Preview
Filing # 174334226 E-Filed 05/31/2023 05:33:29 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA
STAY NARA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Case No:
Company D/B/A LAVISH KEYS, and,
JEAN JEANSONNE, an Individual, Division:
Plaintiffs,
Vv.
NOEL METHOT, an Individual;
Defendants.
/
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
COMES NOW, the Plaintiffs, STAY NARA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company D/B/A LAVISH KEYS, and, JEAN JEANSONNE, (collectively “Plaintiffs”),
by and through their undersigned attorneys, and hereby file their Complaint for Damages
and Preliminary Injunctive Relief against the Defendant, NOEL METHOT (“Methot” or
“Defendant”), and in support thereof, Plaintiffs state as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, STAY NARA, LLC D/B/A LAVISH KEYS (hereinafter “Lavish
Keys” or “Plaintiff”) has its principal place of business located at 1420 Celebration Blvd,
Ste#200, Celebration, Osceola County, FL 34747.
2. Plaintiff, JEAN JEANSONNE (“Jeansonne”) is the Principal and Managing
Member of Lavish Keys and has his principal place of business located at 1420
Celebration Blvd, Ste#200, Celebration, Osceola County, FL 34747 and otherwise resides
in Osceola County.
Bi Defendant Methot is an individual licensed in Florida as a Real Estate Sales
Associate residing at 7612 Cabana Ct, # 101, Reunion, Osceola County, Florida 34747,
which also serves as her place of business.
JURISDICTION
4. This Complaint seeks damages exceeding $50,000.00 excluding interest,
costs and attorney’s fees, which is within the jurisdiction of the court in accordance with §
26.012, Fla. Stat.
VENUE
3. Venue in this action is proper in Osceola County, FL in accordance with §
47.011, Fla. Stat. because the causes of action accrued and continue to accrue in Osceola
County, FL; Plaintiffs’ principal place of business is in Osceola County, FL; and,
Defendant resides and has her principal place of business in Osceola County, FL.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS
6. Plaintiffs Lavish Keys and Jeansonne provide real estate investment
services currently focused in Central Florida that guide investors through property
selection and into acquisition thereafter resulting in a two-year property management
agreement between the real estate investor and Plaintiff Lavish Keys for managing the
newly acquired property as a vacation rental.
7. Beginning in 2022 and continuing until March 2023 Plaintiffs utilized the
real estate sales associate services of Defendant Methot as part of their regular real estate
investment services.
8. Lavish Keys prides itself as being an outstanding member of the vacation
rental community, by virtue of providing impeccable, upper echelon real estate
investment services; knowing and meeting the specific, individual needs of its select
clients who demand impeccable service; and, maintaining a spotless reputation in the
limited market area in which it serves in the resort areas of Central Florida.
9. Defendant Methot by virtue of her real estate sales associate services
provided to Plaintiffs was provided access to both privileged sales and logistics
information for Plaintiffs’ business operations as wells as privileged and confidential
information about Plaintiffs’ customers, clients, employees, principals, and associates up
until Plaintiffs terminated her services in March 2023.
10. The scope of service for which Defendant was retained by Plaintiffs was
specifically limited to simply facilitating the closing of specified real estate transactions
and nothing more with the specific condition that Defendant was expressly prohibited
from soliciting any of the parties involved in the closing for any other business or service.
11. As part of Defendant’s role in these designated closings, Defendant learned
about investment in vacation rental properties while working with Plaintiffs and their
leadership team and staff, which prior thereto Defendant had no knowledge or experience
in this industry and, importantly, no prior association nor business relationship with
Plaintiff Lavish Keys’ clients.
12. Further, as part of Defendant’s role with Plaintiff Lavish Keys in these
closings, the Defendant spoke with Plaintiff Lavish Keys’ clients over the telephone and
otherwise visited its clients at their already pre-selected properties in accordance with the
client’s needs.
13. Additionally, Plaintiffs conferred the benefits on Defendant of spending
time with Plaintiff Lavish Keys’ team for the purpose of educating Defendant on not only
the products and services Plaintiffs provide, but also the processes Plaintiffs employ for
serving their exclusive clients and investors.
14. As areal estate sales associate for Plaintiff Lavish Keys, Defendant had
access to the Plaintiffs’ proprietary information, including, but not limited to: Plaintiffs’
formulas and processes for developing real estate offerings as investments to current and
potential clients of Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs’ business plans; Plaintiffs’ client and prospective
clients lists; Plaintiffs’ marketing plans and strategies; Plaintiffs’ financial information and
performance projections; Plaintiffs’ rental quotes and income projections provided to
individual client’s based on the client’s specific needs and financial status; Plaintiffs’
development tools; Plaintiffs’ inventions; Plaintiffs’ computer software; and, Plaintiffs’
technology and production methods. Essentially, Defendant had access to all of
Plaintiffs’ proprietary and trade secret information at her fingertips.
15. | While still in her real estate sales associate business relationship with the
Plaintiffs, Defendant concocted a scheme based on the trade secrets imparted upon
Defendant by the Plaintiffs, to engage in direct and aggressive competition with Plaintiffs
to encourage and persuade Plaintiffs’ investors and clients through slander and innuendo,
as alleged herein, to abandon the vacation rental business and agreements entered into with
Plaintiffs and instead purchase and sell properties as directed by Defendant for her benefit
and to the detriment of Plaintiffs.
16. Prior to Plaintiffs’ use of Defendant as a real estate sales associate to
conduct specific closings for Plaintiffs, Defendant had no industry knowledge of real
estate investment in vacation rentals as engaged in by Plaintiffs.
17. Prior to the conclusion of their use of Defendant as a real estate sales
associate to conduct specific closings for Plaintiff Lavish Keys, Defendant improperly
began to solicit Plaintiff Lavish Keys’ clients to engage them in real estate transactions to
solely benefit Defendant and to mislead these clients so as to lure them away from
Plaintiffs.
18. From on or about March 2023 and continuing to the present, Defendant
embarked on a smear campaign against Plaintiffs by making false and defamatory
statement regarding Plaintiffs’ manner of conducting business in order to cause Plaintiffs’
clients to leave Plaintiffs. These statements, as exemplified by those contained in attached
“Exhibit A,” include, but are not limited to:
a. False statements about Plaintiffs ethical and business practices;
b. False narrative of Plaintiffs’ practices of using Plaintiffs’ client’s
properties for the benefit of Plaintiffs and not crediting the client’s for
the use thereof;
c. False statements designed to make clients and potential clients of Plaintiff
Lavish Key believe that Plaintiffs were not acting in the best interest of their
client’s but undermining the financial interests of the clients for the self-
interest of Plaintiffs;
d. Engaging in a barrage of general “bad mouthing” of Plaintiffs to Plaintiff
Lavish Keys’ clients and potential clients using false statements designed
to make customers believe Plaintiffs were an undesirable source of real
estate investment and vacation rental services; and,
e. Falsely stating that Defendant is a representative of Plaintiff while
intoxicated and engaging in vulgar or repulsive language or otherwise
displaying such socially awkward or bizarre behavior that caused
Plaintiffs’ clients and/or potential clients to not enter into new or continued
business with Plaintiffs.
19. On other occasions, Defendant acquired unauthorized access of Plaintiff
Lavish Keys’ accounting system Ciirus; purposely used confidential information to
falsely accuse Plaintiff Lavish Keys of mismanaging clients properties under its two-
year management contracts with the owner/investors; and, with willful disregard to
common and accepted general accounting methods attempted to advise potential
investors in a manner that was grossly negligent and exhibiteda total disregard for
Plaintiffs’ professional business relations with Lavish Keys’ clients.
20. Plaintiffs, upon receipt of reliable information, believe that Defendant may
have diverted funds that belonged to Plaintiffs on more than one occasion to Defendant’s
own use and benefit.
COUNT I-DEFAMATION PER SE
21. — Plaintiffs reincorporate paragraphs 1 through 20 as if incorporated herein.
22. This is an action for defamation per se with damages exceeding $50,000.00,
exclusive of attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.
23. The statements made by Defendant in paragraph 18, above, were made to
numerous clients, potential clients, business associates of Plaintiffs, and employees/agents
of Plaintiff Lavish Keys and were and are false and defamatory and Defendant knew the
statements to be false and defamatory.
24. Defendant made the defamatory statements with knowledge that said
statements were false; or with reckless or negligent disregard for whether they were true or
false. Defendant received correspondence from counsel for Plaintiffs dated May 1, 2023,
a true and correct copy of which is attached as “Exhibit B,” demanding Defendant to cease
and desist from continuing her smear campaign of making defamatory statements and
accusations of Plaintiffs. Nonetheless, Defendant persisted in this smear campaign of
defamation through emails, text messages, phone calls to Plaintiff Lavish Keys’ clients,
employees, and Managing Members including habitually making late night intoxicated
phone calls to the foregoing, all in disregard of the Cease and Desist demand.
25. Defendant’s defamatory statements constituted defamation per se,
particularly as they were targeted to claim conduct, conditions, and characteristics
incompatible with the proper exercise of Plaintiffs’ lawful business; and, therefore the law
presumes malice in their utterance and damages.
26 Defendant’s defamatory statements caused actual damage to Plaintiffs, which
includes, but is not limited to, subjecting Plaintiffs to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt
and disgrace in the community, and subjecting Plaintiffs to lost business and the
embarrassment and fear of further business loss and criminal prosecution.
27. Defendant’s defamatory statements were not statements of pure opinion,
were not privileged or any applicable privilege was abused.
28. Plaintiffs demanda trial by jury in this matter.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, STAY NARA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company D/B/A LAVISH KEYS, and, JEAN JEANSONNE, demand judgment for
damages against the Defendant, NOEL METHOT, anda trial by jury.
COUNT II —- BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
29. Plaintiffs reincorporate paragraphs 1 through 28 as if incorporated herein.
30. This is an action for breach of fiduciary duty with damages exceeding
$50,000.00, exclusive of attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.
31. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, at all times material and relevant to this
Complaint, had a fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs and breached that duty resulting in damages
to Plaintiffs.
32. Asa licensed real estate sales associate retained to conduct specific closings
for Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs and Defendant shared a relationship whereby:
a.) Plaintiffs reposed trust and confidence in Defendant; and,
b.) Defendant undertook such trust and assumed a duty to advise, counsel, and/or
protect Plaintiffs.
33. Among the duties Defendant owed Plaintiffs was a duty to exercise diligence
and good faith in all matters relating to Plaintiffs’ engagement of Defendant and to act in
Plaintiffs’ best interest.
34. Defendant breached the fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiffs by misusing
confidential information to the detriment of Plaintiffs.
35. This misuse of confidential information included the use of confidential
information acquired by Defendant in the course of her business relations with Plaintiffs to
solicit Plaintiffs’ clients and/or discourage Plaintiffs’ clients from continuing their business
relations with Plaintiffs.
36. Defendant engaged in a smear campaign of false information to not only
potentially further her own economic interest to the detriment of Plaintiffs; but, the primary
thrust was to ruin the reputation and interests of Plaintiffs through outright les and false
innuendos fueled by anger and misplaced lust for vengeance for Plaintiffs’ termination of
Defendant’s real estate sales services notwithstanding the fact that this termination was
completely and totally justified.
37. By engaging in these disloyal acts, such as using confidential information
acquired during the course ofher business relations with Plaintiffs; soliciting and poaching
clients; disrupting client relations through lies and deceit; and, misrepresenting the
relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant; Defendant has breached her fiduciary duty
to Plaintiffs.
38. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s breach of
fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to suffering past monetary damages,
loss of clients, loss of revenue, exposure of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, and other past, present,
and future damages that are not capable of being readily quantified.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs espectfully requests this Honorable Court award
damages against Defendant for breaches of fiduciary duty, assess an award of punitive
damages upon future appropriate showing of same, issue injunctive relief against
Defendant for the protection of the Plaintiffs’ interests; and, such other further relief as the
Court finds just and appropriate under the circumstances.
COUNT Hil —- MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS UNDER THE
FLORIDA UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT (“FUTSA”)
39, Plaintiffs reincorporate paragraphs | through 38 as if incorporated herein.
40. This is an action for damages in excess of $50,000 for violation of Chapter
688, Florida Statute.
41. Insupport of its claim for misappropriation under Florida's Uniform Trade
Secret Act, Plaintiffs possessed secret information and took reasonable steps to protect its
secrecy; and, the secrets it possessed was misappropriated by Defendant, who knew or
had reason to know that the secret was improperly obtained or who used improper means
to obtain it.
42. This misappropriation included the disclosure or use of a trade secret of
Plaintiffs without express or implied consent by them and Defendant, at the time of the
disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that knowledge of the trade secret was
acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limited use.
43. Defendant possessed trade secrets of Plaintiffs which includes, among other
things, designs for certain real estate investment strategies and presentation and marketing
of same to both prospective and designated clients and proprietary formulas and
algorithms for compilation of investment data, client and prospective client lists, and data
and information stored on Plaintiffs’ computer systems.
44. Plaintiffs’ client lists are trade secrets under Florida Uniform Trade Secrets
Act, Section 688.002(2)(4), because the list derives independent economic value from the
fact that those clients appearing on it would not generally be known or ascertainable by
other competitors in that particular industry and is subject to efforts to keep it sustained.
45, Furthermore, these client lists qualify as a trade secret, since they were the
product of great expense and effort, that it included information that was confidential and
not available from public sources, and that it was distilled from larger lists of potential
customers into a list of viable customers for a unique business.
46. Plaintiffs expended great effort and money on the creation of its trade
secrets and specifically its client lists where it identified and targeted specific clients in
the market that it believed would be most profitable, as well nurture and foster those
clients and business relationships over a period of years.
47. Plaintiffs’ client lists and confidential information discussed herein are not
readily available or ascertainable to the public and each have separate and independent
economic value associated with them.
48. Plaintiffs have been able to run a profitable business because of their
conscious development of client lists and confidential information that it has put extensive
effort and financial resources of the business into over the years.
49. The independent economic value of Plaintiffs’ client lists and confidential
information can further be seen by the Defendants’ misappropriation ofthe information and
ability to derive revenue from Plaintiffs’ client list and confidential information, without
the Defendant having to expend marketing and sales efforts to obtain that type of
information critical to the formation of an immediately successful business operation.
50. Plaintiffs also took reasonable steps and security measures to protect its
client list and confidential information.
51. Such steps included but is not limited to: i) limit its employee’s access and use
of its client list and confidential information to only employees who needed to access it
in order to perform their duties; ii) maintain the client list and confidential information in
a secured CRM; and, iii) protect the company’s computers and unlawful access through
commercially sound software programs and systems.
52. Defendant has misappropriated, under FUTSA, a trade secret of Plaintiffs by
either acquisition, disclosure, or use.
53. Plaintiffs owned and possessed certain trade secrets that Defendant
misappropriated and used to directly compete with Plaintiffs.
54. Plaintiffs have invested considerable resources in developing the
proprietary information, client lists, and trade secrets discussed at length throughout
Plaintiffs’ Complaint. These trade secrets, proprietary information, and confidential data
are the property of Plaintiffs.
55. | Defendant has misappropriated and pirated these secrets and the proprietary
information without consent and continue to derive profit and sales from Plaintiffs’ trade
secrets to compete unfairly, which is causing irreparable harm to Plaintiffs who have
invested considerable funds into its clients and the properties they acquired in order to
assure success and develop a structured business relationship of mutual profitability for
themselves and their clients.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully requests this Honorable Court award
damages against Defendant for Defendant’s violation of the Florida Uniform Trade
Secrets Act, assess an additional award of punitive damages upon proper showing, and
impose injunctive relief against Defendant for the protection of the Plaintiffs’ interests.
COUNT IV —- TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
56. Plaintiffs reincorporate paragraphs 1 through 55 as if incorporated herein.
57. This is an action for damages in excess of $50,000 for tortious interference
with a business relationship.
58. Defendant committed tortious interference with an advantageous business
relationship of Plaintiffs because with full knowledge of the existence of these business
relationships Defendant did intentionally and unjustifiably interfere with same causing
damages to Plaintiffs as a result thereby satisfying all of the requisite elements in this case.
59. Defendant had knowledge of the economically advantageous business
relationships Plaintiffs possessed with their clients and prospective clients through
Defendant’s business relationship with Plaintiffs as a real estate sales associate retained to
perform specific closings on specific properties as identified by Plaintiffs.
60. In order to secure an advantage, the Defendant by use of fraud, deceptive
trade practices, theft of Plaintiffs’ confidential information and defamation as set forth,
above, directly and intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ clients in order to induce them
to terminate their business relationships with Plaintiffs.
61. This inducement was almost always completed by means of the concealment
of facts which the circumstances required the Defendant as an agent of Plaintiffs should
have revealed.
62. Defendant knew or should have known that such facts and information were
designed to interfere with Plaintiffs’ business relationships.
63. Plaintiffs have been, and continue to be, damaged as a result of the
Defendant’s tortious interference with Plaintiffs’ business relationships with their clients.
This interference includes, but is not limited to, significant losses in revenue and loss of
valuable, loyal clients whom have had a consistently positive and beneficial long term
relationship with Plaintiffs.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully requests this Honorable Court
award damages, punitive damages upon proper showing, and impose injunctive relief
against Defendant for the protection of the Plaintiffs ‘interests.
COUNT V—- VIOLATION OF COMBATING CORPORATE ESPIONAGE ACT
64. Plaintiffs reincorporates paragraphs 1 through 63 as if incorporated herein.
65. This is an action for damages in excess of $50,000 for violation of Chapter
812, Florida Statute.
66. As alleged above, Defendant removed and used for her own benefit without
authorization certain “trade secrets” of Plaintiffs as that term is defined by Fla. Stat. §
812.081(1)(f) to include “any scientific, technical, or commercial information, including
financial information, and includes any design, process, procedure, list of suppliers, list of
customers, business code, or improvement thereof, whether tangible or intangible, and
regardless of whether or how it is stored, compiled, or memorialized physically,
electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing.”
67. On October 1, 2021, the Combating Corporate Espionage in Florida Act,
found within Section 812.081, Florida Statutes, became law.
68. Defendant violated Section 812.081(2)(b), Fla. Stat., by obtaining Plaintiffs’
trade secrets without authorization and appropriating them for her own benefit thereby
subjecting her to criminal penalties, and entitling Plaintiffs to restitution, injunctive relief,
or the payment of royalties.
69. The customer lists and the other proprietary financial information thoroughly
described above which were acquired or compiled through the Plaintiffs’ industry and not
just a compilation of information that is readily available to the public are trade secrets as
defined by Section 8/2.08/1(1)(), Fla. Stat and that includes Plaintiffs’ company pricing
and profit structure, all of which was obtained and used by Defendant for her benefit
without Plaintiffs’ authorization.
70. ‘Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction against Defendant to enjoin the use of
the unlawfully obtained or useda trade secret. § 8/12.081(7), Fla. Stat.
71. Ifan injunction is inequitable, the court may condition the future use of the
trade secret on the payment of a reasonable royalty. $ 8/2.081(7), Fla. Stat.
72. Based on the facts contained in the causes of action properly plead above,
Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under Section 812.081, Florida Statutes.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully requests this Honorable Court award
damages, restitution, and royalties from Defendant, in addition to injunctive relief against
Defendant for violation of the Combating Corporate Espionage in Florida Act.
COUNT VI- FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
73. Plaintiffs reincorporate paragraphs | through 72 as if incorporated herein.
74. This is an action for damages in excess of $50,000 for against Defendants
pursuant to the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Section 501.201, Florida
Statutes (“F.S.”), et seg. (“The Act”).
75. The actions of Defendant as described, above, of sale and rental of vacation
rental properties constitute engaging in “Trade or commerce” within the meaning of and
as defined by Section 501.201(8), F.S.
76. The real estate and properties involved in the transactions and business of
Plaintiffs and Defendant as described, above, all individually and collectively constitute a
“Thing of value” within the meaning of and as defined by Section 501.201(9), F.S.
77. Atall times material and relevant to the instant Complaint, Plaintiffs and their
clients and prospective clients were individually an “Interested party or person” within the
meaning of and as defined by Section 501.201(6), F.S., and a “consumer” within the
meaning of and as defined by Section 501.201(7), F.S.
78. The false and misleading representations made by Defendant to clients and
prospective clients of Plaintiffs as described herein were made directly to these clients and
prospective clients of Plaintiffs and these representations were likely to mislead even while
said clients and prospective clients were acting reasonably and, as such these
representations and solicitations by Defendant constitute a “deceptive act or practice” as
those terms are used in Sec. 501.204(1), F.S.
79. The Representations and solicitations also constitute an “unfair practice” as
that term is used in Sec. 501.204(1), F.S., because these acts and actions offend established
public policy and are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and/or substantially
injurious to the Plaintiffs and their respective clients as consumers.
80 As a direct cause of these deceptive and unfair practices of Defendant,
Plaintiffs have incurred damages including, but not limited to lost revenue from clients
Defendant caused to leave Plaintiffs and/or not continue to do the business with Plaintiffs
but for Defendants actions in violation of FDUTPA.
81. Plaintiffs have performed all conditions precedent to this action or all said
conditions have been waived or excused.
82. Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm to represent them to recoup
the damages caused by Defendant’s deceptive and unfair practices as alleged herein and
are responsible to pay undersigned their attorneys’ fees and costs for their representation
in the instant action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a declaratory judgment that Defendants violated
the Act and an injunction enjoining future violations of the Act pursuant to Section
501.211(1), F.S.; actual damages for violation of the Act pursuant to Section 501.211(2),
F.S.; an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Sections 501.211(2) and 501.2105,
F.S.; and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VIL - PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
83. Plaintiffs reincorporate paragraphs | through 82 as if incorporated herein.
84, This is a claim for injunctive relief against Defendant based on the following
causes of action as set forth above: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets under the Florida
Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“FUTSA”), Tortious Interference with an Advantageous
Business Relationship, violation of the Combating Corporate Espionage in Florida Act and
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA).
85. | Temporary and permanent injunctions are permitted by statute for violations
of FUTSA pursuant to Section 688.003, F.S.; and, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (FDUTPA), Section 501.211(1), F.S.;.
86. Temporary injunctions have also long been recognized as a viable form of
relief in a suit for tortious interference with a contract. See, e.g., Heavener, Ogier Services,
Inc. vR.W. FLA Regionno, 418 So.2d 1074, 1077 (Fla. 1982), Knight v. City ofMiami, 127
Fla. 585, 173 So. 801 (Fla. 1937); Dade Enterprises, Inc. v. Wometco Theaters, Inc., 119
Fla. 70, 160 So. 209 (Fla. 1935).
87. Aparty “aggrieved by a violation” of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, Fla. Stat. 501.201 et seq., may seek “to enjoin a person who has violated, is
violating, or is otherwise likely to violate” the Act. Fla. Stat. 501.211(1); see also PNR,
Inc. v. Beacon Property Management, Inc., 842 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2003) (Little FTC Act
applies to private causes of action arising from single unfair or deceptive acts in conduct of
any trade or commerce, even if it involves only single party, single transaction, or single
contract).
88. Finally, injunctive relief is also permitted for violations of the Combating
Corporate Espionage in Florida Act. Fla. Stat. 812.081(7).
89. A preliminary injunction is properly entered when the moving party
demonstrates:(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of
irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury to the
plaintiff outweighs the harm an injunction may cause the defendant; and (4) the granting
of an injunction would not disserve the public interest. Church v. City ofHuntsville, 30 F.
3d 1332, 1342 (11th Cir. 1994). Naegel Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc. v. City of
Jacksonville, 659 So.2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 1995).
90. As a general rule, a trial court has sound discretion to grant injunctions.
Precision Tune Auto Case, Inc. v. Radcliff, 731 So.2d 744, 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
91. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits
of its claims against the Defendant.
92. Injunctive relief is available in cases similar to this case to enjoin a former
employee's solicitation of the employer's customers. Azar v. Lehigh Corp., 364 So.2d 860
(Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Injunctive relief does not depend on the existence of a restrictive
covenant in the former employee's employment agreement.
93. Courts have granted injunctive relief when the former employee has made
use of the employer's customer lists or other information that may be regarded as a trade
secret. See, e.g., Braman Motors, Inc. v. Ward, 479 So.2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (denial
of preliminary injunction to prevent use of confidential customer list by former employee
was abuse of discretion).
94. Additionally, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial threat of irreparable
injury if the injunction is not granted.
95. Plaintiffs lack any adequate remedy at law since injury to Plaintiffs’
reputation are irreparable especially since calculating the monetary damages resulting from
reputational loss are difficult if not impossible to ascertain. The continued and unrelenting
onslaught of the defamation and tortious interference with Plaintiffs’ business is causing
and will continue to cause immediate and irreparable harm.
96. Plaintiffs have invested considerable resources in developing the proprietary
information and trade secrets discussed at length throughout Plaintiffs’ Complaint. These
trade secrets, proprietary information, and confidential data are the property of Plaintiffs.
97. Defendant, however, has pirated these secrets and the proprietary information
without paying for them, and she threatens to use the results of the Plaintiffs’ extensive
efforts to compete unfairly with Plaintiffs.
98. At this time, the full extent of the damages to Plaintiffs cannot be calculated
in dollars and cents.
99. Further, Plaintiffs have lost and continues to lose long term business
relationships which will leave Plaintiffs with no adequate remedy at law.
100. The threatened injury to the Plaintiffs substantially outweighs the harm an
injunction may cause the Defendant, who is guilty of multiple criminal and civil infractions
as a result of the allegations contained in this Complaint.
101. Defendant’s behavior in the simplest terms constitutes a complete menace to
Plaintiffs and their employees, principals, and clients that is totally disruptive to their
pursuit of their lawful business.
102. Plaintiffs are seeking only to enjoin Defendant from the outrageous
harassment of Plaintiffs and those associated with Plaintiffs’ business by protecting them
from what is literally a Blitzkrieg of false and highly provocative, intoxicant fueled verbal
assaults from Defendant that go far beyond any proper and lawful human conduct as
evidenced by Exhibit A.
103. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, and all conditions precedent to
the relief demanded herein have been performed or have occurred.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that pending a decision on the trial
of this matter, Defendant, and her agents, representatives, and those acting in concert with
it, shall be enjoined and restrained from using, disclosing, or duplicating the trade secrets,
proprietary information and confidential data obtained by Defendant during her business
relations with Plaintiffs, and Defendant shall be enjoined from contacting either directly
or indirectly or communicating in any manner whatsoever with any of Plaintiffs’
employees, managers, agents, principals, business associates, or clients, or making any
false statements about Plaintiffs’ business, business practices, employees, managers,
agents, principals, business associates, or clients.
Dated this 3157 day of May, 2023.
KELTON LAW, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
By: /s/Albert E. Ford, IT
Albert E. Ford, II, Esquire
Florida Bar No: 068586
601 Deltona Blvd., Suite 102
Deltona, Florida 32725
Primary: aford@keltonlawpa.com
Secondary: jgarcia@keltonlawpa.com
Phone (386) 259-4806 | Fax (386) 490-9287
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Text message Noel sent to LK Member , Michael Mathey -attempting to dismantle LK on 3-28-
23, Two weeks after being terminated by LK. Unbeknown to Noel, Mathey was a direct equal
decision maker in Lavish Keys termination of Noel Methot.
3/25/23
Noel text to Mathey:
! recommend that you, as a partner in LK, do a site visit to see how Jean has maintained these
Lavish Keys properties, for your name's sake. | am absolutely speechless. | could care less
about my relationship now with LK after what | have seen recently. | am now just trying to get
myself as separated as possible from this Co. after seeing rental income statements,
reservations, and the lack of care of these properties since these clients purchased. If you let
this continue on the path you are all on, it's not going to end well which is such a shame! You
had something really good going but clearly trusted the wrong person to manage. |
recommend you reach out to all clients and see how their experience has been with LK and
how their investment is going , how satisfied are they , etc - | have seen the income
statements, he is stealing from these investors and whether your involved or not, !
recommend fixing it before it gets worse - This is an email out of concern to you and | hope
you keep it only between us but that's your choice —“
JJ
EXHIBIT
1A
3
From: Noel Methot
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 9:22 PM
To: Michael Mathe
Subject: Recommended site visit - private conversation
{ recommend that you, as a partner in LK , do a site visit to see how Jean has maintained these Lavish Keys properties, for your name's
sake. | am absolutely speechless. | could care less about my relationship now with LK after what | have seen recently. | am now just trying
to get myself as separated as possible from this Co. after seeing rental income statements, reservations, and the lack of care of these
properties since these clients purchased. If you let this continue on the path you are all on, it's not going to end well which is such a
shame! You had something really good going but clearly trusted the wrong person to manage. | recommend you reach out to all clients and
see how their experience has been with LK and how their investment is going , how satisfied are they, etc - | have seen the income
statements, he is stealing from these investors and whether your involved or not, | recommend fixing it before it gets worse - This is an
email out of concern to you and | hope you keep it only between us but that's your choice -
Noel Methot
Realtor
(603) 901-2118
From: Noel Methot
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 4:06 AM
To: Michael Mathe
Subject: Fwd: Mathe- this was handled you said??? Fwd: Spectrum equipment
Trust me whenI tell you that this is a SINKING SHIP! Get your team in check- I’m not going to be blamed for anymore shit on behalf of Jean
and Tina’s titanic 1!1!!!11!! You will get this resolved for my seller and my buyer because this was UNDER LAVISH KEYS MANAGEMENT- this
is embarrassing-all of my career with LK is nothing but an embarrassment and shame!
+--------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Noel Methot
Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 4:54 AM
Subject: Mathe- this was handled you said??? Fwd: Spectrum equipment
To: Michael Mathe , Tina Hosek , jean jeansonne
< All inboxes Ciirus login Vv
Photo v Done
Noel
Everyone else is scared of you
but | sure as hell are not- your co
is sinking titanic and I'll be doing
more investigations into
statements and $ - again all
communication is to go through
email- let me know once my
clients have their furniture you
took thanks-
T
Today 11:29 AM
$2 11 Photos
» 1 .. - Oe
| > i [=e
| Bie r
i ay ‘ 1 ; 5 ea
be ie ‘ fo a + |
£ ie |
— lebe ,
Ww & a 4%
wrote:
Noel,
J can’t conceivably tell you how pleased | was to read that this was your final email to us, so thank you for that,
truly made my day. Of course, you have left me little choice but to respond because of the inflammatory
statements you have made. | see that you have chosen to take the gloves off.
First, there is one name that has been used, chaos smuggler. | stand by my statement, as | don’t think there could
be a more accurate description. You have been the most unprofessional agent | have had the misfortune of
working with (and | have met some rough ones in my career) and quite frankly, one of the most nasty personalities
too. You call/text at all hours of the night (sometimes drunk) spewing ugliness from your mouth. You don’t take
care in who you choose to speak poorly of or the repercussions of your words or actions. You have attempted to
throw everyone you can under the bus (Michael, Jean, me and my staff, title, sellers and even sometimes buyers),
while taking no responsibility for your own actions.
Page 1 of 8
| Ra +
MViathe gets his e ¢
' |
|
der
in order f tor Glenys!!!
| ie
Th » td]
\ b DuYyers
y for TOFthis!
TNIS!: / Jn.
6:17PM
And these don’t even count your calls telling me “f Michael Mathe” and how he is nothing in the grand scheme of
things. Your complaints about Jean to Glenys the night you guys met up. Accusing sellers of conspiracy, buyers of
lying and on and on and on... Just example after example of destructive and unprofessional behavior. You have
been told repeatedly that | don’t pay Mathe a commission, | have only paid for marketing. In addition, complaining
to me about your own commission structure.
You have been so rude and nasty to title companies that they have stated directly to us that they do not want to
deal or work with you anymore either.
Mendoza to sign on behalf of the buver's entity, o: just David. Please advise ASAP as there 1s coordinating that will need to be done in
anticipation of this closing that I was o1igunally expecting to close 12/15 and now have the crazy agent yelling at me that it's going to be
11/23. Please advise ASAP
Page 2 of 8
List agent/Seller on Mendoza specifically said that he originally didn’t want to extend because of you and how you
treated his title company. Said he felt like you needed to learn a lesson.
While you are partially correct, | established RYMak Lending in Jan 2021 (so more than a year prior), your
assumptions as usual are incorrect. Prior to that, | was still a loan officer. | simply realized that | should do it for
myself. Prior to that, | did loan processing and property consulting. All told, | have been in this business in some
form or another for more than 15 years. None of this includes Glenys’ almost 30 years in this business. | have
forgotten more about this business than you will ever know. Lest you forgot how you needed my help with
contracts (see below).
Oh man what Michael just spit off to me on
how to draw this separate addendum up is
stressing me out between you and |.. | just
finally learned how to write the first option and
in the 11th hour I'm stressed on how to write
this up so anything u can email or text me to
help draw up this thing between Bobby and
sellers will be REALLY appreciated | know you
def
So, let’s not try to pretend that any of this is a lack of experience or knowledge on the part of RyMak or my staff.
Ido not “bullshit” anyone. | state facts and bring receipts as you can see.
Next, let’s do a brief recap of these files.
Page 3 of 8
Bobby Whitten:
When we received this file, there was already months of history and frustration attached to it. We were asked to
structure an investment deal with only 20% down and the buyer having no skin in the game. Most lenders would
have laughed anyone of the phone for such a request. Not only did we find a way to do the 20% down investment
loan, we also helped find a solution to the remaining balance. Then you asked me to get on the phone with the
seller to help her feel warm and fuzzy about the deal, which | did a couple of times. Understand, lenders/brokers
don’t generally do this. We solved every problem and got the deal done. As you know, the seller was difficult and
would not have tolerated any further delays. We saved that deal. P.S., Bobby called after to thank us for our hard
work and diligence in what he knew wasa difficult deal.
Ed Feil 15' deal:
We saved your rear by how we structured the denial letter for them to be able to get their $200k back after writing
ano appraisal contingency contract. And the house came in under value.
Ed Feil 2" deal:
10.24 receive contract
10.26 req updated docs from borrower
10.27 received updated docs for borrower
10.28 file submitted to UW
10.31 apprs! ordered
10.31 loan approved
10.31 requested 4pt & wind mit to get HOI quotes from Noel, were giving the contact info for the seller??
11.2 loan commitment sent > including verbiage about UW to review: UW to review final updated assets for closing and
reserves. Borrower to provide all final info regarding 1031 exchange funds
11.3 borrower sending over conditions requested
11.4 apprsl received.
11.4 req from Noel, any info regarding STR RENTS for Feil & Mendoza both.
11.4 — 11.14 going back and forth with Lender AND AMC about getting STR comps.
11.14 emailed Jean directly about the challenges regarding needing the STR bookings for last 12 months... looking
to get exception to just use info he sent over.
11.17 got HOI quote for borrower from our contact
Page 4 of 8
11.23 went to bind HOI! and found out that there was a claim on the property from the seller. Spoke to the seller to
get appt for 4pt/wind mit.
11.28 got HOI bound
11.29 sales of property happened in 1031 exchange (funds for closing)
11.30 received info from 10.31 exchange c
12.01 Feil moved money around for closing /reserves
12.02 sent up for CTC review
12.05 UW req updated STR rents ledger... called the seller and got it. (also worked on getting the one for Mendoza
sorted) also needed some updated info from Feil.
12.06 got contract extension to the gth And uploaded for CTC
12.09 (Friday) CTC sent to closing, after wire cut off time doc sent for closing MONDAY 12.12
We could not have closed on the 30°". since the lender needed time to review all the info regarding the 1031
exchange which was not received until 11/30
The Feil’s were upset because they were given the impression that this could close earlier. We certainly weren’t
the ones to give them that impression.
Chad Kierce:
There were several challenges on this file. The property did not have 12 months of STR rent history, but we were
able to talk the lender into giving us an exception on this. Even with the challenges, we were prepared to close the
file when the Kierce’s tried to back out of the deal.
David Mendoza:
Yet another client that needed 80% with no skin in the game and using borrowed funds (not complicated at all
right???)
Additionally, we had to talk the lender into giving us an exception for gift funds (does not happen for investment
properties).
10/28 Contract
11/2 Approval
Page 5 of 8
11/4 Commitment letter sent out along with conditions needed
11/
Preview
Filing # 174334226 E-Filed 05/31/2023 05:33:29 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA STAY NARA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Case No: Company D/B/A LAVISH KEYS, and, JEAN JEANSONNE, an Individual, Division: Plaintiffs, Vv. NOEL METHOT, an Individual; Defendants. / PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION COMES NOW, the Plaintiffs, STAY NARA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company D/B/A LAVISH KEYS, and, JEAN JEANSONNE, (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, and hereby file their Complaint for Damages and Preliminary Injunctive Relief against the Defendant, NOEL METHOT (“Methot” or “Defendant”), and in support thereof, Plaintiffs state as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, STAY NARA, LLC D/B/A LAVISH KEYS (hereinafter “Lavish Keys” or “Plaintiff”) has its principal place of business located at 1420 Celebration Blvd, Ste#200, Celebration, Osceola County, FL 34747. 2. Plaintiff, JEAN JEANSONNE (“Jeansonne”) is the Principal and Managing Member of Lavish Keys and has his principal place of business located at 1420 Celebration Blvd, Ste#200, Celebration, Osceola County, FL 34747 and otherwise resides in Osceola County. Bi Defendant Methot is an individual licensed in Florida as a Real Estate Sales Associate residing at 7612 Cabana Ct, # 101, Reunion, Osceola County, Florida 34747, which also serves as her place of business. JURISDICTION 4. This Complaint seeks damages exceeding $50,000.00 excluding interest, costs and attorney’s fees, which is within the jurisdiction of the court in accordance with § 26.012, Fla. Stat. VENUE 3. Venue in this action is proper in Osceola County, FL in accordance with § 47.011, Fla. Stat. because the causes of action accrued and continue to accrue in Osceola County, FL; Plaintiffs’ principal place of business is in Osceola County, FL; and, Defendant resides and has her principal place of business in Osceola County, FL. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS 6. Plaintiffs Lavish Keys and Jeansonne provide real estate investment services currently focused in Central Florida that guide investors through property selection and into acquisition thereafter resulting in a two-year property management agreement between the real estate investor and Plaintiff Lavish Keys for managing the newly acquired property as a vacation rental. 7. Beginning in 2022 and continuing until March 2023 Plaintiffs utilized the real estate sales associate services of Defendant Methot as part of their regular real estate investment services. 8. Lavish Keys prides itself as being an outstanding member of the vacation rental community, by virtue of providing impeccable, upper echelon real estate investment services; knowing and meeting the specific, individual needs of its select clients who demand impeccable service; and, maintaining a spotless reputation in the limited market area in which it serves in the resort areas of Central Florida. 9. Defendant Methot by virtue of her real estate sales associate services provided to Plaintiffs was provided access to both privileged sales and logistics information for Plaintiffs’ business operations as wells as privileged and confidential information about Plaintiffs’ customers, clients, employees, principals, and associates up until Plaintiffs terminated her services in March 2023. 10. The scope of service for which Defendant was retained by Plaintiffs was specifically limited to simply facilitating the closing of specified real estate transactions and nothing more with the specific condition that Defendant was expressly prohibited from soliciting any of the parties involved in the closing for any other business or service. 11. As part of Defendant’s role in these designated closings, Defendant learned about investment in vacation rental properties while working with Plaintiffs and their leadership team and staff, which prior thereto Defendant had no knowledge or experience in this industry and, importantly, no prior association nor business relationship with Plaintiff Lavish Keys’ clients. 12. Further, as part of Defendant’s role with Plaintiff Lavish Keys in these closings, the Defendant spoke with Plaintiff Lavish Keys’ clients over the telephone and otherwise visited its clients at their already pre-selected properties in accordance with the client’s needs. 13. Additionally, Plaintiffs conferred the benefits on Defendant of spending time with Plaintiff Lavish Keys’ team for the purpose of educating Defendant on not only the products and services Plaintiffs provide, but also the processes Plaintiffs employ for serving their exclusive clients and investors. 14. As areal estate sales associate for Plaintiff Lavish Keys, Defendant had access to the Plaintiffs’ proprietary information, including, but not limited to: Plaintiffs’ formulas and processes for developing real estate offerings as investments to current and potential clients of Plaintiffs; Plaintiffs’ business plans; Plaintiffs’ client and prospective clients lists; Plaintiffs’ marketing plans and strategies; Plaintiffs’ financial information and performance projections; Plaintiffs’ rental quotes and income projections provided to individual client’s based on the client’s specific needs and financial status; Plaintiffs’ development tools; Plaintiffs’ inventions; Plaintiffs’ computer software; and, Plaintiffs’ technology and production methods. Essentially, Defendant had access to all of Plaintiffs’ proprietary and trade secret information at her fingertips. 15. | While still in her real estate sales associate business relationship with the Plaintiffs, Defendant concocted a scheme based on the trade secrets imparted upon Defendant by the Plaintiffs, to engage in direct and aggressive competition with Plaintiffs to encourage and persuade Plaintiffs’ investors and clients through slander and innuendo, as alleged herein, to abandon the vacation rental business and agreements entered into with Plaintiffs and instead purchase and sell properties as directed by Defendant for her benefit and to the detriment of Plaintiffs. 16. Prior to Plaintiffs’ use of Defendant as a real estate sales associate to conduct specific closings for Plaintiffs, Defendant had no industry knowledge of real estate investment in vacation rentals as engaged in by Plaintiffs. 17. Prior to the conclusion of their use of Defendant as a real estate sales associate to conduct specific closings for Plaintiff Lavish Keys, Defendant improperly began to solicit Plaintiff Lavish Keys’ clients to engage them in real estate transactions to solely benefit Defendant and to mislead these clients so as to lure them away from Plaintiffs. 18. From on or about March 2023 and continuing to the present, Defendant embarked on a smear campaign against Plaintiffs by making false and defamatory statement regarding Plaintiffs’ manner of conducting business in order to cause Plaintiffs’ clients to leave Plaintiffs. These statements, as exemplified by those contained in attached “Exhibit A,” include, but are not limited to: a. False statements about Plaintiffs ethical and business practices; b. False narrative of Plaintiffs’ practices of using Plaintiffs’ client’s properties for the benefit of Plaintiffs and not crediting the client’s for the use thereof; c. False statements designed to make clients and potential clients of Plaintiff Lavish Key believe that Plaintiffs were not acting in the best interest of their client’s but undermining the financial interests of the clients for the self- interest of Plaintiffs; d. Engaging in a barrage of general “bad mouthing” of Plaintiffs to Plaintiff Lavish Keys’ clients and potential clients using false statements designed to make customers believe Plaintiffs were an undesirable source of real estate investment and vacation rental services; and, e. Falsely stating that Defendant is a representative of Plaintiff while intoxicated and engaging in vulgar or repulsive language or otherwise displaying such socially awkward or bizarre behavior that caused Plaintiffs’ clients and/or potential clients to not enter into new or continued business with Plaintiffs. 19. On other occasions, Defendant acquired unauthorized access of Plaintiff Lavish Keys’ accounting system Ciirus; purposely used confidential information to falsely accuse Plaintiff Lavish Keys of mismanaging clients properties under its two- year management contracts with the owner/investors; and, with willful disregard to common and accepted general accounting methods attempted to advise potential investors in a manner that was grossly negligent and exhibiteda total disregard for Plaintiffs’ professional business relations with Lavish Keys’ clients. 20. Plaintiffs, upon receipt of reliable information, believe that Defendant may have diverted funds that belonged to Plaintiffs on more than one occasion to Defendant’s own use and benefit. COUNT I-DEFAMATION PER SE 21. — Plaintiffs reincorporate paragraphs 1 through 20 as if incorporated herein. 22. This is an action for defamation per se with damages exceeding $50,000.00, exclusive of attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. 23. The statements made by Defendant in paragraph 18, above, were made to numerous clients, potential clients, business associates of Plaintiffs, and employees/agents of Plaintiff Lavish Keys and were and are false and defamatory and Defendant knew the statements to be false and defamatory. 24. Defendant made the defamatory statements with knowledge that said statements were false; or with reckless or negligent disregard for whether they were true or false. Defendant received correspondence from counsel for Plaintiffs dated May 1, 2023, a true and correct copy of which is attached as “Exhibit B,” demanding Defendant to cease and desist from continuing her smear campaign of making defamatory statements and accusations of Plaintiffs. Nonetheless, Defendant persisted in this smear campaign of defamation through emails, text messages, phone calls to Plaintiff Lavish Keys’ clients, employees, and Managing Members including habitually making late night intoxicated phone calls to the foregoing, all in disregard of the Cease and Desist demand. 25. Defendant’s defamatory statements constituted defamation per se, particularly as they were targeted to claim conduct, conditions, and characteristics incompatible with the proper exercise of Plaintiffs’ lawful business; and, therefore the law presumes malice in their utterance and damages. 26 Defendant’s defamatory statements caused actual damage to Plaintiffs, which includes, but is not limited to, subjecting Plaintiffs to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt and disgrace in the community, and subjecting Plaintiffs to lost business and the embarrassment and fear of further business loss and criminal prosecution. 27. Defendant’s defamatory statements were not statements of pure opinion, were not privileged or any applicable privilege was abused. 28. Plaintiffs demanda trial by jury in this matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, STAY NARA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company D/B/A LAVISH KEYS, and, JEAN JEANSONNE, demand judgment for damages against the Defendant, NOEL METHOT, anda trial by jury. COUNT II —- BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 29. Plaintiffs reincorporate paragraphs 1 through 28 as if incorporated herein. 30. This is an action for breach of fiduciary duty with damages exceeding $50,000.00, exclusive of attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. 31. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, at all times material and relevant to this Complaint, had a fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs and breached that duty resulting in damages to Plaintiffs. 32. Asa licensed real estate sales associate retained to conduct specific closings for Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs and Defendant shared a relationship whereby: a.) Plaintiffs reposed trust and confidence in Defendant; and, b.) Defendant undertook such trust and assumed a duty to advise, counsel, and/or protect Plaintiffs. 33. Among the duties Defendant owed Plaintiffs was a duty to exercise diligence and good faith in all matters relating to Plaintiffs’ engagement of Defendant and to act in Plaintiffs’ best interest. 34. Defendant breached the fiduciary duty owed to Plaintiffs by misusing confidential information to the detriment of Plaintiffs. 35. This misuse of confidential information included the use of confidential information acquired by Defendant in the course of her business relations with Plaintiffs to solicit Plaintiffs’ clients and/or discourage Plaintiffs’ clients from continuing their business relations with Plaintiffs. 36. Defendant engaged in a smear campaign of false information to not only potentially further her own economic interest to the detriment of Plaintiffs; but, the primary thrust was to ruin the reputation and interests of Plaintiffs through outright les and false innuendos fueled by anger and misplaced lust for vengeance for Plaintiffs’ termination of Defendant’s real estate sales services notwithstanding the fact that this termination was completely and totally justified. 37. By engaging in these disloyal acts, such as using confidential information acquired during the course ofher business relations with Plaintiffs; soliciting and poaching clients; disrupting client relations through lies and deceit; and, misrepresenting the relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendant; Defendant has breached her fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs. 38. Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s breach of fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to suffering past monetary damages, loss of clients, loss of revenue, exposure of Plaintiffs’ trade secrets, and other past, present, and future damages that are not capable of being readily quantified. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs espectfully requests this Honorable Court award damages against Defendant for breaches of fiduciary duty, assess an award of punitive damages upon future appropriate showing of same, issue injunctive relief against Defendant for the protection of the Plaintiffs’ interests; and, such other further relief as the Court finds just and appropriate under the circumstances. COUNT Hil —- MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS UNDER THE FLORIDA UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT (“FUTSA”) 39, Plaintiffs reincorporate paragraphs | through 38 as if incorporated herein. 40. This is an action for damages in excess of $50,000 for violation of Chapter 688, Florida Statute. 41. Insupport of its claim for misappropriation under Florida's Uniform Trade Secret Act, Plaintiffs possessed secret information and took reasonable steps to protect its secrecy; and, the secrets it possessed was misappropriated by Defendant, who knew or had reason to know that the secret was improperly obtained or who used improper means to obtain it. 42. This misappropriation included the disclosure or use of a trade secret of Plaintiffs without express or implied consent by them and Defendant, at the time of the disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that knowledge of the trade secret was acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limited use. 43. Defendant possessed trade secrets of Plaintiffs which includes, among other things, designs for certain real estate investment strategies and presentation and marketing of same to both prospective and designated clients and proprietary formulas and algorithms for compilation of investment data, client and prospective client lists, and data and information stored on Plaintiffs’ computer systems. 44. Plaintiffs’ client lists are trade secrets under Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Section 688.002(2)(4), because the list derives independent economic value from the fact that those clients appearing on it would not generally be known or ascertainable by other competitors in that particular industry and is subject to efforts to keep it sustained. 45, Furthermore, these client lists qualify as a trade secret, since they were the product of great expense and effort, that it included information that was confidential and not available from public sources, and that it was distilled from larger lists of potential customers into a list of viable customers for a unique business. 46. Plaintiffs expended great effort and money on the creation of its trade secrets and specifically its client lists where it identified and targeted specific clients in the market that it believed would be most profitable, as well nurture and foster those clients and business relationships over a period of years. 47. Plaintiffs’ client lists and confidential information discussed herein are not readily available or ascertainable to the public and each have separate and independent economic value associated with them. 48. Plaintiffs have been able to run a profitable business because of their conscious development of client lists and confidential information that it has put extensive effort and financial resources of the business into over the years. 49. The independent economic value of Plaintiffs’ client lists and confidential information can further be seen by the Defendants’ misappropriation ofthe information and ability to derive revenue from Plaintiffs’ client list and confidential information, without the Defendant having to expend marketing and sales efforts to obtain that type of information critical to the formation of an immediately successful business operation. 50. Plaintiffs also took reasonable steps and security measures to protect its client list and confidential information. 51. Such steps included but is not limited to: i) limit its employee’s access and use of its client list and confidential information to only employees who needed to access it in order to perform their duties; ii) maintain the client list and confidential information in a secured CRM; and, iii) protect the company’s computers and unlawful access through commercially sound software programs and systems. 52. Defendant has misappropriated, under FUTSA, a trade secret of Plaintiffs by either acquisition, disclosure, or use. 53. Plaintiffs owned and possessed certain trade secrets that Defendant misappropriated and used to directly compete with Plaintiffs. 54. Plaintiffs have invested considerable resources in developing the proprietary information, client lists, and trade secrets discussed at length throughout Plaintiffs’ Complaint. These trade secrets, proprietary information, and confidential data are the property of Plaintiffs. 55. | Defendant has misappropriated and pirated these secrets and the proprietary information without consent and continue to derive profit and sales from Plaintiffs’ trade secrets to compete unfairly, which is causing irreparable harm to Plaintiffs who have invested considerable funds into its clients and the properties they acquired in order to assure success and develop a structured business relationship of mutual profitability for themselves and their clients. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully requests this Honorable Court award damages against Defendant for Defendant’s violation of the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act, assess an additional award of punitive damages upon proper showing, and impose injunctive relief against Defendant for the protection of the Plaintiffs’ interests. COUNT IV —- TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP 56. Plaintiffs reincorporate paragraphs 1 through 55 as if incorporated herein. 57. This is an action for damages in excess of $50,000 for tortious interference with a business relationship. 58. Defendant committed tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship of Plaintiffs because with full knowledge of the existence of these business relationships Defendant did intentionally and unjustifiably interfere with same causing damages to Plaintiffs as a result thereby satisfying all of the requisite elements in this case. 59. Defendant had knowledge of the economically advantageous business relationships Plaintiffs possessed with their clients and prospective clients through Defendant’s business relationship with Plaintiffs as a real estate sales associate retained to perform specific closings on specific properties as identified by Plaintiffs. 60. In order to secure an advantage, the Defendant by use of fraud, deceptive trade practices, theft of Plaintiffs’ confidential information and defamation as set forth, above, directly and intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ clients in order to induce them to terminate their business relationships with Plaintiffs. 61. This inducement was almost always completed by means of the concealment of facts which the circumstances required the Defendant as an agent of Plaintiffs should have revealed. 62. Defendant knew or should have known that such facts and information were designed to interfere with Plaintiffs’ business relationships. 63. Plaintiffs have been, and continue to be, damaged as a result of the Defendant’s tortious interference with Plaintiffs’ business relationships with their clients. This interference includes, but is not limited to, significant losses in revenue and loss of valuable, loyal clients whom have had a consistently positive and beneficial long term relationship with Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully requests this Honorable Court award damages, punitive damages upon proper showing, and impose injunctive relief against Defendant for the protection of the Plaintiffs ‘interests. COUNT V—- VIOLATION OF COMBATING CORPORATE ESPIONAGE ACT 64. Plaintiffs reincorporates paragraphs 1 through 63 as if incorporated herein. 65. This is an action for damages in excess of $50,000 for violation of Chapter 812, Florida Statute. 66. As alleged above, Defendant removed and used for her own benefit without authorization certain “trade secrets” of Plaintiffs as that term is defined by Fla. Stat. § 812.081(1)(f) to include “any scientific, technical, or commercial information, including financial information, and includes any design, process, procedure, list of suppliers, list of customers, business code, or improvement thereof, whether tangible or intangible, and regardless of whether or how it is stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing.” 67. On October 1, 2021, the Combating Corporate Espionage in Florida Act, found within Section 812.081, Florida Statutes, became law. 68. Defendant violated Section 812.081(2)(b), Fla. Stat., by obtaining Plaintiffs’ trade secrets without authorization and appropriating them for her own benefit thereby subjecting her to criminal penalties, and entitling Plaintiffs to restitution, injunctive relief, or the payment of royalties. 69. The customer lists and the other proprietary financial information thoroughly described above which were acquired or compiled through the Plaintiffs’ industry and not just a compilation of information that is readily available to the public are trade secrets as defined by Section 8/2.08/1(1)(), Fla. Stat and that includes Plaintiffs’ company pricing and profit structure, all of which was obtained and used by Defendant for her benefit without Plaintiffs’ authorization. 70. ‘Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction against Defendant to enjoin the use of the unlawfully obtained or useda trade secret. § 8/12.081(7), Fla. Stat. 71. Ifan injunction is inequitable, the court may condition the future use of the trade secret on the payment of a reasonable royalty. $ 8/2.081(7), Fla. Stat. 72. Based on the facts contained in the causes of action properly plead above, Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under Section 812.081, Florida Statutes. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully requests this Honorable Court award damages, restitution, and royalties from Defendant, in addition to injunctive relief against Defendant for violation of the Combating Corporate Espionage in Florida Act. COUNT VI- FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT 73. Plaintiffs reincorporate paragraphs | through 72 as if incorporated herein. 74. This is an action for damages in excess of $50,000 for against Defendants pursuant to the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Section 501.201, Florida Statutes (“F.S.”), et seg. (“The Act”). 75. The actions of Defendant as described, above, of sale and rental of vacation rental properties constitute engaging in “Trade or commerce” within the meaning of and as defined by Section 501.201(8), F.S. 76. The real estate and properties involved in the transactions and business of Plaintiffs and Defendant as described, above, all individually and collectively constitute a “Thing of value” within the meaning of and as defined by Section 501.201(9), F.S. 77. Atall times material and relevant to the instant Complaint, Plaintiffs and their clients and prospective clients were individually an “Interested party or person” within the meaning of and as defined by Section 501.201(6), F.S., and a “consumer” within the meaning of and as defined by Section 501.201(7), F.S. 78. The false and misleading representations made by Defendant to clients and prospective clients of Plaintiffs as described herein were made directly to these clients and prospective clients of Plaintiffs and these representations were likely to mislead even while said clients and prospective clients were acting reasonably and, as such these representations and solicitations by Defendant constitute a “deceptive act or practice” as those terms are used in Sec. 501.204(1), F.S. 79. The Representations and solicitations also constitute an “unfair practice” as that term is used in Sec. 501.204(1), F.S., because these acts and actions offend established public policy and are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and/or substantially injurious to the Plaintiffs and their respective clients as consumers. 80 As a direct cause of these deceptive and unfair practices of Defendant, Plaintiffs have incurred damages including, but not limited to lost revenue from clients Defendant caused to leave Plaintiffs and/or not continue to do the business with Plaintiffs but for Defendants actions in violation of FDUTPA. 81. Plaintiffs have performed all conditions precedent to this action or all said conditions have been waived or excused. 82. Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm to represent them to recoup the damages caused by Defendant’s deceptive and unfair practices as alleged herein and are responsible to pay undersigned their attorneys’ fees and costs for their representation in the instant action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a declaratory judgment that Defendants violated the Act and an injunction enjoining future violations of the Act pursuant to Section 501.211(1), F.S.; actual damages for violation of the Act pursuant to Section 501.211(2), F.S.; an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Sections 501.211(2) and 501.2105, F.S.; and such other relief that this Court deems just and proper. COUNT VIL - PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 83. Plaintiffs reincorporate paragraphs | through 82 as if incorporated herein. 84, This is a claim for injunctive relief against Defendant based on the following causes of action as set forth above: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets under the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“FUTSA”), Tortious Interference with an Advantageous Business Relationship, violation of the Combating Corporate Espionage in Florida Act and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). 85. | Temporary and permanent injunctions are permitted by statute for violations of FUTSA pursuant to Section 688.003, F.S.; and, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), Section 501.211(1), F.S.;. 86. Temporary injunctions have also long been recognized as a viable form of relief in a suit for tortious interference with a contract. See, e.g., Heavener, Ogier Services, Inc. vR.W. FLA Regionno, 418 So.2d 1074, 1077 (Fla. 1982), Knight v. City ofMiami, 127 Fla. 585, 173 So. 801 (Fla. 1937); Dade Enterprises, Inc. v. Wometco Theaters, Inc., 119 Fla. 70, 160 So. 209 (Fla. 1935). 87. Aparty “aggrieved by a violation” of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. 501.201 et seq., may seek “to enjoin a person who has violated, is violating, or is otherwise likely to violate” the Act. Fla. Stat. 501.211(1); see also PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Property Management, Inc., 842 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2003) (Little FTC Act applies to private causes of action arising from single unfair or deceptive acts in conduct of any trade or commerce, even if it involves only single party, single transaction, or single contract). 88. Finally, injunctive relief is also permitted for violations of the Combating Corporate Espionage in Florida Act. Fla. Stat. 812.081(7). 89. A preliminary injunction is properly entered when the moving party demonstrates:(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the harm an injunction may cause the defendant; and (4) the granting of an injunction would not disserve the public interest. Church v. City ofHuntsville, 30 F. 3d 1332, 1342 (11th Cir. 1994). Naegel Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 659 So.2d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 1995). 90. As a general rule, a trial court has sound discretion to grant injunctions. Precision Tune Auto Case, Inc. v. Radcliff, 731 So.2d 744, 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). 91. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims against the Defendant. 92. Injunctive relief is available in cases similar to this case to enjoin a former employee's solicitation of the employer's customers. Azar v. Lehigh Corp., 364 So.2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Injunctive relief does not depend on the existence of a restrictive covenant in the former employee's employment agreement. 93. Courts have granted injunctive relief when the former employee has made use of the employer's customer lists or other information that may be regarded as a trade secret. See, e.g., Braman Motors, Inc. v. Ward, 479 So.2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (denial of preliminary injunction to prevent use of confidential customer list by former employee was abuse of discretion). 94. Additionally, Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. 95. Plaintiffs lack any adequate remedy at law since injury to Plaintiffs’ reputation are irreparable especially since calculating the monetary damages resulting from reputational loss are difficult if not impossible to ascertain. The continued and unrelenting onslaught of the defamation and tortious interference with Plaintiffs’ business is causing and will continue to cause immediate and irreparable harm. 96. Plaintiffs have invested considerable resources in developing the proprietary information and trade secrets discussed at length throughout Plaintiffs’ Complaint. These trade secrets, proprietary information, and confidential data are the property of Plaintiffs. 97. Defendant, however, has pirated these secrets and the proprietary information without paying for them, and she threatens to use the results of the Plaintiffs’ extensive efforts to compete unfairly with Plaintiffs. 98. At this time, the full extent of the damages to Plaintiffs cannot be calculated in dollars and cents. 99. Further, Plaintiffs have lost and continues to lose long term business relationships which will leave Plaintiffs with no adequate remedy at law. 100. The threatened injury to the Plaintiffs substantially outweighs the harm an injunction may cause the Defendant, who is guilty of multiple criminal and civil infractions as a result of the allegations contained in this Complaint. 101. Defendant’s behavior in the simplest terms constitutes a complete menace to Plaintiffs and their employees, principals, and clients that is totally disruptive to their pursuit of their lawful business. 102. Plaintiffs are seeking only to enjoin Defendant from the outrageous harassment of Plaintiffs and those associated with Plaintiffs’ business by protecting them from what is literally a Blitzkrieg of false and highly provocative, intoxicant fueled verbal assaults from Defendant that go far beyond any proper and lawful human conduct as evidenced by Exhibit A. 103. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, and all conditions precedent to the relief demanded herein have been performed or have occurred. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that pending a decision on the trial of this matter, Defendant, and her agents, representatives, and those acting in concert with it, shall be enjoined and restrained from using, disclosing, or duplicating the trade secrets, proprietary information and confidential data obtained by Defendant during her business relations with Plaintiffs, and Defendant shall be enjoined from contacting either directly or indirectly or communicating in any manner whatsoever with any of Plaintiffs’ employees, managers, agents, principals, business associates, or clients, or making any false statements about Plaintiffs’ business, business practices, employees, managers, agents, principals, business associates, or clients. Dated this 3157 day of May, 2023. KELTON LAW, P.A. Attorneys at Law By: /s/Albert E. Ford, IT Albert E. Ford, II, Esquire Florida Bar No: 068586 601 Deltona Blvd., Suite 102 Deltona, Florida 32725 Primary: aford@keltonlawpa.com Secondary: jgarcia@keltonlawpa.com Phone (386) 259-4806 | Fax (386) 490-9287 Counsel for Plaintiffs Text message Noel sent to LK Member , Michael Mathey -attempting to dismantle LK on 3-28- 23, Two weeks after being terminated by LK. Unbeknown to Noel, Mathey was a direct equal decision maker in Lavish Keys termination of Noel Methot. 3/25/23 Noel text to Mathey: ! recommend that you, as a partner in LK, do a site visit to see how Jean has maintained these Lavish Keys properties, for your name's sake. | am absolutely speechless. | could care less about my relationship now with LK after what | have seen recently. | am now just trying to get myself as separated as possible from this Co. after seeing rental income statements, reservations, and the lack of care of these properties since these clients purchased. If you let this continue on the path you are all on, it's not going to end well which is such a shame! You had something really good going but clearly trusted the wrong person to manage. | recommend you reach out to all clients and see how their experience has been with LK and how their investment is going , how satisfied are they , etc - | have seen the income statements, he is stealing from these investors and whether your involved or not, ! recommend fixing it before it gets worse - This is an email out of concern to you and | hope you keep it only between us but that's your choice —“ JJ EXHIBIT 1A 3 From: Noel Methot Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 9:22 PM To: Michael Mathe Subject: Recommended site visit - private conversation { recommend that you, as a partner in LK , do a site visit to see how Jean has maintained these Lavish Keys properties, for your name's sake. | am absolutely speechless. | could care less about my relationship now with LK after what | have seen recently. | am now just trying to get myself as separated as possible from this Co. after seeing rental income statements, reservations, and the lack of care of these properties since these clients purchased. If you let this continue on the path you are all on, it's not going to end well which is such a shame! You had something really good going but clearly trusted the wrong person to manage. | recommend you reach out to all clients and see how their experience has been with LK and how their investment is going , how satisfied are they, etc - | have seen the income statements, he is stealing from these investors and whether your involved or not, | recommend fixing it before it gets worse - This is an email out of concern to you and | hope you keep it only between us but that's your choice - Noel Methot Realtor (603) 901-2118 From: Noel Methot Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 4:06 AM To: Michael Mathe Subject: Fwd: Mathe- this was handled you said??? Fwd: Spectrum equipment Trust me whenI tell you that this is a SINKING SHIP! Get your team in check- I’m not going to be blamed for anymore shit on behalf of Jean and Tina’s titanic 1!1!!!11!! You will get this resolved for my seller and my buyer because this was UNDER LAVISH KEYS MANAGEMENT- this is embarrassing-all of my career with LK is nothing but an embarrassment and shame! +--------- Forwarded message --------- From: Noel Methot Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 4:54 AM Subject: Mathe- this was handled you said??? Fwd: Spectrum equipment To: Michael Mathe , Tina Hosek , jean jeansonne < All inboxes Ciirus login Vv Photo v Done Noel Everyone else is scared of you but | sure as hell are not- your co is sinking titanic and I'll be doing more investigations into statements and $ - again all communication is to go through email- let me know once my clients have their furniture you took thanks- T Today 11:29 AM $2 11 Photos » 1 .. - Oe | > i [=e | Bie r i ay ‘ 1 ; 5 ea be ie ‘ fo a + | £ ie | — lebe , Ww & a 4% wrote: Noel, J can’t conceivably tell you how pleased | was to read that this was your final email to us, so thank you for that, truly made my day. Of course, you have left me little choice but to respond because of the inflammatory statements you have made. | see that you have chosen to take the gloves off. First, there is one name that has been used, chaos smuggler. | stand by my statement, as | don’t think there could be a more accurate description. You have been the most unprofessional agent | have had the misfortune of working with (and | have met some rough ones in my career) and quite frankly, one of the most nasty personalities too. You call/text at all hours of the night (sometimes drunk) spewing ugliness from your mouth. You don’t take care in who you choose to speak poorly of or the repercussions of your words or actions. You have attempted to throw everyone you can under the bus (Michael, Jean, me and my staff, title, sellers and even sometimes buyers), while taking no responsibility for your own actions. Page 1 of 8 | Ra + MViathe gets his e ¢ ' | | der in order f tor Glenys!!! | ie Th » td] \ b DuYyers y for TOFthis! TNIS!: / Jn. 6:17PM And these don’t even count your calls telling me “f Michael Mathe” and how he is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Your complaints about Jean to Glenys the night you guys met up. Accusing sellers of conspiracy, buyers of lying and on and on and on... Just example after example of destructive and unprofessional behavior. You have been told repeatedly that | don’t pay Mathe a commission, | have only paid for marketing. In addition, complaining to me about your own commission structure. You have been so rude and nasty to title companies that they have stated directly to us that they do not want to deal or work with you anymore either. Mendoza to sign on behalf of the buver's entity, o: just David. Please advise ASAP as there 1s coordinating that will need to be done in anticipation of this closing that I was o1igunally expecting to close 12/15 and now have the crazy agent yelling at me that it's going to be 11/23. Please advise ASAP Page 2 of 8 List agent/Seller on Mendoza specifically said that he originally didn’t want to extend because of you and how you treated his title company. Said he felt like you needed to learn a lesson. While you are partially correct, | established RYMak Lending in Jan 2021 (so more than a year prior), your assumptions as usual are incorrect. Prior to that, | was still a loan officer. | simply realized that | should do it for myself. Prior to that, | did loan processing and property consulting. All told, | have been in this business in some form or another for more than 15 years. None of this includes Glenys’ almost 30 years in this business. | have forgotten more about this business than you will ever know. Lest you forgot how you needed my help with contracts (see below). Oh man what Michael just spit off to me on how to draw this separate addendum up is stressing me out between you and |.. | just finally learned how to write the first option and in the 11th hour I'm stressed on how to write this up so anything u can email or text me to help draw up this thing between Bobby and sellers will be REALLY appreciated | know you def So, let’s not try to pretend that any of this is a lack of experience or knowledge on the part of RyMak or my staff. Ido not “bullshit” anyone. | state facts and bring receipts as you can see. Next, let’s do a brief recap of these files. Page 3 of 8 Bobby Whitten: When we received this file, there was already months of history and frustration attached to it. We were asked to structure an investment deal with only 20% down and the buyer having no skin in the game. Most lenders would have laughed anyone of the phone for such a request. Not only did we find a way to do the 20% down investment loan, we also helped find a solution to the remaining balance. Then you asked me to get on the phone with the seller to help her feel warm and fuzzy about the deal, which | did a couple of times. Understand, lenders/brokers don’t generally do this. We solved every problem and got the deal done. As you know, the seller was difficult and would not have tolerated any further delays. We saved that deal. P.S., Bobby called after to thank us for our hard work and diligence in what he knew wasa difficult deal. Ed Feil 15' deal: We saved your rear by how we structured the denial letter for them to be able to get their $200k back after writing ano appraisal contingency contract. And the house came in under value. Ed Feil 2" deal: 10.24 receive contract 10.26 req updated docs from borrower 10.27 received updated docs for borrower 10.28 file submitted to UW 10.31 apprs! ordered 10.31 loan approved 10.31 requested 4pt & wind mit to get HOI quotes from Noel, were giving the contact info for the seller?? 11.2 loan commitment sent > including verbiage about UW to review: UW to review final updated assets for closing and reserves. Borrower to provide all final info regarding 1031 exchange funds 11.3 borrower sending over conditions requested 11.4 apprsl received. 11.4 req from Noel, any info regarding STR RENTS for Feil & Mendoza both. 11.4 — 11.14 going back and forth with Lender AND AMC about getting STR comps. 11.14 emailed Jean directly about the challenges regarding needing the STR bookings for last 12 months... looking to get exception to just use info he sent over. 11.17 got HOI quote for borrower from our contact Page 4 of 8 11.23 went to bind HOI! and found out that there was a claim on the property from the seller. Spoke to the seller to get appt for 4pt/wind mit. 11.28 got HOI bound 11.29 sales of property happened in 1031 exchange (funds for closing) 11.30 received info from 10.31 exchange c 12.01 Feil moved money around for closing /reserves 12.02 sent up for CTC review 12.05 UW req updated STR rents ledger... called the seller and got it. (also worked on getting the one for Mendoza sorted) also needed some updated info from Feil. 12.06 got contract extension to the gth And uploaded for CTC 12.09 (Friday) CTC sent to closing, after wire cut off time doc sent for closing MONDAY 12.12 We could not have closed on the 30°". since the lender needed time to review all the info regarding the 1031 exchange which was not received until 11/30 The Feil’s were upset because they were given the impression that this could close earlier. We certainly weren’t the ones to give them that impression. Chad Kierce: There were several challenges on this file. The property did not have 12 months of STR rent history, but we were able to talk the lender into giving us an exception on this. Even with the challenges, we were prepared to close the file when the Kierce’s tried to back out of the deal. David Mendoza: Yet another client that needed 80% with no skin in the game and using borrowed funds (not complicated at all right???) Additionally, we had to talk the lender into giving us an exception for gift funds (does not happen for investment properties). 10/28 Contract 11/2 Approval Page 5 of 8 11/4 Commitment letter sent out along with conditions needed 11/