Preview
Filing # 75220587 E-Filed 07/19/2018 03:04:26 PM.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA
IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA
)
TREASURE ISLAND CAFE, LLC, )
) CASE NO.:
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) DIVISION:
)
SKYLARK-SCHIPPERS, LLC, )
)
Defendant. y
DD
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Treasure Island Cafe, LLC (“Treasure”) files this Complaint against Defendant
Skylark-Schippers, LLC (“Skylark-Schippers”), as follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Skylark-Schippers pursuant to F.S.A. §
48.193(1)(a), ff 1 and 7.
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the amount in
controversy is greater than $5,000.00, but less than $15,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorney’s
fees, if any, and costs.
3. This Court is the proper venue because the real property, which is the subject of
this action is located at Marion County, and the causes of action accrued in Marion County.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Treasure Island Cafe, LLC is a Florida limited liability company.
Electronically Filed Marion Case # 18CC000702AX 07/19/2018 03:04:26 PM5. Defendant Skylark-Schippers, LLC is a Florida limited liability company.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
6. In or around March 2017, a lease agreement (the “Lease Agreement”) was entered
into between Treasure, as the tenant, and Skylark Plaza at Ocala, LLC (the “Original Lessor”), as
the landlord, for a period of three years and five months, beginning on the lease commencement
date of April 15, 2017, and ending on July 15, 2020. A true and correct copy of the Lease
Agreement with exhibits to the Lease Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A to this Complaint.
7. The lease premises covered by the Lease Agreement are described in paragraphs
1.1 and 1.2 of, and Exhibits “A” and “B” to the Lease Agreement (the “Leased Premises”).
8. At the time of the execution of the Lease Agreement, Treasure made a payment of
$3,600.00, as security deposit required by paragraph 1.6, and another payment of $3,600.00, as
base rent and other fees required by paragraph 1.13 of the Lease Agreement totaling $7,200.00.
9. According to Exhibit “G” to the Lease Agreement entitled “Leasehold
Improvements Agreement” (thereafter, the “Leasehold Improvements Agreement”), Landlord
shall deliver the Leased Premises in a certain condition. For example, “[IJandlord will demolish
the upper portion of the interior offices.”
10. Paragraph 12.21 of the Lease Agreement obligates Landlord to ensure that Tenant
may peacefully and quietly hold and enjoy the Leased Premises for the Lease Term.
11. The improvements required of Landlord by the Leasehold Improvements
Agreement are necessary for Tenant to occupy and use the Leased Premises as intended in the
Lease Agreement. The Lease Agreement recognizes that the Leased Premises are to be used as an
internet café. Due to the Leased Premises being divided into multiple compartments, the Leased
2 of 6Premises are untenable without the improvements required in the Leasehold Improvements
Agreement. As such, Treasure was unable to take possession of the Leased Premises.
12. Since the execution of the Lease Agreement in March, 2017, the Original Lessor
had made no progress on the required improvements before the Original Lessor conveyed the
Leased Premises to Skylark-Schippers, LLC, the Defendant in this action.
13. On May 1, 2017, the Original Lessor sold the Leased Premises to Skylark-
Schippers, LLC, the Defendant in this action.
14, Paragraph 12.5 of the Lease Agreement provides that the Lease Agreement “shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Landlord and Tenant and their respective heirs, personal
representatives, successors and assigns.”
15. Subsequent to the sale of the Leased Premises to Skylark-Schippers, Defendant in
this action, Treasure was advised by Skylark-Schippers that Skylark-Schippers would take the
necessary steps to complete the leasehold improvements.
16. Having observed no feedback or progress thereafter, Treasure, on multiple
occasions, had notified Skylark-Schippers of the breach and requested remedy of the same breach.
17. Skylark-Schippers’s breach was material such that the Leased Premises were
rendered untenable, unfit, and inoperable for use as an internet café as intended in the Lease
Agreement.
18. In response to Skylark-Schippers’s continuing failure to perform, Treasure
repeatedly expressed its intent to terminate the Lease Agreement and requested the refund of the
monies it provided at the execution of the Lease Agreement.
19. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, neither has the breach been cured, nor
has the requested refund been provided, and Treasure has never taken possession of the premises
3 of 6due to Skylark-Schippers’s failure to deliver the Leased Premises in such conditions as required
by the Leasehold Improvements Agreement.
20. Treasure has hired undersigned counsel and has agreed to pay counsel a reasonable
fee for services rendered.
CAUSES OF ACTION
I. COUNT I- BREACH OF CONTRACT
21. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20, as if fully set forth herein.
22. Treasure entered into a valid, enforceable lease agreement with the Original Lessor
to operate an internet café.
23. Skylark-Schippers is bound by the Lease Agreement as the successor to the
Original Lessor.
24. Skylark-Schippers has breached the contract by failing to deliver the Leased
Premises in the conditions as described in the Leasehold Improvements Agreement.
25. Skylark-Schippers has also breached the covenant of the peaceful and quiet
enjoyment, because Defendant’s non-performance amounted to complete destruction of Treasure’s
right to do business, the purpose of the lease at issue.
26. Paragraph 1.8 of the Lease Agreement shows that the parties to the Lease
Agreement intended that the lease at issue was entered into for the purpose of the operation of an
internet café. Due to Skylark-Schippers’s breach, Treasure has never taken possession of the
Leased Premises nor has Treasure operated an internet café as intended in the Lease Agreement.
27. | While Treasure has never enjoyed any aspect of its leasehold interest, Skylark-
Schippers has refused and continues to refuse to return the sum of $7,200 Treasure paid at the
4 of 6execution of the Lease Agreement as security deposit, base rent, and other fees.
28. Asa result, Treasure has been damaged by loss of business profits, and loss of the
sum of $7,200 as well as incurring attorney’s fees and costs to maintain this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Treasure Island Cafe, LLC, respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, Skylark-Schippers,
LLC, for damages, including but not limited, the sum of $7,200, lost profits, pre-judgment interest
and attorney’s fees and costs and award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Il. COUNT Il - UNJUST ENRICHMENT
29. This is a claim for unjust enrichment and Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 13, 18, 19 and 20, as if fully set forth herein.
30. In March, Treasure rendered a payment in the sum of $7,200.00 to Skylark-
Schippers.
31. Skylark-Schippers knowingly requested from Treasure, and knowingly accepted
the sum of $7,200.00
32. Skylark-Schippers voluntarily accepted and retained the benefit of the monies and
have, accordingly, been unjustly enriched, because the circumstances are such that it would be
inequitable for Skylark-Schippers to retain the benefit conferred by Treasure without paying the
value thereof to Treasure.
33. Treasure has made demand for payment of $7,200.00, which is due and owing with
interest.
34, Skylark-Schippers has refused to and has failed to pay the same under the
circumstances Skylark-Schippers should, in all fairness, be required to pay for the benefit
conferred by Treasure.
5 of 6WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Treasure Island Cafe, LLC, prays to this Honorable Court to
enter judgment against Defendant, Skylark-Schippers, LLC, for the monies provided by Plaintiff
in the sum of $7,200.00, plus pre-judgment interest thereon and for the cost of this action and such
further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted this 19"" day of July, 2018,
Lee Law Group, PLLC
/s/ Haksoo Stephen Lee
Haksoo Stephen Lee, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 88698
3804 W. North B Street,
Tampa, Florida 33609
Telephone: — (813) 606-4533
hlee@flrights.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
6 of 6
Preview
Filing # 75220587 E-Filed 07/19/2018 03:04:26 PM. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA ) TREASURE ISLAND CAFE, LLC, ) ) CASE NO.: Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) DIVISION: ) SKYLARK-SCHIPPERS, LLC, ) ) Defendant. y DD COMPLAINT Plaintiff Treasure Island Cafe, LLC (“Treasure”) files this Complaint against Defendant Skylark-Schippers, LLC (“Skylark-Schippers”), as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Skylark-Schippers pursuant to F.S.A. § 48.193(1)(a), ff 1 and 7. 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the amount in controversy is greater than $5,000.00, but less than $15,000.00, exclusive of interest, attorney’s fees, if any, and costs. 3. This Court is the proper venue because the real property, which is the subject of this action is located at Marion County, and the causes of action accrued in Marion County. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Treasure Island Cafe, LLC is a Florida limited liability company. Electronically Filed Marion Case # 18CC000702AX 07/19/2018 03:04:26 PM5. Defendant Skylark-Schippers, LLC is a Florida limited liability company. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6. In or around March 2017, a lease agreement (the “Lease Agreement”) was entered into between Treasure, as the tenant, and Skylark Plaza at Ocala, LLC (the “Original Lessor”), as the landlord, for a period of three years and five months, beginning on the lease commencement date of April 15, 2017, and ending on July 15, 2020. A true and correct copy of the Lease Agreement with exhibits to the Lease Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A to this Complaint. 7. The lease premises covered by the Lease Agreement are described in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of, and Exhibits “A” and “B” to the Lease Agreement (the “Leased Premises”). 8. At the time of the execution of the Lease Agreement, Treasure made a payment of $3,600.00, as security deposit required by paragraph 1.6, and another payment of $3,600.00, as base rent and other fees required by paragraph 1.13 of the Lease Agreement totaling $7,200.00. 9. According to Exhibit “G” to the Lease Agreement entitled “Leasehold Improvements Agreement” (thereafter, the “Leasehold Improvements Agreement”), Landlord shall deliver the Leased Premises in a certain condition. For example, “[IJandlord will demolish the upper portion of the interior offices.” 10. Paragraph 12.21 of the Lease Agreement obligates Landlord to ensure that Tenant may peacefully and quietly hold and enjoy the Leased Premises for the Lease Term. 11. The improvements required of Landlord by the Leasehold Improvements Agreement are necessary for Tenant to occupy and use the Leased Premises as intended in the Lease Agreement. The Lease Agreement recognizes that the Leased Premises are to be used as an internet café. Due to the Leased Premises being divided into multiple compartments, the Leased 2 of 6Premises are untenable without the improvements required in the Leasehold Improvements Agreement. As such, Treasure was unable to take possession of the Leased Premises. 12. Since the execution of the Lease Agreement in March, 2017, the Original Lessor had made no progress on the required improvements before the Original Lessor conveyed the Leased Premises to Skylark-Schippers, LLC, the Defendant in this action. 13. On May 1, 2017, the Original Lessor sold the Leased Premises to Skylark- Schippers, LLC, the Defendant in this action. 14, Paragraph 12.5 of the Lease Agreement provides that the Lease Agreement “shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Landlord and Tenant and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns.” 15. Subsequent to the sale of the Leased Premises to Skylark-Schippers, Defendant in this action, Treasure was advised by Skylark-Schippers that Skylark-Schippers would take the necessary steps to complete the leasehold improvements. 16. Having observed no feedback or progress thereafter, Treasure, on multiple occasions, had notified Skylark-Schippers of the breach and requested remedy of the same breach. 17. Skylark-Schippers’s breach was material such that the Leased Premises were rendered untenable, unfit, and inoperable for use as an internet café as intended in the Lease Agreement. 18. In response to Skylark-Schippers’s continuing failure to perform, Treasure repeatedly expressed its intent to terminate the Lease Agreement and requested the refund of the monies it provided at the execution of the Lease Agreement. 19. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, neither has the breach been cured, nor has the requested refund been provided, and Treasure has never taken possession of the premises 3 of 6due to Skylark-Schippers’s failure to deliver the Leased Premises in such conditions as required by the Leasehold Improvements Agreement. 20. Treasure has hired undersigned counsel and has agreed to pay counsel a reasonable fee for services rendered. CAUSES OF ACTION I. COUNT I- BREACH OF CONTRACT 21. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20, as if fully set forth herein. 22. Treasure entered into a valid, enforceable lease agreement with the Original Lessor to operate an internet café. 23. Skylark-Schippers is bound by the Lease Agreement as the successor to the Original Lessor. 24. Skylark-Schippers has breached the contract by failing to deliver the Leased Premises in the conditions as described in the Leasehold Improvements Agreement. 25. Skylark-Schippers has also breached the covenant of the peaceful and quiet enjoyment, because Defendant’s non-performance amounted to complete destruction of Treasure’s right to do business, the purpose of the lease at issue. 26. Paragraph 1.8 of the Lease Agreement shows that the parties to the Lease Agreement intended that the lease at issue was entered into for the purpose of the operation of an internet café. Due to Skylark-Schippers’s breach, Treasure has never taken possession of the Leased Premises nor has Treasure operated an internet café as intended in the Lease Agreement. 27. | While Treasure has never enjoyed any aspect of its leasehold interest, Skylark- Schippers has refused and continues to refuse to return the sum of $7,200 Treasure paid at the 4 of 6execution of the Lease Agreement as security deposit, base rent, and other fees. 28. Asa result, Treasure has been damaged by loss of business profits, and loss of the sum of $7,200 as well as incurring attorney’s fees and costs to maintain this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Treasure Island Cafe, LLC, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, Skylark-Schippers, LLC, for damages, including but not limited, the sum of $7,200, lost profits, pre-judgment interest and attorney’s fees and costs and award such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Il. COUNT Il - UNJUST ENRICHMENT 29. This is a claim for unjust enrichment and Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 18, 19 and 20, as if fully set forth herein. 30. In March, Treasure rendered a payment in the sum of $7,200.00 to Skylark- Schippers. 31. Skylark-Schippers knowingly requested from Treasure, and knowingly accepted the sum of $7,200.00 32. Skylark-Schippers voluntarily accepted and retained the benefit of the monies and have, accordingly, been unjustly enriched, because the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for Skylark-Schippers to retain the benefit conferred by Treasure without paying the value thereof to Treasure. 33. Treasure has made demand for payment of $7,200.00, which is due and owing with interest. 34, Skylark-Schippers has refused to and has failed to pay the same under the circumstances Skylark-Schippers should, in all fairness, be required to pay for the benefit conferred by Treasure. 5 of 6WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Treasure Island Cafe, LLC, prays to this Honorable Court to enter judgment against Defendant, Skylark-Schippers, LLC, for the monies provided by Plaintiff in the sum of $7,200.00, plus pre-judgment interest thereon and for the cost of this action and such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted this 19"" day of July, 2018, Lee Law Group, PLLC /s/ Haksoo Stephen Lee Haksoo Stephen Lee, Esq. Florida Bar No. 88698 3804 W. North B Street, Tampa, Florida 33609 Telephone: — (813) 606-4533 hlee@flrights.com Attorney for Plaintiff 6 of 6