Legal Document: Karmel Runcie Plaintiff vs. Doreen Syrilk, et al Defendant

On January 17, 2018 a Motion for Leave to Amend - DEFENDANTS, INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.'S AND DOREEN SYRLIK'S, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEN ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO THE PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINTParty: Defendant International Village Association Inc. was filed involving a dispute between Runcie, Karmel, and International Village Association Inc., Syrilk, Doreen, Tenant Evauation Llc, for Other - Libel/Slander in the District Court of Broward County.

Preview
Filing # 87129538 E-Filed 03/28/2019 03:02:32 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: CACE 2018-001322 (12)

KARMEL RUNCIE,

Plaintiff,

INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE

ASSOCIATION, INC. and DOREEN

SYRLIK

Defendants.
/

DEFENDANTS, INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.’S AND DOREEN
SYRLIK’S, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES TO THE PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

COME NOW, Defendants, INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.
(‘IVA”) AND DOREEN SYRLIK (‘Mrs. Syrlik”) (hereinafter “Defendants”), by and
through their undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.190, move this Honorable Court for an Order granting leave to amend their Answer
and Affirmative Defenses to the Plaintiff, KARMEL RUNCIE’S, Third Amended
Complaint. As the basis for the foregoing Motion, Defendants state as follows:

1. This is a defamation action stemming from an incident where the Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants published a false statement that the Plaintiff had “arrests.”

However, the Plaintiff contends that he was never arrested.

2. The Plaintiff brought suit against Defendants, alleging Defamation Per Se

Against IVA and Ms. Syrlik, Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act Against

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
DADELAND CENTRE II - 9180 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2204 FAX

*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 3/28/2019 3:02:32 PM.****CASE NO: CACE 2018-001322 (12)

IVA, as well as Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Housing Act and Florida
Civil Rights Act Against IVA and Ms. Syrlik.

3. In Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff pleads his intention to seek
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by the applicable statutory
prevailing party provisions, specifically as it pertains to the Violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act count against IVA, as well as the Discrimination in Violation
of the Fair Housing Act and Florida Civil Rights Act counts against IVA and Ms.
Syrlik.

4. Defendants require leave to amend their Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint, in order to plead Defendants’ intent to seek
their own reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the same applicable
statutory prevailing party provisions as Plaintiff. (See Defendants’ proposed
Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses attached hereto as Exhibit “A’).

5. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190 provides that “leave of court shall be given
freely when justice so requires” to allow a party to amend its pleadings. Fla. R.
Civ. P. 1.190(a).

6. It is public policy in Florida to freely allow amendments to pleadings so cases
may be resolved on their merits. Colandrea v. King, 661 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1995).

7. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190, prejudice is the primary
consideration in determining whether a motion for leave to amend should be
granted. Leavitt v. Garson, 528 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (holding that a
plaintiff would not have been prejudiced by permitting the defendant to amend his

-2-
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

DADELAND CENTRE II - 9180 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2204 FAXCASE NO: CACE 2018-001322 (12)

answer to include the affirmative defense of state of frauds, where the motion to
amend had been made prior to the hearing on the motion for summary
judgment).

8. All doubts regarding a motion for leave to amend a party’s pleading should be
resolved in favor of allowing the amendment. Craig v. East Pasco Medical

Center, Inc., 650 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (holding that the trial court

abused its discretion in refusing to allow the plaintiff to file a first amended

complaint due to the length of time that the suit had been pending).

9. As such, Defendants’ amendment should therefore be granted as “[rlefusal to
allow an amendment is an abuse of the trial court’s discretion ‘unless it clearly
appears that allowing the amendment would prejudice the opposing party, the
privilege to amend has been abused, or amendment would be futile.’ State Farm
Fire & Cas. Co v. Fleet Fin. Corp., 724 So. 2d 1218, 1219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).”
Kimball v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 901 So. 2d 293, 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

10. This Motion is filed in good faith and is not intended to prejudice or unduly burden
the Plaintiff, as Plaintiff is currently operating under the very same statutes that
contain the applicable prevailing party provisions.

WHEREFORE, and based on the forgoing, Defendants, INTERNATIONAL
VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC. AND DOREEN SYRLIK, move this Honorable Court for
an Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend their Answer and Affirmative
Defenses, and any such other relief this Honorable Court deems equitable and just

under the circumstances.

-3-
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
DADELAND CENTRE II. 9180 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2284 FAXCASE NO: CACE 2018-001322 (12)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

| HEREBY CERTIFY that on this_28th day of March 2019, a true and correct

copy of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of Broward County by using the Florida

Courts e-Filing Portal, which will send an automatic e-mail message to the following

parties registered with the e-Filing Portal system: chelsalewispa.@gmail.com;

lewislawpleadings@gmail.com; Chelsea Lewis, Esquire, Lewis Law LLC,,151 N. Nob

Hill Road, Suite 348, Plantation, FL 33324, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

By:

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

Counsel for Defendants,

International Village Association, Inc. and Doreen
Syrlik

Cole, Scott & Kissane Building

9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
P.O. Box 569015

Miami, Florida 33256

Telephone (305) 350-5361

Facsimile (305) 373-2294

Primary e-mail: Daniel.Klein@csklegal.com
Secondary e-mail: Tania.Cabrera@csklegal.com
Primary e-mail: Samuel. Falk@csklegal.com
Secondary e-mail: Kiana.Wizzard@csklegal.com

/s/ Daniel J. Klein
DANIEL J. KLEIN
Florida Bar No.: 16126
SAMUEL J. FALK
Florida Bar No.: 123539

-4-

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
DADELAND CENTRE II - 9180 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2204 FAXIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO: CACE 2018-001322 (12)

KARMEL RUNCIE,

Plaintiff,

INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE

ASSOCIATION, INC. and DOREEN

SYRLIK

Defendants.
/

DEFENDANTS, INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC.’S AND DOREEN
SYRLIK’S, SECOND AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO THE
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COME NOW, Defendants, INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE ASSOCIATION
(hereinafter referred to as “IVA”) and DOREEN SYRLIK (hereinafter referred to as
“Syrlik”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”), by and through their
undersigned counsel, and for their Second Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses
and Demand for Jury Trial to the Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint, state as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. It is admitted that the Plaintiff has brought a defamation per se suit against
the Defendants, a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim against IVA, and Fair Housing Act
claims against Defendants. However, it is denied that the Defendants defamed the

Plaintiff in any way, it is denied that IVA violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and it is

denied that the Defendants violated the Fair Housing Act.

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2204 FAX

Exhibit "A"CASE NO: CACE 2018-001322 (12)

2. It is admitted that the Plaintiff has claimed damages in excess of this
Court’s jurisdictional threshold. However, it is denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to this

sum, let alone, any sum.

3. Denied as phrased.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

4. Denied.

5. Denied as phrased.

6. Without knowledge, therefore denied.
7. Admitted.
8. Without knowledge, therefore denied.
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Denied as phrased.

10. Admitted.
11. Denied.
12. Admitted.

13. Denied as phrased.

14. Admitted.
15. Admitted.
16. Admitted.
17. Admitted.
18. Admitted.
19. Denied.

20. Denied.

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2204 FAXCASE NO: CACE 2018-001322 (12)

22. ‘Without knowledge, therefore denied.
23. Without knowledge, therefore denied.
24. Denied.

25. Without knowledge, therefore denied.
26. Without knowledge, therefore denied.
27. Denied as phrased.

28. Denied as phrased.

29. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

30. Denied as phrased.

31. Denied.
32. Denied.
33. Denied.
34. Denied.
35. Denied.
36. Denied.
37. Denied.
38. Denied.
39. Denied.
40. Denied.
41. Denied.
42. Denied.
43. Denied.
44. Denied.

' Plaintiff skips from Paragraph 20 to Paragraph 22, and thus does not make any allegations in Paragraph 21.

45. Denied.

46. Denied.

47. Denied as phrased.

48. Without knowledge, therefore denied.
49. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING DEFENDANTS INTERNATIONAL
VILLAGE AND SYLRIK’S VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

50. Denied.
51. Denied.
52. Denied as phrased.

53. Denied as phrased, and subparts (i) through (iii) are also denied as

phrased.
54. Denied.
55. Denied.
56. Denied.
57. Denied.
58. Denied.
59. Denied.

60. Without knowledge, therefore denied.
61. | Denied as phrased.
62. Denied.

63. Denied.

COUNT!
DEFAMATION PER SE AGAINST INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE

64. IVA re-alleges and re-avers its responses to each and every allegation
contained within paragraphs one (1) through sixty-three (63) above.
65. Denied.

66. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

67. Denied.
68. Denied.
69. Denied.
70. Denied.
71. Denied.
72. Denied.

COUNT II
DEFAMATION PER SE AGAINST DEFENDANTS
IVA and SYRLIK
73. Defendants re-allege and re-aver their responses to each and every

allegation contained within paragraphs one (1) through sixty-three (63) above.

74. Denied.
75. Denied.
76. Denied.

77. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

78. Denied.
79. Denied.
80. Denied.
81. Denied.

82. Denied.

COUNT Ill
DEFAMATION PER SE AGAINST DEFENDANTS IVA and SYRLIK

83. Defendants re-allege and re-aver their responses to each and every

allegation contained within paragraphs one (1) through sixty-three (63) above.

84. Denied.
85. Denied.
86. Denied.
87. Denied.
88. Denied.
89. Denied.
90. Denied.
91. Denied.
92. Denied.

COUNT IV
DEFAMATION PER SE AGAINST DEFENDANTS IVA and SYRLIK

93. Defendants re-allege and re-aver their responses to each and every
allegation contained within paragraphs one (1) through sixty-three (63) above.

94. Denied.

95. Denied as phrased.

96. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

97. Without knowledge, therefore denied.

98. Denied.

99. Denied.

-6-

100. Denied.
101. Denied.
102. Denied.
103. Denied.
104. Denied.

COUNT V
VIOLATION OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT AGAINST DEFENDANT IVA

105. Defendant IVA re-alleges and re-avers its responses to each and every
allegation contained within paragraphs one (1) through sixty-three (63) above.

106. Denied.

107. Denied.

108. Denied.

109. Denied.

110. Denied as phrased.

111. Denied.

112. Denied.

113. Denied as phrased.

114. Denied as phrased, and subparts (i) through (iii) are also denied as
phrased.

115. Denied.
116. Denied.
117. Denied.
118. Denied.
119. Denied.
-7-

120. Denied.

121. Denied.

122. Denied, and subparts (i) through (v) are also denied.

123. Denied.

124. Denied.

COUNT VI
DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT AND FLORIDA
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AGAINST DEFENDANTS IVA AND SYRLIK
125. Defendants re-allege and re-aver their responses to each and every
allegation contained within paragraphs one (1) through sixty-three (63) above.
126. Denied as phrased.
127. Denied as phrased, and footnote is also denied as phrased.
128. Denied as phrased.
129. Denied as phrased.
130. Without knowledge, therefore denied.
131. Denied as phrased.
132. Denied.
133. Denied.
134. Denied.
135. Denied.
136. Denied.
COUNT VII

DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT AND FLORIDA
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AGAINST DEFENDANTS IVA AND SYRLIK

137. Defendants re-allege and re-aver their responses to each and every

allegation contained within paragraphs one (1) through sixty-three (63) above.
138. Denied as phrased.
139. Denied as phrased.
140. Denied as phrased.
141. Admitted.
142. Admitted.
143. Denied as phrased.
144. Denied as phrased.
145. Denied.
146. Denied.
147. Denied as phrased.
148. Without knowledge, therefore denied.
149. Admitted.
150. Admitted.
151. Denied as phrased.
152. Denied as phrased.
153. Denied as phrased.
154. Denied.
155. Without knowledge, therefore denied.
156. Denied.
157. Denied.
158. Denied.
159. Denied as phrased.
-9-

160. Denied.
161. Denied.
162. Denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Defendants are entitled to a credit and/or setoff for any and all collateral

sources or other sources of setoff, including settlement funds received from any entity in
the past and/or future as it relates to the subject incident; therefore, the Plaintiff,
KARMEL RUNCIE, claims are limited and/or reduced by said credits and/or setoffs.

2. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of Waiver as a result of, among
other things, documents executed by the Plaintiff.

3. Plaintiff has no equitable or otherwise justiciable basis for prosecuting this
cause as Plaintiff has “unclean hands” arising from its own acts and/or omissions as a
result of, among other things, documents executed by the Plaintiff.

4. The alleged defamatory statements, as referred to by the Plaintiff in the
Complaint, were not made by or on behalf of these Defendants, therefore, the Plaintiff is
unable to assert any such claim against them. Alternatively, the alleged defamatory
statements are protected by a qualified privilege, protected by an absolute privilege, or
are statements of pure opinion.

5. Defendants affirmatively assert that all statements and comments by
Defendant about Plaintiff were true and thus, cannot be the basis for a defamation
action.

6. All statements and comments made by Defendants about Plaintiff were
made by the Defendants with good motive and were fair comments made as private

citizens exercising right of free speech, discussing matter of public importance, as a

concerned citizen of the community.

7. The matters addressed by Defendants concerning Plaintiff and the
allegations contained in the Plaintiff's Complaint concern matters which affect the
interest of the general public and residents of Defendant, International Village
Association, Inc. These statements were made in good faith with the proper motives of
informing the public, and residents of Defendant, International Village Association, Inc.
Therefore the Defendants statements are protected by both qualified and conditional
privilege.

8. The Plaintiff's alleged injuries, to the extent they exist, were caused by the
action, inactions, or wrongdoing, of Tenant Evaluation, LLC and/or unnamed non-
parties that may be uncovered during the course of discovery. Therefore, Defendants’
liability, if any, should be diminished or abolished in proportion to these parties’ actions.
Defendants expressly reserve the right to amend their Affirmative Defenses to
specifically name individuals or entities as Fabre Defendants.

9. Defendants affirmatively assert that the Plaintiff, KARMEL RUNCIE,
cannot state a cause of action against the Defendants for which relief can be granted in
accordance with Florida law, the Complaint is subject to dismissal with prejudice, and all
claims of the Plaintiff, KARMEL RUNCIE, fail as to Defendants as a matter of law.

10. Defendants state that the alleged defamatory statements, which are
denied, were not published to any third party and therefore the Plaintiff's cause of action
is lacking in a necessary predicate element, thereby entitling these Defendants to a

judgment in their favor.

-11-

11. Defendants state that the alleged defamatory statements referred to in
Plaintiff's Complaint do not constitute defamation per se. Therefore, there is no
presumption of damages for the Plaintiff.

12. Defendants state that the alleged defamatory statements referred to in
Plaintiff's Complaint did not injure the Plaintiff in his trade or business.

13. Defendants state that the Plaintiff's alleged damages are the result of
intervening causes rather than any alleged defamation and therefore the Plaintiff cannot
recover for those damages in this suit.

14. Defendants state that the Plaintiff suffered no actual damages from the
alleged defamatory statement referred to in Plaintiff's Complaint.

15. Plaintiff's claims for violation of the Fair Housing Act are barred, in whole
or in part, because all decisions with respect to Plaintiffs housing were made by
Defendants for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-pretextual reasons.

16. Defendants did not commit the acts or omissions as alleged in the Fair
Housing Act counts for discriminatory motives, but assuming that it did, such acts or
omissions would have been taken in any event for legitimate, nondiscriminatory, non-
pretextual reasons.

17. Plaintiff's claims for violation of the Fair Housing Act are barred, in whole
or in part, because Defendants exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct
promptly any alleged discriminatory and/or retaliatory behavior.

18. Defendants allege that they have not acted with malice, reckless
indifference or fraud toward Plaintiff and, therefore, Defendants cannot be liable for
punitive damages.

-12-

19. Plaintiff is not entitled to receive punitive damages because Plaintiff has
not pled facts sufficient to support such an award.

20. Plaintiff is barred from recovering punitive damages because Defendants
had in place a policy to prevent housing discrimination and made good faith efforts to
implement and enforce that policy.

21. Defendants allege that it has not engaged in intentional discrimination
with respect to Plaintiff, and Defendants therefore cannot be liable for punitive
damages.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendants, INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE and DOREEN SYRLIK, demand a trial
by jury as to all issues so triable.

Defendants, INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE and DOREEN SYRLIK, request that
this Court grant Defendants’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs against the Plaintiff,
as provided for by and with respect to the following Counts as contained in the Plaintiff's
Third Amended Complaint: Count V, Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act against
Defendant IVA, pursuant to 15 U.S. Code §1681; Count VI, Discrimination in Violation of
the Fair Housing Act and Florida Civil Rights Act Against Defendants IVA and Syrlik,
pursuant to Florida Statute §760.34; and Count VII, Discrimination in Violation of the
Fair Housing Act and Florida Civil Rights Act Against Defendants IVA and Syrlik,

pursuant to Florida Statute §760.021.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

| HEREBY CERTIFY that on this___ day of March 2019, a true and correct copy
of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of Broward County by using the Florida Courts
e-Filing Portal, which will send an automatic e-mail message to the following parties
registered with the e-Filing Portal system: chelsalewispa.@gmail.com;
lewislawpleadings@gmail.com; Chelsea Lewis, Esquire, Lewis Law LLC,,151 N. Nob

Hill Road, Suite 348, Plantation, FL 33324, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.

Counsel for Defendants, International Village
Association, Inc. and Doreen Syrlik

Cole, Scott & Kissane Building

9150 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 1400
P.O. Box 569015

Miami, Florida 33256

Telephone (305) 350-5361

Facsimile (305) 373-2294

Primary e-mail: Daniel. Klein@csklegal.com
Secondary e-mail: Tania.Cabrera@csklegal.com

Primary e-mail: Samuel. Falk@csklegal.com
Secondary e-mail: Kiana.Wizzard@csklegal.com

By: s! Daniel 9, Kleia
DANIEL J. KLEIN
Florida Bar No.: 16126
SAMUEL J. FALK
Florida Bar No.: 123539

-14-

COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE BUILDING - 9150 SOUTH DADELAND BOULEVARD - SUITE 1400 - P.O. BOX 569015 - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33256 - (305) 350-5300 - (305) 373-2204 FAX

Case Info

Judge

Frink, Keathan B. Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 28, 2019

Case Filing Date

January 17, 2018

County

Parties

International Village Association Inc. Defendant
Klein, Daniel Jacob Attorney for the Defendant
Lewis, Chelsea A Attorney for the Plaintiff
Runcie, Karmel Plaintiff
Syrilk, Doreen Defendant
Tenant Evauation LLC Defendant
Samuel Falk Attorney
Christopher Trapani Attorney
Carlton Talbot Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jeffrey Bell Attorneys for Defendants
DANIEL JOHNSON Attorney
Ricardo Reyes Attorneys for Defendants
Aaron Draizin Attorneys for Defendants
Jerald Bagley Attorney
Matthew Trapani Attorneys for Defendants
Christopher Malek Attorneys for Defendants

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

Document for Karmel Runcie Plaintiff vs. Doreen Syrilk, et al Defendant

Preview

Case Info

Parties