Preview
Filing # 62043915 E-Filed 09/27/2017 09:31:23 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 13-17671 (CA 32)
KENT D. SMITH, CHARLES ARENA,
MALCOLM BRADLEY, THOMAS
CAMPAGNA, DONALD CAMPAGNA,
CHARLIE DAVIS, BARBARA FELDMAN,
GARY FELDMAN, PHIL FRIEDLAND,
AL GOLDIN, JANET GURSKIS,
NEIL BRUSSARD, SEAN JIMENEZ,
MARLENE LOONEY, GREGORY LOONEY,
MIKE MCHUGH, JOHN WHITAKER,
AND CRAIG ZINKOWSKI,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JEFFREY TEW and TEW CARDENAS, LLP,
Defendants.
/
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON COUNTS Il, V, X, XI, Xil, XIV, AND XV
Defendants, JEFFREY TEW and TEW CARDENAS, LLP, by and through the
undersigned counsel, move for final summary judgment against Plaintiffs, MALCOLM
BRADLEY, CHARLIE DAVIS, JANET GURSKIS, CRAIG ZINKOWSKI, SEAN
JIMENEZ, MIKE MCHUGH, and JOHN WHITAKER (hereinafter collectively “Gurskis
Plaintiffs”), respectively on Counts Il, V, X, XI, Xl, XIV, and XV to the Fifth Amended
Complaint (hereinafter “Compl.”):
Introduction
Plaintiffs claim to be victims of a “Marketing Scam” or “Ponzi Scheme” allegedly
committed by non-parties, Paragon Properties of Costa Rica (“Paragon”), ParagonCase No. 13-17671 CA 32
President / CEO William Gale (“Gale”), and Stephen Tashman (“Tashman”). Compl.,
1122, 28, 29, 42. According to the pleading, the scheme promoted the sale of Costa
Rican real estate to individuals within the U.S. Compl., 22. The purchases required
deposits for the sale of unimproved land. Compl., 931. Plaintiffs claim that the deposits
were advertised as refundable in the event that a buyer cancelled the transaction.
Compl., 131.
However, the Complaint further states that Paragon failed to properly improve the
lots and return deposit funds. Compl., 43. By late 2008 / early 2009, Paragon was no
longer operational. Compl., (146. Plaintiffs claim that they were damaged by paying
deposits to Paragon that ultimately were not refunded. Compl., 964.
Defendants’ role was indirect. Initially, it is alleged that Defendants acted as legal
counsel and registered agent to Paragon, Gale and Tashman. Compl., 922, 28.
Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants aided-and-abetted their clients in committing a
fraud by reviewing and editing sales scripts utilized in Paragon’s marketing. Compl.,
122.
The Gurskis Plaintiffs commenced their claims against Defendants on April 6,
2016, upon filing of the Motion for Leave to Amend to Add Parties [Filling # 39945711].
Said motion contained the first pleading with said Plaintiffs as a party; the Third
Amended Complaint. As such, their claims commenced on April 6, 2016. However, they
failed to timely bring suit under the four-year statute of limitations because their claims
accrued well before April 2012, and, therefore, are time-barred.
-2-
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32
Undisputed Facts
Based on the summary judgment evidence, there is no dispute as to the following
material facts:
1. Gurskis Plaintiffs’ Underlying Fraud Claim against Paragon Accrued by
2010
Evidence
. On June 30, 2010, Janet Gurskis filed a class action complaint
(“Gurskis Action’) in the U.S. District Court of Florida against
Paragon fraud. See Gurskis Class Action Complaint, attached
hereto as Exhibit 1. Janet Gurskis, et al. v. William Gale, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-61112-WJZ. The pleading was filed through
Plaintiffs’ present counsel in the instant action, John Hess. See id.
. On January 27, 2011, the Gurskis Action was dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See Dismissal Order, attached hereto as
Exhibit 2.
. On March 25, 2011, the Gurskis Action was quickly refiled by the
Gurskis Plaintiffs as named _ plaintiffs; MALCOLM BRADLEY,
CHARLIE DAVIS, JANET GURSKIS, CRAIG ZINKOWSKI, SEAN
JIMENEZ, MIKE MCHUGH, and JOHN WHITAKER. See Gurskis
Action Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Janet Gurskis, et al.
v. William Gale, et al, Case No. Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK. The
pleading was, again, filed through Plaintiffs’ present counsel in the
instant action, Mr. Hess. See id.
2. Gurskis Plaintiffs’ had Actual Knowledge of Defendants’ Participation by
2011
Evidence
. In the 2010 Gurskis Action, the Gurskis Plaintiffs pled the following
allegations against Defendants:
Initially, all monies paid in accordance with these contracts
was to be held in escrow by Charles Neustein, Esq. of
North Miami Beach, FL. Mr. Neustein was replaced as
escrow agent by Jeffery Tew, Esq. in 2007.
The registered agent and escrow of PPCR, PCR and
PSCR is Jeffrey Tew, Esq. of Tew and Cardenas, LLP.
1441 Brickell Ave., 15th Floor, Miami, FL 33131.
-3-
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32
Defendants' contracts contain a provision for the return of
Plaintiffs’ monies, deposited in escrow with Charles
Neustein, Esq. or Jeffrey Tew, Esq., upon demand within
a specified period of time (5 years).
See Gurskis Action Complaint, (15, 16 29, attached hereto as
Exhibit 1 (emphasis added).
. In the 2011 Gurskis Action, the Gurskis Plaintiffs pled the following
identical allegations against Defendants:
Initially, all monies paid in accordance with these contracts
was to be held in escrow by Charles Neustein, Esq. of
North Miami Beach, FL. Mr. Neustein was replaced as
escrow agent by Jeffery Tew, Esq. in 2007.
The registered agent and escrow of PPCR, PCR and
PSCR is Jeffrey Tew, Esq. of Tew and Cardenas, LLP.
1441 Brickell Ave., 15th Floor, Miami, FL 33131.
Defendants’ contracts contain a provision for the return of
Plaintiffs’ monies, deposited in escrow with Charles
Neustein, Esq. or Jeffrey Tew, Esq., upon demand within
a specified period of time (5 years).
See Gurskis Action Complaint, 9115, 27, 40, attached hereto as
Exhibit 3 (emphasis added).
. On April 25, 2011, the Gurskis Action was consolidated into a
similar, larger class action, Anita Oginski, et al. v. Paragon
Properties of Costa Rica, LLC, et al, Case No. 10-21720-C1V-
K1NG (“Oginsky Action”), given that both cases pertained to the
identical proposed class.' See Order of Consolidation, attached
hereto as Exhibit 4.
. Notably, the Gurskis Plaintiffs and Mr. Hess appeared within the
same docket report as the other plaintiffs within the Gurskis Action
upon consolidation. See Docket Report, attached hereto as Exhibit
6.
. On June 15, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Oginsky Action filed their
Third Amended Complaint (including Gurskis Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr.
Hess, within the Certificate of Service). See Oginsky Complaint,
1. The Court is requested to take judicial notice of the Gurskis Action and Oginsky Class Action and related court
filings discussed herein pursuant to FLA. STAT. § 90.202(6) (2017) (“Records of any court of this state or of any
court of record of the United States or of any state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States”).
-4-
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32
attached hereto as Exhibit 5. The Oginsky Action Complaint
alleged:
The marketing presentation for the development “had been
prescribed and approved by the Federal Trade
Commission as a result of Mr. Tew’s efforts.” See Oginsky
Class Action Complaint, 411 (f);
LTS is the managing and controlling member of Paragon
Properties of Costa Rica LLC. LTS’s registered agent is
Jeffrey Tew. Upon information and belief, LTS
Management is actually being controlled by co-Defendant
Stephen Tashman. See Oginsky Class Action Complaint,
1190;
Tashman’s counsel in the FTC enforcement action was the
law firm of Tew Cardenas, the same firm that is counsel
to Paragon. See Oginsky Class Action Complaint, 202;
Costa Rican Land & Development, Inc. is also known as
Costa Rica Land Sales & Development Corporation. The
second name is the name identified on its letterhead, but it
is not a registered Florida corporation. The company is the
“designated” contractor for Paragon. Its registered agent,
like most of the Paragon corporate Defendants, is Jeffrey
Tew. At one point its registered agent was Michael Fingar
— the attorney who, like Tew, represented Tashman in the
FTC enforcement action and represents Paragon. It is
believed that Costa Rican Land & Development received
money directly from investors. According to Gale, Costa
Rican Land & Development was merely an “operating
account’ for Paragon. This entity was an agent for Paragon
and was used to perpetuate a fraud on Paragon’s
customers. See Oginsky Class Action Complaint, 212;
Trust monies were wired and checks written to Tew
Cardenas, LLP as early as 2004 and as late as 2008. See
Oginsky Action Complaint, 338.
As discussed herein, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Gurskis
Plaintiffs’ claims for aiding-and-abetting had accrued by 2011 upon their suit against
Paragon that expressly incorporated Defendants’ involvement (aiding) into the
pleadings. As such, they were obligated to assert their claim against Defendants by no
later than 2015. Because they failed to commence suit until 2016, their claims are time-
-5-
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32
barred under the statute of limitations. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to judgment
in their favor as a matter of law.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I Legal Standard
Under Florida law, the standard governing the determination of a motion for
summary judgment is well settled. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 states:
The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if
any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
FLA. R. Civ. P. 1.510.
An issue is ripe for summary judgment when the non-moving party has failed to
establish the existence of any genuine issue of material fact which would preclude
summary judgment. Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 1979).
Summary judgment should be granted where the salient facts are not an issue
and where the controversy has resolved into one purely of law to be decided on the
undisputed facts. Yost v. Miami Transit Co., 66 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 1953).
It is well recognized that the non-moving party faced with an appropriate
summary judgment motion may not rely on bare, conclusory assertions found in the
pleadings to create an issue and avoid summary judgment. Instead, the non-moving
party must produce counter-evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact.
Bryant v. Shands Teach. Hosp. and Clinics, Inc., 479 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985);
Johnson v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 429 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Jones v. Hartford
Accident & Indemnity Co., 109 So. 2d 582 (Fla.1st DCA 1959). Upon the filing of a
motion for summary judgment, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate
-6-
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32
with specific evidence that a triable issue of fact remains on which the non-moving party
bears the burden of proof at trial. See Spradiey v. Stick, 622 So. 2d 610 (Fla.1st DCA
1993). Clearly, it is not enough for the non-moving party to merely assert that an issue
does exist. Landers, 370 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 1979); Buitrago v. Rohr, 672 So. 2d 646
(Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
I. Gurskis Plaintiffs’ Aiding-and-Abetting Claims Accrued by 2011 and
Remain Time-Barred Post-2015
Defendants have pled the statute of limitations through Affirmative Defense 11 to
the Complaint. Under Florida law, actions founded upon fraud are subject to a four-year
statute of limitations. FLA. STAT. § 95.11(j) (2017). “A cause of action accrues when the
last element constituting the cause of action occurs.” FLA. STAT. § 95.031 (2017). An
exception is made for claims of fraud in which the accrual of the cause of action occurs
when the plaintiff either knows or should know that the last element of the cause of
action occurred. Brooks Tropicals, Inc. v. Acosta, 959 So. 2d 288, 296 (Fla. 3d DCA
2007).
The elements for aiding-and-abetting a fraud are as follows: “1. There existed an
underlying fraud; 2. The defendant had knowledge of the fraud; and 3. The defendant
provided substantial assistance to advance the commission of the fraud.” See, e.g., ZP
No. 54 Ltd. P’ship v. Fid. & Deposit Co., 917 So. 2d 368, 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
There is no doubt that all three elements were fulfilled for aiding-and-abetting because
the Gurskis Plaintiffs expressly made allegations against Defendants by 2011.
-7-
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32
A. Element 1: The Alleged Underlying Fraud Existed by 2011 — when Gurskis
Plaintiffs Sued Paragon
In 2010, Janet Gurskis commenced the underlying claim of fraud upon suing
Paragon and Gale in a class action. See generally 2010 Gurskis Class Complaint,
attached hereto as Exhibit 1. See Janet Gurskis, et al. v. William Gale, et al., Case No.
10-cv-61112-WJZ. By 2011, all of the non-movant / Gurskis Plaintiffs were named-
plaintiffs in their 2011 Gurskis Action Complaint. See Gurskis Action Complaint,
attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Accordingly, it is undisputed that that the first element for
aiding-and-abetting fraud was met by 2011.
B. Element 2: Alleged Knowledge of Purported Fraud Existed by 2011
While the parties disagree as to whether the underlying acts were fraudulent, the
Gurskis Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants were aware of their clients’ committing
fraud as it occurred. For example, the Complaint alleges “[a]t all times material, Tew
and T&C knew of the prohibitions placed on Tashman but nonetheless aided and
abetted him, as hereafter appears, in attempting to circumvent the prohibition.” Compl.,
926 (emphasis added). The Gurskis Plaintiffs allege that “[aJt all times material,
Rosskamp knew that Paragon’s sales program had all the characteristics of a Ponzi
scheme. This knowledge was imputed but nonetheless actually known to T&C and
shared with Tew.” Compl., 37.
To be clear, the Complaint alleges that while Paragon was operational, and as
Defendants participated in the sales scripts, Defendants “knew that Paragon was
engaged in fraud.” Compl., 38 (emphasis added). In other words, this is what has
been portrayed as alleged aiding-and-abetting of known fraud. See a/so Compl., 942
-8-
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32
(‘Jeffrey Tew at all times knew that William Gale and Steve Tashman had concocted a
mass marketing Ponzi Scheme as shown by the July 19, 2007, email”).
Accordingly, the claim certainly accrued by 2011.
Cc. The Alleged Substantial Assistance Occurred by 2011
Between 2010 and 2011, the Gurskis Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants provided
legal services to Tashman in connection with the Federal Trade Commission action,
worked as Paragon's registered agent, and received monies from the purchasers. See
Oginsky Action Complaint, {]1(f),190, 202, 212, 338, attached hereto as Exhibit 5. To
be clear, the instant Complaint, filed by the non-movants, alleges the following against
Defendants:
THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD
28. In October of 2004, Paragon Properties of Costa Rica (Paragon) was
created by William Gale and Stephen Tashman for the purpose of marketing Costa Rican
real estate and shares in Costa Rican corporations to American buyers. Tew and T&C
helped to incorporate Paragon and have provided Paragon with legal as well as
unrelated business advice. Tew and T&C have also acted as Registered Agent for
Paragon.
Substantial Assistance
51. Tew and T&C assisted in the creation of the ISOs. Defendants acted as
registered agents for Paragon and aided Paragon in its corporate planning.
Compl., 1128, 51 (emphasis added).
As shown in the Gurskis Plaintiffs’ own Complaint, which has been amended 5 times,
they claim that Defendants’ role as Paragon’s “Registered Agent,” among other things,
was part of the “scheme to defraud” Plaintiffs and part of the “substantial assistance”
that aided-and-abetted the purported fraud. However, they had actual knowledge of
these allegations as of 2011 upon asserting them in the Gurskis Action. Accordingly, for
purposes of asserting a claim for aiding-and-abetting fraud, the claims against
-9-
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32
Defendants had fully accrued by 2011. As such, there is no question that the Gurskis
Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred.
Conclusion
Even upon viewing the summary judgment evidence in a light most favorable to
the Gurskis Plaintiffs, the timeframes relevant to their aiding-and-abetting claims are
undisputed. All elements to the cause of action were satisfied, for purposes of asserting
the claim, by 2011 based on the summary judgment evidence. Said evidence shows
that by 2011, the alleged fraud, knowledge, and substantial assistance, already existed.
Accordingly, the claim for aiding-and-abetting had accrued by 2011. § 95.031.
Consequently, Gurskis Plaintiffs had four years, or until 2015, to file suit against
Defendants under the controlling statute of limitations. § 95.11(j). The record is clear
that Gurskis Plaintiffs did not file suit until 2016. Therefore, they can recover nothing
and judgment should be entered in Defendants’ favor as a matter of law.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, JEFFREY TEW and TEW CARDENAS, LLP,
request the Court to enter final summary judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs,
MALCOLM BRADLEY, CHARLIE DAVIS, JANET GURSKIS, CRAIG ZINKOWSKI,
SEAN JIMENEZ, MIKE MCHUGH, and JOHN WHITAKER, as to Counts Il, V, X, XI, XIl,
XIV, and XV of the Fifth Amended Complaint, and to grant any other relief in favor of
Defendants.
-10-
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
electronically filed and served on all counsel of record identified in the attached Service
List using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal on September 27, 2017.
John P. Hess, Esq.
John P. Hess, P.A.
2100 Coral Way
Suite 300
Miami, FL 33145
jhess@johnphess.com
jphess55@gmail.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
Bryan J. Yarnell, Esq.
Bryan J. Yarnell, PLLC
1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
#101
West Palm Beach, FL 33410
Bryan@civillawflorida.com
gio@civillawflorida.com
Co-counsel for Plaintiff
-ll-
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendants
Esperante Building
222 Lakeview Avenue
Suite 120
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 383-9200
Facsimile: (661) 683-8977
By: /s/ Alan St. Louis
JONATHAN VINE
FBN: 10966
ALAN ST. LOUIS
FBN: 70751
NINA SCHMIDT
FBN: 118900
SERVICE LIST
COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXEXHIBIT 1Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document i Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2010 Page Lofs
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JANET GURSKIS. et al. as individuals and
as members of aiglass. Case No:
Plaintiffs
VS.
WILLIAM GALE, an individual; ESTEBAN
SOTO, an individual; LARRY WEBMAN,
an individual; RANDY YABLON,
individual; MURRAY LINDE
individual; PROPERTIES OF COSTA
RICA, Inc., a Florida limited liability
company; PARAGON PROPERTIES OF
COSTA RICA, LLC.: PROPERTY SALES
OF CR, Inc., a Florida corporation, &
Premier Realty Sales of Costa Rica, S.A.
Defendan
COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff, JANET GURSKIS, by and through the undersigned attorney hereby files
her complaint and states as follows:
PARTIES
L Plaintiff is a resident of Hanover County, Virginia and is otherwise sui
juris.
2. Plaintiff belongs to a class including more than 900 individuals
representing numerous states.Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document i Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2010 Page 2 of &
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Page 2
3. Each member of the class executed boilerplate contract(s) to purchase real
property in Costa Rica from Defendants and/or now defunct corporations." See Exhibits
A,B&C.
4, All of the entities and individual defendants involved made
representations and solicitations under the letterhead of "Paragon Properties of Costa
Rica."
5. initially, all monies paid in accordance with these contracts was ta be held
in escrow by Charles Neustein, Esq. of North Miami Beach, FL. Mr. Neustein was
replaced as escrow agent by Jeffery Tew, Esq, in 2007.
6. Each member of the class has suffered damages from Fraud and Breach of
this Contract.
7 At all times material hereto, Defendant, WILLIAM GALE (“GALE”), was
and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
8. At all material times hereto, Defendant, ESTEBAN SOTO (“SOTO”) was
and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
9. At all material times hereto, Defendant, LARRY WEBMAN
(‘WEBMAN?”) was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
10. At all material times hereto, Defendant, RANDY YABLON
(“YABLON”) was and is a resident of Broward County, Florida.
' Alliance Funding, LLC, whose officers were RANDY YABLON and MURRAY LINDER, and
Paramount Consulting Group, Inc., whose officer was LARRY WEBMAN, are inactive corporate entities.Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2010 Page 3 of &
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Page 3
11. At all material times hereto, Defendant, MURRAY LINDER (“LINDER”)
was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
12. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PARAGON PROPERTIES OF
COSTA RICA, LLC (PPCR"), was and is a Limited Liability Company whose principal
place of business was and is Broward County, Florida. SOTO is listed as a manager and
shareholder of PPCR.
13. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PROPERTIES OF COSTA RICA,
ine. PCR”), was and is a Limited Liability Company whose principal place of business
was and is Broward County, Florida. SOTO is listed as a manager and shareholder of
PCR.
4, At all times material hereto, Defendant, PROPERTY SALES OF CR, Inc.
(“PSCR”) was and is a Limited Liability Company whose principal place of business was
and is Broward County, Florida. GALE is listed as a manager and shareholder of PSCR.
GALE was also continuously involved with PCR,
15. The principal address of both PPCR, PCR and PSCR is 2035 Harding
Street, Suite 201, Hollywood, FL 33020.
16. The registered agent and escrow of PPCR, PCR and PSCR is Jeffrey Tew,
sq. of Tew and Cardenas, LLP. 1441 Brickell Ave., 15" Floor, Miami, FL 33131.
17, At all times material hereto, Defendant, Premier Realty Sales of Costa
Rica, S.A. (*PRSCR”) is a foreign entity, incorporated pursuant to the laws of Costa
Rica.Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 4 of 8
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Pape 4
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18. Jurisdiction is proper in. the district courts of the State of Florida becanse
Plaintiff, a resident of Virginia, seeks damages in excess of $75,000 exclusive of interest,
costs and attorneys’ fees and the acts of which Plaintiff complains oceurred in Florida,
Defendants GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR and PSCR are
residents of Florida. Jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 LSC. $1332 (Diversity of citizenship:
amount in controversy, costs) and 28 U.S.C. $1331 ederal question) and 28 U.S.C.
$1336 (supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims).
19, Venue is proper in this judicial circuit as Broward County, PL is the
location of the principal place of business for PPCR, PCR and PSCR.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
20, In 2004, PPCR and PCR came into existence as a Florida Limited
Liability Companies for the purpose of marketing Costa Rican real estate to American
buyers.
21. PPCR and PCR claimed to own land in Costa Rica on which it planned to
inild upscale residential communities.
22, PPCR. and PCR made use of the Internet, Television, US Mail and wire
services to advertise and induce buyers from throughout the United States into entering
contracts to purchase Casta Rican real estate.Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 5 of 8
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Page 3
23. In January of 2009, PSCR came into existence as a Florida Corporation.
for seemingly the same purpose as PPCR and PCR.
24. More than 900 individuals executed contracts with PPCR. PCR, PSCR,
Paramount Consulting Group, Inc. and Alliance Funding, LLC. between 2004 and 2009.
In exchange for a substantial payment, Plaintiffs received Costa Rican Deeds.
25. Defendants falsely claimed that they would make use of Plaintiffs’
deposits to improve the land, provide infrastruciure and build homes.
26. Plaintiffs were induced to purchase based upon the promise that, “The
infrasiructure of roads and electricity will be in place within twelve (12) months
(altematively eighteen (18) months. See Exhibit B & C Point 3) from the date of this
Agreement.” See Exhibit A Point 3.
27. ‘This never oceurred. The vast majority of the land, purportedly sold to
American buyers, remains undeveloped and tens of millions of dollars given by the
Plaintiffs are unaccounted for.
28. Defendants GAL
SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, and LINDER claimed,
in letters sent by US Mail and over US wire services, to have pulled permits and to have
made substantial improvements to the land. Defendants knew these claims were untrue
when made. These correspondences were often accompanied by requests for additional
funds.
29, Defendants’ contracts contain a provision for the retarn of Plaintiffs’
monies, deposited in escrow with Charles Neustein, Esq. or Jeffrey Tew, Esg., upon
demand within a specified period of time (5 years),Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 6 of 8
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Page 6
30. Detendants have not returned money to GURSKIS and many other
members of the class, though timely demand has been made.
31. FURSKIS was forced to hire counsel and pay attorneys’ fees and costs to
enforce her contractual rights and te prosecute this Fraud.
32. All conditiens precedent to filing suit have been met, have been satisfied,
have occurred or are otherwise waived or vaid.
JURY DEMAND
33, GURSKIS demanis a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
COUNT 1- BREACH OF CONTRACT
34, GURSKIS reaileges and incorporates the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 31 above as if set forth in full herein.
38. A valid and enforceable contract between Plaintiff and PPCR and/or POR.
exists. See Exhibit A.
36. PPCR and/or PCR breached the contract by refusing to refund her deposit
as it is obligated to do under the terms of the contract.
37. Plaintiff bas suffered damages as a result ef PPCR’s and/or PCR's
unlawful breach.
WHEREFORE, GURSEIS demands damages against PPCR and/or PCR for
breach of contract and sach other relief this Court deems just and proper including butCase 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 7 of 8
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Page 7
not limited to actual damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
this action, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
COUNT H-— FRAUD AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
38. GURSKIS realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in
paragraphs | through 31 above as if set forth in full herein.
39. GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR, and PSCR
made numerous false statements, making use of US Mail and wire services, to GURSKIS
and other menibers of the class.
40. GALE. SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR and PSCR
knew the siatoments were false when made.
41. GALE, SOTO. WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR and PSCR.
knowingly and maliciously made the false statements with the intention of getting
GURSRIS and members of the elass to enter contract with and/or give money to PPCR,
PCR and/or PSCR.
42. GURSKIS and other members of the class relied on Defendants’ false
statements and gave money to GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR,
PCR and/or PSCR.
WHEREFORE, GURSKIS demands damages against GALE, SOTO,
WEBMAN, YABLON and LINDER as individuals, for Fraud; and PPCR, PCR and
PSCR, as instrumentalities for perpetrating this Fraud, and such other relief this CourtCase 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2010 Page 8 of &
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Page 8
deems just and proper including but not limited to actual damages, punitive damages,
prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, and for such other
and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted:
By: #s/obn P. Hess
JOHN P. HESS, Esq.
Attorney for the Plaintiff
F.B.N. 31075
343 Alcazar Ave., Suite 101
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Telephone: (305) 445-9525
Facsimile: (305) 447-1020EXHIBIT 2Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2011 Page 1of5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 10-61112-CIV-ZLOCH
JANET GURSKIS,
Plaintiff,
vs. FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WILLIAM GALE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. The Court has
carefully reviewed the entire court file and is otherwise fully
advised in the premises.
In her Complaint (DE 1), Plaintiff Janet Gurskis alleges that
the Court’s jurisdiction over the above-styled cause is proper
because “Plaintiff, a resident of Virginia, seeks damages in excess
of $75,000 exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees and the
acts of which Plaintiff complains occurred in Florida” and further
alleges “[j]urisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Diversity
of citizenship; amount in controversy, costs) and 28 U.S.C. §1331
(federal question) and 28 U.S.C. §1336 (supplemental jurisdiction
over state law claims).” DE 1, q 18.
Section 1332 provides that where a complaint is founded on
diversity of citizenship, a federal court may maintain jurisdiction
over the action only “where the matter in controversy exceeds the
sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State
and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” The dictates of §Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2011 Page 2 of 5
1332 keep the federal courts moored to the jurisdictional limits
prescribed by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. As
Justice Stone stated in reference to § 1332 in Healy v. Ratta, 292
U.S. 263, 270 (1934), “[d]ue regard for the rightful independence
of state governments, which should actuate federal courts, requires
that they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise
limits which the statute has defined.”
These dictates stem from the fact that federal courts are
courts of limited jurisdiction. The presumption, in fact, is that
a federal court lacks jurisdiction in a particular case until the
parties demonstrate that jurisdiction over the subject matter
exists. United States v. Rojas, 429 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir.
2005), citing Turner v. Bank of N. Am., 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 10
(1799). Therefore, the facts showing the existence of jurisdiction
must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint. Taylor v. Appleton,
30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (llth Cir. 1994); see, e.g., 13B Wright, Miller
& Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d, § 3602
(1984 & Supp. 2008).
A review of the Complaint (DE 1) reveals that the requisite
diversity of citizenship is not apparent on its face. It states,
in relevant part:
1. Plaintiff is a resident of Hanover County,
Virginia and is otherwise sui juris.
7. At all times material hereto, Defendant
William Gale (“Gale”) was and is a resident of
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
8. At all times material hereto, DefendantCase 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2011 Page 3 of 5
Esteban Soto (“Soto”) was and is a resident of
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
9. At all times material hereto, Defendant
Larry Webman (“Webman”) was and is a resident
of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
10. At all times material hereto, Defendant
Randy Yablon (“Yablon”) was and is a resident
of Broward County, Florida.
11. At all times material hereto, Defendant
Murray Linder (“Linder”) was and is a resident
of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
DE 1, G7 1, 7-11. The Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the
citizenship of Plaintiff Janet Gurskis and Defendants Gale, Soto,
Webman, Yablon, and Linder for the Court to determine whether it has
jurisdiction over the above-styled cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332. Indeed, diversity jurisdiction “requires complete diversity—
every plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant.” Palmer v.
Hosp. Auth., 22 F.3d 1559, 1564 (llth Cir. 1994). And residency is
not the equivalent of citizenship for diversity purposes. See
Appleton, 30 F.3d at 1367 (“Citizenship, not residence, is the key
fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity
for a natural person.”); see also 13B Wright & Miller, supra § 3611.
Plaintiff also fails to adequately allege the citizenship of
Defendants Paragon Properties of Costa Rica, LLC (‘“PPCR”)
Properties Of Costa Rica Inc., and Property Sales of CR, Inc. As
to these Parties, the Complaint provides in relevant part:
12. At all times material hereto, Defendant
Paragon Properties Of Costa Rica, LLC (“PPCR”)
was and is a Limited Liability Company whose
principal place of business was and is Broward
County, Florida. SOTO is listed as a manager
3Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2011 Page 4 of 5
and shareholder of PPCR.
13. At all times material hereto, Defendant
Properties of Costa Rica, Inc. (“PCR”) was and
is a Limited Liability Company whose principal
place of business was and is Broward County,
Florida. SOTO is listed as a manager and
shareholder of PCR.
14. At all times material hereto, Defendant
Property Sales Of CR, Inc. (“PSCR”) was and is
a Limited Liability Company whose principal
place of business was and is Broward County,
Florida. GALE is listed as a manager and
shareholder of PSCR.
DE 1, WI 12-14. These allegations are insufficient because “[a
limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a
member of the company is a citizen.” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v.
Comcast SCH Holdings, L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (llth Cir. 2004).
Because the Complaint lacks allegations regarding the citizenship
of all members of Defendants Paragon Properties Of Costa Rica, LLC,
Defendant Properties of Costa Rica, Inc., and Property Sales Of CR,
Inc., the Court is unable to determine the citizenship of these
Defendants.
Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint (DE 1) also
alleges that “Plaintiff belongs to a class including more than 900
individuals representing numerous states.” DE 1, 7 2. However, if
Plaintiff intends to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1332(d), she fails to allege the requisite amount in
controversy of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and only
alleges an amount in controversy “in excess of $75,000.” DE 1, 4
18. Additionally, without alleging the citizenship of the namedCase 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2011 Page 5 of 5
Plaintiff or any of the purported class plaintiffs, the Complaint
fails to establish that even minimal diversity exists to maintain
a class action.
Finally, no independent basis for federal jurisdiction is
apparent on the face of the Complaint. The Court recognizes that
it has not only the power, but also “the obligation at any time to
inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction
does not exist arises.” Johansen v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 170
F.3d 1320, 1328 n.4 (llth Cir. 1999). Therefore, because Plaintiff
has failed to establish this Court’s jurisdiction over the above-
styled cause, her Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The above-styled cause be and the same is hereby DISMISSED
without prejudice in that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the same; and
2. To the extent not otherwise disposed of herein, all pending
Motions be and the same are hereby DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward
County, Florida, this 27th day of January, 2011.
Mleain I. 2Z>
WILLIAM J@™ZLOCH
United States District Judge
Copies furnished:
All Counsel and Parties of Record
5EXHIBIT 3Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2011 Page 1 of 20
PES DISTRICT COURT
N DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JANET GURSKIS an individual; CHARLIE
DAVIS an individual; FRANK BRADLEY
an individual: MICHAEL McHUGH an
individual; SEAN FIMENEZ an individual; CASE?
CRAIG ZINKOSKI an individual, and
JOHN WHITTAKER, an individual,
POEL CV 60647
Plaintil
VS.
WILLIAM GALE, an individual; ESTEBAN
SOTO, an individual, LARRY WEBMAN,
an individual: SHELDON YABLON, an
individual: MURRA
individual: PARAGON PROPERTE
COSTA RICA, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, PROPERTIES OF
COSTA RICA, Inc., a Florida corporation;
PROPERTY SALES OF CR, Inc., a Florida
corporation, & PREMIER REALTY SALES
OF COSTA RICA, S.A.
Defendants
COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs, JANET GURSKIS ("GURSKIS"), CHARLIE DAVIS ("DAVIS"),
FRANK BRADLEY("BRADLEY"), CRAIG ZINKOSKI ("ZINKOSKI"), MICHAEL
McHUGH ("McHUGH"), SEAN JIMENEZ ("JIMENEZ"), and JOHN WHITTAKER
("WHITTAKER") by and through the undersigned attorney hereby file their Complaint
and state as follows:Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2011 Page 2 of 20
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Page 2
PARTIES
1 Plaintiff GURSKIS is a resident of Hanover County, Virginia, is a citizen
of the state of Virginia and is otherwise sui juris.
2. GURSKIS executed a boilerplate contract to purchase real property in
Costa Rica from Defendants, and/or now defunct corporations. 1
3 Plaintiff DAVIS is a resident of Fulton County, Georgia, is a citizen of
the state of Georgia and is otherwise sui juris
4 DAVIS executed a boilerplate contract to purchase real property in Costa
Rica from Defendants, and/or now defunct corporations
5. Plaintiff BRADLEY is a resident of Baltimore County, Maryland, is a
citizen of the state of Maryland and is otherwise sui juris.
6. BRADLEY executed a boilerplate contract to purchase real property in
Costa Rica from Defendants, and/or now defunct corporations.
7. Plaintiff McHUGH is a resident of Los Angeles County, California, is a
citizen of the state of California and is otherwise sui juris.
8 McHUGH executed a boilerplate contract to purchase real property in
Costa Rica from Defendants, and/or now defunct corporations.
9. Plaintiff JIMEMENZ is a resident of Virginia Beach County, Virginia, is
a citizen of the state of Virginia and is otherwise sui juris
' Alliance Funding, LLC, whose officers were SHELDON YABLON and MURRAY LINDER, Paramount
Consulting Group, Inc., whose officer was LARRY WEBMAN, and SVE Properties, Inc. are inactive
corporate entities.Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Docurnent 1 Entered on FLSD Dockel 02/25/2011 Page 3 of 20
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Page 3
10 JIMENEZ executed a boilerplate contract to purchase real property in
Costa Rica from Defendants, and/or now defunct corporations.
11. Plaintiff +ZINKOSKI is a resident of Ocean County, New Jersey, is a
citizen of the state of New Jersey and is otherwise sui juris
12. | ZINKOSKI executed a boilerplate contract to purchase real property in
Costa Rica from Defendants, and/or now defunct corporations.
13. Plaintiff WHITTAKER is a resident of Hartford County, Connecticut, is a
citizen of the state of Connecticut and is otherwise sui juris.
14. WHITTAKER executed a boilerplate contract to purchase real property in
Costa Rica from Defendants, and/or now defunct corporations.
15 All of the entities and individual Defendants involved made
representations and solicitations under the letterhead of "Paragon Properties of Costa
Rica."
16 Initially, all monies paid in accordance with these contracts was to be held
in escrow by Charles Neustein, Esq. of North Miami Beach, FL. Mr. Neustein was
replaced as escrow agent by Jeffery Tew, Esq. in 2007
17 Each member of the class has suffered damages from Fraud and Breach of
Contract.
18 At all times material hereto, Defendant, WILLIAM GALE (“GALE”), was
and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and is a citizen of the state of Florida.
19. At all material times hereto, Defendant, ESTEBAN SOTO (“SOTO”) was
and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and is a citizen of the state of Florida.Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2011 Page 4 of 20
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Page 4
20. At all material times hereto, Defendant, LARRY WEBMAN
(“WEBMAN’) was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and is a citizen of
the state of Florida.
21 At all material times hereto, Defendant, SHELDON YABLON
(“YABLON”) was and is a resident of Broward County, Florida and is a citizen of the
state of Florida.
22. At all material times hereto, Defendant, MURRAY LINDER (“LINDER”)
was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and is a citizen of the state of
Florida.
23 At all times material hereto, Defendant, PARAGON PROPERTIES OF
COSTA RICA, LLC @PPCR”), was and is a Limited Liability Company whose principal
place of business was and is Broward County, Florida. SOTO is listed as a manager and
shareholder of PPCR.
24. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PROPERTIES OF COSTA RICA,
inc. (“PCR”), was and is a Florida Corporation whose principal place of business was and
is Broward County, Florida. SOTO is listed as a manager and shareholder of PCR.
25 At all times material hereto, Defendant, PROPERTY SALES OF CR, Inc.
(“PSCR”) was and is a Florida Corporation whose principal place of business was and is
Broward County, Florida. GALE is listed as a manager and shareholder of PSCR.
GALE was also continuously involved with PCR.
26. The principal address of both PPCR, PCR and PSCR is 2035 Harding
Street, Suite 201, Hollywood, FL 33020.Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Docurnent 1 Entered on FLSD Dockel 02/25/2011 Page 5 of 20
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Page 5
27 The registered agent and escrow of PPCR, PCR and PSCR is Jeffrey Tew,
Esa of Tey and Cardenas LLP) 1441 Brickell Ave., 15" Floor, Miami, FL 33131
28. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Premier Realty Sales of Costa
Rica, S.A. (“PRSCR”) is a foreign entity, incorporated pursuant to the laws of Costa
Rica.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
29 Jurisdiction is proper in the district courts of the State of Florida because
Plaintiffs, seek damages in excess of $75,000 exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’
fees and the acts of which Plaintiffs complain occurred in Florida. All Plaintiffs are
citizens of states other than the state of Florida. Defendants GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN,
YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR and PSCR are citizens of Florida. Jurisdiction is
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 (Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy, costs) and
28 U.S.C. §1342 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. §1336 (supplemental jurisdiction over
state law claims).
30. Venue is proper in this judicial circuit as Broward County, FL is the
location of the principal place of business for PPCR, PCR and PSCR.Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2011 Page 6 of 20
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Page 6
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
31. In 2004, PPCR and PCR came into existence as a Florida Limited
Liability Company and a Florida Corporation, respectively, for the purpose of marketing
Costa Rican real estate to American buyers.
32. | PPCR and PCR claimed to own land in Costa Rica on which it planned to
build upscale residential communities.
33. PPCR and PCR made use of the internet, television, US Mail and wire
services to advertise and induce buyers from throughout the United States into entering
contracts to purchase Costa Rican real estate.
34 In January of 2009, PSCR came into existence as a Florida Corporation
for seemingly the same purpose as PPCR and PCR.
35. More than 900 individuals executed contracts with PPCR, PCR, PSCR,
Paramount Consulting Group, Inc., SVE Properties, Inc. and Alliance Funding, LLC.
between 2004 and 2009. In exchange for a substantial payment, Plaintiffs received Costa
Rican Deeds.
36. Defendants falsely claimed that they would make use of Plaintiffs’
deposits to improve the land, provide infrastructure and build homes.
37. Plaintiffs were induced to purchase based upon the promise that, "The
infrastructure of roads and electricity will be in place within twelve (12) months
(alternatively eighteen (18) months from the date of this Agreement." See Exhibit A-G
Point 3.Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Docurnent 1 Entered on FLSD Dockel 02/25/2011 Page 7 of 20
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Page 7
38 This never occurred. The vast majority of the land, purportedly sold to
American buyers, remains undeveloped and tens of millions of dollars given by the
Plaintiffs, as well as other buyers, are unaccounted for.
39. Defendants GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, and LINDER claimed,
in letters sent by US Mail and over US wire services, to have pulled permits and to have
made substantial improvements to the land. Defendants knew these claims were untrue
when made. These correspondences were often accompanied by requests for additional
funds.
40. Defendants’ contracts contain a provision for the return of Plaintiffs’
monies, deposited in escrow with Charles Neustein, Esq. or Jeffrey Tew. Esq. upon
demand within a specified period of time (5 years).
41 Defendants have not returned money to Plaintiffs though timely demand
has been made.
42. Plaintiffs were forced to hire counsel and pay attorneys’ fees and costs to
enforce their contractual rights and to prosecute this Fraud.
43. All conditions precedent to filing suit have been met, have been satisfied,
have occurred or are otherwise waived or void
JURY DEMAND
44, GURSKIS, DAVIS, BRADLEY, McHUGH, JIMENEZ, ZINKOSKI, and
WHITTAKER demand a trial by jury of all issues so triableCase 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2011 Page 8 of 20
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Page 8
COUNT I- BREACH OF CONTRACT
45. GURSKIS re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 42 above as if set forth in full herein.
40. A valid and enforceable contract between Plaintiff and PPCR and/or PCR
exists. See Exhibit A.
47. PPCR and/or PCR breached the contract by refusing to refund her deposit
as it is obligated to do under the terms of the contract.
48. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of PPCR's and/or PCR’s
unlawful breach.
WHEREFORE, GURSKIS demands damages against PPCR and/or PCR for
breach of contract and such other relief this Court deems just and proper including but
not limited to actual damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
this action, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
COUNT Il - FRAUD AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
49. GURSKIS re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 42 above as if set forth in full herein.
50. GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR, and PSCR
made numerous false statements, making use of US Mail and wire services, to GURSKIS
and other members of the class.Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2011 Page 9 of 20
GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES
Complaint & Jury Demand
Page 9
51 GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR and PSCR
knew the statements were false when made.
52. GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR and PSCR
knowingly and maliciously made the false statements with the intention of getting
GURSKIS and members of the class to enter contract with and/or give money to PPCR,
PCR and/or PSCR.
53. GURSKIS and other members of the class relied on Defendants' false
statements and gave money to GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR,
PCR and/or PSCR.
WHEREFORE, GURSKIS demands damages against GALE, SOTO,
WEBMAN, YABLON and LINDER as individuals, for Fraud; and PPCR, PCR and
PSCR, as instrumentalities for perpetrating this Fraud, and such other relief this Court
deems just and proper including but not limited to actual damages, punitive damages,
prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, and for such other
and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
COUNT Il —- BREACH OF CONTRACT
54 DAVIS re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs
1 through 42 a
Preview
Filing # 62043915 E-Filed 09/27/2017 09:31:23 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 13-17671 (CA 32) KENT D. SMITH, CHARLES ARENA, MALCOLM BRADLEY, THOMAS CAMPAGNA, DONALD CAMPAGNA, CHARLIE DAVIS, BARBARA FELDMAN, GARY FELDMAN, PHIL FRIEDLAND, AL GOLDIN, JANET GURSKIS, NEIL BRUSSARD, SEAN JIMENEZ, MARLENE LOONEY, GREGORY LOONEY, MIKE MCHUGH, JOHN WHITAKER, AND CRAIG ZINKOWSKI, Plaintiffs, vs. JEFFREY TEW and TEW CARDENAS, LLP, Defendants. / DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTS Il, V, X, XI, Xil, XIV, AND XV Defendants, JEFFREY TEW and TEW CARDENAS, LLP, by and through the undersigned counsel, move for final summary judgment against Plaintiffs, MALCOLM BRADLEY, CHARLIE DAVIS, JANET GURSKIS, CRAIG ZINKOWSKI, SEAN JIMENEZ, MIKE MCHUGH, and JOHN WHITAKER (hereinafter collectively “Gurskis Plaintiffs”), respectively on Counts Il, V, X, XI, Xl, XIV, and XV to the Fifth Amended Complaint (hereinafter “Compl.”): Introduction Plaintiffs claim to be victims of a “Marketing Scam” or “Ponzi Scheme” allegedly committed by non-parties, Paragon Properties of Costa Rica (“Paragon”), ParagonCase No. 13-17671 CA 32 President / CEO William Gale (“Gale”), and Stephen Tashman (“Tashman”). Compl., 1122, 28, 29, 42. According to the pleading, the scheme promoted the sale of Costa Rican real estate to individuals within the U.S. Compl., 22. The purchases required deposits for the sale of unimproved land. Compl., 931. Plaintiffs claim that the deposits were advertised as refundable in the event that a buyer cancelled the transaction. Compl., 131. However, the Complaint further states that Paragon failed to properly improve the lots and return deposit funds. Compl., 43. By late 2008 / early 2009, Paragon was no longer operational. Compl., (146. Plaintiffs claim that they were damaged by paying deposits to Paragon that ultimately were not refunded. Compl., 964. Defendants’ role was indirect. Initially, it is alleged that Defendants acted as legal counsel and registered agent to Paragon, Gale and Tashman. Compl., 922, 28. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants aided-and-abetted their clients in committing a fraud by reviewing and editing sales scripts utilized in Paragon’s marketing. Compl., 122. The Gurskis Plaintiffs commenced their claims against Defendants on April 6, 2016, upon filing of the Motion for Leave to Amend to Add Parties [Filling # 39945711]. Said motion contained the first pleading with said Plaintiffs as a party; the Third Amended Complaint. As such, their claims commenced on April 6, 2016. However, they failed to timely bring suit under the four-year statute of limitations because their claims accrued well before April 2012, and, therefore, are time-barred. -2- COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32 Undisputed Facts Based on the summary judgment evidence, there is no dispute as to the following material facts: 1. Gurskis Plaintiffs’ Underlying Fraud Claim against Paragon Accrued by 2010 Evidence . On June 30, 2010, Janet Gurskis filed a class action complaint (“Gurskis Action’) in the U.S. District Court of Florida against Paragon fraud. See Gurskis Class Action Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Janet Gurskis, et al. v. William Gale, et al., Case No. 10-cv-61112-WJZ. The pleading was filed through Plaintiffs’ present counsel in the instant action, John Hess. See id. . On January 27, 2011, the Gurskis Action was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Dismissal Order, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. . On March 25, 2011, the Gurskis Action was quickly refiled by the Gurskis Plaintiffs as named _ plaintiffs; MALCOLM BRADLEY, CHARLIE DAVIS, JANET GURSKIS, CRAIG ZINKOWSKI, SEAN JIMENEZ, MIKE MCHUGH, and JOHN WHITAKER. See Gurskis Action Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Janet Gurskis, et al. v. William Gale, et al, Case No. Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK. The pleading was, again, filed through Plaintiffs’ present counsel in the instant action, Mr. Hess. See id. 2. Gurskis Plaintiffs’ had Actual Knowledge of Defendants’ Participation by 2011 Evidence . In the 2010 Gurskis Action, the Gurskis Plaintiffs pled the following allegations against Defendants: Initially, all monies paid in accordance with these contracts was to be held in escrow by Charles Neustein, Esq. of North Miami Beach, FL. Mr. Neustein was replaced as escrow agent by Jeffery Tew, Esq. in 2007. The registered agent and escrow of PPCR, PCR and PSCR is Jeffrey Tew, Esq. of Tew and Cardenas, LLP. 1441 Brickell Ave., 15th Floor, Miami, FL 33131. -3- COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32 Defendants' contracts contain a provision for the return of Plaintiffs’ monies, deposited in escrow with Charles Neustein, Esq. or Jeffrey Tew, Esq., upon demand within a specified period of time (5 years). See Gurskis Action Complaint, (15, 16 29, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (emphasis added). . In the 2011 Gurskis Action, the Gurskis Plaintiffs pled the following identical allegations against Defendants: Initially, all monies paid in accordance with these contracts was to be held in escrow by Charles Neustein, Esq. of North Miami Beach, FL. Mr. Neustein was replaced as escrow agent by Jeffery Tew, Esq. in 2007. The registered agent and escrow of PPCR, PCR and PSCR is Jeffrey Tew, Esq. of Tew and Cardenas, LLP. 1441 Brickell Ave., 15th Floor, Miami, FL 33131. Defendants’ contracts contain a provision for the return of Plaintiffs’ monies, deposited in escrow with Charles Neustein, Esq. or Jeffrey Tew, Esq., upon demand within a specified period of time (5 years). See Gurskis Action Complaint, 9115, 27, 40, attached hereto as Exhibit 3 (emphasis added). . On April 25, 2011, the Gurskis Action was consolidated into a similar, larger class action, Anita Oginski, et al. v. Paragon Properties of Costa Rica, LLC, et al, Case No. 10-21720-C1V- K1NG (“Oginsky Action”), given that both cases pertained to the identical proposed class.' See Order of Consolidation, attached hereto as Exhibit 4. . Notably, the Gurskis Plaintiffs and Mr. Hess appeared within the same docket report as the other plaintiffs within the Gurskis Action upon consolidation. See Docket Report, attached hereto as Exhibit 6. . On June 15, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Oginsky Action filed their Third Amended Complaint (including Gurskis Plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. Hess, within the Certificate of Service). See Oginsky Complaint, 1. The Court is requested to take judicial notice of the Gurskis Action and Oginsky Class Action and related court filings discussed herein pursuant to FLA. STAT. § 90.202(6) (2017) (“Records of any court of this state or of any court of record of the United States or of any state, territory, or jurisdiction of the United States”). -4- COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32 attached hereto as Exhibit 5. The Oginsky Action Complaint alleged: The marketing presentation for the development “had been prescribed and approved by the Federal Trade Commission as a result of Mr. Tew’s efforts.” See Oginsky Class Action Complaint, 411 (f); LTS is the managing and controlling member of Paragon Properties of Costa Rica LLC. LTS’s registered agent is Jeffrey Tew. Upon information and belief, LTS Management is actually being controlled by co-Defendant Stephen Tashman. See Oginsky Class Action Complaint, 1190; Tashman’s counsel in the FTC enforcement action was the law firm of Tew Cardenas, the same firm that is counsel to Paragon. See Oginsky Class Action Complaint, 202; Costa Rican Land & Development, Inc. is also known as Costa Rica Land Sales & Development Corporation. The second name is the name identified on its letterhead, but it is not a registered Florida corporation. The company is the “designated” contractor for Paragon. Its registered agent, like most of the Paragon corporate Defendants, is Jeffrey Tew. At one point its registered agent was Michael Fingar — the attorney who, like Tew, represented Tashman in the FTC enforcement action and represents Paragon. It is believed that Costa Rican Land & Development received money directly from investors. According to Gale, Costa Rican Land & Development was merely an “operating account’ for Paragon. This entity was an agent for Paragon and was used to perpetuate a fraud on Paragon’s customers. See Oginsky Class Action Complaint, 212; Trust monies were wired and checks written to Tew Cardenas, LLP as early as 2004 and as late as 2008. See Oginsky Action Complaint, 338. As discussed herein, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Gurskis Plaintiffs’ claims for aiding-and-abetting had accrued by 2011 upon their suit against Paragon that expressly incorporated Defendants’ involvement (aiding) into the pleadings. As such, they were obligated to assert their claim against Defendants by no later than 2015. Because they failed to commence suit until 2016, their claims are time- -5- COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32 barred under the statute of limitations. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor as a matter of law. MEMORANDUM OF LAW I Legal Standard Under Florida law, the standard governing the determination of a motion for summary judgment is well settled. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 states: The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FLA. R. Civ. P. 1.510. An issue is ripe for summary judgment when the non-moving party has failed to establish the existence of any genuine issue of material fact which would preclude summary judgment. Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 1979). Summary judgment should be granted where the salient facts are not an issue and where the controversy has resolved into one purely of law to be decided on the undisputed facts. Yost v. Miami Transit Co., 66 So. 2d 214, 215 (Fla. 1953). It is well recognized that the non-moving party faced with an appropriate summary judgment motion may not rely on bare, conclusory assertions found in the pleadings to create an issue and avoid summary judgment. Instead, the non-moving party must produce counter-evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact. Bryant v. Shands Teach. Hosp. and Clinics, Inc., 479 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Johnson v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 429 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Jones v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 109 So. 2d 582 (Fla.1st DCA 1959). Upon the filing of a motion for summary judgment, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate -6- COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32 with specific evidence that a triable issue of fact remains on which the non-moving party bears the burden of proof at trial. See Spradiey v. Stick, 622 So. 2d 610 (Fla.1st DCA 1993). Clearly, it is not enough for the non-moving party to merely assert that an issue does exist. Landers, 370 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla. 1979); Buitrago v. Rohr, 672 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). I. Gurskis Plaintiffs’ Aiding-and-Abetting Claims Accrued by 2011 and Remain Time-Barred Post-2015 Defendants have pled the statute of limitations through Affirmative Defense 11 to the Complaint. Under Florida law, actions founded upon fraud are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. FLA. STAT. § 95.11(j) (2017). “A cause of action accrues when the last element constituting the cause of action occurs.” FLA. STAT. § 95.031 (2017). An exception is made for claims of fraud in which the accrual of the cause of action occurs when the plaintiff either knows or should know that the last element of the cause of action occurred. Brooks Tropicals, Inc. v. Acosta, 959 So. 2d 288, 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). The elements for aiding-and-abetting a fraud are as follows: “1. There existed an underlying fraud; 2. The defendant had knowledge of the fraud; and 3. The defendant provided substantial assistance to advance the commission of the fraud.” See, e.g., ZP No. 54 Ltd. P’ship v. Fid. & Deposit Co., 917 So. 2d 368, 372 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). There is no doubt that all three elements were fulfilled for aiding-and-abetting because the Gurskis Plaintiffs expressly made allegations against Defendants by 2011. -7- COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32 A. Element 1: The Alleged Underlying Fraud Existed by 2011 — when Gurskis Plaintiffs Sued Paragon In 2010, Janet Gurskis commenced the underlying claim of fraud upon suing Paragon and Gale in a class action. See generally 2010 Gurskis Class Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. See Janet Gurskis, et al. v. William Gale, et al., Case No. 10-cv-61112-WJZ. By 2011, all of the non-movant / Gurskis Plaintiffs were named- plaintiffs in their 2011 Gurskis Action Complaint. See Gurskis Action Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. Accordingly, it is undisputed that that the first element for aiding-and-abetting fraud was met by 2011. B. Element 2: Alleged Knowledge of Purported Fraud Existed by 2011 While the parties disagree as to whether the underlying acts were fraudulent, the Gurskis Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants were aware of their clients’ committing fraud as it occurred. For example, the Complaint alleges “[a]t all times material, Tew and T&C knew of the prohibitions placed on Tashman but nonetheless aided and abetted him, as hereafter appears, in attempting to circumvent the prohibition.” Compl., 926 (emphasis added). The Gurskis Plaintiffs allege that “[aJt all times material, Rosskamp knew that Paragon’s sales program had all the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. This knowledge was imputed but nonetheless actually known to T&C and shared with Tew.” Compl., 37. To be clear, the Complaint alleges that while Paragon was operational, and as Defendants participated in the sales scripts, Defendants “knew that Paragon was engaged in fraud.” Compl., 38 (emphasis added). In other words, this is what has been portrayed as alleged aiding-and-abetting of known fraud. See a/so Compl., 942 -8- COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32 (‘Jeffrey Tew at all times knew that William Gale and Steve Tashman had concocted a mass marketing Ponzi Scheme as shown by the July 19, 2007, email”). Accordingly, the claim certainly accrued by 2011. Cc. The Alleged Substantial Assistance Occurred by 2011 Between 2010 and 2011, the Gurskis Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants provided legal services to Tashman in connection with the Federal Trade Commission action, worked as Paragon's registered agent, and received monies from the purchasers. See Oginsky Action Complaint, {]1(f),190, 202, 212, 338, attached hereto as Exhibit 5. To be clear, the instant Complaint, filed by the non-movants, alleges the following against Defendants: THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD 28. In October of 2004, Paragon Properties of Costa Rica (Paragon) was created by William Gale and Stephen Tashman for the purpose of marketing Costa Rican real estate and shares in Costa Rican corporations to American buyers. Tew and T&C helped to incorporate Paragon and have provided Paragon with legal as well as unrelated business advice. Tew and T&C have also acted as Registered Agent for Paragon. Substantial Assistance 51. Tew and T&C assisted in the creation of the ISOs. Defendants acted as registered agents for Paragon and aided Paragon in its corporate planning. Compl., 1128, 51 (emphasis added). As shown in the Gurskis Plaintiffs’ own Complaint, which has been amended 5 times, they claim that Defendants’ role as Paragon’s “Registered Agent,” among other things, was part of the “scheme to defraud” Plaintiffs and part of the “substantial assistance” that aided-and-abetted the purported fraud. However, they had actual knowledge of these allegations as of 2011 upon asserting them in the Gurskis Action. Accordingly, for purposes of asserting a claim for aiding-and-abetting fraud, the claims against -9- COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32 Defendants had fully accrued by 2011. As such, there is no question that the Gurskis Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred. Conclusion Even upon viewing the summary judgment evidence in a light most favorable to the Gurskis Plaintiffs, the timeframes relevant to their aiding-and-abetting claims are undisputed. All elements to the cause of action were satisfied, for purposes of asserting the claim, by 2011 based on the summary judgment evidence. Said evidence shows that by 2011, the alleged fraud, knowledge, and substantial assistance, already existed. Accordingly, the claim for aiding-and-abetting had accrued by 2011. § 95.031. Consequently, Gurskis Plaintiffs had four years, or until 2015, to file suit against Defendants under the controlling statute of limitations. § 95.11(j). The record is clear that Gurskis Plaintiffs did not file suit until 2016. Therefore, they can recover nothing and judgment should be entered in Defendants’ favor as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, Defendants, JEFFREY TEW and TEW CARDENAS, LLP, request the Court to enter final summary judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, MALCOLM BRADLEY, CHARLIE DAVIS, JANET GURSKIS, CRAIG ZINKOWSKI, SEAN JIMENEZ, MIKE MCHUGH, and JOHN WHITAKER, as to Counts Il, V, X, XI, XIl, XIV, and XV of the Fifth Amended Complaint, and to grant any other relief in favor of Defendants. -10- COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXCase No. 13-17671 CA 32 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was electronically filed and served on all counsel of record identified in the attached Service List using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal on September 27, 2017. John P. Hess, Esq. John P. Hess, P.A. 2100 Coral Way Suite 300 Miami, FL 33145 jhess@johnphess.com jphess55@gmail.com Counsel for Plaintiff Bryan J. Yarnell, Esq. Bryan J. Yarnell, PLLC 1665 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard #101 West Palm Beach, FL 33410 Bryan@civillawflorida.com gio@civillawflorida.com Co-counsel for Plaintiff -ll- COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. Attorneys for Defendants Esperante Building 222 Lakeview Avenue Suite 120 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 383-9200 Facsimile: (661) 683-8977 By: /s/ Alan St. Louis JONATHAN VINE FBN: 10966 ALAN ST. LOUIS FBN: 70751 NINA SCHMIDT FBN: 118900 SERVICE LIST COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A. ESPERANTE BUILDING - 222 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, SUITE 120 - WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 (S61) 383-9200 - (561) 683-8977 FAXEXHIBIT 1Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document i Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2010 Page Lofs UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANET GURSKIS. et al. as individuals and as members of aiglass. Case No: Plaintiffs VS. WILLIAM GALE, an individual; ESTEBAN SOTO, an individual; LARRY WEBMAN, an individual; RANDY YABLON, individual; MURRAY LINDE individual; PROPERTIES OF COSTA RICA, Inc., a Florida limited liability company; PARAGON PROPERTIES OF COSTA RICA, LLC.: PROPERTY SALES OF CR, Inc., a Florida corporation, & Premier Realty Sales of Costa Rica, S.A. Defendan COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND Plaintiff, JANET GURSKIS, by and through the undersigned attorney hereby files her complaint and states as follows: PARTIES L Plaintiff is a resident of Hanover County, Virginia and is otherwise sui juris. 2. Plaintiff belongs to a class including more than 900 individuals representing numerous states.Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document i Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2010 Page 2 of & GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Page 2 3. Each member of the class executed boilerplate contract(s) to purchase real property in Costa Rica from Defendants and/or now defunct corporations." See Exhibits A,B&C. 4, All of the entities and individual defendants involved made representations and solicitations under the letterhead of "Paragon Properties of Costa Rica." 5. initially, all monies paid in accordance with these contracts was ta be held in escrow by Charles Neustein, Esq. of North Miami Beach, FL. Mr. Neustein was replaced as escrow agent by Jeffery Tew, Esq, in 2007. 6. Each member of the class has suffered damages from Fraud and Breach of this Contract. 7 At all times material hereto, Defendant, WILLIAM GALE (“GALE”), was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. 8. At all material times hereto, Defendant, ESTEBAN SOTO (“SOTO”) was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. 9. At all material times hereto, Defendant, LARRY WEBMAN (‘WEBMAN?”) was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. 10. At all material times hereto, Defendant, RANDY YABLON (“YABLON”) was and is a resident of Broward County, Florida. ' Alliance Funding, LLC, whose officers were RANDY YABLON and MURRAY LINDER, and Paramount Consulting Group, Inc., whose officer was LARRY WEBMAN, are inactive corporate entities.Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2010 Page 3 of & GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Page 3 11. At all material times hereto, Defendant, MURRAY LINDER (“LINDER”) was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. 12. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PARAGON PROPERTIES OF COSTA RICA, LLC (PPCR"), was and is a Limited Liability Company whose principal place of business was and is Broward County, Florida. SOTO is listed as a manager and shareholder of PPCR. 13. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PROPERTIES OF COSTA RICA, ine. PCR”), was and is a Limited Liability Company whose principal place of business was and is Broward County, Florida. SOTO is listed as a manager and shareholder of PCR. 4, At all times material hereto, Defendant, PROPERTY SALES OF CR, Inc. (“PSCR”) was and is a Limited Liability Company whose principal place of business was and is Broward County, Florida. GALE is listed as a manager and shareholder of PSCR. GALE was also continuously involved with PCR, 15. The principal address of both PPCR, PCR and PSCR is 2035 Harding Street, Suite 201, Hollywood, FL 33020. 16. The registered agent and escrow of PPCR, PCR and PSCR is Jeffrey Tew, sq. of Tew and Cardenas, LLP. 1441 Brickell Ave., 15" Floor, Miami, FL 33131. 17, At all times material hereto, Defendant, Premier Realty Sales of Costa Rica, S.A. (*PRSCR”) is a foreign entity, incorporated pursuant to the laws of Costa Rica.Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 4 of 8 GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Pape 4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 18. Jurisdiction is proper in. the district courts of the State of Florida becanse Plaintiff, a resident of Virginia, seeks damages in excess of $75,000 exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees and the acts of which Plaintiff complains oceurred in Florida, Defendants GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR and PSCR are residents of Florida. Jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 LSC. $1332 (Diversity of citizenship: amount in controversy, costs) and 28 U.S.C. $1331 ederal question) and 28 U.S.C. $1336 (supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims). 19, Venue is proper in this judicial circuit as Broward County, PL is the location of the principal place of business for PPCR, PCR and PSCR. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 20, In 2004, PPCR and PCR came into existence as a Florida Limited Liability Companies for the purpose of marketing Costa Rican real estate to American buyers. 21. PPCR and PCR claimed to own land in Costa Rica on which it planned to inild upscale residential communities. 22, PPCR. and PCR made use of the Internet, Television, US Mail and wire services to advertise and induce buyers from throughout the United States into entering contracts to purchase Casta Rican real estate.Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 5 of 8 GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Page 3 23. In January of 2009, PSCR came into existence as a Florida Corporation. for seemingly the same purpose as PPCR and PCR. 24. More than 900 individuals executed contracts with PPCR. PCR, PSCR, Paramount Consulting Group, Inc. and Alliance Funding, LLC. between 2004 and 2009. In exchange for a substantial payment, Plaintiffs received Costa Rican Deeds. 25. Defendants falsely claimed that they would make use of Plaintiffs’ deposits to improve the land, provide infrastruciure and build homes. 26. Plaintiffs were induced to purchase based upon the promise that, “The infrasiructure of roads and electricity will be in place within twelve (12) months (altematively eighteen (18) months. See Exhibit B & C Point 3) from the date of this Agreement.” See Exhibit A Point 3. 27. ‘This never oceurred. The vast majority of the land, purportedly sold to American buyers, remains undeveloped and tens of millions of dollars given by the Plaintiffs are unaccounted for. 28. Defendants GAL SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, and LINDER claimed, in letters sent by US Mail and over US wire services, to have pulled permits and to have made substantial improvements to the land. Defendants knew these claims were untrue when made. These correspondences were often accompanied by requests for additional funds. 29, Defendants’ contracts contain a provision for the retarn of Plaintiffs’ monies, deposited in escrow with Charles Neustein, Esq. or Jeffrey Tew, Esg., upon demand within a specified period of time (5 years),Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 6 of 8 GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Page 6 30. Detendants have not returned money to GURSKIS and many other members of the class, though timely demand has been made. 31. FURSKIS was forced to hire counsel and pay attorneys’ fees and costs to enforce her contractual rights and te prosecute this Fraud. 32. All conditiens precedent to filing suit have been met, have been satisfied, have occurred or are otherwise waived or vaid. JURY DEMAND 33, GURSKIS demanis a trial by jury of all issues so triable. COUNT 1- BREACH OF CONTRACT 34, GURSKIS reaileges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 31 above as if set forth in full herein. 38. A valid and enforceable contract between Plaintiff and PPCR and/or POR. exists. See Exhibit A. 36. PPCR and/or PCR breached the contract by refusing to refund her deposit as it is obligated to do under the terms of the contract. 37. Plaintiff bas suffered damages as a result ef PPCR’s and/or PCR's unlawful breach. WHEREFORE, GURSEIS demands damages against PPCR and/or PCR for breach of contract and sach other relief this Court deems just and proper including butCase 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 7 of 8 GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Page 7 not limited to actual damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT H-— FRAUD AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 38. GURSKIS realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs | through 31 above as if set forth in full herein. 39. GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR, and PSCR made numerous false statements, making use of US Mail and wire services, to GURSKIS and other menibers of the class. 40. GALE. SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR and PSCR knew the siatoments were false when made. 41. GALE, SOTO. WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR and PSCR. knowingly and maliciously made the false statements with the intention of getting GURSRIS and members of the elass to enter contract with and/or give money to PPCR, PCR and/or PSCR. 42. GURSKIS and other members of the class relied on Defendants’ false statements and gave money to GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR and/or PSCR. WHEREFORE, GURSKIS demands damages against GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON and LINDER as individuals, for Fraud; and PPCR, PCR and PSCR, as instrumentalities for perpetrating this Fraud, and such other relief this CourtCase 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/20/2010 Page 8 of & GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Page 8 deems just and proper including but not limited to actual damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully Submitted: By: #s/obn P. Hess JOHN P. HESS, Esq. Attorney for the Plaintiff F.B.N. 31075 343 Alcazar Ave., Suite 101 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Telephone: (305) 445-9525 Facsimile: (305) 447-1020EXHIBIT 2Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2011 Page 1of5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 10-61112-CIV-ZLOCH JANET GURSKIS, Plaintiff, vs. FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL WILLIAM GALE, et al., Defendants. / THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. The Court has carefully reviewed the entire court file and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. In her Complaint (DE 1), Plaintiff Janet Gurskis alleges that the Court’s jurisdiction over the above-styled cause is proper because “Plaintiff, a resident of Virginia, seeks damages in excess of $75,000 exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees and the acts of which Plaintiff complains occurred in Florida” and further alleges “[j]urisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy, costs) and 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. §1336 (supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims).” DE 1, q 18. Section 1332 provides that where a complaint is founded on diversity of citizenship, a federal court may maintain jurisdiction over the action only “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” The dictates of §Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2011 Page 2 of 5 1332 keep the federal courts moored to the jurisdictional limits prescribed by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. As Justice Stone stated in reference to § 1332 in Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263, 270 (1934), “[d]ue regard for the rightful independence of state governments, which should actuate federal courts, requires that they scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has defined.” These dictates stem from the fact that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The presumption, in fact, is that a federal court lacks jurisdiction in a particular case until the parties demonstrate that jurisdiction over the subject matter exists. United States v. Rojas, 429 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir. 2005), citing Turner v. Bank of N. Am., 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 10 (1799). Therefore, the facts showing the existence of jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint. Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (llth Cir. 1994); see, e.g., 13B Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d, § 3602 (1984 & Supp. 2008). A review of the Complaint (DE 1) reveals that the requisite diversity of citizenship is not apparent on its face. It states, in relevant part: 1. Plaintiff is a resident of Hanover County, Virginia and is otherwise sui juris. 7. At all times material hereto, Defendant William Gale (“Gale”) was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. 8. At all times material hereto, DefendantCase 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2011 Page 3 of 5 Esteban Soto (“Soto”) was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. 9. At all times material hereto, Defendant Larry Webman (“Webman”) was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. 10. At all times material hereto, Defendant Randy Yablon (“Yablon”) was and is a resident of Broward County, Florida. 11. At all times material hereto, Defendant Murray Linder (“Linder”) was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida. DE 1, G7 1, 7-11. The Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the citizenship of Plaintiff Janet Gurskis and Defendants Gale, Soto, Webman, Yablon, and Linder for the Court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the above-styled cause pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Indeed, diversity jurisdiction “requires complete diversity— every plaintiff must be diverse from every defendant.” Palmer v. Hosp. Auth., 22 F.3d 1559, 1564 (llth Cir. 1994). And residency is not the equivalent of citizenship for diversity purposes. See Appleton, 30 F.3d at 1367 (“Citizenship, not residence, is the key fact that must be alleged in the complaint to establish diversity for a natural person.”); see also 13B Wright & Miller, supra § 3611. Plaintiff also fails to adequately allege the citizenship of Defendants Paragon Properties of Costa Rica, LLC (‘“PPCR”) Properties Of Costa Rica Inc., and Property Sales of CR, Inc. As to these Parties, the Complaint provides in relevant part: 12. At all times material hereto, Defendant Paragon Properties Of Costa Rica, LLC (“PPCR”) was and is a Limited Liability Company whose principal place of business was and is Broward County, Florida. SOTO is listed as a manager 3Case 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2011 Page 4 of 5 and shareholder of PPCR. 13. At all times material hereto, Defendant Properties of Costa Rica, Inc. (“PCR”) was and is a Limited Liability Company whose principal place of business was and is Broward County, Florida. SOTO is listed as a manager and shareholder of PCR. 14. At all times material hereto, Defendant Property Sales Of CR, Inc. (“PSCR”) was and is a Limited Liability Company whose principal place of business was and is Broward County, Florida. GALE is listed as a manager and shareholder of PSCR. DE 1, WI 12-14. These allegations are insufficient because “[a limited liability company is a citizen of any state of which a member of the company is a citizen.” Rolling Greens MHP, L.P. v. Comcast SCH Holdings, L.L.C., 374 F.3d 1020, 1022 (llth Cir. 2004). Because the Complaint lacks allegations regarding the citizenship of all members of Defendants Paragon Properties Of Costa Rica, LLC, Defendant Properties of Costa Rica, Inc., and Property Sales Of CR, Inc., the Court is unable to determine the citizenship of these Defendants. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Complaint (DE 1) also alleges that “Plaintiff belongs to a class including more than 900 individuals representing numerous states.” DE 1, 7 2. However, if Plaintiff intends to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(d), she fails to allege the requisite amount in controversy of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and only alleges an amount in controversy “in excess of $75,000.” DE 1, 4 18. Additionally, without alleging the citizenship of the namedCase 0:10-cv-61112-WJZ Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2011 Page 5 of 5 Plaintiff or any of the purported class plaintiffs, the Complaint fails to establish that even minimal diversity exists to maintain a class action. Finally, no independent basis for federal jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the Complaint. The Court recognizes that it has not only the power, but also “the obligation at any time to inquire into jurisdiction whenever the possibility that jurisdiction does not exist arises.” Johansen v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 170 F.3d 1320, 1328 n.4 (llth Cir. 1999). Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to establish this Court’s jurisdiction over the above- styled cause, her Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, after due consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The above-styled cause be and the same is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice in that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the same; and 2. To the extent not otherwise disposed of herein, all pending Motions be and the same are hereby DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 27th day of January, 2011. Mleain I. 2Z> WILLIAM J@™ZLOCH United States District Judge Copies furnished: All Counsel and Parties of Record 5EXHIBIT 3Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2011 Page 1 of 20 PES DISTRICT COURT N DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANET GURSKIS an individual; CHARLIE DAVIS an individual; FRANK BRADLEY an individual: MICHAEL McHUGH an individual; SEAN FIMENEZ an individual; CASE? CRAIG ZINKOSKI an individual, and JOHN WHITTAKER, an individual, POEL CV 60647 Plaintil VS. WILLIAM GALE, an individual; ESTEBAN SOTO, an individual, LARRY WEBMAN, an individual: SHELDON YABLON, an individual: MURRA individual: PARAGON PROPERTE COSTA RICA, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, PROPERTIES OF COSTA RICA, Inc., a Florida corporation; PROPERTY SALES OF CR, Inc., a Florida corporation, & PREMIER REALTY SALES OF COSTA RICA, S.A. Defendants COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs, JANET GURSKIS ("GURSKIS"), CHARLIE DAVIS ("DAVIS"), FRANK BRADLEY("BRADLEY"), CRAIG ZINKOSKI ("ZINKOSKI"), MICHAEL McHUGH ("McHUGH"), SEAN JIMENEZ ("JIMENEZ"), and JOHN WHITTAKER ("WHITTAKER") by and through the undersigned attorney hereby file their Complaint and state as follows:Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2011 Page 2 of 20 GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Page 2 PARTIES 1 Plaintiff GURSKIS is a resident of Hanover County, Virginia, is a citizen of the state of Virginia and is otherwise sui juris. 2. GURSKIS executed a boilerplate contract to purchase real property in Costa Rica from Defendants, and/or now defunct corporations. 1 3 Plaintiff DAVIS is a resident of Fulton County, Georgia, is a citizen of the state of Georgia and is otherwise sui juris 4 DAVIS executed a boilerplate contract to purchase real property in Costa Rica from Defendants, and/or now defunct corporations 5. Plaintiff BRADLEY is a resident of Baltimore County, Maryland, is a citizen of the state of Maryland and is otherwise sui juris. 6. BRADLEY executed a boilerplate contract to purchase real property in Costa Rica from Defendants, and/or now defunct corporations. 7. Plaintiff McHUGH is a resident of Los Angeles County, California, is a citizen of the state of California and is otherwise sui juris. 8 McHUGH executed a boilerplate contract to purchase real property in Costa Rica from Defendants, and/or now defunct corporations. 9. Plaintiff JIMEMENZ is a resident of Virginia Beach County, Virginia, is a citizen of the state of Virginia and is otherwise sui juris ' Alliance Funding, LLC, whose officers were SHELDON YABLON and MURRAY LINDER, Paramount Consulting Group, Inc., whose officer was LARRY WEBMAN, and SVE Properties, Inc. are inactive corporate entities.Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Docurnent 1 Entered on FLSD Dockel 02/25/2011 Page 3 of 20 GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Page 3 10 JIMENEZ executed a boilerplate contract to purchase real property in Costa Rica from Defendants, and/or now defunct corporations. 11. Plaintiff +ZINKOSKI is a resident of Ocean County, New Jersey, is a citizen of the state of New Jersey and is otherwise sui juris 12. | ZINKOSKI executed a boilerplate contract to purchase real property in Costa Rica from Defendants, and/or now defunct corporations. 13. Plaintiff WHITTAKER is a resident of Hartford County, Connecticut, is a citizen of the state of Connecticut and is otherwise sui juris. 14. WHITTAKER executed a boilerplate contract to purchase real property in Costa Rica from Defendants, and/or now defunct corporations. 15 All of the entities and individual Defendants involved made representations and solicitations under the letterhead of "Paragon Properties of Costa Rica." 16 Initially, all monies paid in accordance with these contracts was to be held in escrow by Charles Neustein, Esq. of North Miami Beach, FL. Mr. Neustein was replaced as escrow agent by Jeffery Tew, Esq. in 2007 17 Each member of the class has suffered damages from Fraud and Breach of Contract. 18 At all times material hereto, Defendant, WILLIAM GALE (“GALE”), was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and is a citizen of the state of Florida. 19. At all material times hereto, Defendant, ESTEBAN SOTO (“SOTO”) was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and is a citizen of the state of Florida.Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2011 Page 4 of 20 GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Page 4 20. At all material times hereto, Defendant, LARRY WEBMAN (“WEBMAN’) was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and is a citizen of the state of Florida. 21 At all material times hereto, Defendant, SHELDON YABLON (“YABLON”) was and is a resident of Broward County, Florida and is a citizen of the state of Florida. 22. At all material times hereto, Defendant, MURRAY LINDER (“LINDER”) was and is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida and is a citizen of the state of Florida. 23 At all times material hereto, Defendant, PARAGON PROPERTIES OF COSTA RICA, LLC @PPCR”), was and is a Limited Liability Company whose principal place of business was and is Broward County, Florida. SOTO is listed as a manager and shareholder of PPCR. 24. At all times material hereto, Defendant, PROPERTIES OF COSTA RICA, inc. (“PCR”), was and is a Florida Corporation whose principal place of business was and is Broward County, Florida. SOTO is listed as a manager and shareholder of PCR. 25 At all times material hereto, Defendant, PROPERTY SALES OF CR, Inc. (“PSCR”) was and is a Florida Corporation whose principal place of business was and is Broward County, Florida. GALE is listed as a manager and shareholder of PSCR. GALE was also continuously involved with PCR. 26. The principal address of both PPCR, PCR and PSCR is 2035 Harding Street, Suite 201, Hollywood, FL 33020.Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Docurnent 1 Entered on FLSD Dockel 02/25/2011 Page 5 of 20 GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Page 5 27 The registered agent and escrow of PPCR, PCR and PSCR is Jeffrey Tew, Esa of Tey and Cardenas LLP) 1441 Brickell Ave., 15" Floor, Miami, FL 33131 28. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Premier Realty Sales of Costa Rica, S.A. (“PRSCR”) is a foreign entity, incorporated pursuant to the laws of Costa Rica. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 29 Jurisdiction is proper in the district courts of the State of Florida because Plaintiffs, seek damages in excess of $75,000 exclusive of interest, costs and attorneys’ fees and the acts of which Plaintiffs complain occurred in Florida. All Plaintiffs are citizens of states other than the state of Florida. Defendants GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR and PSCR are citizens of Florida. Jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 (Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy, costs) and 28 U.S.C. §1342 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. §1336 (supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims). 30. Venue is proper in this judicial circuit as Broward County, FL is the location of the principal place of business for PPCR, PCR and PSCR.Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2011 Page 6 of 20 GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Page 6 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 31. In 2004, PPCR and PCR came into existence as a Florida Limited Liability Company and a Florida Corporation, respectively, for the purpose of marketing Costa Rican real estate to American buyers. 32. | PPCR and PCR claimed to own land in Costa Rica on which it planned to build upscale residential communities. 33. PPCR and PCR made use of the internet, television, US Mail and wire services to advertise and induce buyers from throughout the United States into entering contracts to purchase Costa Rican real estate. 34 In January of 2009, PSCR came into existence as a Florida Corporation for seemingly the same purpose as PPCR and PCR. 35. More than 900 individuals executed contracts with PPCR, PCR, PSCR, Paramount Consulting Group, Inc., SVE Properties, Inc. and Alliance Funding, LLC. between 2004 and 2009. In exchange for a substantial payment, Plaintiffs received Costa Rican Deeds. 36. Defendants falsely claimed that they would make use of Plaintiffs’ deposits to improve the land, provide infrastructure and build homes. 37. Plaintiffs were induced to purchase based upon the promise that, "The infrastructure of roads and electricity will be in place within twelve (12) months (alternatively eighteen (18) months from the date of this Agreement." See Exhibit A-G Point 3.Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Docurnent 1 Entered on FLSD Dockel 02/25/2011 Page 7 of 20 GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Page 7 38 This never occurred. The vast majority of the land, purportedly sold to American buyers, remains undeveloped and tens of millions of dollars given by the Plaintiffs, as well as other buyers, are unaccounted for. 39. Defendants GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, and LINDER claimed, in letters sent by US Mail and over US wire services, to have pulled permits and to have made substantial improvements to the land. Defendants knew these claims were untrue when made. These correspondences were often accompanied by requests for additional funds. 40. Defendants’ contracts contain a provision for the return of Plaintiffs’ monies, deposited in escrow with Charles Neustein, Esq. or Jeffrey Tew. Esq. upon demand within a specified period of time (5 years). 41 Defendants have not returned money to Plaintiffs though timely demand has been made. 42. Plaintiffs were forced to hire counsel and pay attorneys’ fees and costs to enforce their contractual rights and to prosecute this Fraud. 43. All conditions precedent to filing suit have been met, have been satisfied, have occurred or are otherwise waived or void JURY DEMAND 44, GURSKIS, DAVIS, BRADLEY, McHUGH, JIMENEZ, ZINKOSKI, and WHITTAKER demand a trial by jury of all issues so triableCase 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2011 Page 8 of 20 GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Page 8 COUNT I- BREACH OF CONTRACT 45. GURSKIS re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 42 above as if set forth in full herein. 40. A valid and enforceable contract between Plaintiff and PPCR and/or PCR exists. See Exhibit A. 47. PPCR and/or PCR breached the contract by refusing to refund her deposit as it is obligated to do under the terms of the contract. 48. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of PPCR's and/or PCR’s unlawful breach. WHEREFORE, GURSKIS demands damages against PPCR and/or PCR for breach of contract and such other relief this Court deems just and proper including but not limited to actual damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT Il - FRAUD AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 49. GURSKIS re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 42 above as if set forth in full herein. 50. GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR, and PSCR made numerous false statements, making use of US Mail and wire services, to GURSKIS and other members of the class.Case 0:11-cv-60647-JLK Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2011 Page 9 of 20 GURSKIS v. PARAGON PROPERTIES Complaint & Jury Demand Page 9 51 GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR and PSCR knew the statements were false when made. 52. GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR and PSCR knowingly and maliciously made the false statements with the intention of getting GURSKIS and members of the class to enter contract with and/or give money to PPCR, PCR and/or PSCR. 53. GURSKIS and other members of the class relied on Defendants' false statements and gave money to GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON, LINDER, PPCR, PCR and/or PSCR. WHEREFORE, GURSKIS demands damages against GALE, SOTO, WEBMAN, YABLON and LINDER as individuals, for Fraud; and PPCR, PCR and PSCR, as instrumentalities for perpetrating this Fraud, and such other relief this Court deems just and proper including but not limited to actual damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT Il —- BREACH OF CONTRACT 54 DAVIS re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 42 a