Preview
Filing # 19810639 Electronically Filed 10/24/2014 06:23:19 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11™
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO. 09-36802 CA 11
WAREHOUSE 1050 CORP.,
J AND J REFRIGERATION SUPPLY, INC.,
and AME MANUFACTURING CORP.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FLORIDA SOL CORP., COMCAST CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC.,
COMCAST CABLE HOLDINGS, LLC,
COMCAST OF MIAMI, INC., n/k/a COMCAST
OFCALIFORNIA/COLORADO/FLORIDA/
OREGON, INC. and JOHN & JANE DOES 1-100
Defendants.
/
JOINT PRETRIAL STIPULATION
Plaintiffs, WAREHOUSE 1050 CORP., J AND J REFRIFERATION SUPPLY,
INC., and AME MANUFACTURING CORP. (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants,
FLORIDA SOL, CORP., COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS,
INC., COMCAST CABLE HOLDINGS, LLC, COMCAST OF MIAMI, INC., n/k/a
COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA/COLORADO/FLORIDA/OREGON, INC. (collectively
“Comeast”) and JANE AND JOHN DOES 1-100, by and through their respective
undersigned counsel, and pursuant to this Court’s March 25, 2014 Order on Case
Management Conference, Mediation and Setting Jury Trial, submit the following Joint
Pretrial Stipulation:a. A concise statement of the case agreed to by the parties which the Court will
read to the jury during voir dire:
Plaintiffs’ statement of the case:
Plaintiffs claim that Florida Sol Systems, Inc. laid a cable across their roof,
pursuant to a contract between Florida Sol Systems and the Comcast defendants, in order
to provide Comcast cable service to a neighboring property; that the cable caused damage
to Plaintiffs’ roof; and Plaintiff demanded that Comcast remove the cable in July of 2005,
which it did not do for over five (5) months; and that Plaintiff sustained substantial
additional damage during that five month period.
Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc, denies that it laid the cable across Plaintiffs’
roof and denies that it is liable to the Plaintiffs for any of their claims. The Comcast
defendants deny ownership of the cable, deny that they are liable for anything that
Florida Sol Systems is alleged to have done, and deny that they are liable for any of
Plaintiffs’ claims.
Defendants, Comcast and Florida Sol Systems’ Statement of the case:
Welcome. I will now administer your oath.
Now that you have been sworn, I’d like to give you an idea about what we are
here to do.
This is a civil trial. A civil trial is different from a criminal case, where a
defendant is charged by the state prosecutor with committing a crime. The subject of a
civil trial is a disagreement between people or companies, where the claims of one or
more of these parties have been brought to court to be resolved. It is called “a trial of a
lawsuit.”This case centers on a cable that laid above the roof of a warehouse located at
1050 NW 21st Street, Miami, Florida (the “Warehouse”). Plaintiff Warehouse 1050
Corp. (“Warehouse 1050”) is the alleged owner of the Warehouse; Plaintiffs J&J
Refrigeration (“J&J”) and AME Manufacturing Corp. (“AME”) are alleged tenants of the
Warehouse. Plaintiff AME is in the business of manufacturing commercial and
residential air conditioning equipment. Plaintiff J&J sells commercial and residential
refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. Elan Feldman is the primary owner of
Warehouse 1050 and J&J, and Albert Zilberstein is the primary owner of AME.
Plaintiffs contend — that is, they say, that Mr. Feldman discovered the cable above
the roof of the Warehouse in July 2005. No one saw the cable being laid. Plaintiffs
claim that Florida Sol Systems, a former subcontractor for Comcast, placed the cable
over the Warehouse roof in 2004 when Florida Sol Systems was installing cable at a
restaurant located behind the Warehouse on NW 20th Street. Plaintiffs claim that this
cable became embedded in the Warehouse roof and caused damage to the roof. They
further allege that after Hurricane Wilma in October 2005, the roof was further damaged
by the cable which caused water leaks that damaged property inside the Warehouse.
Plaintiffs further contend that these leaks ultimately caused financial damage to
Plaintiffs’ businesses. Plaintiff AME claims that it was destroyed as a result of the leaks,
and thus suffered economic losses from 2005 to 2013. Plaintiff J&J claims that it
suffered a loss in profits between October 2005 and March 2006 as a result of the leaks.
And Plaintiff Warehouse 1050 claims that it suffered lost rents from AME between 2007
and 2013 as a result of the leaks. Plaintiffs also claim that Comcast did not haveinsurance that would cover the damages Plaintiffs allege the cable caused to the
Warehouse.
Plaintiffs Warehouse 1050, J&J and AME argue that Comcast and Florida Sol are
responsible for the placement of the cable and the damage they allege resulted from the
cable. They have brought Plaintiffs have brought four claims against Comcast and
Florida Sol for trespass, tortious interference with business relationships, fraud, and
negligence.
Comcast and Florida Sol Systems deny all of these allegations.
Florida Sol Systems denies ever laying the cable over the Warehouse roof, and
argues that the cable was already over the Warehouse when its employees went to the
neighboring Mexican restaurant in June 2004 pursuant to a work order from Comcast.
Florida Sol further argues that it only performed a reconnection of cable service at the
restaurant, and did not install the cable.
Comcast denies authorizing or directing Florida Sol Systems or anyone else to lay
a cable across the Warehouse roof at any time, and argues that it did not know that the
cable ran across the Warehouse roof until Mr. Feldman informed them of it in July 2005.
Comcast further argues that, in August 2005, despite not knowing how the cable came to
be placed on the roof, it offered Mr. Feldman $49,433 to repair the Warehouse roof, and
Mr. Feldman rejected that offer. Comcast also argues that had Mr. Feldman accepted that
offer in August 2005, and repaired all then-existing roof damage, any additional damage
from Hurricane Wilma to the Warehouse roof could not even arguably have been the
result of the cable. Comcast further argues that Mr. Feldman was initially concerned only
with obtaining money and did not expressly request that the cable be removed untilJanuary/February 2006, which is when the cable was removed. Comcast also argues that
over the years it kept offering Mr. Feldman various amounts to address the damages he
claimed were caused by the cable, but Mr. Feldman rejected all of those offers and kept
seeking more and more money. Comcast argues that it did have insurance that would
cover any claims by Plaintiffs as to the alleged damage to the Warehouse roof, and
whether or not it had insurance is irrelevant.
Both Comcast and Florida Sol Systems maintain that the cable could not and did
not cause the damage to the roof that Plaintiffs’ claim. They maintain that Plaintiffs’
businesses did not suffer economic damages as a result of the cable. More specifically,
they maintain that AME could not have been destroyed due to the alleged roof leaks at
the Warehouse after July 2005 because AME ceased operating at the Warehouse in April
2005, before any of the alleged damage to the Warehouse. They further maintain that
J&J made more profits during the year Plaintiffs allege it suffered losses than it did the
year before and the year after. Finally, Comcast and Florida Sol Systems maintain that
Warehouse 1050 could not have suffered any lost rents from AME due to the alleged
leaks after July 2005 because AME relocated its business operations from the Warehouse
before the leaks ever even occurred.
[IF CROSS-CLAIM NOT SEVERED Finally, while Comcast argues that both it
and Florida Sol Systems were not involved in the laying of the cable above and across the
Warehouse roof, Comcast nonetheless has brought claims against Florida Sol Systems for
indemnification. With respect to these claims, Comcast alleges that pursuant to its
contract with Florida Sol Systems, Florida Sol Systems has a duty to pay for the costs of
Comcast’s defense in this action and to reimburse Comcast for any amounts that the juryfinds Comcast owes Plaintiffs in this case. Florida Sol Systems denies that it has a duty
to pay for the costs of Comcast’s defense in this action or to reimburse Comcast for any
amounts that the jury awards to Plaintiffs in this case. ]
b. A copy of the pleadings upon which the case will go to trial (i.e. complaint,
counterclaim, etc.):
The following pleadings are attached hereto:
1. Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint (Exhibit A)
2. Comeast Defendants’ Answer to Fifth Amended Complaint and Cross-Claim
Against Florida Sol Corp. and Florida Sol Systems, Inc. (Exhibit B)
3. Cross-Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc.’s, as Substitute Party for John Doe
# 1,Answer and Affirmative Defense to Cross-Plaintiff Comcast’s Cross-
Claim (Exhibit C)
4. Comcast Defendants’ Reply to Cross-Defendant Florida Sol Systems, Inc.’s
Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Exhibit D)
5. Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc.’s, as Substitute Party for John Doe # 1,
Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint
(Exhibit E)
c. A statement of:
1. Facts admitted by the parties:
i. Plaintiff, WAREHOUSE 1050 CORP., owns real property, a warehouse,
located at 1050 N.W. 21" Street, Miami, Florida, 33127.
ii. Defendant, FLORIDA SOL CORP. is a Florida dissolved corporation
which at all material times was authorized to do business in Florida
and, in fact, did business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
iii. Defendant, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS,
INC. is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida
and, in fact, is doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida
iv. Defendant, COMCAST CABLE HOLDINGS, LLC. (hereinafter
referred to as "Cablevision Company 2") is a Delaware corporation
authorized to do business in Florida and in fact, is doing business in
Miami-Dade County, Floridavi.
vii.
viii.
xi.
xii,
xili.
xiv.
XV.
xvi.
xvii.
Defendant, COMCAST OF MIAMI, INC., n/k/a COMCAST OF
CALIFORNIA/ COLORADO/ FLORIDA/ OREGON, INC. did business
in Florida, and in fact, is doing business in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
In June 2004, Florida Sol Systems, Inc. was a subcontractor for Comcast.
On June 1, 2003, Florida Sol Systems, Inc. and Comcast entered into a
Master Construction Agreement.
The Master Construction Agreement between Florida Sol Systems, Inc.
and Comcast provided that Florida Sol Systems, Inc. would install and
disconnect cable services in Miami-Dade and Broward counties as
directed by Comcast.
On June 1, 2004, Comcast issued a work order directing Florida Sol to
install cable at 1025 N.W. 20" Street, Miami, Florida 33127.
From at least June 2, 2004 through January or February of 2006, a cable
ran from the pole in the swale area in front of 1050 N.W. 21™ Street,
Miami, Florida 33127, over the sidewalk, and then over the roof of 1050
N.W. 21 Street, Miami, Florida 33127 to the neighboring building at
1025 N.W. 20" Street, Miami, Florida 33127.
In July of 2005, Plaintiffs became aware of the cable.
In July of 2005, Comcast became aware of the cable from Plaintiffs.
Hurricane Katrina passed through South Florida on August 26, 2005.
Hurricane Rita passed through South Florida on September 22, 2005.
Hurricane Wilma passed through South Florida on October 24, 2005.
In January or February of 2006, Comcast removed the cable from
Plaintiff's roof.
On or about December 20, 2012, Comcast of Miami, Inc. merged int
and became known as Comcast of California/ Colorado/ Florida/
Oregon, Inc.
2. Factual issues remaining to be litigated:
i.
Whether AME and J&J were tenants of Warehouse 1050 between July
2005 and December 31, 2006?ii.
iii.
vi.
vii.
viii.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
XV.
Xvi.
xvii.
xviil.
xix.
Who initially placed the cable over the roof of the warehouse?
When was the cable initially placed over the roof of the warehouse?
Whether the placement of the cable was authorized by Comcast?
Whether Comcast directed or assumed actual control over the manner in
which Florida Sol Systems performed its services at the Mexican
restaurant?
When Plaintiffs first became aware of the cable’?
When Plaintiffs first requested that the cable be removed’?
Whether Comcast agreed to remove the cable upon being notified of it.
Whether the cable ever became embedded in the roof?
Tf so, when the cable first became embedded in the roof?
Whether the cable caused any damage to the roof between July 2005 and
February 2006?
Whether any roof damage caused any damages to Plaintiffs’ business
operations?
Whether the January 2006 roof was temporary or permanent?
Whether Comcast had insurance that would cover claims related to alleged
damages from the cable?
Whether Comcast and Florida Sol Systems acted grossly negligent?
Whether Plaintiffs had existing business relationships with identifiable
customers?
Whether Plaintiffs had actual and identifiable agreements between
themselves?
Whether AME was ever destroyed due to the cable?
Whether AME operated at the Warehouse between July 2005 and
December 31, 2006?XX.
XXi.
xxii.
xxiii.
Xxiv.
XXV.
Xxvi.
xxvii.
XXViil.
Whether AME suffered any lost profits between October 24, 2005 and
December 31, 2013 as a result of the cable?
Whether J&J suffered any lost profits between October 24, 2005 to March
31, 2006 due to the cable?
Whether Warehouse 1050 suffered any lost profits between January 1,
2007 and December 31, 2013 as a result of the cable?
Whether Plaintiffs mitigated their damages?
Whether Plaintiffs installed a new roof on the warehouse at 1050 NW 21st
Street in January 2006?
Whether Plaintiffs paid $85,000 for the new roof that was installed on the
warehouse in January 2006?
Whether the City of Miami issued a final approval for the new roof that
was installed on the warehouse in January 2006?
Whether Comcast has at all relevant times had insurance coverage for
Plaintiffs’ claims?
Whether Comcast ever denied that it had coverage for Plaintiffs’ claims
or that it could not otherwise compensate Plaintiffs for any alleged
damages caused by Comcast?
Whether Helmsman Management Services, Inc., a separate division of
Liberty Mutual, is the third party administrator of third party claims for
Comcast that dealt with Plaintiffs’ claims of cable damage?
d. A statement of:
1. All matters requiring action by the Court:
i.
Comcast Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law and Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Comcast
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum
of Law.
. Comcast Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Special and
Punitive Damages and Incorporated Memorandum of Law and Plaintiffs’
Response in Opposition to Comcast Defendants’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on Special and Punitive Damages and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law.vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
XxX.
Substitute Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc.’s, Motion for Summary
Judgment to Plaintiffs’ Revised Fifth Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs’
Response in Opposition to Substitute Defendant, Florida Sol Systems,
Inc.’s, Motion for Summary Judgment to Plaintiffs’ Revised Fifth Amended
Complaint.
Comcast and Florida Sol Systems, Inc.’s Joint Motion to Sever and Stay
Cross-Claims for Indemnification.
[If Cross-Claim is not severed, Comcast’s Motion for Summary Judgment
on its Cross-Claims Against Florida Sol Systems, Inc. and Florida Sol Corp.
and Defendant Florida Sol Systems, Inc.'s Response in Opposition to
Comcast's Motion for Summary Judgment, to be filed.]
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Contradicting Comcast’s
Ownership of the Subject Cable, to be filed.
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Contradicting Marna
Salimena and Don Beaman’s Status as Comcast’s Corporate
Representatives, to be filed.
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence regarding Elan Feldman’s
Insurance Coverage, to be filed.
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Regarding Watercool
Manufacturing, Inc., Coldflow Manufacturing, Inc., Coldflow Inc. and AC
Manufacturing, to be filed.
Comcast’s Motions in Limine, to be filed.
Florida Sol Systems, Inc.'s Motions in Limine, to be filed.
2. Legal and evidentiary issues likely to arise at trial:
i.
iii.
Whether Comcast committed a trespass by allowing the cable to remain on
Plaintiff's property after being asked to remove it.
. Whether Comcast was negligent in allowing the cable to remain on
Plaintiff's property after being asked to remove it.
Whether Florida Sol Systems, Inc. committed a trespass in installing the
cable
Whether Florida Sol Systems, Inc. was negligent in installing the cable.
10e
v. Whether Comcast is vicariously liable for the alleged trespass of Florida
Sol.
vi. Whether Comcast is vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of Florida
Sol.
vii. Whether lost profits is the proper measure of damages for AME?
viii. Whether Plaintiffs mitigated these damages?
A list_of witnesses that each party reasonable anticipates will be called to
testify at trial, testimony expected to be presented by way of deposition only.
whether any witnesses will be using an interpreter, and any problems with
witness availability during trial:
The following is attached hereto:
1. Plaintiffs’ Witness List (Exhibit F)
2. Defendant, Comcast’s, Witness List (Exhibit G)
3. Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc. Witness List, to be filed separately.
A list of all exhibits and demonstrative Those exhibits and aids the
parties agree are admissible or acceptable for_use at trial shall be marked
with an asterisk:
The following is attached hereto:
1. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit List (Exhibit H)
2. Defendant, Comcast’s, Exhibit List (Exhibit I)
3. Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc. Exhibit List, to be filed separately.
4. Plaintiffs currently intend to use the following demonstrative exhibits at
trial:
Timeline
Google earth images
Blow ups of deposition testimony
Blow ups of statutes and ordinances
Blow ups of exhibits
i
5. Comcast and Florida Sol Systems currently intend to use the following
demonstrative exhibits at trial:
11Timeline
Google earth images
Graphic of authorized cable installation
Blow ups of deposition testimony, statutes and ordinances, and
exhibits
ae oe
g. An indication of party that will be securing the court reporter, if any:
The parties have agreed that Comcast will secure the court reporter.
h. A statement of any designations which need to be addressed by the Court
prior to trial:
1. Plaintiffs’ Deposition Designations (Exhibit J)
2. Defendant, Comcast’s, Deposition Designations, to be filed separately.
3. Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc. Deposition Designations, to be filed
separately.
Undersigned counsel certify that they have conferred regarding the above Joint
Pretrial Stipulation, that they have shown each other all exhibits intended for use at trial,
advised each other of which witnesses each may be presenting live or through prior
videotape or deposition transcripts, identified specifically the portions of the prior
testimony each intend to present, and discussed any objections they have to the prior
testimony.
Dated: October 24, 2014
Miami, Florida
12Respectfully submitted,
WHITE & CASE LLP
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite
4900
Miami, Florida 33131-2352
adaker@whitecase.com
jbianchi@whitecase.com
lorozco@whitecase.com
By:/4s/Angela D. Daker
ANGELA D. DAKER, ESQ.
Fla. Bar No. 681571
PEREZ & RODRIGUEZ, P.A.
95 Merrick Way, Suite 610
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Iperez@prmiamilaw.com
service(a prmiamilaw.com
ygomez@prmiamilaw.com
cgamez(a prmiamilaw com
By:/s/ Luis N. Perez
LUIS N. PEREZ, ESQ.
Fla. Bar No. 438685
13
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower — Suite 2300
2 South Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, Florida 33131
jforeman@fflegal.com
gelder@fflegal.com
By:/s/ Gregory R. Elder
GREGORY R. ELDER, ESQ.
Fla. Bar No. 54006Filing # 15975302 Electronically Filed 07/16/2014 12:45:37 PM
WAREHOUSE 1050 CORP.,
JAND J REFRIGERATION SUPPLY,
INC., and AME MANUFACTURING
CORP.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FLORIDA SOL CORP., COMCAST
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
HOLDINGS, INC., COMCAST CABLE
HOLDINGS, LLC, COMCAST OF
MIAMI, INC., n/k/a COMCAST OF
CALIFORNIA/ COLORADO/
FLORIDA/OREGON, INC. AND JOHN
& JANE DOES 1-100.
Defendants.
IN THE CIRCUIT OF THE 11"
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FORMIAMI-DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 09-36802 CA 11
/
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
With Jury Demand
Plaintiffs, WAREHOUSE 1050 CORP., J AND J REFRIGERATION SUPPLY, INC., and
AME MANUFACTURING CORP. (sometimes collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”),
pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules governing practices in
and for Miami-Dade Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, hereby sues Defendants,
FLORIDA SOL, CORP., COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC.,
COMCAST CABLE HOLDINGS, LLC, COMCAST OF MIAMI,INC.,
n/k/a
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077 EXHIBIT
nA"COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA/COLORADO/FLORIDA/OREGON,INC.
AND JANE AND JOHN DOES 1-100(sometimes collectively
referred to as “Defendants”), and alleges:
JURISDICTION _AND VENUE
1. This is an action for damages that exceeds the sum of Fifteen Thousand and
00/100 Dollars ($15,000.00) and is within the jurisdiction of this Court.
2. At all times material hereto, WAREHOUSE 1050 CORP. is a Florida
corporation authorized to do business in Florida and in fact, is doing business in Miami-
Dade County, Florida.
3. At all times material hereto, J AND J REFRIGERATION SUPPLY, INC.
(hereinafter referred to as "J & J") is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in
Florida and in fact, is doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
4. At all times material hereto. AME MANUFACTURING CORP.
(hereinafter referred to as “AME MFG"), is a Florida corporation authorized to do business
in Florida and in fact, is doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
5. At all times material hereto, FLORIDA SOL CORP. (hereinafter
sometimes referred to as "Subcontractor") is a Florida dissolved corporation which at all
material times was authorized to do business in Florida and in fact, did business in Miami-
Dade County, Florida and is otherwise sui juris.
6. At all times material hereto, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
HOLDINGS, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "Cablevision Company 1") was a Delaware
corporation authorized to do business in Florida and in fact, is doing business in Miami-
Dade County, Florida and is otherwise suijuris.
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-90777. At all times material hereto, COMCAST CABLE HOLDINGS, LLC.
(hereinafter referred to as "Cablevision Company 2") is a Delaware corporation authorized
to do business in Florida and in fact, is doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida and
is otherwise sui juris.
8. At all times material hereto, Comcast of Miami, Inc., n/k/a Comcast of
California/Colorado/Florida/Oregon, Inc. did business in Florida and in fact, is doing
business in Miami-Dade County, Florida and is otherwise sui juris. On or about October 9,
2009, the Court entered an order substituting Comcast of Miami, Inc. for John Doe 2. On
or about December 20, 2012, Comcast of Miami, Inc. merged into and became known as
Comeast of California/Colorado/Florida/Oregon, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as
“Cablevision Company 3”).
9. At all times material hereto, John and Jane Does 1-100 were authorized to do
business in Florida and in fact, were doing business in Miami-Dade County and were otherwise
sui juris.
10. This cause of action arose in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
11. All conditions precedent, if any, to the institution of this action, have been
performed, occurred, or been waived.
12. Due to Defendants' actions, as set forth herein, Plaintiffs have been required to
retain counsel and are obligated to pay its attorneys reasonable fees for their services.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
13. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-adopt paragraphs 1 through and including 12 as though
fully set forth herein.
14. Warehouse 1050 Corp. owns a warehouse located at 1050 N.W. 21" Street,
Miami, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises").
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-907715. | Warehouse 1050 leased the Premises to J & J and AME MFG. J & J occupied
the bottom floor of the offices and AME MFG occupied the top floor of the offices.
16. On or about June, 2005, one Walter Williams had cable(s) and/or broad
broadband installed and attached to his property. These cable(s) and/or broadband, hereafter
collectively referred to as "Subject Cable(s)," were owned by Cablevision Company 1,
Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3, and were installed by a Subcontractor
to Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, named
FLORIDA SOL, CORP. FLORIDA SOL, CORP. ran the "Subject Cable(s)" from a Florida
Power & Light Company pole, located about 300 feet from the left side of Plaintiff,
WAREHOUSE 1050, CORP's property and/or the place of business(es) of Plaintiffs J & J.
and AME MFG.
17. FLORIDA SOL, CORP. placed the cable(s) across Plaintiffs’ property and/or
place of business(es) for approximately 150 feet, and then ran the cable to a property
owned by WALTER J. WILLIAMS, where the "Subject Cable(s)" end with a connection to
the William's property. In making such connection to Williams' property, the Defendants
installed the Subject Cable(s), so that the Subject Cable(s) lay unsecured on the roof of
Plaintiffs' property and/or place of business(es), and these were negligently placed there by
FLORIDA SOL, CORP., in such a manner that the Subject Cable(s) would easily be moved
by wind, rain and/or the like, with the foreseeable potential hazard, being damage and/or
harm to Plaintiffs’ property and/or place of business(es) and/or their business and/or
employees and/or independent contractors.
18. During the summer heat, the "Subject Cable(s)," meshed with the wire and
roof, sinking into the tar that was pre-existing on the roof of Plaintiffs’ building, causing
damage to Plaintiffs' roof in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this tribunal.
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077a. The Subject Cable(s) were owned by Defendant Cablevision Company 1,
Defendant Cablevision Company 2 and Defendant Cablevision Company 3 and supported on
one side by Florida Power Light’s (hereinafter referred to as “FPL”) pole and the
other side by Walter Williams' property.
b. The purpose of the Subject Cable(s) was to provide cablevision to Walter
Williams' property, which is located as a neighboring property to the property of Plaintiff
and/or the business(es) of Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' respective place(s) of business.
19. Plaintiff, Warehouse 1050 Corp. tried to mitigate damages to the Plaintiffs by
calling the police and reporting the incident. However, when Plaintiff, Warehouse 1050 Corp.
told the police that to help mitigate the damage, that it was going to remove or have the Subject
Cable(s) and/or wire removed, the police advised Plaintiff, Warehouse 1050 Corp., that it could
not remove same because of a state statute that prohibited the taking down of the wire or
Subject Cable(s).
20. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3
informed Warehouse 1050 Corp that Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2 and
Cablevision Company 3 would be responsible to make the subject repair and incur the expense
for same, but for them to do this, they instructed Warehouse 1050 Corp to first file a claim with
Cablevision Company 1’s, Cablevision Company 2's and Cablevision Company 3’s_ liability
insurance carrier (a carrier specifically identified to Warehouse 1050 Corp by Cablevision
Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3) and advised that by doing so
the damage would be promptly repaired and paid by that carrier on behalf of Cablevision
Company | and Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3 with no work or money
required by Warehouse 1050 Corp.
21. Warehouse 1050 Corp. diligently followed the directive of Cablevision
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077Company 1, Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3 and made the requisite claim
with their alleged liability insurance carrier in accordance with the instruction of Cablevision
Company 1, Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3. As Warehouse 1050 Corp
would subsequently be informed however, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2,
and Cablevision Company 3 did not actually maintain a liability insurance policy with the
subject carrier that could provide coverage for this incident and hence there was no coverage to
be provided, nor any correction of the damage, nor any payment for same by or on behalf of
Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, or Cablevision Company 3, nor by any
insurance carrier on behalf of either Cablevision entity.
22. Inthe interim, during this very short period of time, Hurricane Katrina hit South
Florida (late August, 2005) bringing with her significant rain and/or wind. Warehouse 1050
Corp's roof, already weakened and vulnerable because of the failure of Cablevision Company 1,
Cablevision Company 2, and/or Cablevision Company 3 to perform following their
acknowledgment of responsibility and agreement to undertake the prompt repair, and therefore
despite assurances that Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, and/or Cablevision
Company 3 would promptly correct the damage via their (non-existent coverage for same)
insurance carrier, without the resolution of the damage in advance of the storm, further damage
occurred to Warehouse 1050 Carp's roof and to the subject business(es) of Plaintiffs.
23. But for the pre-existing weakened state of the roof on Warehouse 1050 Corp.'s
structure caused by the Subject Cable(s), the resulting storm damage would not have occurred
from Hurricane Katrine, but specifically because of the condition to the subject roof that was
allowed to stand without action by the procrastination and misdirection of Cablevision Company
1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and Cablevision Company 3, additional
damage was done to the roof and/or building structure and/or integrity of the subject Plaintiffs’
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077building by Hurricane Katrina and this resulted in damages to Plaintiffs’ business(es).
24. Continued fervent efforts by Warehouse 1050 Corp to have Cablevision
Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, and Cablevision Company 3 repair and/or pay for the
damage attributed to the Subject Cable(s) ensued. But while Cablevision Company 1,
Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3 spoke one thing, their words were belied
by their inaction and procrastination.
25. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, and Cablevision Company 3
continued in their pattern of stringing along Plaintiff, Warehouse 1050 Corp. which caused
additional hardship to Plaintiffs.
26. In the interim, a second hurricane, this one mightier than the first, and named
Hurricane Wilma, hit South Florida in October, 2005 and with it bringing even more rain and
wind.
27. But for the pre-existing weakened state of the roof to Warehouse 1050 Corp.'s
structure caused by the Subject Cable(s) and now coupled with the additional damage caused
by Hurricane Katrina; there would have been no damage to Plaintiffs’ building from
Hurricane Wilma; but specifically because of the condition to the subject roof that was
allowed to stand due to inaction and/or procrastination and/or misdirection by Cablevision
Company 1, Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3, additional damage was
done to the roof and/or building structure and/or integrity of the building and to the
business(es) of Plaintiffs by Hurricane Wilma.
28. A survey of the additional damage that followed Hurricane Wilma, which
included but was not limited to: rain seeping into the warehouse causing immense damage
to the roof and causing damage to the offices being leased by the other two Plaintiff entities,
namely J & J and AME Mfg.
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-907729. Specifically, J & J and AME Mfg had considerable office equipment and
important documentation at the subject location, which were destroyed because of the rain
coming into the warehouse as a result of Defendants’ Subject Cable(s) and the subsequent
procrastination and/or misinformation and/or inaction by Cablevision Company 1 and/or
Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3.
30. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, and/or Cablevision
Company 3 are authorized by the State of Florida, Miami-Dade County and/or City of
Miami to provide cablevision to residences and places of business, of residents of and/or
businesses that reside in the State of Florida and/or Miami-Dade County and/or the City of
Miami.
31. Because of all of Defendants' actions and/or inactions, Plaintiffs suffered
damages in excess of the jurisdiction limits of this court.
COUNT I- TRESPASS
As To Defendants, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision
Company 3, Subcontractor and/or John & Jane Does 1-100
32. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-adopt paragraphs 1 through and including 31 as
though fully set forth herein.
33, Under the direction and/or request for Cable, made by Walter Williams to the
Defendants Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, and Cablevision Company
3, Subcontractor and/or John & Jane Does 1-100 caused, with the assistance of FPL and/or
John & Jane Does 1-100, via use of the FPL pole(s), the Subject Cable(s) were extended
from the subject FPL pole and placed to lay unsecured on the roof of Plaintiffs’ building
and/or place of business, resulting in a trespass to Warehouse 1050 Corp.'s property and/or
to the Plaintiffs’ property rights and/or to the Plaintiffs' business(es) rights.
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-907734, Plaintiffs did not consent to having the Subject Cable(s) laid unsecured
and/or otherwise placed and/or run across or over the roof on or over Plaintiffs’ building
and/or business. If there were a theory of implied consent, if any, that could be raised by
Defendant(s) and alleged to have been given by Plaintiff(s) by Plaintiff(s) not previously
objecting to the existence of the cables laying unsecured on its roof, such implied consent
was withdrawn upon obtaining the damage.
35. Defendants Williams, Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision
Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100 remained as
trespassers, intruding upon Plaintiffs' property rights, for the exclusive purpose(s) and
convenience(s) of Defendants, in order to benefit Defendants.
36. As a result of Defendants, Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1,
Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and and/or John & Jane Does 1-100's
trespass, Plaintiff(s) suffered damages as described above, in excess of the jurisdictional
limits of this court.
37. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and
John & Jane Does 1-100's knew that the cable was installed on the subject roof as early as
2005, and were advised by Plaintiffs of the existence of the cable on the subject roof in July
2005.
38. In July 2005, Plaintiffs demanded of Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision
Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100's that they immediately
remove the cable from the subject roof.
39. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and
John & Jane Does 1-100's initially represented to Plaintiffs that the cable was not their cable
and that the cable was installed illegally by “cable pirates” and that it was a theft of their cable
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077services; and that they would not remove the cable.
40. Said representations were false, and when Plaintiffs discovered the falsity of
said representations, Plaintiffs filed a police report with the City of Miami Police. Cablevision
Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100's
still refused and failed to remove the cable.
41. In late July 2005, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2,
Cablevision Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100's admitted that the cable on Plaintiffs’
roof had not been installed by “pirates”, that it was, in fact, installed by its Subcontractor on
Plaintiffs’ roof; and that it was unlawfully trespassing on Plaintiffs’ roof. Cablevision
Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and John & Jane Does 1-100's
still refused to remove its cable.
42. Plaintiffs then filed multiple complaints with various governmental entities,
asking that they assist in compelling Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2,
Cablevision Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100's to remove the cable. Cablevision
Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and John & Jane Does 1-100's
still refused to remove the cable.
43. Finally, in February 2006, in response to Plaintiffs’ complaint to then Governor
Jeb Bush, and to Miami-Dade County, the cable was removed from Plaintiffs’ roof. However,
Plaintiffs’ Premises and their business had already been severely damaged during the seven (7)
plus months from when Plaintiffs first discovered the cable on their roof and demanded of
Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and John & Jane
Does 1-100's, that it be immediately removed.
44. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and
John & Jane Does 1-100's trespass constituted intentional misconduct in that Cablevision
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100,
had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of their conduct and the high probability that
damage to Plaintiffs would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued a course
of conduct of denial, delay, and refusal to remove the cable, resulting in the aforesaid damages
to Plaintiffs. Further, Cablevision Company1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company
3 and John Does & Jane Does 1-100, had a specific intent to harm Plaintiffs and did harm
Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of their trespass and aforesaid conduct.
45, Alternatively, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision
Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100 were grossly negligent in their trespass, in that their
conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or
indifference to the life, safety or rights of Plaintiffs exposed to such conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants,
Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, Subcontractor,
John and Jane Does 1-100, for damages and punitive damages, and reserve on
moving for attorneys fees and/or costs against Cablevision Company 1,
Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and any other relief this Court
deems just and proper.
COUNT Il- TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE
As To Defendants Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2,
Cablevision Company 3, Subcontractor, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100.
46. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-adopt paragraphs | through and including 31 as
though fully set forth herein.
47. Warehouse 1050 Corp. leases its warehouse to J & J and AME Mfg. J& J
and AME Mfg conduct business in the leased premises. Hence, the relationship that exists
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077between and/or among Warehouse 1050 Corp. and J & J and AME Mfg is that of a
business relationship(s).
48. Further the relationship between J & J and/or AME and each of their
respective customers is a business relationship.
49. In the summer of 2005, Defendants, Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1,
Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100 had
knowledge of Plaintiff(s)' existing property rights and/or business relationship(s).
50. By virtue of the acts specified above, Defendants Subcontractor, Cablevision
Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-
100, allowed the Subject Cable(s), from which each had a benefit, to interfere with
Plaintiff(s)' property rights and/or business relationships as described above respectively,
which interference was without justification.
51. Defendants Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2,
Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, allowed the Subject Cable(s),
from which each had a benefit, to remain in an intentionally untended to condition, despite
these Defendants being on notice of the damage(s) and/or ongoing damage(s) that were
foreseeable, and/or that were being occasioned by the Subject Cable(s), and these
Defendants intentionally permitted the condition to remain and the interference with
business relationships of the Plaintiffs, and thus these Defendants intentionally and
unjustifiably permitted damage and ongoing damage to be caused to the business(es) and/or
business relationships of Plaintiffs.
52. Warehouse 1050 Carp's business relationship with Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs’
business relationship(s) with its customers was interfered with by the Defendants,
Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3,
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, failing to promptly undertake the repair and expense of
repair concerning the roof of the Plaintiff(s') Premises, despite notice that said damage was
foreseeable and impacting Plaintiff(s') ability to conduct business.
53. Additionally, Defendants Subcontractor, Cablevision Cablevision Company
1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, were
aware at all relevant times that hurricanes were to hit the Miami-Dade County area and that
in fact hurricanes did hit the Miami-Dade County area, causing additional damage to the
property of Plaintiffs, and further negatively impacting Plaintiff Warehouse 1050 Corp's
ability to conduct business with Co-Plaintiffs, and in addition the ability of Co-Plaintiffs J
& Jand AME Mfg. to conduct business with its customers.
54, As a result of Defendants, Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1,
Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100,
intentional interference with Plaintiffs' business relationships with its customers, Plaintiffs
suffered damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court as described above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in its favor and against Defendants,
Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3,
and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, for damages, and reserve on moving for attorneys fees
and/or costs, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT III- FRAUD
As to Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2,
Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100
55. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-adopt paragraphs 1 through and including 31 as
though fully set forth herein.
56. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, misrepresented that they carried and maintained liability
insurance that would cover the subject incident and that said liability insurance company
would promptly arrange for repairs and/or promptly pay for repairs of the damage to the
roof caused by the Subject Cable(s).
57. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3
and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, knew at the time that they made the representations and/or
omissions and/or misrepresentations to Plaintiff(s), that said representations and/or
omissions and/or misrepresentations were false, as neither Cablevision Company 1,
Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, nor John & Jane Does 1-100, maintained
liability insurance that would cover the damage caused by the Subject Cable(s).
58. It was Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company
3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100's intention(s) that their representations and/or omissions
and/or misrepresentations would induce Plaintiff(s) to essentially cause Plaintiff(s) to go on
a "fishing expedition" by trying to file a claim with a liability insurance company which did
not provide coverage to Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision
Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, for the subject incident(s), for which
Plaintiff(s) were asserting a claim against Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2,
Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100.
59. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3
and/or John & Jane Does 1-100 knew all along that they did not have the coverage that they
represented to Plaintiff(s) that they allegedly had, and that the manner in which they were
allegedly "addressing" the concerns of Plaintiff(s) was deliberately calculated to cause
delay, frustration and to be nothing more than an exercise in futility and all the while
allowing the subject damage to go without mitigation.
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-907760. Plaintiff(s) were led down the primrose path by Cablevision Company 1,
Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, and
Plaintiff(s) diligently went down that path on the subject "fishing expedition" to which they
were duped into following, but only to ultimately be run in circles and then find out that
there was in fact no insurance coverage via Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company
2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, which would provide coverage
for the subject incident and damage caused to Plaintiff(s) by the Subject Cable(s).
61. The additional and wasted time expended by Plaintiff(s) in being led astray
by Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John &
Jane Does 1-100, on the subject "fishing expedition" for the non- existent coverage for the
subject incident and/or damage, was choreographed by Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision
Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, with the desire that
Plaintiff(s) be delayed and/or stonewalled in their pursuit, and just give up. But the delay
caused by the improper, inexcusable and intentional delay and stonewalling and fraudulent
tactics of Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or
John & Jane Does 1-100, resulted in further foreseeable damage to Plaintiff(s) property
and/or business(es) because the damage was not being timely mitigated, and deliberately
allowed and/or positioned to remain as an ongoing un-rectified problem, exposed to the
elements during hurricane season in South Florida.
62. Hence when Hurricanes Katrina and then on its heals Wilma arrived in the
short interim that followed, they were able to compound the original damages which
resulted from Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 's
and/or John & Jane Does 1-100's Subject Cable(s) actions. The roof damage caused by the
"subject cable(s)", was left exposed, during the time of the subject "fishing expedition" as
FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077set forth above, and then with the arrival of Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, the damage
caused by the Subject Cable(s), compounded exponentially.
63. Plaintiffs suffered damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court
as a result of Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3,
Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100's deliberate and intentional and
fraudulent representations and/or omissions and/or misrepresentations, which Cablevision
Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-
100, knew or should have known would lead to inaction on the Part of Plaintiff(s), and thus
allowing to cause the damage from the Subject Cable(s) to compound exponentially.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in its favor and against Defendants,
Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John &
Jane Does 1-100, for damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, and reserve
on moving for attorneys fees and/or costs, and any other relief this Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT IV NEGLIGENCE
As to Defendants Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2,
Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100
64. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-adopt paragraphs 1 through and including 31 as
though fully set forth herein.
65, Defendants, Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2,
Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, had a duty to use reasonable care,
to ensure that their installation of the Subject Cable(s), which these Defendants caused to
be placed, so that t
Preview
Filing # 19810639 Electronically Filed 10/24/2014 06:23:19 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11™ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 09-36802 CA 11 WAREHOUSE 1050 CORP., J AND J REFRIGERATION SUPPLY, INC., and AME MANUFACTURING CORP., Plaintiff, vs. FLORIDA SOL CORP., COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC., COMCAST CABLE HOLDINGS, LLC, COMCAST OF MIAMI, INC., n/k/a COMCAST OFCALIFORNIA/COLORADO/FLORIDA/ OREGON, INC. and JOHN & JANE DOES 1-100 Defendants. / JOINT PRETRIAL STIPULATION Plaintiffs, WAREHOUSE 1050 CORP., J AND J REFRIFERATION SUPPLY, INC., and AME MANUFACTURING CORP. (collectively “Plaintiffs”), and Defendants, FLORIDA SOL, CORP., COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC., COMCAST CABLE HOLDINGS, LLC, COMCAST OF MIAMI, INC., n/k/a COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA/COLORADO/FLORIDA/OREGON, INC. (collectively “Comeast”) and JANE AND JOHN DOES 1-100, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, and pursuant to this Court’s March 25, 2014 Order on Case Management Conference, Mediation and Setting Jury Trial, submit the following Joint Pretrial Stipulation:a. A concise statement of the case agreed to by the parties which the Court will read to the jury during voir dire: Plaintiffs’ statement of the case: Plaintiffs claim that Florida Sol Systems, Inc. laid a cable across their roof, pursuant to a contract between Florida Sol Systems and the Comcast defendants, in order to provide Comcast cable service to a neighboring property; that the cable caused damage to Plaintiffs’ roof; and Plaintiff demanded that Comcast remove the cable in July of 2005, which it did not do for over five (5) months; and that Plaintiff sustained substantial additional damage during that five month period. Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc, denies that it laid the cable across Plaintiffs’ roof and denies that it is liable to the Plaintiffs for any of their claims. The Comcast defendants deny ownership of the cable, deny that they are liable for anything that Florida Sol Systems is alleged to have done, and deny that they are liable for any of Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants, Comcast and Florida Sol Systems’ Statement of the case: Welcome. I will now administer your oath. Now that you have been sworn, I’d like to give you an idea about what we are here to do. This is a civil trial. A civil trial is different from a criminal case, where a defendant is charged by the state prosecutor with committing a crime. The subject of a civil trial is a disagreement between people or companies, where the claims of one or more of these parties have been brought to court to be resolved. It is called “a trial of a lawsuit.”This case centers on a cable that laid above the roof of a warehouse located at 1050 NW 21st Street, Miami, Florida (the “Warehouse”). Plaintiff Warehouse 1050 Corp. (“Warehouse 1050”) is the alleged owner of the Warehouse; Plaintiffs J&J Refrigeration (“J&J”) and AME Manufacturing Corp. (“AME”) are alleged tenants of the Warehouse. Plaintiff AME is in the business of manufacturing commercial and residential air conditioning equipment. Plaintiff J&J sells commercial and residential refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. Elan Feldman is the primary owner of Warehouse 1050 and J&J, and Albert Zilberstein is the primary owner of AME. Plaintiffs contend — that is, they say, that Mr. Feldman discovered the cable above the roof of the Warehouse in July 2005. No one saw the cable being laid. Plaintiffs claim that Florida Sol Systems, a former subcontractor for Comcast, placed the cable over the Warehouse roof in 2004 when Florida Sol Systems was installing cable at a restaurant located behind the Warehouse on NW 20th Street. Plaintiffs claim that this cable became embedded in the Warehouse roof and caused damage to the roof. They further allege that after Hurricane Wilma in October 2005, the roof was further damaged by the cable which caused water leaks that damaged property inside the Warehouse. Plaintiffs further contend that these leaks ultimately caused financial damage to Plaintiffs’ businesses. Plaintiff AME claims that it was destroyed as a result of the leaks, and thus suffered economic losses from 2005 to 2013. Plaintiff J&J claims that it suffered a loss in profits between October 2005 and March 2006 as a result of the leaks. And Plaintiff Warehouse 1050 claims that it suffered lost rents from AME between 2007 and 2013 as a result of the leaks. Plaintiffs also claim that Comcast did not haveinsurance that would cover the damages Plaintiffs allege the cable caused to the Warehouse. Plaintiffs Warehouse 1050, J&J and AME argue that Comcast and Florida Sol are responsible for the placement of the cable and the damage they allege resulted from the cable. They have brought Plaintiffs have brought four claims against Comcast and Florida Sol for trespass, tortious interference with business relationships, fraud, and negligence. Comcast and Florida Sol Systems deny all of these allegations. Florida Sol Systems denies ever laying the cable over the Warehouse roof, and argues that the cable was already over the Warehouse when its employees went to the neighboring Mexican restaurant in June 2004 pursuant to a work order from Comcast. Florida Sol further argues that it only performed a reconnection of cable service at the restaurant, and did not install the cable. Comcast denies authorizing or directing Florida Sol Systems or anyone else to lay a cable across the Warehouse roof at any time, and argues that it did not know that the cable ran across the Warehouse roof until Mr. Feldman informed them of it in July 2005. Comcast further argues that, in August 2005, despite not knowing how the cable came to be placed on the roof, it offered Mr. Feldman $49,433 to repair the Warehouse roof, and Mr. Feldman rejected that offer. Comcast also argues that had Mr. Feldman accepted that offer in August 2005, and repaired all then-existing roof damage, any additional damage from Hurricane Wilma to the Warehouse roof could not even arguably have been the result of the cable. Comcast further argues that Mr. Feldman was initially concerned only with obtaining money and did not expressly request that the cable be removed untilJanuary/February 2006, which is when the cable was removed. Comcast also argues that over the years it kept offering Mr. Feldman various amounts to address the damages he claimed were caused by the cable, but Mr. Feldman rejected all of those offers and kept seeking more and more money. Comcast argues that it did have insurance that would cover any claims by Plaintiffs as to the alleged damage to the Warehouse roof, and whether or not it had insurance is irrelevant. Both Comcast and Florida Sol Systems maintain that the cable could not and did not cause the damage to the roof that Plaintiffs’ claim. They maintain that Plaintiffs’ businesses did not suffer economic damages as a result of the cable. More specifically, they maintain that AME could not have been destroyed due to the alleged roof leaks at the Warehouse after July 2005 because AME ceased operating at the Warehouse in April 2005, before any of the alleged damage to the Warehouse. They further maintain that J&J made more profits during the year Plaintiffs allege it suffered losses than it did the year before and the year after. Finally, Comcast and Florida Sol Systems maintain that Warehouse 1050 could not have suffered any lost rents from AME due to the alleged leaks after July 2005 because AME relocated its business operations from the Warehouse before the leaks ever even occurred. [IF CROSS-CLAIM NOT SEVERED Finally, while Comcast argues that both it and Florida Sol Systems were not involved in the laying of the cable above and across the Warehouse roof, Comcast nonetheless has brought claims against Florida Sol Systems for indemnification. With respect to these claims, Comcast alleges that pursuant to its contract with Florida Sol Systems, Florida Sol Systems has a duty to pay for the costs of Comcast’s defense in this action and to reimburse Comcast for any amounts that the juryfinds Comcast owes Plaintiffs in this case. Florida Sol Systems denies that it has a duty to pay for the costs of Comcast’s defense in this action or to reimburse Comcast for any amounts that the jury awards to Plaintiffs in this case. ] b. A copy of the pleadings upon which the case will go to trial (i.e. complaint, counterclaim, etc.): The following pleadings are attached hereto: 1. Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint (Exhibit A) 2. Comeast Defendants’ Answer to Fifth Amended Complaint and Cross-Claim Against Florida Sol Corp. and Florida Sol Systems, Inc. (Exhibit B) 3. Cross-Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc.’s, as Substitute Party for John Doe # 1,Answer and Affirmative Defense to Cross-Plaintiff Comcast’s Cross- Claim (Exhibit C) 4. Comcast Defendants’ Reply to Cross-Defendant Florida Sol Systems, Inc.’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Exhibit D) 5. Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc.’s, as Substitute Party for John Doe # 1, Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint (Exhibit E) c. A statement of: 1. Facts admitted by the parties: i. Plaintiff, WAREHOUSE 1050 CORP., owns real property, a warehouse, located at 1050 N.W. 21" Street, Miami, Florida, 33127. ii. Defendant, FLORIDA SOL CORP. is a Florida dissolved corporation which at all material times was authorized to do business in Florida and, in fact, did business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. iii. Defendant, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC. is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida and, in fact, is doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida iv. Defendant, COMCAST CABLE HOLDINGS, LLC. (hereinafter referred to as "Cablevision Company 2") is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida and in fact, is doing business in Miami-Dade County, Floridavi. vii. viii. xi. xii, xili. xiv. XV. xvi. xvii. Defendant, COMCAST OF MIAMI, INC., n/k/a COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA/ COLORADO/ FLORIDA/ OREGON, INC. did business in Florida, and in fact, is doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. In June 2004, Florida Sol Systems, Inc. was a subcontractor for Comcast. On June 1, 2003, Florida Sol Systems, Inc. and Comcast entered into a Master Construction Agreement. The Master Construction Agreement between Florida Sol Systems, Inc. and Comcast provided that Florida Sol Systems, Inc. would install and disconnect cable services in Miami-Dade and Broward counties as directed by Comcast. On June 1, 2004, Comcast issued a work order directing Florida Sol to install cable at 1025 N.W. 20" Street, Miami, Florida 33127. From at least June 2, 2004 through January or February of 2006, a cable ran from the pole in the swale area in front of 1050 N.W. 21™ Street, Miami, Florida 33127, over the sidewalk, and then over the roof of 1050 N.W. 21 Street, Miami, Florida 33127 to the neighboring building at 1025 N.W. 20" Street, Miami, Florida 33127. In July of 2005, Plaintiffs became aware of the cable. In July of 2005, Comcast became aware of the cable from Plaintiffs. Hurricane Katrina passed through South Florida on August 26, 2005. Hurricane Rita passed through South Florida on September 22, 2005. Hurricane Wilma passed through South Florida on October 24, 2005. In January or February of 2006, Comcast removed the cable from Plaintiff's roof. On or about December 20, 2012, Comcast of Miami, Inc. merged int and became known as Comcast of California/ Colorado/ Florida/ Oregon, Inc. 2. Factual issues remaining to be litigated: i. Whether AME and J&J were tenants of Warehouse 1050 between July 2005 and December 31, 2006?ii. iii. vi. vii. viii. xi. xii. xiii. xiv. XV. Xvi. xvii. xviil. xix. Who initially placed the cable over the roof of the warehouse? When was the cable initially placed over the roof of the warehouse? Whether the placement of the cable was authorized by Comcast? Whether Comcast directed or assumed actual control over the manner in which Florida Sol Systems performed its services at the Mexican restaurant? When Plaintiffs first became aware of the cable’? When Plaintiffs first requested that the cable be removed’? Whether Comcast agreed to remove the cable upon being notified of it. Whether the cable ever became embedded in the roof? Tf so, when the cable first became embedded in the roof? Whether the cable caused any damage to the roof between July 2005 and February 2006? Whether any roof damage caused any damages to Plaintiffs’ business operations? Whether the January 2006 roof was temporary or permanent? Whether Comcast had insurance that would cover claims related to alleged damages from the cable? Whether Comcast and Florida Sol Systems acted grossly negligent? Whether Plaintiffs had existing business relationships with identifiable customers? Whether Plaintiffs had actual and identifiable agreements between themselves? Whether AME was ever destroyed due to the cable? Whether AME operated at the Warehouse between July 2005 and December 31, 2006?XX. XXi. xxii. xxiii. Xxiv. XXV. Xxvi. xxvii. XXViil. Whether AME suffered any lost profits between October 24, 2005 and December 31, 2013 as a result of the cable? Whether J&J suffered any lost profits between October 24, 2005 to March 31, 2006 due to the cable? Whether Warehouse 1050 suffered any lost profits between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2013 as a result of the cable? Whether Plaintiffs mitigated their damages? Whether Plaintiffs installed a new roof on the warehouse at 1050 NW 21st Street in January 2006? Whether Plaintiffs paid $85,000 for the new roof that was installed on the warehouse in January 2006? Whether the City of Miami issued a final approval for the new roof that was installed on the warehouse in January 2006? Whether Comcast has at all relevant times had insurance coverage for Plaintiffs’ claims? Whether Comcast ever denied that it had coverage for Plaintiffs’ claims or that it could not otherwise compensate Plaintiffs for any alleged damages caused by Comcast? Whether Helmsman Management Services, Inc., a separate division of Liberty Mutual, is the third party administrator of third party claims for Comcast that dealt with Plaintiffs’ claims of cable damage? d. A statement of: 1. All matters requiring action by the Court: i. Comcast Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law and Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Comcast Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law. . Comcast Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Special and Punitive Damages and Incorporated Memorandum of Law and Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Comcast Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Special and Punitive Damages and Incorporated Memorandum of Law.vi. vii. viii. ix. XxX. Substitute Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc.’s, Motion for Summary Judgment to Plaintiffs’ Revised Fifth Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Substitute Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc.’s, Motion for Summary Judgment to Plaintiffs’ Revised Fifth Amended Complaint. Comcast and Florida Sol Systems, Inc.’s Joint Motion to Sever and Stay Cross-Claims for Indemnification. [If Cross-Claim is not severed, Comcast’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its Cross-Claims Against Florida Sol Systems, Inc. and Florida Sol Corp. and Defendant Florida Sol Systems, Inc.'s Response in Opposition to Comcast's Motion for Summary Judgment, to be filed.] Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Contradicting Comcast’s Ownership of the Subject Cable, to be filed. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Contradicting Marna Salimena and Don Beaman’s Status as Comcast’s Corporate Representatives, to be filed. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence regarding Elan Feldman’s Insurance Coverage, to be filed. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence Regarding Watercool Manufacturing, Inc., Coldflow Manufacturing, Inc., Coldflow Inc. and AC Manufacturing, to be filed. Comcast’s Motions in Limine, to be filed. Florida Sol Systems, Inc.'s Motions in Limine, to be filed. 2. Legal and evidentiary issues likely to arise at trial: i. iii. Whether Comcast committed a trespass by allowing the cable to remain on Plaintiff's property after being asked to remove it. . Whether Comcast was negligent in allowing the cable to remain on Plaintiff's property after being asked to remove it. Whether Florida Sol Systems, Inc. committed a trespass in installing the cable Whether Florida Sol Systems, Inc. was negligent in installing the cable. 10e v. Whether Comcast is vicariously liable for the alleged trespass of Florida Sol. vi. Whether Comcast is vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of Florida Sol. vii. Whether lost profits is the proper measure of damages for AME? viii. Whether Plaintiffs mitigated these damages? A list_of witnesses that each party reasonable anticipates will be called to testify at trial, testimony expected to be presented by way of deposition only. whether any witnesses will be using an interpreter, and any problems with witness availability during trial: The following is attached hereto: 1. Plaintiffs’ Witness List (Exhibit F) 2. Defendant, Comcast’s, Witness List (Exhibit G) 3. Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc. Witness List, to be filed separately. A list of all exhibits and demonstrative Those exhibits and aids the parties agree are admissible or acceptable for_use at trial shall be marked with an asterisk: The following is attached hereto: 1. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit List (Exhibit H) 2. Defendant, Comcast’s, Exhibit List (Exhibit I) 3. Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc. Exhibit List, to be filed separately. 4. Plaintiffs currently intend to use the following demonstrative exhibits at trial: Timeline Google earth images Blow ups of deposition testimony Blow ups of statutes and ordinances Blow ups of exhibits i 5. Comcast and Florida Sol Systems currently intend to use the following demonstrative exhibits at trial: 11Timeline Google earth images Graphic of authorized cable installation Blow ups of deposition testimony, statutes and ordinances, and exhibits ae oe g. An indication of party that will be securing the court reporter, if any: The parties have agreed that Comcast will secure the court reporter. h. A statement of any designations which need to be addressed by the Court prior to trial: 1. Plaintiffs’ Deposition Designations (Exhibit J) 2. Defendant, Comcast’s, Deposition Designations, to be filed separately. 3. Defendant, Florida Sol Systems, Inc. Deposition Designations, to be filed separately. Undersigned counsel certify that they have conferred regarding the above Joint Pretrial Stipulation, that they have shown each other all exhibits intended for use at trial, advised each other of which witnesses each may be presenting live or through prior videotape or deposition transcripts, identified specifically the portions of the prior testimony each intend to present, and discussed any objections they have to the prior testimony. Dated: October 24, 2014 Miami, Florida 12Respectfully submitted, WHITE & CASE LLP 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900 Miami, Florida 33131-2352 adaker@whitecase.com jbianchi@whitecase.com lorozco@whitecase.com By:/4s/Angela D. Daker ANGELA D. DAKER, ESQ. Fla. Bar No. 681571 PEREZ & RODRIGUEZ, P.A. 95 Merrick Way, Suite 610 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Iperez@prmiamilaw.com service(a prmiamilaw.com ygomez@prmiamilaw.com cgamez(a prmiamilaw com By:/s/ Luis N. Perez LUIS N. PEREZ, ESQ. Fla. Bar No. 438685 13 FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, P.A. One Biscayne Tower — Suite 2300 2 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33131 jforeman@fflegal.com gelder@fflegal.com By:/s/ Gregory R. Elder GREGORY R. ELDER, ESQ. Fla. Bar No. 54006Filing # 15975302 Electronically Filed 07/16/2014 12:45:37 PM WAREHOUSE 1050 CORP., JAND J REFRIGERATION SUPPLY, INC., and AME MANUFACTURING CORP., Plaintiffs, vs. FLORIDA SOL CORP., COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC., COMCAST CABLE HOLDINGS, LLC, COMCAST OF MIAMI, INC., n/k/a COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA/ COLORADO/ FLORIDA/OREGON, INC. AND JOHN & JANE DOES 1-100. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT OF THE 11" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FORMIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 09-36802 CA 11 / FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT With Jury Demand Plaintiffs, WAREHOUSE 1050 CORP., J AND J REFRIGERATION SUPPLY, INC., and AME MANUFACTURING CORP. (sometimes collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules governing practices in and for Miami-Dade Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Florida, hereby sues Defendants, FLORIDA SOL, CORP., COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC., COMCAST CABLE HOLDINGS, LLC, COMCAST OF MIAMI,INC., n/k/a FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077 EXHIBIT nA"COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA/COLORADO/FLORIDA/OREGON,INC. AND JANE AND JOHN DOES 1-100(sometimes collectively referred to as “Defendants”), and alleges: JURISDICTION _AND VENUE 1. This is an action for damages that exceeds the sum of Fifteen Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($15,000.00) and is within the jurisdiction of this Court. 2. At all times material hereto, WAREHOUSE 1050 CORP. is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in Florida and in fact, is doing business in Miami- Dade County, Florida. 3. At all times material hereto, J AND J REFRIGERATION SUPPLY, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "J & J") is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in Florida and in fact, is doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 4. At all times material hereto. AME MANUFACTURING CORP. (hereinafter referred to as “AME MFG"), is a Florida corporation authorized to do business in Florida and in fact, is doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 5. At all times material hereto, FLORIDA SOL CORP. (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Subcontractor") is a Florida dissolved corporation which at all material times was authorized to do business in Florida and in fact, did business in Miami- Dade County, Florida and is otherwise sui juris. 6. At all times material hereto, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "Cablevision Company 1") was a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida and in fact, is doing business in Miami- Dade County, Florida and is otherwise suijuris. FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-90777. At all times material hereto, COMCAST CABLE HOLDINGS, LLC. (hereinafter referred to as "Cablevision Company 2") is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in Florida and in fact, is doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida and is otherwise sui juris. 8. At all times material hereto, Comcast of Miami, Inc., n/k/a Comcast of California/Colorado/Florida/Oregon, Inc. did business in Florida and in fact, is doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida and is otherwise sui juris. On or about October 9, 2009, the Court entered an order substituting Comcast of Miami, Inc. for John Doe 2. On or about December 20, 2012, Comcast of Miami, Inc. merged into and became known as Comeast of California/Colorado/Florida/Oregon, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Cablevision Company 3”). 9. At all times material hereto, John and Jane Does 1-100 were authorized to do business in Florida and in fact, were doing business in Miami-Dade County and were otherwise sui juris. 10. This cause of action arose in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 11. All conditions precedent, if any, to the institution of this action, have been performed, occurred, or been waived. 12. Due to Defendants' actions, as set forth herein, Plaintiffs have been required to retain counsel and are obligated to pay its attorneys reasonable fees for their services. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 13. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-adopt paragraphs 1 through and including 12 as though fully set forth herein. 14. Warehouse 1050 Corp. owns a warehouse located at 1050 N.W. 21" Street, Miami, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"). FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-907715. | Warehouse 1050 leased the Premises to J & J and AME MFG. J & J occupied the bottom floor of the offices and AME MFG occupied the top floor of the offices. 16. On or about June, 2005, one Walter Williams had cable(s) and/or broad broadband installed and attached to his property. These cable(s) and/or broadband, hereafter collectively referred to as "Subject Cable(s)," were owned by Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3, and were installed by a Subcontractor to Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, named FLORIDA SOL, CORP. FLORIDA SOL, CORP. ran the "Subject Cable(s)" from a Florida Power & Light Company pole, located about 300 feet from the left side of Plaintiff, WAREHOUSE 1050, CORP's property and/or the place of business(es) of Plaintiffs J & J. and AME MFG. 17. FLORIDA SOL, CORP. placed the cable(s) across Plaintiffs’ property and/or place of business(es) for approximately 150 feet, and then ran the cable to a property owned by WALTER J. WILLIAMS, where the "Subject Cable(s)" end with a connection to the William's property. In making such connection to Williams' property, the Defendants installed the Subject Cable(s), so that the Subject Cable(s) lay unsecured on the roof of Plaintiffs' property and/or place of business(es), and these were negligently placed there by FLORIDA SOL, CORP., in such a manner that the Subject Cable(s) would easily be moved by wind, rain and/or the like, with the foreseeable potential hazard, being damage and/or harm to Plaintiffs’ property and/or place of business(es) and/or their business and/or employees and/or independent contractors. 18. During the summer heat, the "Subject Cable(s)," meshed with the wire and roof, sinking into the tar that was pre-existing on the roof of Plaintiffs’ building, causing damage to Plaintiffs' roof in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this tribunal. FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077a. The Subject Cable(s) were owned by Defendant Cablevision Company 1, Defendant Cablevision Company 2 and Defendant Cablevision Company 3 and supported on one side by Florida Power Light’s (hereinafter referred to as “FPL”) pole and the other side by Walter Williams' property. b. The purpose of the Subject Cable(s) was to provide cablevision to Walter Williams' property, which is located as a neighboring property to the property of Plaintiff and/or the business(es) of Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' respective place(s) of business. 19. Plaintiff, Warehouse 1050 Corp. tried to mitigate damages to the Plaintiffs by calling the police and reporting the incident. However, when Plaintiff, Warehouse 1050 Corp. told the police that to help mitigate the damage, that it was going to remove or have the Subject Cable(s) and/or wire removed, the police advised Plaintiff, Warehouse 1050 Corp., that it could not remove same because of a state statute that prohibited the taking down of the wire or Subject Cable(s). 20. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3 informed Warehouse 1050 Corp that Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3 would be responsible to make the subject repair and incur the expense for same, but for them to do this, they instructed Warehouse 1050 Corp to first file a claim with Cablevision Company 1’s, Cablevision Company 2's and Cablevision Company 3’s_ liability insurance carrier (a carrier specifically identified to Warehouse 1050 Corp by Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3) and advised that by doing so the damage would be promptly repaired and paid by that carrier on behalf of Cablevision Company | and Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3 with no work or money required by Warehouse 1050 Corp. 21. Warehouse 1050 Corp. diligently followed the directive of Cablevision FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077Company 1, Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3 and made the requisite claim with their alleged liability insurance carrier in accordance with the instruction of Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3. As Warehouse 1050 Corp would subsequently be informed however, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, and Cablevision Company 3 did not actually maintain a liability insurance policy with the subject carrier that could provide coverage for this incident and hence there was no coverage to be provided, nor any correction of the damage, nor any payment for same by or on behalf of Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, or Cablevision Company 3, nor by any insurance carrier on behalf of either Cablevision entity. 22. Inthe interim, during this very short period of time, Hurricane Katrina hit South Florida (late August, 2005) bringing with her significant rain and/or wind. Warehouse 1050 Corp's roof, already weakened and vulnerable because of the failure of Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, and/or Cablevision Company 3 to perform following their acknowledgment of responsibility and agreement to undertake the prompt repair, and therefore despite assurances that Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, and/or Cablevision Company 3 would promptly correct the damage via their (non-existent coverage for same) insurance carrier, without the resolution of the damage in advance of the storm, further damage occurred to Warehouse 1050 Carp's roof and to the subject business(es) of Plaintiffs. 23. But for the pre-existing weakened state of the roof on Warehouse 1050 Corp.'s structure caused by the Subject Cable(s), the resulting storm damage would not have occurred from Hurricane Katrine, but specifically because of the condition to the subject roof that was allowed to stand without action by the procrastination and misdirection of Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and Cablevision Company 3, additional damage was done to the roof and/or building structure and/or integrity of the subject Plaintiffs’ FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077building by Hurricane Katrina and this resulted in damages to Plaintiffs’ business(es). 24. Continued fervent efforts by Warehouse 1050 Corp to have Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, and Cablevision Company 3 repair and/or pay for the damage attributed to the Subject Cable(s) ensued. But while Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3 spoke one thing, their words were belied by their inaction and procrastination. 25. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, and Cablevision Company 3 continued in their pattern of stringing along Plaintiff, Warehouse 1050 Corp. which caused additional hardship to Plaintiffs. 26. In the interim, a second hurricane, this one mightier than the first, and named Hurricane Wilma, hit South Florida in October, 2005 and with it bringing even more rain and wind. 27. But for the pre-existing weakened state of the roof to Warehouse 1050 Corp.'s structure caused by the Subject Cable(s) and now coupled with the additional damage caused by Hurricane Katrina; there would have been no damage to Plaintiffs’ building from Hurricane Wilma; but specifically because of the condition to the subject roof that was allowed to stand due to inaction and/or procrastination and/or misdirection by Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3, additional damage was done to the roof and/or building structure and/or integrity of the building and to the business(es) of Plaintiffs by Hurricane Wilma. 28. A survey of the additional damage that followed Hurricane Wilma, which included but was not limited to: rain seeping into the warehouse causing immense damage to the roof and causing damage to the offices being leased by the other two Plaintiff entities, namely J & J and AME Mfg. FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-907729. Specifically, J & J and AME Mfg had considerable office equipment and important documentation at the subject location, which were destroyed because of the rain coming into the warehouse as a result of Defendants’ Subject Cable(s) and the subsequent procrastination and/or misinformation and/or inaction by Cablevision Company 1 and/or Cablevision Company 2 and Cablevision Company 3. 30. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, and/or Cablevision Company 3 are authorized by the State of Florida, Miami-Dade County and/or City of Miami to provide cablevision to residences and places of business, of residents of and/or businesses that reside in the State of Florida and/or Miami-Dade County and/or the City of Miami. 31. Because of all of Defendants' actions and/or inactions, Plaintiffs suffered damages in excess of the jurisdiction limits of this court. COUNT I- TRESPASS As To Defendants, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, Subcontractor and/or John & Jane Does 1-100 32. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-adopt paragraphs 1 through and including 31 as though fully set forth herein. 33, Under the direction and/or request for Cable, made by Walter Williams to the Defendants Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, and Cablevision Company 3, Subcontractor and/or John & Jane Does 1-100 caused, with the assistance of FPL and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, via use of the FPL pole(s), the Subject Cable(s) were extended from the subject FPL pole and placed to lay unsecured on the roof of Plaintiffs’ building and/or place of business, resulting in a trespass to Warehouse 1050 Corp.'s property and/or to the Plaintiffs’ property rights and/or to the Plaintiffs' business(es) rights. FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-907734, Plaintiffs did not consent to having the Subject Cable(s) laid unsecured and/or otherwise placed and/or run across or over the roof on or over Plaintiffs’ building and/or business. If there were a theory of implied consent, if any, that could be raised by Defendant(s) and alleged to have been given by Plaintiff(s) by Plaintiff(s) not previously objecting to the existence of the cables laying unsecured on its roof, such implied consent was withdrawn upon obtaining the damage. 35. Defendants Williams, Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100 remained as trespassers, intruding upon Plaintiffs' property rights, for the exclusive purpose(s) and convenience(s) of Defendants, in order to benefit Defendants. 36. As a result of Defendants, Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and and/or John & Jane Does 1-100's trespass, Plaintiff(s) suffered damages as described above, in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court. 37. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100's knew that the cable was installed on the subject roof as early as 2005, and were advised by Plaintiffs of the existence of the cable on the subject roof in July 2005. 38. In July 2005, Plaintiffs demanded of Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100's that they immediately remove the cable from the subject roof. 39. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100's initially represented to Plaintiffs that the cable was not their cable and that the cable was installed illegally by “cable pirates” and that it was a theft of their cable FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077services; and that they would not remove the cable. 40. Said representations were false, and when Plaintiffs discovered the falsity of said representations, Plaintiffs filed a police report with the City of Miami Police. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100's still refused and failed to remove the cable. 41. In late July 2005, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100's admitted that the cable on Plaintiffs’ roof had not been installed by “pirates”, that it was, in fact, installed by its Subcontractor on Plaintiffs’ roof; and that it was unlawfully trespassing on Plaintiffs’ roof. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and John & Jane Does 1-100's still refused to remove its cable. 42. Plaintiffs then filed multiple complaints with various governmental entities, asking that they assist in compelling Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100's to remove the cable. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and John & Jane Does 1-100's still refused to remove the cable. 43. Finally, in February 2006, in response to Plaintiffs’ complaint to then Governor Jeb Bush, and to Miami-Dade County, the cable was removed from Plaintiffs’ roof. However, Plaintiffs’ Premises and their business had already been severely damaged during the seven (7) plus months from when Plaintiffs first discovered the cable on their roof and demanded of Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and John & Jane Does 1-100's, that it be immediately removed. 44. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100's trespass constituted intentional misconduct in that Cablevision FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100, had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of their conduct and the high probability that damage to Plaintiffs would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued a course of conduct of denial, delay, and refusal to remove the cable, resulting in the aforesaid damages to Plaintiffs. Further, Cablevision Company1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and John Does & Jane Does 1-100, had a specific intent to harm Plaintiffs and did harm Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of their trespass and aforesaid conduct. 45, Alternatively, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and John & Jane Does 1-100 were grossly negligent in their trespass, in that their conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety or rights of Plaintiffs exposed to such conduct. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Defendants, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, Subcontractor, John and Jane Does 1-100, for damages and punitive damages, and reserve on moving for attorneys fees and/or costs against Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper. COUNT Il- TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE As To Defendants Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, Subcontractor, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100. 46. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-adopt paragraphs | through and including 31 as though fully set forth herein. 47. Warehouse 1050 Corp. leases its warehouse to J & J and AME Mfg. J& J and AME Mfg conduct business in the leased premises. Hence, the relationship that exists FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077between and/or among Warehouse 1050 Corp. and J & J and AME Mfg is that of a business relationship(s). 48. Further the relationship between J & J and/or AME and each of their respective customers is a business relationship. 49. In the summer of 2005, Defendants, Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100 had knowledge of Plaintiff(s)' existing property rights and/or business relationship(s). 50. By virtue of the acts specified above, Defendants Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1- 100, allowed the Subject Cable(s), from which each had a benefit, to interfere with Plaintiff(s)' property rights and/or business relationships as described above respectively, which interference was without justification. 51. Defendants Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, allowed the Subject Cable(s), from which each had a benefit, to remain in an intentionally untended to condition, despite these Defendants being on notice of the damage(s) and/or ongoing damage(s) that were foreseeable, and/or that were being occasioned by the Subject Cable(s), and these Defendants intentionally permitted the condition to remain and the interference with business relationships of the Plaintiffs, and thus these Defendants intentionally and unjustifiably permitted damage and ongoing damage to be caused to the business(es) and/or business relationships of Plaintiffs. 52. Warehouse 1050 Carp's business relationship with Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs’ business relationship(s) with its customers was interfered with by the Defendants, Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, failing to promptly undertake the repair and expense of repair concerning the roof of the Plaintiff(s') Premises, despite notice that said damage was foreseeable and impacting Plaintiff(s') ability to conduct business. 53. Additionally, Defendants Subcontractor, Cablevision Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, were aware at all relevant times that hurricanes were to hit the Miami-Dade County area and that in fact hurricanes did hit the Miami-Dade County area, causing additional damage to the property of Plaintiffs, and further negatively impacting Plaintiff Warehouse 1050 Corp's ability to conduct business with Co-Plaintiffs, and in addition the ability of Co-Plaintiffs J & Jand AME Mfg. to conduct business with its customers. 54, As a result of Defendants, Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, intentional interference with Plaintiffs' business relationships with its customers, Plaintiffs suffered damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court as described above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in its favor and against Defendants, Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, for damages, and reserve on moving for attorneys fees and/or costs, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper. COUNT III- FRAUD As to Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100 55. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-adopt paragraphs 1 through and including 31 as though fully set forth herein. 56. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, misrepresented that they carried and maintained liability insurance that would cover the subject incident and that said liability insurance company would promptly arrange for repairs and/or promptly pay for repairs of the damage to the roof caused by the Subject Cable(s). 57. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, knew at the time that they made the representations and/or omissions and/or misrepresentations to Plaintiff(s), that said representations and/or omissions and/or misrepresentations were false, as neither Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, nor John & Jane Does 1-100, maintained liability insurance that would cover the damage caused by the Subject Cable(s). 58. It was Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100's intention(s) that their representations and/or omissions and/or misrepresentations would induce Plaintiff(s) to essentially cause Plaintiff(s) to go on a "fishing expedition" by trying to file a claim with a liability insurance company which did not provide coverage to Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, for the subject incident(s), for which Plaintiff(s) were asserting a claim against Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100. 59. Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100 knew all along that they did not have the coverage that they represented to Plaintiff(s) that they allegedly had, and that the manner in which they were allegedly "addressing" the concerns of Plaintiff(s) was deliberately calculated to cause delay, frustration and to be nothing more than an exercise in futility and all the while allowing the subject damage to go without mitigation. FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-907760. Plaintiff(s) were led down the primrose path by Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, and Plaintiff(s) diligently went down that path on the subject "fishing expedition" to which they were duped into following, but only to ultimately be run in circles and then find out that there was in fact no insurance coverage via Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, which would provide coverage for the subject incident and damage caused to Plaintiff(s) by the Subject Cable(s). 61. The additional and wasted time expended by Plaintiff(s) in being led astray by Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, on the subject "fishing expedition" for the non- existent coverage for the subject incident and/or damage, was choreographed by Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, with the desire that Plaintiff(s) be delayed and/or stonewalled in their pursuit, and just give up. But the delay caused by the improper, inexcusable and intentional delay and stonewalling and fraudulent tactics of Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, resulted in further foreseeable damage to Plaintiff(s) property and/or business(es) because the damage was not being timely mitigated, and deliberately allowed and/or positioned to remain as an ongoing un-rectified problem, exposed to the elements during hurricane season in South Florida. 62. Hence when Hurricanes Katrina and then on its heals Wilma arrived in the short interim that followed, they were able to compound the original damages which resulted from Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 's and/or John & Jane Does 1-100's Subject Cable(s) actions. The roof damage caused by the "subject cable(s)", was left exposed, during the time of the subject "fishing expedition" as FOREMAN FRIEDMAN, PA, 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, FL 33131 Tel: 305-358-6555 / Fax: 305-374-9077set forth above, and then with the arrival of Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, the damage caused by the Subject Cable(s), compounded exponentially. 63. Plaintiffs suffered damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court as a result of Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1-100's deliberate and intentional and fraudulent representations and/or omissions and/or misrepresentations, which Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3 and/or John & Jane Does 1- 100, knew or should have known would lead to inaction on the Part of Plaintiff(s), and thus allowing to cause the damage from the Subject Cable(s) to compound exponentially. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in its favor and against Defendants, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, for damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court, and reserve on moving for attorneys fees and/or costs, and any other relief this Court deems just and proper. COUNT IV NEGLIGENCE As to Defendants Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100 64. Plaintiffs re-allege and re-adopt paragraphs 1 through and including 31 as though fully set forth herein. 65, Defendants, Subcontractor, Cablevision Company 1, Cablevision Company 2, Cablevision Company 3, and/or John & Jane Does 1-100, had a duty to use reasonable care, to ensure that their installation of the Subject Cable(s), which these Defendants caused to be placed, so that t