ 3 _Id. _ 5 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Being courageous demands acting with integrity and responsibility. When we make a mistake or see something wrong, we do our best to fix it. It’s why we have products you can trust and people you know you can depend on. https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Our-Values~1098. html Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, is an affiliated company of Minto Holdings, Inc. The Minto Group established Minto PBLH to act as the developer and seller of new homes in a community known as Westlake, which is located in the City of Westlake, Florida. Defendant Minto, as a developer and seller of new homes, marketed, advertised, and sold various model homes in Westlake, including but not limited to models known as the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Defendant Minto advertised and marketed the Laurel as a home with 3, 344 TLA, and included the model’s floor plan and TLA specifications in the contract it required Plaintiffs to sign to purchase the home: Excerpt from Laurel contract documents, attached hereto as Exhibits F and J. In fact, the Laurel has only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto advertised and marketed the Laurel Grand as a home with 3, 580 6 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- TLA, and include ed the model’s floor plan and TLA specifications in the contract it required Plaintiffs to sign to purchase the home: Excerpt from Laurel Grand contract documents, attached hereto as Exhibits G, H, and I. In fact, the Laurel Grand has only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Minto had a duty and obligation as a seller of homes to accurately measure and determine the square footage of the homes it sold, and to include the correct square footage in all advertisements, marketing materials and contracts Minto employed to sell such homes. Minto failed to accurately measure and determine the square footage of the homes it sold in Westlake, including the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Minto failed to include the correct TLA in all advertisements, marketing materials and contracts Minto employed to sell such homes. Moreover, in October 2020, Minto was advised in writing and by phone by a person who purchased a Laurel Grand and sought to refinance the home, that according to a licensed real estate appraiser the TLA of the Laurel Grand was meaningfully less than the square footage of TLA that Minto was using for marketing, advertising, and contractual purposes, and was 7 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- approximately 3, 300 square feet. Despite receiving such information, Minto did not change or correct any of its advertising or marketing materials or contracts. Minto should have, upon learning this information from the customer, corrected the errors in its marketing, advertising, and contract documents, and determined whether the square footage in all other Westlake models was correct. Minto failed to do so. Further, because Minto, as part of the Minto Group, had previously marketed, advertised, and sold homes similar to the Laurel and Laurel Grand, Minto is charged with the knowledge that it was misrepresenting, and breaching contracts for, the construction and sale of such homes by building homes that had meaningfully less TLA than Plaintiffs and other home buyers had contracted to purchase from Minto. Because the Laurel is not a new model for Minto. In fact, Minto marketed, advertised, and sold virtually identical model homes under different brand names in the city of Wellington, Florida, for many years prior to the time Minto marketed, advertised, and sold the Laurel to Plaintiffs. For example, Minto marketed, advertised, and sold a home in Wellington known as the Mirador that is virtually identical in layout and square footage to the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Minto marketed, advertised, and sold the Mirador through advertising, marketing materials, and contracts stating that the base model Mirador had 3, 061 square feet of Total Living Area, and 3, 303 square feet of Total Living Area in the six-bedroom configuration: 8 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- |F I E D C O P Y|Col2| |---|---| |T Laurel4|I Laurel Grand5| |N O T A C E R|| 4 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html) 5 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html) 9 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Not coincidentally, Minto now markets, advertises, and sells through contracts the Laurel model based on 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area (in comparison to the Mirador at 3, 061 square feet) and the Laurel Grand based on 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area (in comparison to the Mirador six-bedroom at 3, 302 square feet). The Total Living Area, and resulting price per square foot, is the corner stone by which all real estate is valued, by which seller’s price their properties, and by which homeowners decide whether to purchase and how much to pay. Minto’s contract documents confirm that Minto agrees. Minto’s Contract makes clear that Minto priced and sold homes based on the price per square foot: You reserve the right to establish prices for homes built by you in the Neighborhood and the Community. You may, in your sole discretion, increase or decrease the price or price per square foot for any home, lot, or option at any time, or offer incentives for the sale of lots and homes. Contract at p. 13, ¶19(q) (emphasis added). Further, Minto’s Disclosure Statement (which is also part of the Contract documents that Minto required Plaintiffs to sign) on the very first page states that: This Disclosure Statement explains certain terms which are applicable to the purchase of a home (individually a “Home” and collectively “Homes”) within the Neighborhood and the Community… Seller shall have the right, without notice to Purchaser, to make changes to the Neighborhood and/or the Community, including, but not limited to, Home sizes, number of Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, size, style and type of Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, features and materials in Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, prices of Homes in the Neighborhood and/or the Community (whether more or less than currently published), price per square foot of Homes in the Neighborhood **and/or the Community (whether more or less than currently published)…** Disclosure at p. 1 (emphasis added). Minto continued by including in its Contract language that makes clear that unlike 10 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the square footage for the Total Living Area (which is commonly known as square footage under air), Minto was not guaranteeing or contracting for a specific number of square feet for garages: XI. VEHICLES, PARKING, AND GARAGES. B. Garage sizes and heights may vary from home to home and may not accommoall vehicles. It is not uncommon for floor plans to change during actual construction of the Home. Specific homesite conditions or local ordinances may determine the location of (i) safety bollards intended to protect plumbing or mechanical systems located inside the garage and/or (ii) the design of steps from the garage to the Home thereby affecting the usability of interior garage space available for parking vehicles. **Further, Purchaser** **acknowledges and agrees that stated floor plan dimensions and square** **footages are approximate and should never be relied upon as the actual as** **_built size of the garage; modifications to floor plan dimensions and square_** footages shown in sales materials may occur for many circumstances, without notice to or consent of Purchaser, including, but not limited to, inclusions of options and upgrades, actual field conditions and governmental requirements. Disclosure at p 15 (emphasis added). Moreover, Minto disclosed in its Contract documents that Minto could change the price per square foot in Homes sold to other purchasers: XIX. PRICES AND MARKET VALUES. Seller and any other builder in the Community and Neighborhood shall have the unilateral right to establish prices for the Homes they build in the Neighborhood and Community. Seller and any other builder in the Community and Neighborhood may, at their sole discretion, increase or decrease the price **or the price per square foot for any Home or option at any time, or offer** incentives for sales of Homes, all without notice to Purchaser. Disclosure at p. 22 (emphasis added). In late 2022, additional Minto homeowners discovered and alerted Minto to the fact that the Laurel and Laurel Grand contained less square footage of Total Living Area than Minto was representing in marketing and advertising materials and using in contracts for the sale of such homes. In response, Minto blamed the material mistake and contractual breach on a “typographical error”, and finally changed in marketing, advertising, and contract documents to reflect the correct 11 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- square footage of Total Living Area for the Laurel and Laurel Grand, which Minto now represents and includes in contract documents as follows: **Laurel[6]** **Laurel Grand[7]** https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/collections. html |Laurel6|Laurel Grand7| |---|---| ||I E D C O P Y| |O T A C E R|T I F| 6 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html) 7 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html) 12 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit A. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. A at 4. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. A at 88. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. A at 88. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans represents the square footage of the home to include and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 13 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit B. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Guevara and Johanna Guevara prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. B at 113. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. B at 211. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. B at 211. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 14 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit C. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. C at 220. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. C at 290. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. C at 290. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 15 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Bianca Taran** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit D. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. D at 372. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. D at 360. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. D at 360. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 16 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit E. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. E at 442. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. E at 456. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. E at 456. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 17 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit K. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. K at 463. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. K at 480. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. K at 480. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 18 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit L. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson prior to the time she entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson prior to the time she entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. L at 551. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. L at 568. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. L at 568. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 19 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit M. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. M at 638. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. M at 655. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. M at 655. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 20 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit N. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. N at 723. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. N at 736. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. N at 736. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 21 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit O. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. O at 851. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. O at 865. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. O at 865. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 22 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiff Jason Mattson** Plaintiff Jason Mattson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit P. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiff Jason Mattson prior to the time he entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiff Jason Mattson prior to the time he entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Jason Mattson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. P at 900. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiff Jason Mattson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. P at 914. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. P at 914. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Jason Mattson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiff Jason Mattson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 23 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin purchased a Sycamore Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit Q. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin identifies the home as the Sycamore Grand model. Exh. Q at 973. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. Q at 990. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. Q at 990. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin contains 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. 24 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit R. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. R at 1005. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. R at 1017. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. R at 1017. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 25 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit S. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. S at 1084. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. S at 1097. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. S at 1097. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 26 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit A. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans and 27 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit A. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 28 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT III -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect 29 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 30 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§501. 211(2) and 501. 2105, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT IV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either 31 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, 32 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT V - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit B. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 6-7, 31-57, and 66-73 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. 33 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit B. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 34 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or 35 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 36 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 37 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto) contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 38 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT IX- BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit C. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT X - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 8-9, 31-57, and 74-81 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson and Defendant 39 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit C. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 40 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect 41 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 42 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 43 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 44 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit D. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 10-11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit D. 45 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 46 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 47 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to 48 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 49 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 50 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XVII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan [8]repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit E. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 8 Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have attached hereto all pages from their contract with Defendant in their possession. A complete copy of the contract is in Defendant’s possession. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan allege that their contract is the same or similar to the contracts attached hereto as Exhibits A-D, including but not necessarily limited to the Disclosure Statement. 51 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XVIII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit E. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 52 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintain and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 53 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XIX -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising 54 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XX - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is 55 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the 56 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXI - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit K. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court 57 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 14 - 15, 31-57, and 98 - 105 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit K. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 58 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 59 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXIII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising 60 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXIV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or 61 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. 62 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXV - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit L. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 63 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXVI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit L. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sheila Marie Fortson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. 64 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXVII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. 65 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson is a consumer as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson havs been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that she paid for her home. 66 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- The damages suffered by Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXVIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiff constitutes violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the 67 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiff. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiff suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 68 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXIX - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit M. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXX - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. 69 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit M. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 70 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or 71 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 72 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 73 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 74 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXXIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit N. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit N. 75 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 76 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 77 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited 78 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 79 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 80 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXXVII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit O. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXVIII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit O. 81 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 82 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXIX -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 83 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their favor, and** an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual 84 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XL - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 85 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 86 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLI - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. P. Plaintiff Jason Mattson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Jason Mattson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiff Jason Mattson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in their favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 23, 31 57, and 138 - 145 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiff Jason Mattson and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit P. 87 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Jason Mattson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiff Jason Mattson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 88 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff Jason Mattson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLIII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiff Jason Mattson is a consumer as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. 89 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiff Jason Mattson has been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that he paid for his home. The damages suffered by Plaintiff Jason Mattson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award against** Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 90 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLIV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiff constitutes violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiff and other prospective homeowners and made available 91 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiff. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiff suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLV - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit Q. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and 92 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Augustin Colin a home with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLVI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit Q. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin a home with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. 93 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. 94 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLVII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" 95 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 96 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLVIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available 97 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLIX - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit R. 98 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT L - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit R. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains 99 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. 100 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" 101 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home 102 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. 103 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57 and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. _See Exhibit S. _ The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 104 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. _See Exhibit S. _ Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. 105 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** 106 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, 107 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading 108 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about 109 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. Respectfully Submitted, **WITES & ROGERS** Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 954-933-4400; 954-354-0205 (fax) By: /s/ Marc A. Wites___________ MARC A. WITES Fla. Bar No. 24783 [mwites@witeslaw. com](mailto:mwites@witeslaw. com) THOMAS B. ROGERS Florida Bar No. 54680 [trogers@witeslaw. com](mailto:trogers@witeslaw. com) 110 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via email this 26[th] day of April, 2023, on: Attorneys for Defendant, Jessica Serell Erenbaum, Esq. , and **Michael D. Joblove, Esq. , Venable LLP, Miami Tower, Suite 4400, 100 Southeast Second Street, ** Miami, FL 33131, jerenbaum@venable. com; mjoblove@venable. com; _/s/ Marc A. Wites_ Marc A. Wites 111 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA AG: Circuit Civil Central - AG (Civil) PATRICK MICHAEL MOORE AND BRIANNA RENELLE YEBOAH-HEMANS; ERIC GUEVARA AND JOHANNA GUEVARA; SHANE FITZGERALD B. THOMPSON AND KARINA THOMPSON; SILVIU TARAN AND TONI BIANCA TARAN; and ANDREI MATA QUINTAN AND ANA PAULA FERREIRA QUINTAN, MARCELO CARRERA AND MARIUXI CARRERA; SHEILA MARIE FORTSON; KARINA DELGADO AND JOHNNY VOLMY; PABLO ELORRIAGA AND MARICEL COLON-SANTIAGO; SARA LOGSDON AND WESLEY LOGSDON; JASON MATTSON; EDNA NOEL AND AUGUSTIN COLIN; DANE RINGLER AND HUI YEE NGOH; LOI TRAN AND BINI TRAN; and SREENIVASULU POLAGGARI, Plaintiffs, vs. MINTO PBLH, LLC, Defendant. / **DEFENDANT MINTO PBLH, LLC’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFFS** **DANE RINGLER AND HUI YEE NGOH** Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC (“Minto”), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1. 350, hereby requests that Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh (“Plaintiffs”) produce the documents and materials specified below within thirty (30) days of service to the offices of Venable LLP, 100 Southeast 2nd Street, 44th Floor, Miami, Florida 33131, or at such other time and place, or in such other manner, as may be mutually agreed by the ----- Parties. **I. ** **INSTRUCTIONS:** Compliance with this Request is to be made in accordance with the following: If you assert that any document called for by this request is protected against disclosure as the attorney’s work product doctrine or by the attorney-client or any other privilege, you shall provide the following information with respect to such document: the name and capacity of the person or persons who prepared the documents; the name and capacity of all addresses or recipients of the original or copies thereof; the, if any, borne by the document; a brief description of its subject matter and physical size; the source of the factual information from which such document was prepared; and the nature of the privilege claimed. All documents produced pursuant hereto are to be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business and shall be organized and labeled (without permanently marking the item produced) so as to correspond with the categories of each numbered request hereof. When appropriate, the singular form of a word should be interpreted in the plural as may be necessary to bring within the scope hereof any documents which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope hereof. The words “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope hereof any documents which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope hereof. The word “relating to” includes referring to, responding to, relating to, connected with, regarding, discussing, analyzing, evidencing, showing, depicting, describing, reflecting, implying and constituting. Each request seeks the production of all documents in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control which includes all documents, objects, or articles for which You (Plaintiffs are 2 ----- also referred to herein as “You” or “Your”), have the right to secure the original or a copy from another person. The fact that Your investigation is continuing or discovery is incomplete is not an excuse for failing to respond to each request as fully and completely as possible. Your responses should consist of information known to You and Your agents, attorneys, employees, and representatives. All documents shall be produced as they are kept in the ordinary course of business and shall be organized and labeled (without permanently marking the item produced) so as to correspond with the categories of each numbered request hereof. Each document request contemplates the production of a document in its entirety, without abbreviation, redaction, or expungement, including all drafts and document(s) referenced therein or attached thereto. All Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) shall be produced in its native form and without redaction of metadata. This includes electronic mail which should be produced in a. msg, .pst, .eml, or. nsf file format. If ESI is not accessible without software and/or tools necessary to make the information readable, then that software and/or tools shall be identified and provided. **II. ** **DEFINITIONS** “Documents” shall mean the original or copies of any tangible written, typed, printed or other form of recorded or graphic matter of every kind or description, however produced or reproduced, whether mechanically or electronically recorded, draft, final original, reproduction, signed or unsigned, regardless of whether approved, signed, sent, received, redrafted, or executed, and whether handwritten, typed, printed, photostated, duplicated, carbon or otherwise copied or produced in any other manner whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, “documents” shall include documents evidencing correspondence, letters, telegrams, telexes, e 3 ----- mails, mailgrams, memoranda, including inter-office and intra-office memoranda, memoranda for files, memoranda of telephone or other conversations, including meetings, invoices, reports, receipts and statements of account, ledgers, notes or notations, notes or memorandum attached to or to be read with any document, booklets, books, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone records, electronic tapes, discs or other recordings, computer programs, printouts, data cards, studies, analysis and other data compilations from which information can be obtained, along with all ESI (“ESI” shall mean any electronically stored information, including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, documents, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations; stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form) and other electronic data storage documents including but not limited to e-mails and any related attachments, electronic files or other data compilations which relate to the categories of documents as requested below. Copies of documents, which are not identical duplications of the originals or which contain additions to or deletions from the originals or copies of the originals if the originals are not available, shall be considered to be separate documents. “All documents” means every document or group of documents as above-defined in Your possession, custody or control, or are known to You or that can be located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts. “Communications” shall mean any oral or written statement, e-mail, correspondence, dialogue, colloquy, discussion or conversation and, also, means any transfer of thoughts or ideas between persons (as defined below) by means of documents and includes any transfer of data from one location to another by electronic or similar means, and shall include any private or public message or statement transmitted through any social network or media (e. g. , 4 ----- Facebook, Twitter, etc. ). The terms “support, ” “evidence, ” “evidencing, ” “relate to, ” “relating to, ” “related to, ” “referred to, ” “concern, ” “concerning, ” “pertaining to, ” “involving” and “regarding” shall mean anything which directly, or indirectly, concerns, consists of, pertains to, reflects, evidences, describes, sets forth, constitutes, contains, shows, underlies, supports, refers to in any manner, is or was used in the preparation of, appended to, legally, logically or factually connected with, proves, disproves, or tends to prove or disprove. The conjunctions “and” and “or” shall be interpreted in each instance as meaning “and/or” so as to encompass the broader of the two possible constructions, and shall not be interpreted disjunctively so as to exclude any information or documents otherwise within the scope of any Request. As used herein the singular shall include the plural, the plural shall include the singular, and the masculine, feminine, and neuter shall include each of the other genders. “Person” or “Persons” shall mean any natural person, individual, entity, proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, organization, joint venture, business trust, or other business enterprise, governmental body or agency, legal or business entity, or group of natural persons, or other entity, whether sui juris or otherwise, and includes both the singular and plural. “Plaintiffs” refers to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh, individually and/or collectively, and includes all employees, agents, representatives, attorneys, servants and other persons acting on their behalf. The term “any and all” means every document as above-defined known to You and every such document that can be located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts. 5 ----- “Minto” refers to Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, and includes its officers, agents, employees, principals, directors, managers, representatives, members, attorneys, and other person acting on its behalf. “Property” refers to the real property located at 15509 Goldfinch Circle, Westlake, FL 33470 in Palm Beach County. “Home” refers to the home located on the Property. “Complaint” refers to the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs in this action on or about April 26, 2023. The term “You” and/or “Your” means Plaintiffs (individually and/or collectively) and any person(s) purporting to act on Plaintiffs’ behalf. “Plaintiff Parties” means the plaintiffs named in the Complaint, individually and/or collectively. Unless specified otherwise, the relevant timeframe is January 1, 2019 to present. 6 ----- **DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED** All documents sent by You to Minto. All documents sent by Minto to You. All correspondence sent by You to Minto. All correspondence sent by Minto to You. All communications between You and Minto. All documents relating to communications between You and Minto. All communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties concerning the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding the damages sought in the Complaint. All documents relating to communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All documents relating to communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding to the damages sought in the Complaint. All communications sent by You to any governmental agency that relate to the Home and/or the Property. All communications received by You from any governmental agency that relate to the Home and/or the Property. All documents relating to the damages You claim to have sustained as a result of Minto’s actions alleged in the Complaint. All documents that refer or relate to thethat You first learned that the total square footage/total living area of Your home was different from the amount set forth in the floor 7 ----- plan [You][ were] provided. All appraisals relating to the Property and/or the Home. All inspection reports relating to the Property and/or the Home. All documents that refer to or relate to the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All contracts or agreements that relate to the measurement of the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. VENABLE LLP Attorneys for [Minto][ PBLH, ][ LLC] Miami Tower, Suite 4400 100 Southeast Second Street Miami, [Florida][ 33131] Telephone: (305) [349-2300] By: s/Jessica Serell ## Erenbaum_ Michael D. Joblove, Esq. Florida Bar No. 354147 Jessica Serell Erenbaum, Esq. Florida Bar No. 816000 ierenbaum@venable. com #### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served via e-mail from eservice@myflcourtaccess. com upon [Marc][ A. ] Wites, mwites@witeslaw. com [and][ Thomas][ B. ] Rogers, trogers@witeslaw. com, [Wites][ Law] Firm, [4400][ North][ Federal] Highway, Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 this 11th day of May, 2023. s/Jessica Serell Erenbaum Attorney 8 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA PATRICK MICHAEL MOORE AND BRIANNA RENELLE YEBOAH-HEMANS; ERIC GUEVARA AND JOHANNA GUEVARA; SHANE FITZGERALD B. THOMPSON AND KARINA THOMPSON; SILVIU TARAN AND TONI BIANCA TARAN; ANDREI MATA QUINTAN AND ANA PAULA FERREIRA QUINTAN; MARCELO CARRERA AND MARIUXI CARRERA; SHEILA MARIE FORTSON; KARINA DELGADO AND JOHNNY VOLMY; PABLO ELORRIAGA AND MARICEL COLON-SANTIAGO; SARA LOGSDON AND WESLEY LOGSDON; JASON MATTSON; EDNA NOEL AND AUGUSTIN COLIN; DANE RINGLER AND HUI YEE NGOH; LOI TRAN AND BINI TRAN; and SREENIVASULU POLAGGARI, Plaintiffs, v. MINTO PBLH, LLC, Defendant. _______________________________/ **AMENDED COMPLAINT** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans, Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara, Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson, Silviu Taran and Toni ----- Bianca Taran, Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan, Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera, Sheila Marie Fortson, Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy, Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago, Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon, Jason Mattson, Edna Noel and Augustin Colin, Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh, and Loi Tran and Bini Tran, file this Complaint against Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, and allege as follows: **INTRODUCTION** This action arises from Defendant’s breach of contracts to sell new homes to Plaintiffs. Defendant breached the respective contracts by failing to build and sell to Plaintiffs homes with the specified square footage under air (a/k/a Total Living Area or TLA) required by such contracts. Defendant knew, and at worst should have known, prior to entering such contracts, that the homes it was constructing and would sell to Plaintiffs contained meaningfully less TLA then Defendant advertised and marketed to Plaintiffs to induce them to enter contracts to buy homes, and then included in the terms of such contracts. Defendant materially breached the contracts, which included each home’s purported TLA, by failing to build and sell to Plaintiffs homes that complied with their respective contracts. **JURISDICTION AND VENUE** This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute because this complaint seeks damages in excess of $50, 000. 00 dollars, exclusive of interest and attorneys’ fees. Venue is proper in Palm County, Florida, because the cause of action arose in Palm Beach County, Florida. **PARTIES** Plaintiff Patrick Michael Moore is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. 2 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiff Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Eric Guevara is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Johanna Guevara is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Karina Thompson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Silviu Taran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Toni Biana Taran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Andrei Mata Quintan is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Marcelo Carrera is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Mariuxi Carrera is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age 3 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Karina Delgado is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Johnny Volmy is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Pablo Elorriaga is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Maricel Colon-Santiago is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sara Logsdon is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Wesley Logsdon is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Jason Mattson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Edna Noel is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Augustin Colin is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Dane Ringler is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Hui Yee Ngoh is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. 4 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiff Loi Tran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Bini Tran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sreenivasulu Polaggari is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, is a Florida Limited Liability Company licensed to and conducting business in the State of Florida, including but not limited to Palm Beach County, and is otherwise sui juris. **GENERAL ALLEGATIONS** Minto PBLH, LLC is part of the Minto Group, which represents itself as “a fully integrated real estate company offering new homes and condos, apartment rentals, furnished suites, commercial spaces, property and investment management. ”[1] Minto Group claims to have “expertise in home building, construction, property and investment management” and advertises that it has “built over 95, 800 homes, manage 14, 600 rental units and carry 2. 4 million square feet of commercial space. ”[2] Minto promotes itself “[a]s one of North America’s leading builders with more than 30, 000 homes built in southern USA including more than 30, 000 homes in the southern USA. ”[3] Minto claims to be a company that does the right thing for its customers, stating in the “Our Values” section of its website that: 1 [https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Company-Leadership~767. html](https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Company-Leadership~767. html) 2 _Id. _ 3 _Id. _ 5 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Being courageous demands acting with integrity and responsibility. When we make a mistake or see something wrong, we do our best to fix it. It’s why we have products you can trust and people you know you can depend on. https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Our-Values~1098. html Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, is an affiliated company of Minto Holdings, Inc. The Minto Group established Minto PBLH to act as the developer and seller of new homes in a community known as Westlake, which is located in the City of Westlake, Florida. Defendant Minto, as a developer and seller of new homes, marketed, advertised, and sold various model homes in Westlake, including but not limited to models known as the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Defendant Minto advertised and marketed the Laurel as a home with 3, 344 TLA, and included the model’s floor plan and TLA specifications in the contract it required Plaintiffs to sign to purchase the home: Excerpt from Laurel contract documents, attached hereto as Exhibits F and J. In fact, the Laurel has only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto advertised and marketed the Laurel Grand as a home with 3, 580 6 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- TLA, and include ed the model’s floor plan and TLA specifications in the contract it required Plaintiffs to sign to purchase the home: Excerpt from Laurel Grand contract documents, attached hereto as Exhibits G, H, and I. In fact, the Laurel Grand has only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Minto had a duty and obligation as a seller of homes to accurately measure and determine the square footage of the homes it sold, and to include the correct square footage in all advertisements, marketing materials and contracts Minto employed to sell such homes. Minto failed to accurately measure and determine the square footage of the homes it sold in Westlake, including the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Minto failed to include the correct TLA in all advertisements, marketing materials and contracts Minto employed to sell such homes. Moreover, in October 2020, Minto was advised in writing and by phone by a person who purchased a Laurel Grand and sought to refinance the home, that according to a licensed real estate appraiser the TLA of the Laurel Grand was meaningfully less than the square footage of TLA that Minto was using for marketing, advertising, and contractual purposes, and was 7 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- approximately 3, 300 square feet. Despite receiving such information, Minto did not change or correct any of its advertising or marketing materials or contracts. Minto should have, upon learning this information from the customer, corrected the errors in its marketing, advertising, and contract documents, and determined whether the square footage in all other Westlake models was correct. Minto failed to do so. Further, because Minto, as part of the Minto Group, had previously marketed, advertised, and sold homes similar to the Laurel and Laurel Grand, Minto is charged with the knowledge that it was misrepresenting, and breaching contracts for, the construction and sale of such homes by building homes that had meaningfully less TLA than Plaintiffs and other home buyers had contracted to purchase from Minto. Because the Laurel is not a new model for Minto. In fact, Minto marketed, advertised, and sold virtually identical model homes under different brand names in the city of Wellington, Florida, for many years prior to the time Minto marketed, advertised, and sold the Laurel to Plaintiffs. For example, Minto marketed, advertised, and sold a home in Wellington known as the Mirador that is virtually identical in layout and square footage to the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Minto marketed, advertised, and sold the Mirador through advertising, marketing materials, and contracts stating that the base model Mirador had 3, 061 square feet of Total Living Area, and 3, 303 square feet of Total Living Area in the six-bedroom configuration: 8 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- |F I E D C O P Y|Col2| |---|---| |T Laurel4|I Laurel Grand5| |N O T A C E R|| 4 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html) 5 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html) 9 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Not coincidentally, Minto now markets, advertises, and sells through contracts the Laurel model based on 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area (in comparison to the Mirador at 3, 061 square feet) and the Laurel Grand based on 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area (in comparison to the Mirador six-bedroom at 3, 302 square feet). The Total Living Area, and resulting price per square foot, is the corner stone by which all real estate is valued, by which seller’s price their properties, and by which homeowners decide whether to purchase and how much to pay. Minto’s contract documents confirm that Minto agrees. Minto’s Contract makes clear that Minto priced and sold homes based on the price per square foot: You reserve the right to establish prices for homes built by you in the Neighborhood and the Community. You may, in your sole discretion, increase or decrease the price or price per square foot for any home, lot, or option at any time, or offer incentives for the sale of lots and homes. Contract at p. 13, ¶19(q) (emphasis added). Further, Minto’s Disclosure Statement (which is also part of the Contract documents that Minto required Plaintiffs to sign) on the very first page states that: This Disclosure Statement explains certain terms which are applicable to the purchase of a home (individually a “Home” and collectively “Homes”) within the Neighborhood and the Community… Seller shall have the right, without notice to Purchaser, to make changes to the Neighborhood and/or the Community, including, but not limited to, Home sizes, number of Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, size, style and type of Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, features and materials in Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, prices of Homes in the Neighborhood and/or the Community (whether more or less than currently published), price per square foot of Homes in the Neighborhood **and/or the Community (whether more or less than currently published)…** Disclosure at p. 1 (emphasis added). Minto continued by including in its Contract language that makes clear that unlike 10 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the square footage for the Total Living Area (which is commonly known as square footage under air), Minto was not guaranteeing or contracting for a specific number of square feet for garages: XI. VEHICLES, PARKING, AND GARAGES. B. Garage sizes and heights may vary from home to home and may not accommoall vehicles. It is not uncommon for floor plans to change during actual construction of the Home. Specific homesite conditions or local ordinances may determine the location of (i) safety bollards intended to protect plumbing or mechanical systems located inside the garage and/or (ii) the design of steps from the garage to the Home thereby affecting the usability of interior garage space available for parking vehicles. **Further, Purchaser** **acknowledges and agrees that stated floor plan dimensions and square** **footages are approximate and should never be relied upon as the actual as** **_built size of the garage; modifications to floor plan dimensions and square_** footages shown in sales materials may occur for many circumstances, without notice to or consent of Purchaser, including, but not limited to, inclusions of options and upgrades, actual field conditions and governmental requirements. Disclosure at p 15 (emphasis added). Moreover, Minto disclosed in its Contract documents that Minto could change the price per square foot in Homes sold to other purchasers: XIX. PRICES AND MARKET VALUES. Seller and any other builder in the Community and Neighborhood shall have the unilateral right to establish prices for the Homes they build in the Neighborhood and Community. Seller and any other builder in the Community and Neighborhood may, at their sole discretion, increase or decrease the price **or the price per square foot for any Home or option at any time, or offer** incentives for sales of Homes, all without notice to Purchaser. Disclosure at p. 22 (emphasis added). In late 2022, additional Minto homeowners discovered and alerted Minto to the fact that the Laurel and Laurel Grand contained less square footage of Total Living Area than Minto was representing in marketing and advertising materials and using in contracts for the sale of such homes. In response, Minto blamed the material mistake and contractual breach on a “typographical error”, and finally changed in marketing, advertising, and contract documents to reflect the correct 11 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- square footage of Total Living Area for the Laurel and Laurel Grand, which Minto now represents and includes in contract documents as follows: **Laurel[6]** **Laurel Grand[7]** https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/collections. html |Laurel6|Laurel Grand7| |---|---| ||I E D C O P Y| |O T A C E R|T I F| 6 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html) 7 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html) 12 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit A. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. A at 4. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. A at 88. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. A at 88. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans represents the square footage of the home to include and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 13 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit B. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Guevara and Johanna Guevara prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. B at 113. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. B at 211. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. B at 211. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 14 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit C. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. C at 220. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. C at 290. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. C at 290. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 15 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Bianca Taran** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit D. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. D at 372. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. D at 360. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. D at 360. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 16 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit E. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. E at 442. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. E at 456. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. E at 456. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 17 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit K. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. K at 463. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. K at 480. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. K at 480. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 18 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit L. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson prior to the time she entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson prior to the time she entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. L at 551. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. L at 568. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. L at 568. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 19 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit M. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. M at 638. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. M at 655. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. M at 655. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 20 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit N. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. N at 723. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. N at 736. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. N at 736. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 21 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit O. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. O at 851. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. O at 865. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. O at 865. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 22 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiff Jason Mattson** Plaintiff Jason Mattson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit P. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiff Jason Mattson prior to the time he entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiff Jason Mattson prior to the time he entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Jason Mattson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. P at 900. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiff Jason Mattson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. P at 914. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. P at 914. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Jason Mattson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiff Jason Mattson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 23 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin purchased a Sycamore Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit Q. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin identifies the home as the Sycamore Grand model. Exh. Q at 973. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. Q at 990. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. Q at 990. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin contains 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. 24 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit R. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. R at 1005. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. R at 1017. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. R at 1017. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 25 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit S. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. S at 1084. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. S at 1097. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. S at 1097. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 26 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit A. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans and 27 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit A. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 28 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT III -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect 29 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 30 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§501. 211(2) and 501. 2105, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT IV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either 31 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, 32 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT V - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit B. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 6-7, 31-57, and 66-73 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. 33 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit B. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 34 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or 35 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 36 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 37 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto) contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 38 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT IX- BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit C. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT X - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 8-9, 31-57, and 74-81 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson and Defendant 39 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit C. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 40 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect 41 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 42 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 43 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 44 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit D. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 10-11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit D. 45 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 46 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 47 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to 48 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 49 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 50 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XVII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan [8]repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit E. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 8 Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have attached hereto all pages from their contract with Defendant in their possession. A complete copy of the contract is in Defendant’s possession. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan allege that their contract is the same or similar to the contracts attached hereto as Exhibits A-D, including but not necessarily limited to the Disclosure Statement. 51 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XVIII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit E. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 52 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintain and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 53 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XIX -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising 54 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XX - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is 55 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the 56 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXI - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit K. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court 57 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 14 - 15, 31-57, and 98 - 105 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit K. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 58 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 59 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXIII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising 60 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXIV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or 61 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. 62 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXV - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit L. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 63 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXVI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit L. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sheila Marie Fortson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. 64 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXVII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. 65 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson is a consumer as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson havs been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that she paid for her home. 66 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- The damages suffered by Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXVIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiff constitutes violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the 67 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiff. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiff suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 68 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXIX - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit M. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXX - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. 69 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit M. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 70 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or 71 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 72 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 73 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 74 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXXIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit N. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit N. 75 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 76 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 77 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited 78 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 79 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 80 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXXVII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit O. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXVIII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit O. 81 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 82 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXIX -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 83 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their favor, and** an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual 84 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XL - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 85 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 86 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLI - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. P. Plaintiff Jason Mattson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Jason Mattson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiff Jason Mattson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in their favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 23, 31 57, and 138 - 145 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiff Jason Mattson and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit P. 87 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Jason Mattson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiff Jason Mattson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 88 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff Jason Mattson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLIII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiff Jason Mattson is a consumer as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. 89 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiff Jason Mattson has been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that he paid for his home. The damages suffered by Plaintiff Jason Mattson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award against** Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 90 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLIV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiff constitutes violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiff and other prospective homeowners and made available 91 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiff. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiff suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLV - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit Q. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and 92 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Augustin Colin a home with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLVI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit Q. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin a home with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. 93 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. 94 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLVII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" 95 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 96 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLVIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available 97 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLIX - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit R. 98 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT L - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit R. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains 99 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. 100 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" 101 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home 102 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. 103 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57 and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. _See Exhibit S. _ The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 104 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. _See Exhibit S. _ Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. 105 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** 106 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, 107 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading 108 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about 109 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. Respectfully Submitted, **WITES & ROGERS** Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 954-933-4400; 954-354-0205 (fax) By: /s/ Marc A. Wites___________ MARC A. WITES Fla. Bar No. 24783 [mwites@witeslaw. com](mailto:mwites@witeslaw. com) THOMAS B. ROGERS Florida Bar No. 54680 [trogers@witeslaw. com](mailto:trogers@witeslaw. com) 110 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via email this 26[th] day of April, 2023, on: Attorneys for Defendant, Jessica Serell Erenbaum, Esq. , and **Michael D. Joblove, Esq. , Venable LLP, Miami Tower, Suite 4400, 100 Southeast Second Street, ** Miami, FL 33131, jerenbaum@venable. com; mjoblove@venable. com; _/s/ Marc A. Wites_ Marc A. Wites 111 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA AG: Circuit Civil Central - AG (Civil) PATRICK MICHAEL MOORE AND BRIANNA RENELLE YEBOAH-HEMANS; ERIC GUEVARA AND JOHANNA GUEVARA; SHANE FITZGERALD B. THOMPSON AND KARINA THOMPSON; SILVIU TARAN AND TONI BIANCA TARAN; and ANDREI MATA QUINTAN AND ANA PAULA FERREIRA QUINTAN, MARCELO CARRERA AND MARIUXI CARRERA; SHEILA MARIE FORTSON; KARINA DELGADO AND JOHNNY VOLMY; PABLO ELORRIAGA AND MARICEL COLON-SANTIAGO; SARA LOGSDON AND WESLEY LOGSDON; JASON MATTSON; EDNA NOEL AND AUGUSTIN COLIN; DANE RINGLER AND HUI YEE NGOH; LOI TRAN AND BINI TRAN; and SREENIVASULU POLAGGARI, Plaintiffs, vs. MINTO PBLH, LLC, Defendant. / **DEFENDANT MINTO PBLH, LLC’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFFS** **ERIC GUEVARA AND JOHANNA GUEVARA** Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC (“Minto”), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1. 350, hereby requests that Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara (“Plaintiffs”) produce the documents and materials specified below within thirty (30) days of service to the offices of Venable LLP, 100 Southeast 2nd Street, 44th Floor, Miami, Florida 33131, or at such other time and place, or in such other manner, as may be mutually agreed by the ----- Parties. **I. ** **INSTRUCTIONS:** Compliance with this Request is to be made in accordance with the following: If you assert that any document called for by this request is protected against disclosure as the attorney’s work product doctrine or by the attorney-client or any other privilege, you shall provide the following information with respect to such document: the name and capacity of the person or persons who prepared the documents; the name and capacity of all addresses or recipients of the original or copies thereof; the, if any, borne by the document; a brief description of its subject matter and physical size; the source of the factual information from which such document was prepared; and the nature of the privilege claimed. All documents produced pursuant hereto are to be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business and shall be organized and labeled (without permanently marking the item produced) so as to correspond with the categories of each numbered request hereof. When appropriate, the singular form of a word should be interpreted in the plural as may be necessary to bring within the scope hereof any documents which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope hereof. The words “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope hereof any documents which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope hereof. The word “relating to” includes referring to, responding to, relating to, connected with, regarding, discussing, analyzing, evidencing, showing, depicting, describing, reflecting, implying and constituting. Each request seeks the production of all documents in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control which includes all documents, objects, or articles for which You (Plaintiffs are 2 ----- also referred to herein as “You” or “Your”), have the right to secure the original or a copy from another person. The fact that Your investigation is continuing or discovery is incomplete is not an excuse for failing to respond to each request as fully and completely as possible. Your responses should consist of information known to You and Your agents, attorneys, employees, and representatives. All documents shall be produced as they are kept in the ordinary course of business and shall be organized and labeled (without permanently marking the item produced) so as to correspond with the categories of each numbered request hereof. Each document request contemplates the production of a document in its entirety, without abbreviation, redaction, or expungement, including all drafts and document(s) referenced therein or attached thereto. All Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) shall be produced in its native form and without redaction of metadata. This includes electronic mail which should be produced in a. msg, .pst, .eml, or. nsf file format. If ESI is not accessible without software and/or tools necessary to make the information readable, then that software and/or tools shall be identified and provided. **II. ** **DEFINITIONS** “Documents” shall mean the original or copies of any tangible written, typed, printed or other form of recorded or graphic matter of every kind or description, however produced or reproduced, whether mechanically or electronically recorded, draft, final original, reproduction, signed or unsigned, regardless of whether approved, signed, sent, received, redrafted, or executed, and whether handwritten, typed, printed, photostated, duplicated, carbon or otherwise copied or produced in any other manner whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, “documents” shall include documents evidencing correspondence, letters, telegrams, telexes, e 3 ----- mails, mailgrams, memoranda, including inter-office and intra-office memoranda, memoranda for files, memoranda of telephone or other conversations, including meetings, invoices, reports, receipts and statements of account, ledgers, notes or notations, notes or memorandum attached to or to be read with any document, booklets, books, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone records, electronic tapes, discs or other recordings, computer programs, printouts, data cards, studies, analysis and other data compilations from which information can be obtained, along with all ESI (“ESI” shall mean any electronically stored information, including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, documents, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations; stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form) and other electronic data storage documents including but not limited to e-mails and any related attachments, electronic files or other data compilations which relate to the categories of documents as requested below. Copies of documents, which are not identical duplications of the originals or which contain additions to or deletions from the originals or copies of the originals if the originals are not available, shall be considered to be separate documents. “All documents” means every document or group of documents as above-defined in Your possession, custody or control, or are known to You or that can be located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts. “Communications” shall mean any oral or written statement, e-mail, correspondence, dialogue, colloquy, discussion or conversation and, also, means any transfer of thoughts or ideas between persons (as defined below) by means of documents and includes any transfer of data from one location to another by electronic or similar means, and shall include any private or public message or statement transmitted through any social network or media (e. g. , 4 ----- Facebook, Twitter, etc. ). The terms “support, ” “evidence, ” “evidencing, ” “relate to, ” “relating to, ” “related to, ” “referred to, ” “concern, ” “concerning, ” “pertaining to, ” “involving” and “regarding” shall mean anything which directly, or indirectly, concerns, consists of, pertains to, reflects, evidences, describes, sets forth, constitutes, contains, shows, underlies, supports, refers to in any manner, is or was used in the preparation of, appended to, legally, logically or factually connected with, proves, disproves, or tends to prove or disprove. The conjunctions “and” and “or” shall be interpreted in each instance as meaning “and/or” so as to encompass the broader of the two possible constructions, and shall not be interpreted disjunctively so as to exclude any information or documents otherwise within the scope of any Request. As used herein the singular shall include the plural, the plural shall include the singular, and the masculine, feminine, and neuter shall include each of the other genders. “Person” or “Persons” shall mean any natural person, individual, entity, proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, organization, joint venture, business trust, or other business enterprise, governmental body or agency, legal or business entity, or group of natural persons, or other entity, whether sui juris or otherwise, and includes both the singular and plural. “Plaintiffs” refers to Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara, individually and/or collectively, and includes all employees, agents, representatives, attorneys, servants and other persons acting on their behalf. The term “any and all” means every document as above-defined known to You and every such document that can be located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts. 5 ----- “Minto” refers to Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, and includes its officers, agents, employees, principals, directors, managers, representatives, members, attorneys, and other person acting on its behalf. “Property” refers to the real property located at 5680 Macoon Way, Westlake FL 33470 in Palm Beach County. “Home” refers to the home located on the Property. “Complaint” refers to the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs in this action on or about April 26, 2023. The term “You” and/or “Your” means Plaintiffs (individually and/or collectively) and any person(s) purporting to act on Plaintiffs’ behalf. “Plaintiff Parties” means the plaintiffs named in the Complaint, individually and/or collectively. Unless specified otherwise, the relevant timeframe is January 1, 2019 to present. 6 ----- **DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED** All documents sent by You to Minto. All documents sent by Minto to You. All correspondence sent by You to Minto. All correspondence sent by Minto to You. All communications between You and Minto. All documents relating to communications between You and Minto. All communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties concerning the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding the damages sought in the Complaint. All documents relating to communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All documents relating to communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding to the damages sought in the Complaint. All communications sent by You to any governmental agency that relate to the Home and/or the Property. All communications received by You from any governmental agency that relate to the Home and/or the Property. All documents relating to the damages You claim to have sustained as a result of Minto’s actions alleged in the Complaint. All documents that refer or relate to thethat You first learned that the total square footage/total living area of Your home was different from the amount set forth in the floor 7 ----- plan [You][ were] provided. All appraisals relating to the Property and/or the Home. All inspection reports relating to the Property and/or the Home. All documents that refer to or relate to the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All contracts or agreements that relate to the measurement of the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. VENABLE LLP Attorneys for [Minto][ PBLH, ][ LLC] Miami Tower, Suite 4400 100 Southeast Second Street Miami, [Florida][ 33131] Telephone: (305) [349-2300] By: s/Jessica Serell ## Erenbaum_ Michael D. Joblove, Esq. Florida Bar No. 354147 Jessica Serell Erenbaum, Esq. Florida Bar No. 816000 ierenbaum@venable. com #### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served via e-mail from eservice@myflcourtaccess. com upon [Marc][ A. ] Wites, mwites@witeslaw. com [and][ Thomas][ B. ] Rogers, trogers@, witeslaw. [com, ][ Wites][ Law] Firm, [4400][ North][ Federal] Highway, Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 this 11th day of May, 2023. s/Jessica Serell Erenbaum Attorney 8 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA PATRICK MICHAEL MOORE AND BRIANNA RENELLE YEBOAH-HEMANS; ERIC GUEVARA AND JOHANNA GUEVARA; SHANE FITZGERALD B. THOMPSON AND KARINA THOMPSON; SILVIU TARAN AND TONI BIANCA TARAN; ANDREI MATA QUINTAN AND ANA PAULA FERREIRA QUINTAN; MARCELO CARRERA AND MARIUXI CARRERA; SHEILA MARIE FORTSON; KARINA DELGADO AND JOHNNY VOLMY; PABLO ELORRIAGA AND MARICEL COLON-SANTIAGO; SARA LOGSDON AND WESLEY LOGSDON; JASON MATTSON; EDNA NOEL AND AUGUSTIN COLIN; DANE RINGLER AND HUI YEE NGOH; LOI TRAN AND BINI TRAN; and SREENIVASULU POLAGGARI, Plaintiffs, v. MINTO PBLH, LLC, Defendant. _______________________________/ **AMENDED COMPLAINT** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans, Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara, Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson, Silviu Taran and Toni ----- Bianca Taran, Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan, Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera, Sheila Marie Fortson, Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy, Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago, Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon, Jason Mattson, Edna Noel and Augustin Colin, Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh, and Loi Tran and Bini Tran, file this Complaint against Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, and allege as follows: **INTRODUCTION** This action arises from Defendant’s breach of contracts to sell new homes to Plaintiffs. Defendant breached the respective contracts by failing to build and sell to Plaintiffs homes with the specified square footage under air (a/k/a Total Living Area or TLA) required by such contracts. Defendant knew, and at worst should have known, prior to entering such contracts, that the homes it was constructing and would sell to Plaintiffs contained meaningfully less TLA then Defendant advertised and marketed to Plaintiffs to induce them to enter contracts to buy homes, and then included in the terms of such contracts. Defendant materially breached the contracts, which included each home’s purported TLA, by failing to build and sell to Plaintiffs homes that complied with their respective contracts. **JURISDICTION AND VENUE** This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute because this complaint seeks damages in excess of $50, 000. 00 dollars, exclusive of interest and attorneys’ fees. Venue is proper in Palm County, Florida, because the cause of action arose in Palm Beach County, Florida. **PARTIES** Plaintiff Patrick Michael Moore is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. 2 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiff Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Eric Guevara is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Johanna Guevara is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Karina Thompson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Silviu Taran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Toni Biana Taran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Andrei Mata Quintan is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Marcelo Carrera is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Mariuxi Carrera is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age 3 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Karina Delgado is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Johnny Volmy is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Pablo Elorriaga is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Maricel Colon-Santiago is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sara Logsdon is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Wesley Logsdon is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Jason Mattson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Edna Noel is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Augustin Colin is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Dane Ringler is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Hui Yee Ngoh is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. 4 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiff Loi Tran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Bini Tran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sreenivasulu Polaggari is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, is a Florida Limited Liability Company licensed to and conducting business in the State of Florida, including but not limited to Palm Beach County, and is otherwise sui juris. **GENERAL ALLEGATIONS** Minto PBLH, LLC is part of the Minto Group, which represents itself as “a fully integrated real estate company offering new homes and condos, apartment rentals, furnished suites, commercial spaces, property and investment management. ”[1] Minto Group claims to have “expertise in home building, construction, property and investment management” and advertises that it has “built over 95, 800 homes, manage 14, 600 rental units and carry 2. 4 million square feet of commercial space. ”[2] Minto promotes itself “[a]s one of North America’s leading builders with more than 30, 000 homes built in southern USA including more than 30, 000 homes in the southern USA. ”[3] Minto claims to be a company that does the right thing for its customers, stating in the “Our Values” section of its website that: 1 [https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Company-Leadership~767. html](https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Company-Leadership~767. html) 2 _Id. _ 3 _Id. _ 5 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Being courageous demands acting with integrity and responsibility. When we make a mistake or see something wrong, we do our best to fix it. It’s why we have products you can trust and people you know you can depend on. https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Our-Values~1098. html Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, is an affiliated company of Minto Holdings, Inc. The Minto Group established Minto PBLH to act as the developer and seller of new homes in a community known as Westlake, which is located in the City of Westlake, Florida. Defendant Minto, as a developer and seller of new homes, marketed, advertised, and sold various model homes in Westlake, including but not limited to models known as the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Defendant Minto advertised and marketed the Laurel as a home with 3, 344 TLA, and included the model’s floor plan and TLA specifications in the contract it required Plaintiffs to sign to purchase the home: Excerpt from Laurel contract documents, attached hereto as Exhibits F and J. In fact, the Laurel has only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto advertised and marketed the Laurel Grand as a home with 3, 580 6 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- TLA, and include ed the model’s floor plan and TLA specifications in the contract it required Plaintiffs to sign to purchase the home: Excerpt from Laurel Grand contract documents, attached hereto as Exhibits G, H, and I. In fact, the Laurel Grand has only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Minto had a duty and obligation as a seller of homes to accurately measure and determine the square footage of the homes it sold, and to include the correct square footage in all advertisements, marketing materials and contracts Minto employed to sell such homes. Minto failed to accurately measure and determine the square footage of the homes it sold in Westlake, including the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Minto failed to include the correct TLA in all advertisements, marketing materials and contracts Minto employed to sell such homes. Moreover, in October 2020, Minto was advised in writing and by phone by a person who purchased a Laurel Grand and sought to refinance the home, that according to a licensed real estate appraiser the TLA of the Laurel Grand was meaningfully less than the square footage of TLA that Minto was using for marketing, advertising, and contractual purposes, and was 7 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- approximately 3, 300 square feet. Despite receiving such information, Minto did not change or correct any of its advertising or marketing materials or contracts. Minto should have, upon learning this information from the customer, corrected the errors in its marketing, advertising, and contract documents, and determined whether the square footage in all other Westlake models was correct. Minto failed to do so. Further, because Minto, as part of the Minto Group, had previously marketed, advertised, and sold homes similar to the Laurel and Laurel Grand, Minto is charged with the knowledge that it was misrepresenting, and breaching contracts for, the construction and sale of such homes by building homes that had meaningfully less TLA than Plaintiffs and other home buyers had contracted to purchase from Minto. Because the Laurel is not a new model for Minto. In fact, Minto marketed, advertised, and sold virtually identical model homes under different brand names in the city of Wellington, Florida, for many years prior to the time Minto marketed, advertised, and sold the Laurel to Plaintiffs. For example, Minto marketed, advertised, and sold a home in Wellington known as the Mirador that is virtually identical in layout and square footage to the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Minto marketed, advertised, and sold the Mirador through advertising, marketing materials, and contracts stating that the base model Mirador had 3, 061 square feet of Total Living Area, and 3, 303 square feet of Total Living Area in the six-bedroom configuration: 8 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- |F I E D C O P Y|Col2| |---|---| |T Laurel4|I Laurel Grand5| |N O T A C E R|| 4 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html) 5 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html) 9 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Not coincidentally, Minto now markets, advertises, and sells through contracts the Laurel model based on 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area (in comparison to the Mirador at 3, 061 square feet) and the Laurel Grand based on 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area (in comparison to the Mirador six-bedroom at 3, 302 square feet). The Total Living Area, and resulting price per square foot, is the corner stone by which all real estate is valued, by which seller’s price their properties, and by which homeowners decide whether to purchase and how much to pay. Minto’s contract documents confirm that Minto agrees. Minto’s Contract makes clear that Minto priced and sold homes based on the price per square foot: You reserve the right to establish prices for homes built by you in the Neighborhood and the Community. You may, in your sole discretion, increase or decrease the price or price per square foot for any home, lot, or option at any time, or offer incentives for the sale of lots and homes. Contract at p. 13, ¶19(q) (emphasis added). Further, Minto’s Disclosure Statement (which is also part of the Contract documents that Minto required Plaintiffs to sign) on the very first page states that: This Disclosure Statement explains certain terms which are applicable to the purchase of a home (individually a “Home” and collectively “Homes”) within the Neighborhood and the Community… Seller shall have the right, without notice to Purchaser, to make changes to the Neighborhood and/or the Community, including, but not limited to, Home sizes, number of Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, size, style and type of Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, features and materials in Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, prices of Homes in the Neighborhood and/or the Community (whether more or less than currently published), price per square foot of Homes in the Neighborhood **and/or the Community (whether more or less than currently published)…** Disclosure at p. 1 (emphasis added). Minto continued by including in its Contract language that makes clear that unlike 10 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the square footage for the Total Living Area (which is commonly known as square footage under air), Minto was not guaranteeing or contracting for a specific number of square feet for garages: XI. VEHICLES, PARKING, AND GARAGES. B. Garage sizes and heights may vary from home to home and may not accommoall vehicles. It is not uncommon for floor plans to change during actual construction of the Home. Specific homesite conditions or local ordinances may determine the location of (i) safety bollards intended to protect plumbing or mechanical systems located inside the garage and/or (ii) the design of steps from the garage to the Home thereby affecting the usability of interior garage space available for parking vehicles. **Further, Purchaser** **acknowledges and agrees that stated floor plan dimensions and square** **footages are approximate and should never be relied upon as the actual as** **_built size of the garage; modifications to floor plan dimensions and square_** footages shown in sales materials may occur for many circumstances, without notice to or consent of Purchaser, including, but not limited to, inclusions of options and upgrades, actual field conditions and governmental requirements. Disclosure at p 15 (emphasis added). Moreover, Minto disclosed in its Contract documents that Minto could change the price per square foot in Homes sold to other purchasers: XIX. PRICES AND MARKET VALUES. Seller and any other builder in the Community and Neighborhood shall have the unilateral right to establish prices for the Homes they build in the Neighborhood and Community. Seller and any other builder in the Community and Neighborhood may, at their sole discretion, increase or decrease the price **or the price per square foot for any Home or option at any time, or offer** incentives for sales of Homes, all without notice to Purchaser. Disclosure at p. 22 (emphasis added). In late 2022, additional Minto homeowners discovered and alerted Minto to the fact that the Laurel and Laurel Grand contained less square footage of Total Living Area than Minto was representing in marketing and advertising materials and using in contracts for the sale of such homes. In response, Minto blamed the material mistake and contractual breach on a “typographical error”, and finally changed in marketing, advertising, and contract documents to reflect the correct 11 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- square footage of Total Living Area for the Laurel and Laurel Grand, which Minto now represents and includes in contract documents as follows: **Laurel[6]** **Laurel Grand[7]** https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/collections. html |Laurel6|Laurel Grand7| |---|---| ||I E D C O P Y| |O T A C E R|T I F| 6 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html) 7 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html) 12 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit A. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. A at 4. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. A at 88. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. A at 88. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans represents the square footage of the home to include and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 13 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit B. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Guevara and Johanna Guevara prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. B at 113. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. B at 211. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. B at 211. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 14 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit C. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. C at 220. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. C at 290. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. C at 290. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 15 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Bianca Taran** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit D. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. D at 372. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. D at 360. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. D at 360. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 16 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit E. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. E at 442. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. E at 456. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. E at 456. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 17 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit K. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. K at 463. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. K at 480. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. K at 480. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 18 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit L. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson prior to the time she entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson prior to the time she entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. L at 551. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. L at 568. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. L at 568. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 19 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit M. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. M at 638. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. M at 655. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. M at 655. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 20 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit N. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. N at 723. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. N at 736. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. N at 736. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 21 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit O. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. O at 851. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. O at 865. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. O at 865. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 22 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiff Jason Mattson** Plaintiff Jason Mattson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit P. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiff Jason Mattson prior to the time he entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiff Jason Mattson prior to the time he entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Jason Mattson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. P at 900. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiff Jason Mattson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. P at 914. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. P at 914. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Jason Mattson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiff Jason Mattson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 23 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin purchased a Sycamore Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit Q. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin identifies the home as the Sycamore Grand model. Exh. Q at 973. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. Q at 990. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. Q at 990. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin contains 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. 24 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit R. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. R at 1005. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. R at 1017. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. R at 1017. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 25 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit S. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. S at 1084. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. S at 1097. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. S at 1097. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 26 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit A. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans and 27 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit A. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 28 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT III -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect 29 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 30 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§501. 211(2) and 501. 2105, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT IV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either 31 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, 32 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT V - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit B. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 6-7, 31-57, and 66-73 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. 33 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit B. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 34 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or 35 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 36 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 37 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto) contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 38 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT IX- BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit C. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT X - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 8-9, 31-57, and 74-81 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson and Defendant 39 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit C. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 40 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect 41 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 42 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 43 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 44 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit D. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 10-11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit D. 45 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 46 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 47 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to 48 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 49 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 50 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XVII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan [8]repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit E. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 8 Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have attached hereto all pages from their contract with Defendant in their possession. A complete copy of the contract is in Defendant’s possession. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan allege that their contract is the same or similar to the contracts attached hereto as Exhibits A-D, including but not necessarily limited to the Disclosure Statement. 51 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XVIII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit E. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 52 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintain and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 53 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XIX -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising 54 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XX - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is 55 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the 56 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXI - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit K. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court 57 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 14 - 15, 31-57, and 98 - 105 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit K. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 58 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 59 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXIII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising 60 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXIV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or 61 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. 62 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXV - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit L. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 63 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXVI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit L. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sheila Marie Fortson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. 64 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXVII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. 65 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson is a consumer as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson havs been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that she paid for her home. 66 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- The damages suffered by Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXVIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiff constitutes violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the 67 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiff. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiff suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 68 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXIX - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit M. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXX - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. 69 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit M. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 70 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or 71 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 72 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 73 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 74 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXXIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit N. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit N. 75 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 76 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 77 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited 78 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 79 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 80 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXXVII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit O. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXVIII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit O. 81 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 82 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXIX -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 83 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their favor, and** an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual 84 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XL - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 85 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 86 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLI - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. P. Plaintiff Jason Mattson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Jason Mattson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiff Jason Mattson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in their favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 23, 31 57, and 138 - 145 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiff Jason Mattson and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit P. 87 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Jason Mattson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiff Jason Mattson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 88 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff Jason Mattson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLIII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiff Jason Mattson is a consumer as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. 89 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiff Jason Mattson has been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that he paid for his home. The damages suffered by Plaintiff Jason Mattson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award against** Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 90 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLIV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiff constitutes violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiff and other prospective homeowners and made available 91 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiff. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiff suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLV - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit Q. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and 92 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Augustin Colin a home with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLVI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit Q. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin a home with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. 93 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. 94 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLVII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" 95 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 96 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLVIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available 97 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLIX - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit R. 98 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT L - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit R. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains 99 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. 100 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" 101 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home 102 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. 103 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57 and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. _See Exhibit S. _ The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 104 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. _See Exhibit S. _ Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. 105 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** 106 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, 107 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading 108 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about 109 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. Respectfully Submitted, **WITES & ROGERS** Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 954-933-4400; 954-354-0205 (fax) By: /s/ Marc A. Wites___________ MARC A. WITES Fla. Bar No. 24783 [mwites@witeslaw. com](mailto:mwites@witeslaw. com) THOMAS B. ROGERS Florida Bar No. 54680 [trogers@witeslaw. com](mailto:trogers@witeslaw. com) 110 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via email this 26[th] day of April, 2023, on: Attorneys for Defendant, Jessica Serell Erenbaum, Esq. , and **Michael D. Joblove, Esq. , Venable LLP, Miami Tower, Suite 4400, 100 Southeast Second Street, ** Miami, FL 33131, jerenbaum@venable. com; mjoblove@venable. com; _/s/ Marc A. Wites_ Marc A. Wites 111 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA AG: Circuit Civil Central - AG (Civil) PATRICK MICHAEL MOORE AND BRIANNA RENELLE YEBOAH-HEMANS; ERIC GUEVARA AND JOHANNA GUEVARA; SHANE FITZGERALD B. THOMPSON AND KARINA THOMPSON; SILVIU TARAN AND TONI BIANCA TARAN; and ANDREI MATA QUINTAN AND ANA PAULA FERREIRA QUINTAN, MARCELO CARRERA AND MARIUXI CARRERA; SHEILA MARIE FORTSON; KARINA DELGADO AND JOHNNY VOLMY; PABLO ELORRIAGA AND MARICEL COLON-SANTIAGO; SARA LOGSDON AND WESLEY LOGSDON; JASON MATTSON; EDNA NOEL AND AUGUSTIN COLIN; DANE RINGLER AND HUI YEE NGOH; LOI TRAN AND BINI TRAN; and SREENIVASULU POLAGGARI, Plaintiffs, vs. MINTO PBLH, LLC, Defendant. / **DEFENDANT MINTO PBLH, LLC’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFFS** **EDNA NOEL AND AUGUSTIN COLIN** Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC (“Minto”), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1. 350, hereby requests that Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin (“Plaintiffs”) produce the documents and materials specified below within thirty (30) days of service to the offices of Venable LLP, 100 Southeast 2nd Street, 44th Floor, Miami, Florida 33131, or at such other time and place, or in such other manner, as may be mutually agreed by the ----- Parties. **I. ** **INSTRUCTIONS:** Compliance with this Request is to be made in accordance with the following: If you assert that any document called for by this request is protected against disclosure as the attorney’s work product doctrine or by the attorney-client or any other privilege, you shall provide the following information with respect to such document: the name and capacity of the person or persons who prepared the documents; the name and capacity of all addresses or recipients of the original or copies thereof; the, if any, borne by the document; a brief description of its subject matter and physical size; the source of the factual information from which such document was prepared; and the nature of the privilege claimed. All documents produced pursuant hereto are to be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business and shall be organized and labeled (without permanently marking the item produced) so as to correspond with the categories of each numbered request hereof. When appropriate, the singular form of a word should be interpreted in the plural as may be necessary to bring within the scope hereof any documents which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope hereof. The words “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope hereof any documents which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope hereof. The word “relating to” includes referring to, responding to, relating to, connected with, regarding, discussing, analyzing, evidencing, showing, depicting, describing, reflecting, implying and constituting. Each request seeks the production of all documents in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control which includes all documents, objects, or articles for which You (Plaintiffs are 2 ----- also referred to herein as “You” or “Your”), have the right to secure the original or a copy from another person. The fact that Your investigation is continuing or discovery is incomplete is not an excuse for failing to respond to each request as fully and completely as possible. Your responses should consist of information known to You and Your agents, attorneys, employees, and representatives. All documents shall be produced as they are kept in the ordinary course of business and shall be organized and labeled (without permanently marking the item produced) so as to correspond with the categories of each numbered request hereof. Each document request contemplates the production of a document in its entirety, without abbreviation, redaction, or expungement, including all drafts and document(s) referenced therein or attached thereto. All Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) shall be produced in its native form and without redaction of metadata. This includes electronic mail which should be produced in a. msg, .pst, .eml, or. nsf file format. If ESI is not accessible without software and/or tools necessary to make the information readable, then that software and/or tools shall be identified and provided. **II. ** **DEFINITIONS** “Documents” shall mean the original or copies of any tangible written, typed, printed or other form of recorded or graphic matter of every kind or description, however produced or reproduced, whether mechanically or electronically recorded, draft, final original, reproduction, signed or unsigned, regardless of whether approved, signed, sent, received, redrafted, or executed, and whether handwritten, typed, printed, photostated, duplicated, carbon or otherwise copied or produced in any other manner whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, “documents” shall include documents evidencing correspondence, letters, telegrams, telexes, e 3 ----- mails, mailgrams, memoranda, including inter-office and intra-office memoranda, memoranda for files, memoranda of telephone or other conversations, including meetings, invoices, reports, receipts and statements of account, ledgers, notes or notations, notes or memorandum attached to or to be read with any document, booklets, books, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone records, electronic tapes, discs or other recordings, computer programs, printouts, data cards, studies, analysis and other data compilations from which information can be obtained, along with all ESI (“ESI” shall mean any electronically stored information, including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, documents, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations; stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form) and other electronic data storage documents including but not limited to e-mails and any related attachments, electronic files or other data compilations which relate to the categories of documents as requested below. Copies of documents, which are not identical duplications of the originals or which contain additions to or deletions from the originals or copies of the originals if the originals are not available, shall be considered to be separate documents. “All documents” means every document or group of documents as above-defined in Your possession, custody or control, or are known to You or that can be located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts. “Communications” shall mean any oral or written statement, e-mail, correspondence, dialogue, colloquy, discussion or conversation and, also, means any transfer of thoughts or ideas between persons (as defined below) by means of documents and includes any transfer of data from one location to another by electronic or similar means, and shall include any private or public message or statement transmitted through any social network or media (e. g. , 4 ----- Facebook, Twitter, etc. ). The terms “support, ” “evidence, ” “evidencing, ” “relate to, ” “relating to, ” “related to, ” “referred to, ” “concern, ” “concerning, ” “pertaining to, ” “involving” and “regarding” shall mean anything which directly, or indirectly, concerns, consists of, pertains to, reflects, evidences, describes, sets forth, constitutes, contains, shows, underlies, supports, refers to in any manner, is or was used in the preparation of, appended to, legally, logically or factually connected with, proves, disproves, or tends to prove or disprove. The conjunctions “and” and “or” shall be interpreted in each instance as meaning “and/or” so as to encompass the broader of the two possible constructions, and shall not be interpreted disjunctively so as to exclude any information or documents otherwise within the scope of any Request. As used herein the singular shall include the plural, the plural shall include the singular, and the masculine, feminine, and neuter shall include each of the other genders. “Person” or “Persons” shall mean any natural person, individual, entity, proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, organization, joint venture, business trust, or other business enterprise, governmental body or agency, legal or business entity, or group of natural persons, or other entity, whether sui juris or otherwise, and includes both the singular and plural. “Plaintiffs” refers to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin, individually and/or collectively, and includes all employees, agents, representatives, attorneys, servants and other persons acting on their behalf. The term “any and all” means every document as above-defined known to You and every such document that can be located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts. 5 ----- “Minto” refers to Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, and includes its officers, agents, employees, principals, directors, managers, representatives, members, attorneys, and other person acting on its behalf. “Property” refers to the real property located at 15555 Orchard Drive, Westlake, FL 33470 in Palm Beach County. “Home” refers to the home located on the Property. “Complaint” refers to the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs in this action on or about April 26, 2023. The term “You” and/or “Your” means Plaintiffs (individually and/or collectively) and any person(s) purporting to act on Plaintiffs’ behalf. “Plaintiff Parties” means the plaintiffs named in the Complaint, individually and/or collectively. Unless specified otherwise, the relevant timeframe is January 1, 2019 to present. 6 ----- **DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED** All documents sent by You to Minto. All documents sent by Minto to You. All correspondence sent by You to Minto. All correspondence sent by Minto to You. All communications between You and Minto. All documents relating to communications between You and Minto. All communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties concerning the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding the damages sought in the Complaint. All documents relating to communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All documents relating to communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding to the damages sought in the Complaint. All communications sent by You to any governmental agency that relate to the Home and/or the Property. All communications received by You from any governmental agency that relate to the Home and/or the Property. All documents relating to the damages You claim to have sustained as a result of Minto’s actions alleged in the Complaint. All documents that refer or relate to thethat You first learned that the total square footage/total living area of Your home was different from the amount set forth in the floor 7 ----- plan [You][ were] provided. All appraisals relating to the Property and/or the Home. All inspection reports relating to the Property and/or the Home. All documents that refer to or relate to the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All contracts or agreements that relate to the measurement of the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. VENABLE LLP Attorneys for [Minto][ PBLH, ][ LLC] Miami Tower, Suite 4400 100 Southeast Second Street Miami, [Florida][ 33131] Telephone: (305) [349-2300] By: s/Jessica Serell ## Erenbaum_ Michael D. Joblove, Esq. Florida Bar No. 354147 Jessica Serell Erenbaum, Esq. Florida Bar No. 816000 ierenbaum@venable. com #### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served via e-mail from eservice@myflcourtaccess. com upon [Marc][ A. ] Wites, mwites@witeslaw. com [and][ Thomas][ B. ] Rogers, trogers@witeslaw. com, [Wites][ Law] Firm, [4400][ North][ Federal] Highway, Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 this 11th day of May, 2023. s/Jessica Serell Erenbaum Attorney 8 -----"
}
] |
[
{
"from": "system",
"value": "You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant. \n\nThe questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:\n1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.\n2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.\n3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.\n4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.\n5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.\n\nBe specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for \"all documents\" or \"all evidence\". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims."
},
{
"from": "human",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA PATRICK MICHAEL MOORE AND BRIANNA RENELLE YEBOAH-HEMANS; ERIC GUEVARA AND JOHANNA GUEVARA; SHANE FITZGERALD B. THOMPSON AND KARINA THOMPSON; SILVIU TARAN AND TONI BIANCA TARAN; ANDREI MATA QUINTAN AND ANA PAULA FERREIRA QUINTAN; MARCELO CARRERA AND MARIUXI CARRERA; SHEILA MARIE FORTSON; KARINA DELGADO AND JOHNNY VOLMY; PABLO ELORRIAGA AND MARICEL COLON-SANTIAGO; SARA LOGSDON AND WESLEY LOGSDON; JASON MATTSON; EDNA NOEL AND AUGUSTIN COLIN; DANE RINGLER AND HUI YEE NGOH; LOI TRAN AND BINI TRAN; and SREENIVASULU POLAGGARI, Plaintiffs, v. MINTO PBLH, LLC, Defendant. _______________________________/ **AMENDED COMPLAINT** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans, Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara, Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson, Silviu Taran and Toni ----- Bianca Taran, Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan, Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera, Sheila Marie Fortson, Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy, Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago, Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon, Jason Mattson, Edna Noel and Augustin Colin, Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh, and Loi Tran and Bini Tran, file this Complaint against Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, and allege as follows: **INTRODUCTION** This action arises from Defendant’s breach of contracts to sell new homes to Plaintiffs. Defendant breached the respective contracts by failing to build and sell to Plaintiffs homes with the specified square footage under air (a/k/a Total Living Area or TLA) required by such contracts. Defendant knew, and at worst should have known, prior to entering such contracts, that the homes it was constructing and would sell to Plaintiffs contained meaningfully less TLA then Defendant advertised and marketed to Plaintiffs to induce them to enter contracts to buy homes, and then included in the terms of such contracts. Defendant materially breached the contracts, which included each home’s purported TLA, by failing to build and sell to Plaintiffs homes that complied with their respective contracts. **JURISDICTION AND VENUE** This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute because this complaint seeks damages in excess of $50, 000. 00 dollars, exclusive of interest and attorneys’ fees. Venue is proper in Palm County, Florida, because the cause of action arose in Palm Beach County, Florida. **PARTIES** Plaintiff Patrick Michael Moore is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. 2 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiff Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Eric Guevara is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Johanna Guevara is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Karina Thompson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Silviu Taran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Toni Biana Taran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Andrei Mata Quintan is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Marcelo Carrera is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Mariuxi Carrera is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age 3 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Karina Delgado is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Johnny Volmy is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Pablo Elorriaga is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Maricel Colon-Santiago is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sara Logsdon is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Wesley Logsdon is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Jason Mattson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Edna Noel is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Augustin Colin is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Dane Ringler is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Hui Yee Ngoh is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. 4 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiff Loi Tran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Bini Tran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sreenivasulu Polaggari is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, is a Florida Limited Liability Company licensed to and conducting business in the State of Florida, including but not limited to Palm Beach County, and is otherwise sui juris. **GENERAL ALLEGATIONS** Minto PBLH, LLC is part of the Minto Group, which represents itself as “a fully integrated real estate company offering new homes and condos, apartment rentals, furnished suites, commercial spaces, property and investment management. ”[1] Minto Group claims to have “expertise in home building, construction, property and investment management” and advertises that it has “built over 95, 800 homes, manage 14, 600 rental units and carry 2. 4 million square feet of commercial space. ”[2] Minto promotes itself “[a]s one of North America’s leading builders with more than 30, 000 homes built in southern USA including more than 30, 000 homes in the southern USA. ”[3] Minto claims to be a company that does the right thing for its customers, stating in the “Our Values” section of its website that: 1 [https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Company-Leadership~767. html](https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Company-Leadership~767. html) 2 _Id. _ 3 _Id. _ 5 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Being courageous demands acting with integrity and responsibility. When we make a mistake or see something wrong, we do our best to fix it. It’s why we have products you can trust and people you know you can depend on. https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Our-Values~1098. html Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, is an affiliated company of Minto Holdings, Inc. The Minto Group established Minto PBLH to act as the developer and seller of new homes in a community known as Westlake, which is located in the City of Westlake, Florida. Defendant Minto, as a developer and seller of new homes, marketed, advertised, and sold various model homes in Westlake, including but not limited to models known as the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Defendant Minto advertised and marketed the Laurel as a home with 3, 344 TLA, and included the model’s floor plan and TLA specifications in the contract it required Plaintiffs to sign to purchase the home: Excerpt from Laurel contract documents, attached hereto as Exhibits F and J. In fact, the Laurel has only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto advertised and marketed the Laurel Grand as a home with 3, 580 6 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- TLA, and include ed the model’s floor plan and TLA specifications in the contract it required Plaintiffs to sign to purchase the home: Excerpt from Laurel Grand contract documents, attached hereto as Exhibits G, H, and I. In fact, the Laurel Grand has only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Minto had a duty and obligation as a seller of homes to accurately measure and determine the square footage of the homes it sold, and to include the correct square footage in all advertisements, marketing materials and contracts Minto employed to sell such homes. Minto failed to accurately measure and determine the square footage of the homes it sold in Westlake, including the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Minto failed to include the correct TLA in all advertisements, marketing materials and contracts Minto employed to sell such homes. Moreover, in October 2020, Minto was advised in writing and by phone by a person who purchased a Laurel Grand and sought to refinance the home, that according to a licensed real estate appraiser the TLA of the Laurel Grand was meaningfully less than the square footage of TLA that Minto was using for marketing, advertising, and contractual purposes, and was 7 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- approximately 3, 300 square feet. Despite receiving such information, Minto did not change or correct any of its advertising or marketing materials or contracts. Minto should have, upon learning this information from the customer, corrected the errors in its marketing, advertising, and contract documents, and determined whether the square footage in all other Westlake models was correct. Minto failed to do so. Further, because Minto, as part of the Minto Group, had previously marketed, advertised, and sold homes similar to the Laurel and Laurel Grand, Minto is charged with the knowledge that it was misrepresenting, and breaching contracts for, the construction and sale of such homes by building homes that had meaningfully less TLA than Plaintiffs and other home buyers had contracted to purchase from Minto. Because the Laurel is not a new model for Minto. In fact, Minto marketed, advertised, and sold virtually identical model homes under different brand names in the city of Wellington, Florida, for many years prior to the time Minto marketed, advertised, and sold the Laurel to Plaintiffs. For example, Minto marketed, advertised, and sold a home in Wellington known as the Mirador that is virtually identical in layout and square footage to the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Minto marketed, advertised, and sold the Mirador through advertising, marketing materials, and contracts stating that the base model Mirador had 3, 061 square feet of Total Living Area, and 3, 303 square feet of Total Living Area in the six-bedroom configuration: 8 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- |F I E D C O P Y|Col2| |---|---| |T Laurel4|I Laurel Grand5| |N O T A C E R|| 4 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html) 5 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html) 9 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Not coincidentally, Minto now markets, advertises, and sells through contracts the Laurel model based on 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area (in comparison to the Mirador at 3, 061 square feet) and the Laurel Grand based on 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area (in comparison to the Mirador six-bedroom at 3, 302 square feet). The Total Living Area, and resulting price per square foot, is the corner stone by which all real estate is valued, by which seller’s price their properties, and by which homeowners decide whether to purchase and how much to pay. Minto’s contract documents confirm that Minto agrees. Minto’s Contract makes clear that Minto priced and sold homes based on the price per square foot: You reserve the right to establish prices for homes built by you in the Neighborhood and the Community. You may, in your sole discretion, increase or decrease the price or price per square foot for any home, lot, or option at any time, or offer incentives for the sale of lots and homes. Contract at p. 13, ¶19(q) (emphasis added). Further, Minto’s Disclosure Statement (which is also part of the Contract documents that Minto required Plaintiffs to sign) on the very first page states that: This Disclosure Statement explains certain terms which are applicable to the purchase of a home (individually a “Home” and collectively “Homes”) within the Neighborhood and the Community… Seller shall have the right, without notice to Purchaser, to make changes to the Neighborhood and/or the Community, including, but not limited to, Home sizes, number of Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, size, style and type of Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, features and materials in Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, prices of Homes in the Neighborhood and/or the Community (whether more or less than currently published), price per square foot of Homes in the Neighborhood **and/or the Community (whether more or less than currently published)…** Disclosure at p. 1 (emphasis added). Minto continued by including in its Contract language that makes clear that unlike 10 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the square footage for the Total Living Area (which is commonly known as square footage under air), Minto was not guaranteeing or contracting for a specific number of square feet for garages: XI. VEHICLES, PARKING, AND GARAGES. B. Garage sizes and heights may vary from home to home and may not accommoall vehicles. It is not uncommon for floor plans to change during actual construction of the Home. Specific homesite conditions or local ordinances may determine the location of (i) safety bollards intended to protect plumbing or mechanical systems located inside the garage and/or (ii) the design of steps from the garage to the Home thereby affecting the usability of interior garage space available for parking vehicles. **Further, Purchaser** **acknowledges and agrees that stated floor plan dimensions and square** **footages are approximate and should never be relied upon as the actual as** **_built size of the garage; modifications to floor plan dimensions and square_** footages shown in sales materials may occur for many circumstances, without notice to or consent of Purchaser, including, but not limited to, inclusions of options and upgrades, actual field conditions and governmental requirements. Disclosure at p 15 (emphasis added). Moreover, Minto disclosed in its Contract documents that Minto could change the price per square foot in Homes sold to other purchasers: XIX. PRICES AND MARKET VALUES. Seller and any other builder in the Community and Neighborhood shall have the unilateral right to establish prices for the Homes they build in the Neighborhood and Community. Seller and any other builder in the Community and Neighborhood may, at their sole discretion, increase or decrease the price **or the price per square foot for any Home or option at any time, or offer** incentives for sales of Homes, all without notice to Purchaser. Disclosure at p. 22 (emphasis added). In late 2022, additional Minto homeowners discovered and alerted Minto to the fact that the Laurel and Laurel Grand contained less square footage of Total Living Area than Minto was representing in marketing and advertising materials and using in contracts for the sale of such homes. In response, Minto blamed the material mistake and contractual breach on a “typographical error”, and finally changed in marketing, advertising, and contract documents to reflect the correct 11 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- square footage of Total Living Area for the Laurel and Laurel Grand, which Minto now represents and includes in contract documents as follows: **Laurel[6]** **Laurel Grand[7]** https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/collections. html |Laurel6|Laurel Grand7| |---|---| ||I E D C O P Y| |O T A C E R|T I F| 6 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html) 7 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html) 12 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit A. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. A at 4. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. A at 88. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. A at 88. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans represents the square footage of the home to include and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 13 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit B. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Guevara and Johanna Guevara prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. B at 113. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. B at 211. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. B at 211. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 14 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit C. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. C at 220. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. C at 290. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. C at 290. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 15 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Bianca Taran** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit D. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. D at 372. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. D at 360. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. D at 360. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 16 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit E. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. E at 442. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. E at 456. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. E at 456. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 17 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit K. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. K at 463. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. K at 480. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. K at 480. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 18 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit L. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson prior to the time she entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson prior to the time she entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. L at 551. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. L at 568. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. L at 568. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 19 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit M. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. M at 638. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. M at 655. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. M at 655. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 20 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit N. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. N at 723. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. N at 736. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. N at 736. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 21 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit O. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. O at 851. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. O at 865. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. O at 865. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 22 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiff Jason Mattson** Plaintiff Jason Mattson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit P. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiff Jason Mattson prior to the time he entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiff Jason Mattson prior to the time he entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Jason Mattson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. P at 900. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiff Jason Mattson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. P at 914. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. P at 914. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Jason Mattson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiff Jason Mattson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 23 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin purchased a Sycamore Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit Q. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin identifies the home as the Sycamore Grand model. Exh. Q at 973. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. Q at 990. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. Q at 990. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin contains 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. 24 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit R. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. R at 1005. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. R at 1017. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. R at 1017. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 25 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit S. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. S at 1084. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. S at 1097. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. S at 1097. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 26 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit A. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans and 27 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit A. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 28 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT III -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect 29 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 30 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§501. 211(2) and 501. 2105, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT IV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either 31 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, 32 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT V - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit B. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 6-7, 31-57, and 66-73 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. 33 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit B. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 34 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or 35 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 36 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 37 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto) contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 38 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT IX- BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit C. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT X - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 8-9, 31-57, and 74-81 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson and Defendant 39 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit C. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 40 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect 41 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 42 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 43 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 44 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit D. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 10-11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit D. 45 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 46 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 47 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to 48 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 49 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 50 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XVII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan [8]repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit E. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 8 Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have attached hereto all pages from their contract with Defendant in their possession. A complete copy of the contract is in Defendant’s possession. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan allege that their contract is the same or similar to the contracts attached hereto as Exhibits A-D, including but not necessarily limited to the Disclosure Statement. 51 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XVIII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit E. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 52 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintain and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 53 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XIX -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising 54 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XX - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is 55 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the 56 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXI - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit K. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court 57 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 14 - 15, 31-57, and 98 - 105 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit K. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 58 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 59 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXIII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising 60 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXIV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or 61 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. 62 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXV - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit L. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 63 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXVI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit L. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sheila Marie Fortson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. 64 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXVII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. 65 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson is a consumer as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson havs been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that she paid for her home. 66 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- The damages suffered by Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXVIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiff constitutes violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the 67 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiff. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiff suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 68 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXIX - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit M. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXX - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. 69 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit M. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 70 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or 71 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 72 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 73 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 74 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXXIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit N. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit N. 75 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 76 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 77 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited 78 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 79 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 80 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXXVII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit O. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXVIII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit O. 81 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 82 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXIX -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 83 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their favor, and** an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual 84 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XL - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 85 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 86 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLI - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. P. Plaintiff Jason Mattson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Jason Mattson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiff Jason Mattson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in their favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 23, 31 57, and 138 - 145 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiff Jason Mattson and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit P. 87 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Jason Mattson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiff Jason Mattson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 88 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff Jason Mattson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLIII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiff Jason Mattson is a consumer as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. 89 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiff Jason Mattson has been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that he paid for his home. The damages suffered by Plaintiff Jason Mattson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award against** Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 90 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLIV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiff constitutes violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiff and other prospective homeowners and made available 91 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiff. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiff suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLV - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit Q. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and 92 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Augustin Colin a home with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLVI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit Q. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin a home with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. 93 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. 94 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLVII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" 95 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 96 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLVIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available 97 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLIX - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit R. 98 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT L - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit R. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains 99 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. 100 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" 101 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home 102 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. 103 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57 and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. _See Exhibit S. _ The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 104 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. _See Exhibit S. _ Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. 105 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** 106 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the \"Act\"). The stated purpose of the Act is to \"protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful \"[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. \" Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, 107 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading 108 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about 109 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. Respectfully Submitted, **WITES & ROGERS** Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 954-933-4400; 954-354-0205 (fax) By: /s/ Marc A. Wites___________ MARC A. WITES Fla. Bar No. 24783 [mwites@witeslaw. com](mailto:mwites@witeslaw. com) THOMAS B. ROGERS Florida Bar No. 54680 [trogers@witeslaw. com](mailto:trogers@witeslaw. com) 110 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via email this 26[th] day of April, 2023, on: Attorneys for Defendant, Jessica Serell Erenbaum, Esq. , and **Michael D. Joblove, Esq. , Venable LLP, Miami Tower, Suite 4400, 100 Southeast Second Street, ** Miami, FL 33131, jerenbaum@venable. com; mjoblove@venable. com; _/s/ Marc A. Wites_ Marc A. Wites 111 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 -----"
},
{
"from": "gpt",
"value": "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA AG: Circuit Civil Central - AG (Civil) PATRICK MICHAEL MOORE AND BRIANNA RENELLE YEBOAH-HEMANS; ERIC GUEVARA AND JOHANNA GUEVARA; SHANE FITZGERALD B. THOMPSON AND KARINA THOMPSON; SILVIU TARAN AND TONI BIANCA TARAN; and ANDREI MATA QUINTAN AND ANA PAULA FERREIRA QUINTAN, MARCELO CARRERA AND MARIUXI CARRERA; SHEILA MARIE FORTSON; KARINA DELGADO AND JOHNNY VOLMY; PABLO ELORRIAGA AND MARICEL COLON-SANTIAGO; SARA LOGSDON AND WESLEY LOGSDON; JASON MATTSON; EDNA NOEL AND AUGUSTIN COLIN; DANE RINGLER AND HUI YEE NGOH; LOI TRAN AND BINI TRAN; and SREENIVASULU POLAGGARI, Plaintiffs, vs. MINTO PBLH, LLC, Defendant. / **DEFENDANT MINTO PBLH, LLC’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFFS** **ANDREI MATA QUINTAN AND ANA PAULA FERREIRA QUINTAN** Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC (“Minto”), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1. 350, hereby requests that Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan (“Plaintiffs”) produce the documents and materials specified below within thirty (30) days of service to the offices of Venable LLP, 100 Southeast 2nd Street, 44th Floor, Miami, Florida 33131, or at such other time and place, or in such other manner, as may be ----- mutually agreed by the Parties. **I. ** **INSTRUCTIONS:** Compliance with this Request is to be made in accordance with the following: If you assert that any document called for by this request is protected against disclosure as the attorney’s work product doctrine or by the attorney-client or any other privilege, you shall provide the following information with respect to such document: the name and capacity of the person or persons who prepared the documents; the name and capacity of all addresses or recipients of the original or copies thereof; the, if any, borne by the document; a brief description of its subject matter and physical size; the source of the factual information from which such document was prepared; and the nature of the privilege claimed. All documents produced pursuant hereto are to be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business and shall be organized and labeled (without permanently marking the item produced) so as to correspond with the categories of each numbered request hereof. When appropriate, the singular form of a word should be interpreted in the plural as may be necessary to bring within the scope hereof any documents which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope hereof. The words “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope hereof any documents which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope hereof. The word “relating to” includes referring to, responding to, relating to, connected with, regarding, discussing, analyzing, evidencing, showing, depicting, describing, reflecting, implying and constituting. Each request seeks the production of all documents in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control which includes all documents, objects, or articles for which You (Plaintiffs are 2 ----- also referred to herein as “You” or “Your”), have the right to secure the original or a copy from another person. The fact that Your investigation is continuing or discovery is incomplete is not an excuse for failing to respond to each request as fully and completely as possible. Your responses should consist of information known to You and Your agents, attorneys, employees, and representatives. All documents shall be produced as they are kept in the ordinary course of business and shall be organized and labeled (without permanently marking the item produced) so as to correspond with the categories of each numbered request hereof. Each document request contemplates the production of a document in its entirety, without abbreviation, redaction, or expungement, including all drafts and document(s) referenced therein or attached thereto. All Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) shall be produced in its native form and without redaction of metadata. This includes electronic mail which should be produced in a. msg, .pst, .eml, or. nsf file format. If ESI is not accessible without software and/or tools necessary to make the information readable, then that software and/or tools shall be identified and provided. **II. ** **DEFINITIONS** “Documents” shall mean the original or copies of any tangible written, typed, printed or other form of recorded or graphic matter of every kind or description, however produced or reproduced, whether mechanically or electronically recorded, draft, final original, reproduction, signed or unsigned, regardless of whether approved, signed, sent, received, redrafted, or executed, and whether handwritten, typed, printed, photostated, duplicated, carbon or otherwise copied or produced in any other manner whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, “documents” shall include documents evidencing correspondence, letters, telegrams, telexes, e 3 ----- mails, mailgrams, memoranda, including inter-office and intra-office memoranda, memoranda for files, memoranda of telephone or other conversations, including meetings, invoices, reports, receipts and statements of account, ledgers, notes or notations, notes or memorandum attached to or to be read with any document, booklets, books, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone records, electronic tapes, discs or other recordings, computer programs, printouts, data cards, studies, analysis and other data compilations from which information can be obtained, along with all ESI (“ESI” shall mean any electronically stored information, including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, documents, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations; stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form) and other electronic data storage documents including but not limited to e-mails and any related attachments, electronic files or other data compilations which relate to the categories of documents as requested below. Copies of documents, which are not identical duplications of the originals or which contain additions to or deletions from the originals or copies of the originals if the originals are not available, shall be considered to be separate documents. “All documents” means every document or group of documents as above-defined in Your possession, custody or control, or are known to You or that can be located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts. “Communications” shall mean any oral or written statement, e-mail, correspondence, dialogue, colloquy, discussion or conversation and, also, means any transfer of thoughts or ideas between persons (as defined below) by means of documents and includes any transfer of data from one location to another by electronic or similar means, and shall include any private or public message or statement transmitted through any social network or media (e. g. , 4 ----- Facebook, Twitter, etc. ). The terms “support, ” “evidence, ” “evidencing, ” “relate to, ” “relating to, ” “related to, ” “referred to, ” “concern, ” “concerning, ” “pertaining to, ” “involving” and “regarding” shall mean anything which directly, or indirectly, concerns, consists of, pertains to, reflects, evidences, describes, sets forth, constitutes, contains, shows, underlies, supports, refers to in any manner, is or was used in the preparation of, appended to, legally, logically or factually connected with, proves, disproves, or tends to prove or disprove. The conjunctions “and” and “or” shall be interpreted in each instance as meaning “and/or” so as to encompass the broader of the two possible constructions, and shall not be interpreted disjunctively so as to exclude any information or documents otherwise within the scope of any Request. As used herein the singular shall include the plural, the plural shall include the singular, and the masculine, feminine, and neuter shall include each of the other genders. “Person” or “Persons” shall mean any natural person, individual, entity, proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, organization, joint venture, business trust, or other business enterprise, governmental body or agency, legal or business entity, or group of natural persons, or other entity, whether sui juris or otherwise, and includes both the singular and plural. “Plaintiffs” refers to Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan, individually and/or collectively, and includes all employees, agents, representatives, attorneys, servants and other persons acting on their behalf. The term “any and all” means every document as above-defined known to You and every such document that can be located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts. 5 ----- “Minto” refers to Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, and includes its officers, agents, employees, principals, directors, managers, representatives, members, attorneys, and other person acting on its behalf. “Property” refers to the real property located at 15545 Goldfinch Circle, Westlake, FL 33470 in Palm Beach County. “Home” refers to the home located on the Property. “Complaint” refers to the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs in this action on or about April 26, 2023. The term “You” and/or “Your” means Plaintiffs (individually and/or collectively) and any person(s) purporting to act on Plaintiffs’ behalf. “Plaintiff Parties” means the plaintiffs named in the Complaint, individually and/or collectively. Unless specified otherwise, the relevant timeframe is January 1, 2019 to present. 6 ----- **DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED** All documents sent by You to Minto. All documents sent by Minto to You. All correspondence sent by You to Minto. All correspondence sent by Minto to You. All communications between You and Minto. All documents relating to communications between You and Minto. All communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties concerning the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding the damages sought in the Complaint. All documents relating to communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All documents relating to communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding to the damages sought in the Complaint. All communications sent by You to any governmental agency that relate to the Home and/or the Property. All communications received by You from any governmental agency that relate to the Home and/or the Property. All documents relating to the damages You claim to have sustained as a result of Minto’s actions alleged in the Complaint. All documents that refer or relate to thethat You first learned that the total square footage/total living area of Your home was different from the amount set forth in the floor 7 ----- plan [You][ were] provided. All appraisals relating to the Property and/or the Home. All inspection reports relating to the Property and/or the Home. All documents that refer to or relate to the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All contracts or agreements that relate to the measurement of the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. VENABLE LLP Attorneys for [Minto][ PBLH, ][ LLC] Miami Tower, Suite 4400 100 Southeast Second Street Miami, [Florida][ 33131] Telephone: (305) [349-2300] By: s/Jessica Serell ## Erenbaum_ Michael D. Joblove, Esq. Florida Bar No. 354147 Jessica Serell Erenbaum, Esq. Florida Bar No. 816000 ierenbaum@venable. com #### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served via e-mail from eservice@myflcourtaccess. com upon [Marc][ A. ] Wites, mwites@witeslaw. com [and][ Thomas][ B. ] Rogers, trogers@witeslaw. com, [Wites][ Law] Firm, [4400][ North][ Federal] Highway, Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 this 11th day of May, 2023. s/Jessica Serell Erenbaum Attorney 8 -----"
}
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.