HomeMy Public PortalAboutCase No. 9:16-cv-81371-BB0" Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 1 of 1
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Southern District of Florida
DENISE DEMARTINI
Plaintiff(s)
V.
TOWN OF GULF STREAM, WANTMAN GROUP
INC., RICHMAN GREER, P.A., GERALD F.
RICHMAN, and ROBERT A. SWEETAPPLE
Defendant(s)
Civil Action No. 9:16-cv-81371 gloom/Valle
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant's name and address) Town of Gulf Stream
100 Sea Road
Gulf Stream, FL 33483
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
(�2
�c3zY
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are: Daniel DeSouza, Esq.
DeSouza Law, PA
101 NE Third Avenue
Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
Aug 2, 2016
Date:
SUMMONS
�FR��4v s/ S. Reid
��rS7RIC��� Deputy Clerk
Steven M. Larimore U.S. District Courts
Clerk of Court
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 1 of 23
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
DENISE DEMARTINI,
Plaintiff,
V.
CASE NO.: 9:16-cv-81371-BB
TOWN OF GULF STREAM, WANTMAN
GROUP, INC., RICHMAN GREER, P.A.,
GERALD F. RICHMAN, and ROBERT A.
SWEETAPPLE,
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Denise DeMartini ("Plaintiff') sues Defendants Town of Gulf Stream ("Gulf
Stream"), Wantman Group, Inc. ("Wantman"), Richman Greer, P.A. ("Richman Greer"), Gerald
F. Richman ("Richman'), and Robert A. Sweetapple ("Sweetapple") (collectively, the
"Defendants"), and alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Florida who resides in Brevard County,
Florida.
2. Gulf Stream is a municipality organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Florida with its principal headquarters in Palm Beach County, Florida.
3. Wantman is a Florida for profit corporation with its principal place of business
located in Palm Beach County, Florida.
4. Richman Greer is a Florida for profit professional corporation with its principal
place of business located in Miami -Dade County, Florida.
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 2 of 23
5. Richman is a citizen of the State of Florida who, upon information and belief,
currently resides in Palm Beach County, Florida.
6. Sweetapple is a citizen of the State of Florida who, upon information and belief,
currently resides in Palm Beach County, Florida.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because
Plaintiff has asserted a claim for First Amendment retaliation against Gulf Stream. This Court
has supplemental or pendant jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1367 because such claims are so related to Plaintiff's federal claim that they form part of the
same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
8. Venue is appropriate in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(6)(1) because
Defendants are residents of the State of Florida and at least one defendant is a resident of this
judicial district. Venue is also appropriate in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
because the events that gave rise to this complaint occurred in this district.
9. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because they (a) are residents of this
State; (b) operate a business in this State; (c) caused injury to Plaintiff in this State; (d) own real
property in this State; and (e) committed tortious acts in this State.
BACKGROUND
I. Plaintiff's Employment With CRO Realty, Inc.
10. From 1984 until approximately 1995 and thereafter from approximately 2003
until June 13, 2015, Plaintiff was employed by CRO Realty, Inc. as an administrator/paralegal.
CRO Realty, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation whose President/Chairman is Martin E. O'Boyle.
11. Although Plaintiff's employment duties necessarily evolved during this 23 -year
2
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 3 of 23
period, the most relevant time period for purposes of this Complaint was from January 1, 2014
until the June 13, 2015 termination of Plaintiff's employment with CRO Realty, Inc.
12. During this period of time, Plaintiff generally functioned as an office
manager/administrator — she managed office personnel, assisted in the accounting department,
assisted with property management functions, and also served as a paralegal (Plaintiff earned a
Certificate of Paralegal Studies from Nova University in 1989).
13. In February 2014, The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C., Inc. was registered with
Florida's Division of Corporations as a foreign for profit corporation with its principal place of
business at the same location as CRO Realty, Inc.
14. At the time, Florida's Division of Corporations listed Jonathan R. O'Boyle
(Martin E. O'Boyle's son) as a director/President of The O'Boyle Law Firm, P.C.
15. As part of her employment duties, Plaintiff was asked to provide consulting
services to this newly -established law firm. These duties included helping to setup an
accounting system, helping to hire an office manager, helping to establish internal systems, and
to provide paralegal assistance as needed.
16. Plaintiff was not paid additionally for these services but performed them
nonetheless as she was asked to do so by her employer (CRO Realty, Inc.).
II. Martin E. O'Boyle's Lawsuits Against Gulf Stream
17. Martin E. O'Boyle (CRO Realty, Inc.'s President/Chairman and Plaintiffs
ultimate supervisor until June 13, 2015) is a resident of Gulf Stream and a self -described
supporter of Florida's public records laws.
18. From approximately 2013 through the present date, Martin E. O'Boyle has filed
approximately 29 lawsuits against Gulf Stream for alleged violations of Florida's public records
3
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 4 of 23
laws and several lawsuits for alleged violations of his Constitutional rights.
19. In July 2013, Martin E. O'Boyle settled several of these lawsuits with Gulf
Stream through a non -confidential settlement agreement in which Gulf Stream agreed to pay him
$180,000.00 and issued him an apology letter.
20. Although Plaintiff worked for one of Mr. O'Boyle's companies (CRO Realty,
Inc.) during this period of time, she was not involved in the above-described lawsuits and/or the
underlying public records requests leading to such lawsuits.
21. To the extent Mr. O'Boyle and Gulf Stream had legal issues between each other,
Plaintiff had no involvement in these disputes other than as an office administrator responsible
for the general oversight of the CRO Realty, Inc. office or lending assistance as a paralegal
where needed.
22. During this period of time, Plaintiff did not file any lawsuits against any of the
Defendants, did not receive any compensation as a result of any lawsuits against any of the
Defendants, did not author any demand letters to any of the Defendants, and did not participate
in any strategic decision-making with respect to any such lawsuits.
III. Gulf Stream Hires Sweetapple as Special Counsel
23. On June 2, 2014, Gulf Stream's mayor (Scott Morgan) announced in a letter to
town residents that Gulf Stream had hired Sweetapple, an attorney with the law firm Sweetapple
Broeker & Varkas PL, to take a "firm stance" in defending various public records lawsuits filed
by Mr. O'Boyle and another town resident, Chris O'Hare.
24. Plaintiffs name is not mentioned anywhere in Mr. Morgan's June 2, 2014 letter.
25. Although he was purportedly hired to defend Mr. O'Boyle and Mr. O'Hare's
lawsuits, Sweetapple's idea of taking a `firm stance' involved casting a much wider net.
4
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, surrE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 5 of 23
26. Almost immediately after being retained, Sweetapple began boasting to anyone
that would listen that Plaintiff— and approximately a dozen others including Mr. O'Boyle, his
son Jonathan, and others that worked for Mr. O'Boyle and/or The O'Boyle Law Firm — were
conspiring together, were guilty of extortion, and were guilty of violating the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").
27. Sweetapple made these statements over several months from April 2014 to
January 2015 (and most likely beyond that) to several individuals including, but not limited to:
(1) Joel Chandler (an individual well-known for his public records advocacy in the State of
Florida) and (2) Mark Hanna (an attorney who represented Mr. O'Hare in several public records
lawsuits). For example, Sweetapple met with Mr. Chandler in July 2014 and stated to him that
Mr. O'Boyle, Mr. O'Boyle's son, Plaintiff, and various others associated with Mr. O'Boyle had
committed criminal acts of racketeering that Gulf Stream would be pursuing.
28. As a further example, on July 24, 2014, Sweetapple stated to Mr. Hanna that Mr.
O'Boyle, Mr. O'Boyle's son, Plaintiff, and various others associated with Mr. O'Boyle had
committed acts of extortion, abuse of process, and racketeering, and that both the Florida Bar and
the state attorney was investigating these crimes. Sweetapple repeated these statements to Mr.
Hanna again on August 12, 2014.
29. Each of the above referenced statements made to Messrs. Chandler and Hanna
were made out of court, not in a deposition, and not in connection with or investigation of any
court proceeding.
30. Upon information and belief, Sweetapple has made the same
accusations/statements directly to various law enforcement agencies including, but not limited to,
the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and one/or more Florida state attorney offices in an
5
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 6 of 23
effort to have criminal charges brought against Plaintiff and various others.
31. These statements were false and malicious — Sweetapple's primary motive in
making the statements was not to report an alleged crime but rather to injure Plaintiff's
reputation in such a way as to cause Plaintiff to disassociate from the alleged enterprise and
cease participating in sending public records requests and filing public records lawsuits.
IV. Gulf Stream/ Sweetapple File a Bevy of State Court Third Party Claims Against
Plaintiff
32. In addition to falsely accusing Plaintiff of committing various crimes, Gulf
Stream's "firm stance" against Mr. O'Boyle and Mr. O'Hare also involved the filing of multiple
counterclaims for declaratory and/or injunctive relief in public records lawsuits brought by Mr.
O'Boyle or Mr. O'Hare.
33. Gulf Stream did not, however, stop with Mr. O'Boyle and/or Mr. O'Hare. Rather,
Gulf Stream (through its attorney, Mr. Sweetapple), filed at least eight counterclaims in which it
named Plaintiff (and approximately a dozen others) as third party defendants.
34. These counterclaims/third party complaints were generally filed between January
2015 and April 2015 and each set forth the same allegations of a vast conspiracy existing
between Mr. O'Boyle, Mr. O'Hare, Plaintiff, and a dozen others to inundate Gulf Stream with
public records requests and profit from lawsuits resulting from Gulf Stream's inability to timely
respond to the deluge.
35. None of the lawsuits in which Gulf Stream asserts these counter/third party claims
against Plaintiff were filed by Plaintiff— she is not a plaintiff in these lawsuits, she did not sign
the governing complaints in these actions, she did not submit the public records requests at issue,
and she is not due any compensation upon success of any of these lawsuits. In short, Plaintiff
has no involvement or stake in the outcome of these lawsuits other than being named as a third
6
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
I01 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPI ZONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 7 of 23
party defendant ad nauseam by Gulf Stream (through its attorney, Sweetapple).
36. Notably, while Gulf Stream names Plaintiff as a third party defendant in at least
eight of these counterclaims, it has only endeavored to have one such counterclaim actually
served on Plaintiff (in Case No. 50 -2014 -CA -004474, now Case No. 2016 -CA -005437).
37. Gulf Stream has long since missed the 120 day deadline in Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.0700) to serve the remaining counterclaims on Plaintiff and does not appear to have
taken any substantive action to advance its claims in these lawsuits.
38. Rather, Gulf Stream appears content to have named Plaintiff as a defendant
simply for the sake of having existing, publicly -available claims against Plaintiff with no
intention of ever actually pursuing these claims to their logical conclusion.
V. The RICO Lawsuit
39. On October 10, 2014, Gulf Stream convened a town commission meeting during
which the subject of filing a RICO lawsuit against Plaintiff, Mr. O'Boyle, and approximately a
dozen others was discussed.
40. Richman attended the meeting by telephone and informed the Gulf Stream town
commission and those residents in attendance that the best way to counteract the various lawsuits
that were filed by Mr. O'Boyle, Mr. O'Hare, and the others associated with them (including
Plaintiff) was to file a RICO action in federal court rather than state court. According to
Richman, doing so would avoid restrictions/defenses in state court as a result of Florida's
litigation privilege.
41. While on the phone, Richman further assured the town commission that he had
fully researched the factual background of the RICO action and was confident that the claim was
meritorious.
7
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 8 of 23
42. At that time, however, the only `facts' available to Richman were the identities of
the plaintiffs that filed public records lawsuits against Gulf Stream and/or Wantman (none of
which were filed by Plaintiff) and a sworn statement of Mr. Chandler that was surreptitiously
obtained by Sweetapple during a secret meeting with Mr. Chandler in July 2014.
43. Although Sweetapple at that time was representing Gulf Stream in a number of
cases adverse to Mr. O'Boyle, he secretly met with Mr. Chandler (without notice to Plaintiff, Mr.
O'Boyle, or Mr. O'Boyle's counsel) and elicited testimony from Mr. Chandler concerning an
alleged `scheme' to inundate Gulf Stream with public records requests/lawsuits.
44. Notably, the sworn statement contains scant allegations concerning Plaintiff —
generally, Mr. Chandler alleges that Plaintiff managed the operations of The O'Boyle Law Firm,
attended law firm meetings, and managed the law firm's finances (none of which is particularly
suggestive of participation in a RICO conspiracy).
45. Given that none of the public records lawsuits complained of were filed by
Plaintiff and that the surreptitious statement obtained from Mr. Chandler did not in any way
support the filing of a RICO action against Plaintiff, it is clear that Richman (who was speaking
in his capacity as a shareholder with Richman Greer) was being disingenuous when he told the
town commission that the forthcoming RICO claims were supported by the facts — especially as
alleged against Plaintiff.
46. The October 10, 2014 town commission meeting makes clear that Gulf Stream
would use the forthcoming RICO lawsuit as a `sword' to put a stop to the public records requests
being served and the public records lawsuits being filed by Mr. O'Boyle, Mr. O'Hare, and
others.
47. Richman himself plainly stated at the meeting that he was confident that an end
8
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 9 of 23
result of the forthcoming RICO lawsuit would be to put a stop to the records lawsuits. Mayor
Morgan also chimed in that he believed the RICO lawsuit would operate to put a stop to the
records lawsuits.
48. Mr. O'Hare also spoke at the meeting, plainly stating his understanding that the
purpose of the forthcoming RICO lawsuit was to get rid of all the records requests and lawsuits.
Neither the town commission nor Richman disagreed with Mr. O'Hare.
49. Following the October 10, 2014 town commission hearing, Defendants
(especially Richman Greer, the law firm tasked with investigating claims and certifying to a
court that the claims were meritorious) did nothing to properly investigate the forthcoming
claims as they applied to Plaintiff.
50. This is because Richman Greer, Gulf Stream, and Wantman had decided that the
merits of the RICO lawsuit were immaterial — the sole purpose was to sue everyone perceived by
Defendants to be involved in the public records requests/lawsuits and use the specter of RICO
liability to cause these individuals/entities to refrain from engaging in protected activity.
51. Representatives of Richman Greer never met with Mr. Chandler, never explored
Plaintiff's actual involvement in the alleged RICO enterprise, and never made any factual or
legal determinations that Plaintiff would be a proper defendant in such an action. Rather,
Richman Greer engaged in a reckless strategy of ignoring the facts and naming as many
defendants as it could for purposes of scaring/intimidating them into submission.
52. On February 12, 2015, Gulf Stream and Wantman (as plaintiffs) filed a putative
class action complaint (the "RICO Complaint") in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:15-cv-80182) against Plaintiff, Mr. O'Boyle, and
approximately a dozen others.
9
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 10 of 23
53. The RICO Complaint was filed on behalf of Gulf Stream and Wantman by their
attorneys at Richman Greer. The RICO Complaint is not verified by either Gulf Stream or
Wantman, but is instead signed by Richman (a shareholder with the Richman Greer law firm).
54. The RICO Complaint asserts a single claim against Plaintiff (and the other named
defendants) for violation of the federal RICO statute and seeks both monetary and injunctive
relief against the defendants named therein (including the fashioning of "whatever orders the
Court deems necessary to divest[] the Defendants from their interest in the enterprise and
imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activities or investments of the Defendants to
prohibit them from engaging in a similar type endeavor."
55. The RICO Complaint generally alleges that Plaintiff managed the operations of
The O'Boyle Law Firm, attended law firm meetings, and managed the law firm's finances.
56. The RICO Complaint further alleges, in somewhat preposterous fashion, that
Plaintiff (together with Mr. O'Boyle, his son, and William Ring, a business/attorney associate of
Mr. O'Boyle) was one of the four masterminds that developed/orchestrated the extortionate
scheme alleged therein (notwithstanding that Plaintiffs employment responsibilities, which were
easily verifiable, were as an office administrator at the time). This allegation is, of course,
wholly unsupported by the surreptitious Chandler statement obtained by Sweetapple or the later -
obtained Chandler affidavit (which Sweetapple himself drafted and presented to Chandler for
signature — again, without notice to Plaintiff or counsel in any of the actions Sweetapple was
defending at the time). Indeed, it is not supported by any facts whatsoever.
57. As stated above, Richman Greer, Richman, Gulf Stream, and Wantman did not
actually believe that the RICO Complaint (as alleged against Plaintiff) was tenable/supported by
actual facts. Rather, all knew and understood that naming Plaintiff was part of the strategy of
10
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 11 of 23
stopping the records requests and lawsuits collectively (which Defendants apparently believed
Plaintiff was responsible for).
58. Following the filing of the RICO Complaint, each of the defendants (including
Plaintiff) named therein filed motions to dismiss (and/or notices of joinder in such motions) the
RICO Complaint.
59. These motions to dismiss asserted that the RICO Complaint should be dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure I2(b)(6) in that, assuming everything alleged in the
RICO Complaint was true, the allegations were substantively deficient to sustain a RICO claim
against any of the defendants.
60. In so doing, the defendants (including Plaintiff) did not challenge the RICO
Complaint on some technical deficiency (such as improper venue and/or lack of personal
jurisdiction), but rather on the substantive allegations therein.
61. On June 30, 2015, Judge Kenneth A. Marra entered an Opinion and Order
dismissing the RICO Complaint with prejudice.
62. In so doing, Judge Marra definitively and unequivocally stated:
Accepting all of the facts set forth in the Complaint as true, the
Court finds that it would be futile for Plaintiffs to try to amend
their Complaint. The Complaint fails not due to a lack of finesse in
pleading; rather, it fails because on the most fundamental level, the
entire factual underpinning of Plaintiffs' case cannot, under any
circumstances, constitute a RICO violation.
63. Following dismissal of the RICO Complaint, Gulf Stream and Wantman (through
their legal counsel at Richman Greer) promptly filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
64. On June 21, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the RICO Complaint, specifically stating that "the allegations [of the
11
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 12 of 23
RICO Complaint] do not support a RICO claim under our precedent."
65. Recently, at a July 8, 2016 Gulf Stream town commission meeting, Mayor
Morgan commented that, despite losing the RICO action, Gulf Stream accomplished exactly
what it set out to do — stop the exercise of protected activity (the filing of the records lawsuits).
Mayor Morgan commented: "1 want to just give you an update on the litigation status. The
RICO action is finished.... So, the effect of the RICO action was exactly what we tried to
accomplish and that was to stop those lawsuits."
VI. Richman Slanders Plaintiff During Pendency of RICO Lawsuit
66. After filing the RICO Complaint, Richman gave multiple statements to the media
(which were then published and/or broadcast to thousands of readers/viewers) that Plaintiff
(together with the other named defendants in the RICO complaint) had committed various
crimes, including but not limited to violation of the RICO statute and extortion.
67. Indeed, Richman plainly stated to at least one media outlet that Plaintiff (and the
other defendants') alleged conduct was "extortion plain and simple."
68. Upon information and belief, Richman also made the same accusations/statements
directly to various law enforcement agencies including, but not limited to, the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement and one/or more Florida state attorney offices in an effort to
have criminal charges brought against Plaintiff and the other defendants named in the RICO
Complaint.
69. These statements were false and malicious — Richman's primary motive in
making the statements was not to report an alleged crime but rather to injure Plaintiffs
reputation in such a way as to cause Plaintiff to disassociate from the alleged enterprise and
cease participating in sending public records requests and filing public records lawsuits.
12
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 13 of 23
VII. Plaintiff Loses Employment Opportunities as a Result of the RICO Lawsuit and
Defendants' Conduct
70. From February 12, 2015 through June 13, 2015, Plaintiff remained employed by
CRO Realty, Inc. During this time, Plaintiff worked alongside many of the other defendants
named in the RICO Complaint and often shared in their frustration/feelings of uneasiness as a
result of being named as a defendant in the RICO Complaint.
71. After dealing for months with her own fears regarding the outcome of the RICO
lawsuit and seeing similar fear on the face of her colleagues, Plaintiff and CRO Realty, Inc.
agreed to the termination of Plaintiff's employment and Plaintiff thereafter decided to seek new
employment after approximately 23 years with the same company. Plaintiff's decision was not
an easy one and was, in part, due to the extreme stress she was under as a defendant in the RICO
lawsuit.
72. Following her termination of employment, Plaintiff decided she wanted to seek
employment in the public sector.
73. On June 17, 2015, Plaintiff applied to an open position as a Communications
Officer with the Brevard Sheriff's Office. The position can best be described as that of an
emergency dispatcher, responsible for answering emergency and non -emergency service phones,
dispatching appropriate emergency services and servicing/maintaining related equipment.
74. Over the next month, Plaintiff submitted a written application, completed/passed a
typing test, and completed/passed a drug screening test.
75. On July 16, 2015, Plaintiff appeared before the Oral Review Board for an
interview with three representatives of the Brevard Sheriffs Office. Following the interview,
Plaintiff was told by one of the three representatives that "you have the job" and that Plaintiff
was hired pending the results of polygraph test, psych exam, and background check.
13
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 14 of 23
76. Plaintiff subsequently completed/passed a polygraph test and completed/passed a
psychological evaluation. Thus, her formal hiring by the Brevard Sheriffs Office was
contingent only on her passing the aforementioned background check.
77. On or about August 25, 2015, Plaintiff was notified by the Brevard Sheriff's
Office that her background check had been discontinued and that Plaintiff would not be offered a
position of employment. The investigator assigned to Plaintiffs file explained to Plaintiff that,
as a result of the lawsuits filed by Gulf Stream and/or Wantman against Plaintiff (several of
which Plaintiff did not even know had been filed at the time as Gulf Stream never endeavored to
serve process on Plaintiff), Brevard Sheriffs Office could not hire Plaintiff.
78. This news was disheartening to Plaintiff. She had spent several months applying
to a public service position only to be told at the last minute that she could not be hired as a
result of being named as a RICO defendant and a third party defendant in a bevy of state court
counterclaims.
79. Plaintiff subsequently attempted to gain employment at other law
enforcement/state agencies, but faced a similar problem in that the applications for such jobs
included questions regarding pending lawsuits and whether Plaintiff had ever been rejected for
employment by another law enforcement/state agency.
80. Discouraged by her own attempts to find employment, Plaintiff spoke to a job
recruiter in an effort to discover potentially -available employment. Plaintiff was informed,
however, that it would be exceedingly difficult for Plaintiff to secure employment as a result of
the plethora of publicly -available information on the various Gulf Stream/Wantman lawsuits
against Plaintiff.
81. For approximately seven months, Plaintiff attempted to secure employment — any
14
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE TI IIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 - FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 15 of 23
employment — in which Plaintiff could stay afloat and receive health insurance/other benefits that
were much needed by Plaintiff and her family.
82. Finally, in January 2016, unable to secure other employment, Plaintiff accepted a
job from her brother, for approximately $14 per hour, and which offered no health
insurance/other benefits. The job was, unfortunately, the only one available to Plaintiff as a
result of Defendants' smear campaign and lumping Plaintiff together with those they truly had
legal issues with.
COUNT I — RETALIATION (42 U.S.C. 41983)
(Gulf Stream)
83. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 82 as set forth above
and paragraphs 94 through 108 as set forth below.
84. On October 10, 2014, Gulf Stream unanimously voted to initiate a RICO lawsuit
against Plaintiff and others at a regular town commission meeting.
85. The speakers at that meeting made clear that Gulf Stream was not concerned with
the merits of the RICO lawsuit or its likelihood of success. Rather, as detailed above, every
speaker (including Mayor Morgan, Commissioner Orthwein, and Richman) made clear that Gulf
Stream's sole motivation in voting for the RICO lawsuit was to stop the filing of public records
lawsuits.
86. Indeed, after the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the RICO Complaint,
Mayor Morgan plainly admitted at a town commission meeting that the RICO lawsuit served its
purpose — because new public records lawsuits had not been filed, the effect of the RICO lawsuit
"was exactly what we tried to accomplish."
87. Here, Gulf Stream's unanimous vote by the members of the town commission to
initiate a RICO lawsuit against Plaintiff (and others) constitutes official policy or custom for
15
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 16 of 23
purposes of First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983.
88. Plaintiff engaged in speech that was constitutionally protected by associating with
Citizens Awareness Foundation, Inc. ("CAFI') (first as its treasurer and later — eight months
prior to filing of the RICO lawsuit — as its President and a director), which itself filed several
public records lawsuits against Gulf Stream (a municipality). The filing of these public records
lawsuits against a municipality such as Gulf Stream, at the behest, direction, and/or approval of
Plaintiff, constitutes protected activity.
89. In the alternative, even if Plaintiff did not engage in protected activity, Gulf
Stream perceived that Plaintiff was engaging in such activity as evidenced by the factual
allegations of the RICO Complaint. Therein, Gulf Stream alleges its perceived belief that
Plaintiff was responsible for activating `shell' companies and that Plaintiff was responsible for
the filing of public records lawsuits. Plaintiff was named as a defendant in the RICO lawsuit
because Gulf Stream believed that Plaintiff was engaging in protected activity — namely, the
sending of records requests and the filing of records lawsuits. From July 2014 through the
present date, Gulf Stream's representatives (including counsel, Mayor Morgan, and town
commissioners) have conflated Plaintiff with Mr. O'Boyle and Mr. O'Hare and viewed them as
one and the same. Plaintiff has been named as a defendant in the RICO lawsuit and a bevy of
state court `counterclaims' (which are not actually counterclaims as Plaintiff did not file the
underlying complaints) as a result of Gulf Stream's perception that Plaintiff was engaged in
protected activity.
90. As set forth herein, Gulf Stream retaliated against Plaintiffs actual and/or
perceived protected activity by filing the RICO lawsuit and a bevy of state court counterclaims
(the vast majority of which Gulf Stream never endeavored to serve).
16
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 17 of 23
91. Gulf Stream's retaliatory conduct adversely affected Plaintiff's protected activity.
As set forth above, Plaintiff terminated her employment with CRO Realty, Inc. in June 2015
after dealing with the stress and embarrassment of being an accused criminal/racketeer both in
court filings and in public statements made by Gulf Stream and its counsel. Plaintiff has not
filed any public records lawsuits since the filing of the RICO lawsuit and has essentially
dissociated herself from Mr. O'Boyle, Mr. O'Hare, and the others named as defendants in the
RICO lawsuit. Plaintiff has been chilled from engaging in protected activity as a direct result of
the RICO lawsuit and the various state court counterclaims filed by Gulf Stream against her.
92. Plaintiff incurred substantial damages as a result of Gulf Stream's retaliatory
conduct. As set forth herein, Plaintiff was forced to terminate gainful employment of
approximately 23 years with CRO Realty, Inc. and she was unable to secure employment with a
government agency due to Gulf Stream's accusations that she is a criminal/racketeer. Plaintiff
has incurred damage to her reputation and has suffered economic hardship all as a result of Gulf
Stream's retaliatory conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Gulf Stream for compensatory
damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
COUNT II — MALICIOUS PROSECUTION
(Wantman, Richman Greer, and Richman)
93. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates paragraphs I through 82 as set forth above.
94. On February 12, 2015, Richman and Richman Greer signed and filed the RICO
Complaint (which was not verified by their clients) on behalf of Gulf Stream and Wantman.
95. The RICO Complaint named Plaintiff (among others) as a defendant.
96. The RICO Complaint was substantively dismissed with prejudice by Judge Marra,
17
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 18 of 23
who plainly stated that "the entire factual underpinning of Plaintiffs' case cannot, under any
circumstances, constitute a RICO violation."
97. The dismissal of the RICO Complaint was subsequently affirmed by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
98. The RICO lawsuit thus ended in favor of Plaintiff.
99. There is no question that the RICO lawsuit was instigated with malice. Indeed, in
voting to approve the filing of the RICO lawsuit, Gulf Stream mayor Scott Morgan stated:
I think as it has been discussed today, we can either take the
approach of defending these individual cases as they come in, and
bleed to death by a thousand cuts, or we can takes steps necessary
to stop those cases by advancing this case ... And by putting a stop
to it with this RICO action, we then put a stop to the individual
lawsuits on the public records requests. I'm confident that would
be the result of this case.
100. Another Gulf Stream town commissioner followed up this statement by
exclaiming:
I agree, because I don't see an end just defending one by one. I
think we have to take it all as a group and go forward because just
defending is not doing anything.
101. These statements are, of course, referring to the public records lawsuits filed by
Mr. O'Boyle, Mr. O'Hare, CAFI, and other entities associated Mr. O'Boyle — not to any lawsuit
filed by or records request submitted by Plaintiff (as there were none).
102. Prior to filing the RICO lawsuit, Wantman was a defendant in only one public
records lawsuit which was filed by Citizens Awareness Foundation, Inc. ("CAFI"), a Florida
corporation for which Plaintiff was listed as the treasurer at the time. Plaintiff did not sign
and/or verify that complaint (indeed, it was actually verified by Mr. Chandler, the sole person
relied upon in bringing the RICO lawsuit) and never had any contact/interaction with Wantman.
18
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 19 of 23
There was thus no rational basis for Wantman to name Plaintiff as a defendant in the RICO
action other than Wantman's ill -will toward anyone perceived to be associated with the filing of
public records lawsuits, even if that person was simply listed as a treasurer of CAFI at the time
Wantman was served with the CAFI complaint.
103. There is no doubt that the RICO Complaint was intended to chill the filing of
records lawsuits by Mr. O'Boyle and Mr. O'Hare, but to do this Gulf Stream and Wantman
needed only to file the RICO Complaint against Mr. O'Boyle and Mr. O'Hare — not against
Plaintiff and a dozen others.
104. Rather, it appears clear that a conscious decision was made — by Gulf Stream,
Wantman, Richman Greer, and Richman to sue any and everyone associated with Mr. O'Boyle
and Mr. O'Hare on a personal and/or professional level.
105. This decision was made despite having no evidence and no reasonable belief that
Plaintiff had any involvement or participation in the extortionate scheme alleged in the RICO
Complaint.
106. Plaintiffs inclusion as a defendant in the RICO Complaint can best be described
as the result of ill will and animosity - Gulf Stream, Wantman, Richman Greer, and Richman
never believed that Plaintiff actually committed RICO violations, but wanted to use the specter
of being a defendant in such a lawsuit to cause Plaintiff to `flip' on the other defendants, provide
favorable testimony for Gulf Stream and Wantman, and retreat from her perceived role as a
purported ringleader in the making of records requests and filing of records lawsuits.
107. In short, Gulf Stream, Wantman, Richman Greer, and Richman were perfectly ok
with ruining Plaintiffs life and earning ability on the oft chance that Plaintiff might assist them
in their claims against those they truly had legal issues with (Mr. O'Boyle and Mr. O'Hare). The
19
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 20 of 23
decision to include Plaintiff in the RICO Complaint was not only intentional and done with
malice — it was also despicable.
108. As a result of aforementioned malicious prosecution and pursuit of RICO claims
against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages, the full amount of which will be
established at trial of this matter.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Wantman, Richman Greer, and
Richman for compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, and such other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
COUNT III — SLANDER PER SE
(Sweetapple)
109. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates paragraphs I through 82 as set forth above.
110. As described herein, Sweetapple has, on numerous occasions from April 2014
through January 2015, falsely stated to third parties and/or law enforcement agencies that
Plaintiff is a criminal, has committed racketeering violations, has violated the federal RICO
statute, and is guilty of extortion.
1 1 I. Sweetapple did not present these statements as if they were merely his opinion —
rather, Sweetapple, as an attorney experienced in both state and federal matters, conveyed these
statements as fact. He did not state it was his opinion that Plaintiff had committed several
felonies or that he would ultimately prove such in a court of law — rather, he left no room for
doubt in emphatically stating that Plaintiff (and the other defendants named in the RICO
Complaint) had committed these crimes.
112. In truth, at the time these statements were made, Sweetapple had not assembled
any evidence which would support his accusations that Plaintiff violated the civil or criminal
provisions of the federal or Florida RICO statutes. Sweetapple, an attorney with substantial
20
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 21 of 23
experience in federal and state matters, knew at the time that he made these statements that they
were wholly unsupported by the evidence, and therefore were made with reckless disregard for
the truth.
113. The above-described false and malicious statements were made with the purpose
of causing harm to Plaintiff's reputation.
114. These statements were false and malicious — Sweetapple's primary motive in
making the statements was not to report an alleged crime but rather to injure Plaintiff's
reputation in such a way as to cause Plaintiff to disassociate from the alleged enterprise and
cease participating in sending public records requests and filing public records lawsuits.
115. The falsity of the above-described statements cannot be disputed. The United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit have already conclusively determined that none of the conduct
Defendants have alleged rise to the level of extortion, racketeering, mail fraud, and/or wire fraud.
116. As a result of Sweetapple's false and malicious statements, Plaintiff has sustained
substantial damages, the full amount of which will be established at trial of this matter.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Sweetapple for compensatory
damages, prejudgment interest, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
COUNT IV — SLANDER PER SE
(Richman)
117. Plaintiff re -alleges and incorporates paragraphs I through 82 as set forth above.
118. As described herein, Richman has, on numerous occasions since filing the RICO
Complaint, falsely stated to third parties and/or law enforcement agencies that Plaintiff is a
criminal, has committed racketeering violations, has violated the federal RICO statute, and is
guilty of extortion.
21
DESOUZA LAW, F.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 22 of 23
119. Richman did not present these statements as if they were merely his opinion —
rather, Richman, as an attorney experienced in both state and federal matters, conveyed these
statements as fact. He did not state it was his opinion that Plaintiff had committed several
felonies or that he would ultimately prove such in a court of law — rather, he left no room for
doubt in emphatically stating that Plaintiff (and the other defendants named in the RICO
Complaint) had committed these crimes.
120. In truth, at the time these statements were made, Richman had not assembled any
evidence which would support his accusations that Plaintiff violated the civil or criminal
provisions of the federal or Florida RICO statutes. Richman, an attorney with substantial
experience in federal and state matters, knew at the time that he made these statements that they
were wholly unsupported by the evidence, and therefore were made with reckless disregard for
the truth.
121. The above-described false and malicious statements were made with the purpose
of causing harm to Plaintiff's reputation.
122. These statements were false and malicious — Richman's primary motive in
making the statements was not to report an alleged crime but rather to injure Plaintiff's
reputation in such a way as to cause Plaintiff to disassociate from the alleged enterprise and
cease participating in sending public records requests and filing public records lawsuits.
123. The falsity of the above-described statements cannot be disputed. The United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit have already conclusively determined that none of the conduct
Defendants have alleged rise to the level of extortion, racketeering, mail fraud, and/or wire fraud.
124. As a result of Richman's false and malicious statements, Plaintiff has sustained
22
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE T141RD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPHONE (954) 603-1340
Case 9:16-cv-81371-BB Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/02/2016 Page 23 of 23
substantial damages, the full amount of which will be established at trial of this matter.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Richman for compensatory
damages, prejudgment interest, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Demand For Jury Trial
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: August 2, 2016 DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE Third Avenue
Suite 1500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 603-1340
DDesouza@desouzalaw.com
4835-3822-7765, v. 1
By: /s/ Daniel DeSouza, Esq.
Daniel DeSouza, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 19291
23
DESOUZA LAW, P.A.
101 NE THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1500 • FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
TELEPI [ONE (954) 603-1340