Motion for Sanctions in NORTH SHORE AT LAKE HART HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INvs.MASON, LISA et al.| Trellis.Law

On November 08, 2019 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between North Shore At Lake Hart Homeowners Association In, North Shore At Lake Hart Homeowners Association Inc., and Lisa Mason, Lynn Sandford, for 3 in the District Court of Orange County.

Preview
Filing # 145563971 E-Filed 03/11/2022 02:59:15 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

NORTHSHORE AT LAKE HART CASE NO.: 2019-CA-013714-0
HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Plaintiff,

LISA MASON and LYNN SANDFORD,

Defendants.
/

DEFENDANT LYNN SANDFORD'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

COMES NOW, the Defendant, LYNN SANDFORD ('Defendanf), by and through her

undersigned counsel, and hereby moves this Honorable Court for an Order sanctioning the

Plaintiff, NORTHSHORE AT LAKE HART HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC.

("Plaintiff), and as grounds therefor would state the following:

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendant on or about 11/08/2019, alleging

Defendant made defamatory statements against two of Plaintiff s board members (Steven Smith

and David Gordon) at an association meeting on 08/27/2019. Likewise, Plaintiff claims Defendant

made and broke a
promise to apologize for said statements (see Counts II and III of Plaintiff s

Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit "A").
2. The final count Plaintiff asserts against Defendant (Count IV) seeks an injunction

preventing Defendant from further publishing allegedly defamatory statements against Plaintiff.

Page 1of 9
Defendant Lynn Sandford's Motion for Sanctions
3. On 12/20/2021, Plaintiff filed its Amended Notice of Remote Deposition on Oral

Examination and Duces Tecum of Defendant with the deposition set to occur on 01/19/2022. A

copy of Plaintiff s Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

4. On 01/19/2022, Plaintiff proceeded to depose Defendant for 5 hours and 45

minutes, the majority of which time was spent harassing Defendant about entirely separate legal

proceedings.

5. For instance, Plaintiff spent considerable time asking Defendant about Case No.:

2020-CA-009504-0 (an Orange County Circuit Court case in which Defendant is a named plaintiff

and Plaintiff isone of several named defendants). Plaintiff interrogated Defendant for hours about

this entirely separate legal action, including the bases of Defendant's original and amended

Complaints in that case, the identities of plaintiffs "Jane Doe 1" and "Joe Doe 1", who prepared

the Complaints for Plaintiff, etc.

6. Case No.: 2020-CA-009504-0 involves legal issues wholly outside the scope of the

instant case's subject matter. For instance, that case "seeks to recover funds wrongfully taken from

the Homeowners Association by the Defendants over the last five years and continuing to this day,

for their own personal use and benefit."1 The Amended Complaint in that case asserts causes of

action for misappropriation and conversion of corporate assets by trick; breach of fiduciary duty;

negligence; civil theft; and injunctive relief. Copies of both the original Complaint and Amended

Complaint in that case are attached hereto as Exhibits "C" and "D", respectively.

7. Importantly, Defendant is represented by a different attorney (Bruce Burtoff, Esq.)

in Case No.: 2020-CA-009504-0 than the undersigned. Mr. Burtoff was not notified of Plaintiff s

deposition of Defendant in the instant case or that this deposition was going to involve questions

Case No.: 2020-CA-009504-0, First Amended Complaint,
1

¶9.

Page 2 of 9
Defendant Lynn Sandford's Motion for Sanctions
about Mr. Burtoff s case with Defendant and, so, Mr. Burtoff was not present for this deposition.

Plaintiff did not file a Notice of Taking Deposition of Defendant in that case. Defendant's

undersigned counsel is not involved in Case No.: 2020-CA-009504-0 and, therefore, did not

review or otherwise discuss that case with Defendant. Likewise, Defendant was unaware she was

going to be asked questions about that case, and, accordingly, she was only prepared to testify as

to the subject matter of the instant case.

8. Thus, Plaintiff s long deep dive into the merits of Defendant's separate action

against Plaintiff (and others) during Plaintiff s
deposition of Defendant in this case was
entirely

unexpected and improper.

9. Additionally, Plaintiff continued to ask questions about unrelated legal matters

beyond Case No.: 2020-CA-009504-0. Plaintiff also sought testimony from Defendant about a

recall of Plaintiff s board members initiated by a majority of the association's membership with

the State of Florida's Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Florida

Condominiums, Time Shares and Mobile Homes. Defendant, along with the other homeowners

who initiated the recall effort, are represented by Nancy Campiglia, Esq. —
not the undersigned —

in that matter. A copy of the recall petition is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

10. Again, Plaintiff failed to notify Mrs. Campiglia, Defendant, and the undersigned

that Plaintiff would be deposing Defendant about the recall action in this case, which has nothing

to do with the recall. Accordingly, Defendant was unprepared to answer questions about the recall

effort and she was unable to have her attorney in that action present for such questions.

11. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to provide copies of the two Complaints in Case No.:

2020-CA-009504-0 or the recall petition to Defendant, or otherwise show her copies thereof,

whilst Plaintiff berated her with question after question about the allegations thereof. Plaintiff also

Page 3 of 9
Defendant Lynn Sandford's Motion for Sanctions
failed to attach these documents as exhibits to the deposition. Consequently, Defendant simply had

to answer Plaintiff s oppressive questions based on memory, at best, and without the opportunity

to review those documents or discuss them with her attorneys in those matters.

12. Counsel for Defendant objected on the record to the line of questioning regarding

the separate cases, but Plaintiff ignored the objection and persisted with its questions.2 A copy of

the transcript for this deposition will be provided under seal.

13. Furthermore, unbeknownst to Defendant, David Gordon (an officer of Plaintiff and

one of the parties being sued by Defendant in Case No.: 2020-CA-009504-0 and one of the

directors recalled in the recall petition) was sitting in on the deposition just outside the view of

Plaintiff s counsel's camera. Neither Plaintiff s counsel nor Mr. Gordon himself disclosed his

presence at the outset of the deposition when the court reporter instructed "all parties except for

the witness [to] please state your appearance, how you're attending, and your locatioe on the

record.3 Itwas not until Mr. Gordon inappropriately interjected himself off camera hours in the

deposition that his presence was finally detected and disclosed.4

14. Following the deposition, by letter dated 01/27/2022, Plaintiff requested to depose

eight (8) non-parties (Will Arwood, John Baker, Kelli Clavico, Brian Fridel [sic], Angele Fowler,

Tom Garland, Kurt Kuhl, and Gregory Mattheson). Defendant testified that Mr. Arwood, Mr.

Baker, Ms. Clavico, Mr. Garland, Mr. Kuhl, and Mr. Mattheson were
only involved in the recall

petition.' Ms. Fowler's knowledge is seemingly limited to being an administrator of a community

Facebook page.6 A copy of this correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

2
Deposition of Defendant, 25:1-26:24.
3
Deposition of Defendant, 5:2-14.
4
Deposition of Defendant, 155:19-23.
5
Deposition of Defendant, 94:11-18, 179:22-24.
6
Deposition of Defendant, 87:2-8 (Ms. Fowler's fullname isAngela "AngieDetwiler Fowler).

Page 4 of 9
Defendant Lynn Sandford's Motion for Sanctions
15. On 02/09/2022, Plaintiff served a Second Request for Production upon Defendant

seeking voluminous documents "relating to Northshore', as well as Case No.: 2020-CA-009504-

0 and the recall petition. A copy of Plaintiff s Second Request for Production is attached hereto

as Exhibit G.

APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1), "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter,

not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action..." (emphasis added).

Under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.310(d), a
deposition may be terminated or limited upon the motion of a

party and a showing that the examination was conducted "in bad faith or in such manner as

unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party...."

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380 provides a vehicle for sanctions if a party conducts a deposition in

bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent.' A trial

court's decision to impose sanctions involves the exercise of discretion, as trial courts are
given

"considerable latitude in dealing with serious abuses of the judicial process."8

A primary principle of general discovery is to "eliminate surprise and avoid trial by

ambush."9 Litigation should no longer proceed as a game of blind man's bluff.19 The "rules of civil

procedure were not designed to be used in a manner to cause oppression or harassment to the

parties of a lawsuit."11

7
Smith v.
Gardy, 569 So. 2d 504, 507 (Fla.4th DCA 1990).
Tramel v. 1st DCA 1996) ("The 'inherent powersof a court to
8
Bass, 672 So. 2d 78, 82 (Fla. 'perform efficiently its
judicial functions,to protect itsdignity,independence and integrity...' necessarily includes theauthority toimpose
appropriate sanctions," quoting Rose v.Palm Beach County, 361 So. 2d 135, 136 n.3 (Fla.1978)).
'
Binger v.King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310, 1314 (Fla. 1981); also seeGage v.State, 147 So. 3d 1020, 1022 (Fla.
2d DCA 2014) ('Discovery rules are intended to prevent surpriseand 'trial
by ambush.).
1°
Jones v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 297 So. 2d 861, 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).
11
Canella v.Bryant, 235 So. 2d 328, 332 (Fla. 4thDCA 1970).

Page 5 of 9
Defendant Lynn Sandford's Motion for Sanctions
A trial court has the inherent authority to impose attorney's fees against an attorney for bad

faith conduct.12 In exercising such authority, there must be an express finding of bad faith conduct,

which must be supported by detailed factual findings describing the specific acts of bad faith

conduct that resulted in the unnecessary incurrence of attorneysfees. Additionally, the amount of

the award of attorneys' fees must be directly related to the attorneys' fees and costs that the

opposing party has incurred as a result of the specific bad faith conduct of the attorney. Moreover,

such a sanction is appropriate only after notice and an opportunity to be heard —

including the

opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence.13

In the case at bar, the scopes of Case No.: 2020-CA-009504-0 and the recall petition are

well beyond and entirely irrelevant to the subject matter of the pending action. Again, the issues

asserted in Plaintiff s Complaint against Defendant in this case are limited to: (a) Defendant's

alleged statements about Steven Smith and David Gordon at the meeting on 08/27/2019; (b)

Defendant's alleged promise to apologize for said statements; and (c) Defendant making additional

defamatory statements against Mr. Smith and Mr. Gordon.

Accordingly, Plaintiff was entitled to depose Defendant about those purported statements

at the 08/27/2019 meeting, as well as her alleged promise to apologize and whether there was a

risk of further defamation giving rise to the need for an injunction. The fact that Defendant may

also be a part of other legal proceedings involving Plaintiff did not give Plaintiff carte blanche to

depose her about those matters wholly outside the scope of this case's limited topics.

To the extent Plaintiff believes that Defendant's allegations in either Case No.: 2020-CA-

009504-0 or the recall petition are defamatory and, therefore, relevant to the instant matter, itis

axiomatic that "defamatory words published during the due course of a judicial procedure are

12
Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 226 (Fla.2002).
13
Id. at 227.

Page 6 of 9
Defendant Lynn Sandford's Motion for Sanctions
absolutely privileged and cannot form the basis for a defamation action so long as the statements

uttered are connected with, or are relevant or material to the cause at hand or the subject of inquiry

no matter how false or malicious such statements may in fact be."14 Thus, no matter how

defamatory Plaintiff believes Defendant's allegations in her Complaints in Case No.: 2020-CA-

009504-0 or the recall petition to be, Defendant's allegations therein are absolutely privileged.

Additionally, the inappropriateness of Plaintiff s line of questioning into these other

matters holds especially true given that Defendants counsels in those proceedings were not

notified of Plaintiff s intent to depose Defendant about those actions. Therefore, her other counsels

had no reason to believe they needed to attend this deposition or prepare their client for such

questioning. This is the definition of surprise and ambush the rules of civil procedure seek to

eliminate.

By ambushing Defendant with hours of questioning about topics she was not given an

opportunity to prepare for or discuss with her attorneys, Plaintiff forced Defendant to play a game

of blind man's bluff, which was only exacerbated by Plaintiff s failure to provide or show

Defendant copies of the very documents Plaintiff was harassing her about.

Due to being blindsided by Plaintiff s oppressive questioning about the subject matters of

separate actions, Defendant spent the majority of the deposition reasonably testifying that she

could not recall the information needed to substantively answer Plaintiff s
questions. Accordingly,

Plaintiff s efforts to violate the well-known rules of discovery only succeeded in embarrassing

Defendant and wasting the parties' time and money.

Plaintiff s conduct in this regard was unprofessional and unethical. To use the deposition

of Defendant in this case as a vehicle of discovery in other cases for which Defendant's deposition

14
Sussman v.Damian, 355 So. 2d 809, 811 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

Page 7 of 9
Defendant Lynn Sandford's Motion for Sanctions
was not noticed, and at the exclusion of Defendant's counsels in those cases, is categorically bad

faith.

Furthermore, one must wonder if the driving force behind Plaintiff s
egregious questioning

into matters irrelevant to the subject of this pending action was Mr. Gordon's surreptitious

presence at the deposition. As someone being sued by Defendant in Case No.: 2020-CA-009504-

0 for misappropriation and conversion of corporate assets by trick, breach of fiduciary duty,

negligence, and civil theft, as well as someone successfully recalled from Plaintiff s board of

directors by Defendant (among others), Mr. Gordon had plenty of reasons to harass Defendant and

vindictively question her about those proceedings.

This harassment has now been compounded by Plaintiff s subsequent request to depose

multiple non-party individuals with no involvement in the subject matter of the instant litigation

and Plaintiff s Second Request for Production overbroadly seeking documents related to wholly

separate legal and non-legal matters.

In light of the above, this Court should use itsinherent authority and discretion to sanction

Plaintiff for its willful bad faith litigation tactics. As punishment for Plaintiff s serious abuse of

the judicial process, Plaintiff should have to pay Defendant's attorney's fees and costs incurred in

appearing for this deposition, as well as those incurred in the preparation and pursual of this

Motion. Likewise, the portions of Plaintiff s
questions and Defendant's testimony outside the

scope of this case's subject matter should be stricken and Plaintiff should be prohibited from using

that testimony in this case or in those other proceedings. Also, Plaintiff s Second Request for

Production should be stricken and Plaintiff should be denied the opportunity to depose the non-

parties itnow seeks to depose.

Page 8 of 9
Defendant Lynn Sandford's Motion for Sanctions
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, LYNN SANDFORD, respectfully requests this Honorable

Court enter an Order: (1) granting this Motion; (2) sanctioning Plaintiff; (3) awarding Defendant

her attorney's fees and costs incurred at the deposition, as well as those incurred in the preparation

and pursual of this Motion; (4) striking the portions of Plaintiff s questions and Defendant's

testimony at the deposition that were outside the scope of this case's subject matter; (5) prohibiting

Plaintiff from using that testimony in this case, Case No.: 2020-CA-009504-0, or in the recall

proceeding; (6) striking Plaintiff s Second Request for Production; (7) prohibiting Plaintiff from

deposing the individuals stated in its 01/27/2022 correspondence; and (8) any further relief this

Court deems necessary and appropriate.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion has been

furnished by E-Mail and via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal to: Jennifer A. Englert, Esq., The

Orlando Law Group, P.A., 12301 Lake Underhill Road, Suite 213, Orlando, FL 32828

(jenglert@theorlandolawgroup.com; cneedham@theorlandolawgroup.com) on this day, March

11, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

Is/ Matthew B. Bernstein, Esq.
Matthew B. Bernstein, Esq.
VERNIS & BOWLING OF
CENTRAL FLORIDA, P.A.
Florida Bar No. 126212
1450 S. Woodland Blvd., 4th Floor
Deland, Florida 32720
Phone: 386-734-2505
Email: mbernstein@florida-law.com
Secondary: ajones@florida-law.com
Counsel for Defendant, Lynn Sandford

Page 9 of 9
Defendant Lynn Sandford's Motion for Sanctions
Exhibit "A"
Filing # 98642972 E-Filed 11/08/2019 05:05:13 PM

LN1 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NLNTH TUDICLAL CIRCUIT,
LN AND EOR. ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case No:

NORTH SHORE AT LAKE HART
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
a Florida not-for-profit corporation,

Plaintiff,

and

-LISA MASON, individually; and
LYNN SANDFORD, individually,

Defendants.

COMPLALNT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, NORTH SHORE AT LAKE HART HOMEOWNER'S

ASSOCIATION, INC., (hereinafter "North Shore), by and through the undersigned attorney,

files this Complaint azainst Defendants, LISA MASON (hereinafter "Mason"), an individual,

and LYNN SANDFORD (hereinafter "Sandfore), an individual, and in support thereof states as

such:

1. This is an action for negligence, fraudulent inducement, slander and a temporary injunction,

all with damages exceeding S15,000.00 dollars, exclusive of attoiney's fees, costs and

interest.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff, North Shore, is a Homeowner's Association with its principal place of business

located at 9939 North Shore Golf Club Boulevard, Orange County, Orlando, Florida 32832.
3. Defendant, LISA MASON, is an individual residing in Orange County, Florida with last

known addresses of 501 Sutton Road, Auburndale, Florida 33823. Lisa Mason is the former

Community Association Manager [CAM] of North Shore_

4. Defendant, LYNN SANFORD, is an individual residing in Orantze County, Florida, with a

last known address of 9621 Pacific Pines Court, Orlando, Florida 32832. Lynn Sandford is a

former Board member of North Shore.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. Jurisdiction is proper in Orange County, Florida because the actions giving rise to this

Complaint occurred in Orange County, Florida and both Defendants reside in Orange

County, Florida.

6. Venue is proper in the Circuit Court because the damages exceed S15,000.00 dollars,

exclusive of attorney's fees, costs and interest.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. On or about 10.17.2019 Sandford was removed as Director of the North Shore Board of

Directors by majority vote of the North Shore Board of Directors.

8. On or about August 27, 2019 Mason was relieved and terminated of her duties as CAM for

North Shore.

9. After Mason's termination as CAM for North Shore, Sandford in conjunction a.nd

coordination with Mason, unlawfully obtained protected information maintained in the

course of North Shore's business that was located on aprotected computer owned by North

Shore and used that information to contact the members at large of North Shore in an atternpt

to organize a recall of the North Shore Board of I)irectors. Lisa Mason took a computer with
Nortlishore data home after her termination and refused to return it while seeming to help

with the disruption of community activities.

10. After being terminated as the CAIVI for North Shore, Mason accessed North Shore's

protected computer without authorization and caused harm and loss to North Shore by

unlawfully and without authorization, copying protected filesand disseminating that

information to Sandford whom then used that information to contact North Shore members at

large.

11. Mason's unauthorized access into North Shore's protected computer was done intentionally,

willfully, with knowleclu.e and specifically to cause harm and :oss to North Shore in

retaliation for North Shore's termination of Mason, and Mason's actions as alleged herein did

cause harrn and loss to North Shore.

12. North Shore isthe owner and operator of the protected computer and files/information

contained therein that were unlawfully accessed by Mason without authorization from North

Short and thereafter provided by Mason to Sandford.

13. The computer accessed by Mason was North Shore's protected computer and contained a

technical access barrier [TAB] or in other terms, required a password to access same.

7.4. All conditions precedent to this action have been waived andior perforrned.

15. On or about Au.gust 27, 2019 when Sandford was a member of North Shore's Board of

Directors, Sandford stated at a membership meeting to the members that the current Board of

Directors was not following the law (specifically Fla. Stat. 720) that members Steven Smith

and David Gordon were making unlawful unilateral decisions without input from the

-membership or other Board Members; and that the North Shore Board President, David
Gordon is unlawfully receiving benefits, property and money from the Association.

Specifically, free landscaping services and perhaps other services.

16. Thereafter North Shore discussed the removal of Sandford from the Board of Directors and

in response, Sandford indicated to the Board that she would apologize to the membership;

step down voluntarily as Director; and assist the Board in any further actions needed of her.

17. North Shore then relied on Sandford's statements; did not remove Sandford as Director at

that tirne and relied on Sandford's allegation that she would cooperate with the Board as to

an organized departure from the Director position.

18. As a result of North Shore's reliance on Sandtord's statements; North Shore suffered

damages when Sandford, rather than resignine as aDirector and apologizing, stage acoup

d'etat by unlawfully obtairiina confidential member information Lisa Mason procured;

contacting members via email, text and directly using that information specifically to incite a

mob-like disruption at North Shore's attempted annual raeeting on 10.22.2019.

19. All conditions precedent have been waived andior perfoimed.

COUNT I—
NEGLIGENCE AGAINST LISA MASON

20. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1- 19 above as thoueh fully and completely

re-stated herein.

21. Mason owed a duty to North Shore as North Shore's CAM, in part, to protect the unlawful

disclosure of the rnembers confidential information and to not misuse sarne.

22. Mason breached her duty owed to North Shore when Mason herself, unlawfully and without

authorization accessed the North Shore members confidential information; copied that

information; and then knowingly provided that information to Sandford for unlawful and

unauthorized purposes.
23. Mason's breach as alleged herein was the proximate and direct cause of injury and damage to

North Shore by providing that information to Sandford ‘Arbom then used that informa.tion to

communicate with North Shore's members for their assistance in staging what was an

unsuccessful recall of the North Shore Directors and inciteda near riot atthe attempted

annual meeting on 1022.2019 so as to prohibit the annual meeting from occurring.

24. North Shore suffered damages caused by the Mason's breach of duty in the form of costs of

yet another attempt at an a.nnnal meeting, loss of confidential information of the members,

costs of a security guard being staged 247 at the North Shore office amongst other damages

stillto be accounted for.

WITEREFORE, Plaintiff, North Shore, requests that thisHonorable Court fmd Defendant,

LISA MASON, liable for negligence; and award damages in excess of S15,000.00 dollars to

North Shore; and for any other and such relief as this Court may deem just, proper or equitable.

COUNT II —
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT AGArNST LYNN SANDFORD

25. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1- 19 above as though fully stated herein.

26. Sandford made a false staternent regarding a material fact to North Shore that she would

apologize to the membership for the defamatory statements she published to the membership

about the North Shore Board of Directors and step down [resign] voluntarily as Director; and

assist the North Shore I3oard of Directors in any further actions needed of Sandford in

concluding her business as Director.

27. Sandford knew the statements she made to North Shore were false and we made to North

Shore with the specific purpose of inducing North Shore to rely on those statements and not

immediately remove Sandford from the Board of Directors.
28. Sandford intended that the statements alleged herein that she made to North Shore induce

North Shore to not take imniediate action in Sandford's removal from her Director position.

29. North Shore suffered damages in justifiable reliance on Sandford's statements as alleged

herein when Sandford, rather than resigning as a Director and apologiz4ng, stage a coup

d"etat by unlawfully obtaining confidential member information with the assistance of Lisa

Mason; contacting members via email, text and directly using that information specifically to

incite a mob-like disruption at North Shores attempted anniial meeting on 10.22.2019.

30. North Shore suffered damages in justifiable reliance on Sandford's statements as alleged

herein when Sandford used the aforementioned confidential information of the members that

she received frorn Lisa Mason to instigate and stage a recall of the directors.

31. But for Sandford's false statements and North Shore's reliance on same, North Shore would

not have been damaged as alleged herein by Sandford.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, North Shore, requests that this Honorable Court find Defendant,

IXNN SANDFORD, liable for fraudulent inducement; and award damages in excess of

515,000.00 dollars to North Shore; and for any other and such relief as this Court may deem just,

proper or equitable.

COUNT 111 —
SLANDER AGAINST LYNN SANDFORD

32. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragaphs 1- 19 above as though fully stated herein.

3. Sandford made a false statement of material factto third persons, specifically that a) North

Shore broke the law; b) violated Florida Statute 720; e) made unilateral decisions without

properly noticed meetings; and d) that North Shore obtained special financial benefits for its

personal use and gain at the memberships expense.
40. The allegations of conduct incompatible with the proper conduct of North Shore's business

are and Were; incompatible with the proper exercise of North Shores duties and lawful

business transactions.

41. North Shore has no adequate remedy at law toprevent Sandford from continuing to publish

false and defamatory statements to third persons about North Shore.

42. North Shore has a substanfial likelihood of success on the rnerits of this claim as the

defamatory statements clearly and unambiguously constitute statements involving and

imputim: conduct that is incompatible with North Shore's business purpose and transactions.

43. A temporary injunction will serve the public interest as many of the false and defamatory

statements made by Sandford about North Shore negatively reflect(ed) upon and effect(ed)

North Shore's actions, inteuity and trustof North Shore's thousands of members.

44. North Shore has a clear legal right to stop and prevent Sandford from publishing defamatory

statements about North Shore. particularly those defamatory statements alleging conduct

incompatible with North Shore's business purpose and transactions.

15. Nonh Shore's damages in this action are not purely monetary and are not prernised upon a

speculative or future event.

46. Sandford will not incur any monetary damages as a result of such injunction, nor will

Sandford suffer any other harm if enjoined from publishing defamatory statements.

47. The nature of the interest to be protected isthat of North Shore tobe free from damages to

l\orth Shore's character, reputation and professionalism as known throughout the

community, particularly as those damages relate to the false allegations of past and on-going

unlawful and statute violation activity and disregard for its members.
48. An injunction enjoining Sandford from further publishine, those false and defamatory

statements as alleged herein will adequately protect North Shore and consequently, is the

only remedy available for such actions to prevent continued damages.

49. North Shore did not rmreasonably delay in bringing this action. This action was filed within

one (1) month of the first alleged defamatory statement.

50. There is no misconduct or unclean hands on the part of any of North Shore, nor has any

misconduct been alleged.

51. There would be no hardship of any kind to Sandford if Sandford is enjoined from publishing

further defamatory statements about North Shore.

52. North Shore presently incurs and will continue to incur hardships in the form of the damazes

as stated herein if Sandford is not enjoined from continuing to publish defamatory statements

about North Shore.

53. The interests of third parties, the public and the thousands of members of the North Shore at

Lake Hart Homeowners Association community will continue to be damaged and infringed

upon if Sandford continues publishing the defamatory statements:

54. Sandford's defamatory statements subjects North Shore and the members of the North Shore

community to unnecessary aggavation, distrust, chaos, and discontent that in turn, comes

back as damages to north Shore and the neighbors and community members themselves.

55. "file harm suffered by Sandford in being-enjoined dom publishing further defamatory

statements about North Shore is by far, greatly outweighed by the harm suffered by North

Shore resuiting from Sandford's continued publication of those defamatory- statements.

56. The practicality of framing and enforcing thc injunction is simple, once the alleged

statements are determined by the trier of fact constitute defamation. Those statements,
according to, Fox v.Harnptons at Mellowest Condo. Assin. Inc.; 223 So.3d 453 (Fla. App.,

2017), do not fallunder the protected nrobrella of the First Amendment as protected speech.

Id_ at 457.

57. North Shore is not seeking to enjoin Sandford with a blanket prohibition on all speech that

references or reflects upon North Shore or its actions, but rather only that speech that is

determined by the trier of fact in thisaction toconstitute defamation.

58_ Under such succin

Case Info

Judge

Paetra Brownlee Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 11, 2022

Case Filing Date

November 08, 2019

County

Parties

ERIC LARUE Attorney for the Defendant
JENNIFER ENGLERT Attorney for the Plaintiff
LISA MASON Defendant
LYNN SANDFORD Defendant
MATTHEW BERNSTEIN Attorney for the Defendant
NORTH SHORE AT LAKE HART HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IN Plaintiff
NORTH SHORE AT LAKE HART HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. Plaintiff
Nancy Campiglia Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jeffrey Smith Attorney
Bruce Burtoff Attorney
Alan Taylor Attorney
Jennifer Fox Attorney
Tushaar Desai Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: NORTH SHORE AT LAKE HART HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC.vs.MASON, LISA et al.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties