Preview
Case Number:19-008558-CI
Filing # 100954732 E-Filed 12/31/2019 12:14:13 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA
MARK P. STOPA,
Plaintiff,
Case No.:
V.
MFI—MIAMI HOLDINGS, LLC and
STEPHEN J. DIBERT,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, MARK
LLC (“WI”) and STEPHEN J.
P. STOPA
W
(“STOPA”),
DIBERT (“DIBERT”),
sues Defendants,
and alleges:
MFI—MIAMI HOLDINGS,
BACKGROUND
1. MFI is an acronym. Short for “Mortgage Fraud Investigations,” MFI is a company
owned and operated by DIBERT, its sole Member.
2. DIBERT is not a licensed attorney. Nonetheless, he fancies himself as an expert in
the field of foreclosure defense and mortgage fraud by banks.
3. Operating the website h‘LtpsM/mfi-miamicom (“the MFI Website”), MFI holds
itself out to the public as an expert in the areas of foreclosure defense and mortgage fraud, among
others. In fact, the business model of MFI and DIBERT is to act as a paid “expert” on behalf of
homeowners, in both Florida and elsewhere, in lawsuits and other disputes With lenders about their
mortgages.
4. Illustrating the commercial nature of its business, the “Foreclosure Defense” page
of the MFI Website asserts MFI has an “international reputation” for its “aggressive and
unorthodox strategies like Game Theory in foreclosure defense cases.” Citing its “unparalleled
1
***ELECTRONICALLY FILED 12/31/2019 12:14:10 AM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY***
expertise,” MFI holds itself out as capable of Winning disputes With lenders that others in the
foreclosure industry cannot.
5. MFI is not a legitimate media source. The MFI Website is not a “news medium”
under Florida law. Rather, IVIFI is one man, DIBERT, operating a for-profit business in the area
of foreclosure defense. Though the MFI Website contains a blog (With each entry authored by
DIBERT), the blog is merely a way for MFI to attract internet traffic and solicit/procure business
in the foreclosure arena.
6. DIBERT created the MFI Website and maintains exclusive control over its
contents.
7. STOPA used to be a practicing attorney in Florida, FBN 550507.
8. From 2008 through 2018, STOPA’s practice consisted almost exclusively of
foreclosure defense. During this time, STOPA successfully represented thousands of Florida
consumers.
9. After a series of false allegations precipitated by the banking industry that he was
fighting against (interposed in an effort to take STOPA out because he won so much and cost the
banks so much money), STOPA voluntarily relinquished his license to practice law. When The
Florida Bar blocked him from retiring and collaborated with law enforcement to attack him With
allegations they knew to be false, STOPA stipulated to a permanent disbaIment.
10. A11 conditions precedent have been met, waived, or otherwise satisfied.
11. Venue lies in Pinellas County, Florida, as the causes of action alleged herein
accrued here.
12.
attorney’s fees,
This
and
is an action for
costs), punitive
w
actual damages in excess of $15,000
damages, and injunctive relief under
(exclusive
Fla. Stat. §
of interest,
540.08.
13. STOPA realleges and incorporates by references paragraphs 1-11 above.
14. On numerous occasions in recent years, MFI and DIBERT have published, printed,
displayed or otherwise used the name “Mark Stopa” (or some variation thereof) for their own,
commercial purposes without STOPA’s consent and without any valid license for such use.
15. For example, MFI and DIBERT published the following articles on the MFI
Website: (i) Lawyer Mark Stopa Allegedly Made Millions on Equity Skimming Scam; (ii)
Foreclosure Lawyer Mark Stopa Permanently Disbarred; (iii)Mark Stopa’s Former Law Firm,
Stay in My Home, P.A., Officially Files for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy; (iv) The Tantrums and Tiaras
of Attorney Mark Stopa; and (V) Mark Stopa Law Firm Imploding into Chaos; Bankruptcy
Imminent, among others (collectively “the Articles”).
16. MFI and DIBERT’s purpose in publishing the Articles was to generate internet
traffic for MFI and to advertise and solicit business. To illustrate, each of the Articles contained
“tags” that would result in internet searches for “Mark Stopa” or “Lawyer Mark Stopa” bringing
up the MFI Website — a classic way to drive internet traffic.
17. The Articles were not part of a bona fide news report. Quite simply, MFI and
DIBERT used Stopa’s name for their own commercial and advertising purposes.
18. The actions of MFI and DIBERT were done in bad faith and With actual malice.
19. The actions of MFI and DIBERT constitute Violations of Fla. Stat. §540.08, for
Which STOPA is entitled to actual damages, punitive damages (as prescribed by the statute),
injunctive relief, and amounts Which would have constituted a reasonable royalty.
20. STOPA’s actual damages include, but are not limited to, lost business opportunities
resulting from MFI’s publication of the Articles on the internet. By way of example, in 2018,
STOPA was prepared to close as an equity partner on a $15 million dollar deal, but the investors
backed at the last minute as a result of the Articles.
WHEREFORE STOPA demands the following relief:
A. Trial by Jury
B. Injunctive relief, including an injunction that prohibits IVIFI and DIBERT from
publishing anything bearing the name of MARK STOPA, directly or indirectly, and
requiring that they remove all references to STOPA from the MFI Website
C. Actual damages, both general and special
D. Punitive damages
E. A11 amounts Which would have constituted a reasonable royalty for use of STOPA’s
name and likeness
F. A11 other relief that this Court deems proper and just
This 30th day of December, 2019
Respectfully submitted,
/S/ Mark P. Stopa
Mark P. Stopa, pro se
c/o Segal & Schuh Law Group, P.L.
18167 U.S. Highway 19 North
Suite 100
Clearwater, Florida 33764
Telephone: (727) 667-4808
Email: markpstopa@gmail.com
Preview
Case Number:19-008558-CI Filing # 100954732 E-Filed 12/31/2019 12:14:13 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA MARK P. STOPA, Plaintiff, Case No.: V. MFI—MIAMI HOLDINGS, LLC and STEPHEN J. DIBERT, Defendants. Plaintiff, MARK LLC (“WI”) and STEPHEN J. P. STOPA W (“STOPA”), DIBERT (“DIBERT”), sues Defendants, and alleges: MFI—MIAMI HOLDINGS, BACKGROUND 1. MFI is an acronym. Short for “Mortgage Fraud Investigations,” MFI is a company owned and operated by DIBERT, its sole Member. 2. DIBERT is not a licensed attorney. Nonetheless, he fancies himself as an expert in the field of foreclosure defense and mortgage fraud by banks. 3. Operating the website h‘LtpsM/mfi-miamicom (“the MFI Website”), MFI holds itself out to the public as an expert in the areas of foreclosure defense and mortgage fraud, among others. In fact, the business model of MFI and DIBERT is to act as a paid “expert” on behalf of homeowners, in both Florida and elsewhere, in lawsuits and other disputes With lenders about their mortgages. 4. Illustrating the commercial nature of its business, the “Foreclosure Defense” page of the MFI Website asserts MFI has an “international reputation” for its “aggressive and unorthodox strategies like Game Theory in foreclosure defense cases.” Citing its “unparalleled 1 ***ELECTRONICALLY FILED 12/31/2019 12:14:10 AM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY*** expertise,” MFI holds itself out as capable of Winning disputes With lenders that others in the foreclosure industry cannot. 5. MFI is not a legitimate media source. The MFI Website is not a “news medium” under Florida law. Rather, IVIFI is one man, DIBERT, operating a for-profit business in the area of foreclosure defense. Though the MFI Website contains a blog (With each entry authored by DIBERT), the blog is merely a way for MFI to attract internet traffic and solicit/procure business in the foreclosure arena. 6. DIBERT created the MFI Website and maintains exclusive control over its contents. 7. STOPA used to be a practicing attorney in Florida, FBN 550507. 8. From 2008 through 2018, STOPA’s practice consisted almost exclusively of foreclosure defense. During this time, STOPA successfully represented thousands of Florida consumers. 9. After a series of false allegations precipitated by the banking industry that he was fighting against (interposed in an effort to take STOPA out because he won so much and cost the banks so much money), STOPA voluntarily relinquished his license to practice law. When The Florida Bar blocked him from retiring and collaborated with law enforcement to attack him With allegations they knew to be false, STOPA stipulated to a permanent disbaIment. 10. A11 conditions precedent have been met, waived, or otherwise satisfied. 11. Venue lies in Pinellas County, Florida, as the causes of action alleged herein accrued here. 12. attorney’s fees, This and is an action for costs), punitive w actual damages in excess of $15,000 damages, and injunctive relief under (exclusive Fla. Stat. § of interest, 540.08. 13. STOPA realleges and incorporates by references paragraphs 1-11 above. 14. On numerous occasions in recent years, MFI and DIBERT have published, printed, displayed or otherwise used the name “Mark Stopa” (or some variation thereof) for their own, commercial purposes without STOPA’s consent and without any valid license for such use. 15. For example, MFI and DIBERT published the following articles on the MFI Website: (i) Lawyer Mark Stopa Allegedly Made Millions on Equity Skimming Scam; (ii) Foreclosure Lawyer Mark Stopa Permanently Disbarred; (iii)Mark Stopa’s Former Law Firm, Stay in My Home, P.A., Officially Files for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy; (iv) The Tantrums and Tiaras of Attorney Mark Stopa; and (V) Mark Stopa Law Firm Imploding into Chaos; Bankruptcy Imminent, among others (collectively “the Articles”). 16. MFI and DIBERT’s purpose in publishing the Articles was to generate internet traffic for MFI and to advertise and solicit business. To illustrate, each of the Articles contained “tags” that would result in internet searches for “Mark Stopa” or “Lawyer Mark Stopa” bringing up the MFI Website — a classic way to drive internet traffic. 17. The Articles were not part of a bona fide news report. Quite simply, MFI and DIBERT used Stopa’s name for their own commercial and advertising purposes. 18. The actions of MFI and DIBERT were done in bad faith and With actual malice. 19. The actions of MFI and DIBERT constitute Violations of Fla. Stat. §540.08, for Which STOPA is entitled to actual damages, punitive damages (as prescribed by the statute), injunctive relief, and amounts Which would have constituted a reasonable royalty. 20. STOPA’s actual damages include, but are not limited to, lost business opportunities resulting from MFI’s publication of the Articles on the internet. By way of example, in 2018, STOPA was prepared to close as an equity partner on a $15 million dollar deal, but the investors backed at the last minute as a result of the Articles. WHEREFORE STOPA demands the following relief: A. Trial by Jury B. Injunctive relief, including an injunction that prohibits IVIFI and DIBERT from publishing anything bearing the name of MARK STOPA, directly or indirectly, and requiring that they remove all references to STOPA from the MFI Website C. Actual damages, both general and special D. Punitive damages E. A11 amounts Which would have constituted a reasonable royalty for use of STOPA’s name and likeness F. A11 other relief that this Court deems proper and just This 30th day of December, 2019 Respectfully submitted, /S/ Mark P. Stopa Mark P. Stopa, pro se c/o Segal & Schuh Law Group, P.L. 18167 U.S. Highway 19 North Suite 100 Clearwater, Florida 33764 Telephone: (727) 667-4808 Email: markpstopa@gmail.com