Technolojoy, LLC et al v. BHPH Consulting Services, LLC et al, No. 1:2019cv23770 - Document 183 (S.D. Fla. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 113 138 Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and denying 148 Motion in Limine without prejudice. Signed by Judge Federico A. Moreno on 3/8/2022. See attached document for full details. (mmd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHZD DISTRICT OF FLORIDA M iam iD ivision C ase N um ber:19-23770-C IV -M O REN O TECHN O LOJOY ,LLC ,and IBM H IM F. A LGA H IM , Plaintiffs, BHPH CON SULTFN G SERV ICES,LLC d/b/aBHPHCAPITALSERVICES;SEAV FO UZA ILOFF,and AN A TOLIY SLU TSKIY, D efendants. O R DER G R AN TIN G IN PA R T AN D D EN YIN G IN PA RT CR O SS-M O TIO N S FO R SU M M A RY JU D G M EN T A ND D EN Y IN G M O TION IN L IM INE W ITH O U T PREJU D IC E Thisdisputestemsfrom abusinessrelationship wherePlaintiffTechnolojoy,LLC purchqsed used celltllarphonesfrpm the D efendantBH PH Consulting Services,LLC .Itis undisputedthatBHPH sentnoncpnformingshipmentsofphones,forwhichTechnolojoy prepaid. BHPH rem edied the breachesby providing creditstoward future orders.Thecreditsgotcanied overand increased overtim efrom invoiceto invoice.Eventually,thebusinessrelationship ended andthePlaintiffssoughtchargebacksfrom Am erican Expressto mitigatedamages. Plaintiffs,Technolojoy,LLC anditsprincipallbrahim F.Algahim,aresuingfcjrbreach Technolojoy, LLC et al v. BHPH Consulting Services, LLC et al ofcontract,quanmm meruit,unjustem'ichm' ent,fraud,violation oftheFloridaDeceptiveand Doc. 183 UnfairTradçPracticesAct,anctopenaccount.Defendantsmoveforsummaryjudgment,butthe . . : ' ' ' ' ' .. ' Courtonly grantsthe m otion as to the equitable claim sbecause the partiesdo notdispute the existence ofavalid contractforihepurchaseand sqleofgoods.The Coul'tfindsthereare disputedissuesofmaterialfactprecludingsummaiyjudglhentontheotherclaims. Dockets.Justia.com Defendantsfiledacounterclaim forbreachofcontract,tmjustenrichment,defamation, violation oftheFloridaDeceptive and UnfairTradePracticesAct,and comm on law indemnity. ' ) ' TheCourtfindsthattheequitableclaim fortmjustem-ichmentsurvivessummaryjudgmentas thereisadisputed issueofm aterialfactasto whetherthechargebacksplaintiffsobtained from . A m erican Express,the shipm ents ofphones Plaintiffs received,apd otherreftm dssurpassed the am ountPlaintiffsw ere ow ed. THIS CAUSE cam e before the Courtupon Defendants'M otion for Sllm mary Judgment (D.E.113), Plaintiffs'M otion forSummaly Judgment(D.E.138)filed on Julv 28.2021,and Defendants'M otioninLimine(D.E.148)filedonAuzust25,2021. THE COURT has considered the motions,the responses,the pertinent podions of the record,andbeing otherwisefullyadvised'inthepremises,i' tls AD JUD G ED thatD efendants'M otion forSum m ary Judgm entis DEN IED asto the Plaintiffs'claimsforbreachofconiract(Count1),thefraudclaims(Counts4-6),andtheFlorida DeceptiveandUnfaiiTradePracticesActclaim (Count7).TheCourtnotesthatDefendantsdid notmoveforsummaryjudgment(jn Plaintiffs'claim forOpenAccount(Count8).ltisalso ADJUDGED thatDefendants'motionforsummaryjudgmentisGRANTED astothe equitableclaimsforunjustenzichmentandquantum meruit(Counts2and3).Itisalso ADJUDGED thatPlaintiffs'V otion forSumm ary Judgm entisDENIED asto the Counterclaim forunjustenrichment(Count2).ltis A D JUD GED thatPlaintiffs'M otion forSum m ary Judgm enton the Colm terclaim is GRANTED astothebreachofcontractclaim (Count1),thedefamation claim (Count3),the FloridaDeceptiveandUnfairTradePracticesActclaim (Count4),andthecommon1gw indemnityclaim (Count5). ADJUDGED thatPlaintifff'M otion forSumm ary Judgm enton theirown breach of contractclaim isD EN IED .ltis ADJUDGED thatDefendants'motionforsummaryjudgmentontheircounterclaimsfor breachofcontract,unjustem'ichment,violation oftheFloridaDeceptiveandUrlfairTrade PracticesA ctand com m on 1aw indem nity isD EN IED .Finally,itis ADJUDGED thatDefendants'motioninlimineisDENIED withoutprejudicewithleave to reargue attrial. FactualB ackzround Plaintiff,Technolojoy,LLC isaconsumerelectronicwholesalecompany.Defendant BHPH CapitalServicessellselectronics,including cellphones,to wholesalers.From Decem ber 2018toJuly 8,2019,TechnolojoyandBHPH wereina'businessrelationshipwhereTechnolojoy wouldprepay BHPH forthepurchaseofcellphonesandotherelectronicssothatTechnolojoy couldresellthem.Teclmolojoy'sprincipalisIbrahim Algahim andBHPH'SprincipalsareSean Fouzailoffand A natoliy Slutskiy. There are three m eans of com m unication betw een the parties during thisbusiness relationship.BHPH wouldsendinvbicestoTechnolojoy.Thereareoverahundredinvoices exchanged betw een the parties.Theparties exchanged textm essages to dispute thepricing and condition ofthecellularphone shipm ents.Thepartiesalso created a Gqoglesheetto docum ent the issues. NonconformingShipments TechnolojoybecameawarethatBHPH wasnotsendingconformingshipmentstoit. Technolojoy'sprincipal,Ibrahim F.Algahim,testifiedthathewouldadviseBHPH aboutthe nonconform ing goods- shipm ents bôntained incorrectquantities ordid notm atch the invoice's productdescriptions.Algahim Affidavitat!6.Defendant'sprincipal,SeanFouzailoff,testifiedat 3 hisdepositionthatBHPH invoicedTechnolojoyforcellphonesitdidnotyethavein its possession.FouzailoffDepo.at42.BHPH wouldacquirethephonesitsoldtoTeclmolojoyfrom SmarterPhone,acompanylocatedintheUnitedKingdom.Id at29,Technolojoywouldfully prepay thephones,and attim es,w ould use these ftm dsto purchase the phones itw ould then send toTechnolojoy.1d.at37,41. The partiesalso created a Google Sheetto keep track ofinvoice num bers,m odels ofcell phones,and any deductionsfrom thesalespricesdueto the conditionsofthephones.Fouzailoff Depo.at77.Algahim alsohad accessto the GoogleSheet,and he could notenoncontbrm ing shipm entsand problem sw ith cellphones.Fouzailoff s testim ony confirm sthatB HPH shipped non-conforminggoodstoTeclmolojoy.FouzailoffDepo.at12,33. BHPH would correctthe i:sueby sending anew invoiceto reflectactualgoodsdelivered andratherthanrefundthemoniespaid,BHPH wouldprovideTechnolojoywithacredittowarda future order.Forexample,thediscotmtforInvoice #144 isreflected on thenextInvoice#145. On Invoice#144,Algahim reqùested adiscountof$2,500 becausethephoneswere delivered w ithoutthe originalApple iphoneboxes.A s a result,BH PH applied thisdiscountto Invoice //145toreduceth6totalfrom $10,480to$7,980.FouzailoffDecl.at!17.Thisprocessrepeated w ith com plaintsaboutnonconform ing goods and discounts given on future orders.Id This ICSUltedinTeclmolojbyaccumuiatingcredlts.FouzailoffDepu.54-60;Algahim Affidavitat!! ' 18,20.Technolojoy claimsitneverreceivedthecreditsbecauseïHPH'would carly them over from oneinvoicetothenext.Algaltim Affidavitat! 18.Fouzéilofftestifiedthatthecreditswere interrelated from invoice //150to invoice#260.FouzailoffDepo '.at96-97. BVPH contendsthatsgmecreditsweresenttothirdpartiesatPlaintiff'srequest.Algahim testifedthathedirectedBHPH toselldacreditto athirdpartycalledV acBookDadkyvia Payèal.Algahim Depo.Vol.1at58-57.Astoinvoice#159,BHPH contendsthatPlaintiff received the phones,received the creditvia Paypal,and also received a chargeback from the ' ' .. ' Creditcardcompany for$14,4k0.I(tat134-136,1397Algahiin àisputesthatTeclmolojoy I'CCCiveda'$14,440' windfallandthatitçttrip'ledipped''on invoice159.Algaltim Affidavitat!26. a . ' ' . . Overthe course ofthe busi nessrelationship,thepartiesexchangeéiextmessages.lna , '' . . ) . textmessagedatedJuly 6,2019,FouzailoffadmittedthatBHPH owedTechnolojoy$118,000. FouzailoffD epo.atExh.A at521.BH PH separately adm itsin its Counterclaim thatitow ed $105,995toTeclmolojoyatthetimèitendedthebusinessrélationship.Counterclaim at!22 (D.E.39).DefendantsexplainedthattheamouhtowedwasforlnvoiceNos.235,236,241,and 249,whichthey didnotdelivertoTecimolojoy.f#.Fouzailoffalsotestifiedthathedidnot deliver$25,500 in goodson invoice 228 and $22,620 on Inyoice229.FouzailoffD epo.at14041;166. v' . . DtlringthetirstweekofJttly2019,Technolojoyrequestedthebalatzeofthecellphones thatwereprepaidbyTeclmolojoy,butremainedoutstahding.Algahim Affdavitat10.OnJuly 6,2019,Fouzailoffszntatextmessagçto'Algahim explainilk thàtBHPH wasriot'ibletoship néw inventorytoTeclmolojoyormturn Technplojoy'sfundp'duetolack öfrevenue,Fouz&iloff D epo.at 146-148,Exh.A at517.' '' . ' B. The Chargeback Req' uests OnJùly 6,2019,BHPH instructedTechnolojoy inatextmessagetoseek achargebaék withAmericanExpressintheamounfof$52,000,FouzailoffDepo.atExlt.A at520(Thetçxt m essage' readà:StW llçn you do th: chargeback for52k m ake sure yotztellA m ex you did notget theproduct.'');fJ.at187.AmericanExpressdidnot,however,grantthisrequestforchargeback becauseBHPH objèctedtoit.Algahim Affidavitat!23;FouzailöffDepo.at185-187. Defendants'Counterclaim alsostatésthattheyinstructedTechnolojoyttlseekchargebacksinthe 5 nmountof$105,995forInvoiceNos.235,236,241and249.Cpunterclaim at!22.Algahim ' : . . statesthatTeclmolojoydidnotreceivef'ullchargebacksduetoBHPH'Sobjections.Algahim Affidavitat!23.ExhibitE toDefendants'M otionforSummaryJudgment,hpwrver,showsthat BHPH consented to atleastsome ofthechargebacltrequests.TheM ay 22,2020letterfrom AmericanExpresstoAlgahim states:çç-l-hanlcyou again forcontactingusaboutthechargets) from Bhph Consulting Servicesin theam ountof$119,270.W e arepleasedto inform you that BhphConsultingServiceshasissued creditts)toyouraccountinthenmountof$72,080.The creditswillappearas:.$27,180,$24,300 and $20,600.''ExhibitE containsasecond letterstating thatAlgahim requested review ofchargestotaling $101,910,and BHPH consented tocrediting $29,160. BHPH term inated the business relationship on July 8,2019.FouzailoffD epo.at 131; ' Algahim Affdavitat! 15.Algahim testitiedthatasofJuly8,2019,Technolojoyhadprepaid approxim ately $1,292,046to BHPH and received approxim ately $587,471worth ofcellphones, sbmeofwhich werenonconforming.Algahim Affdavitat!28.Tomitigateitsdamages, Algahim testifiedthatTechnolojoy institutedchargebackson allinvoices.Algnhim Affidavitat! 28;Algahim Depo.at126.ThereasonTeclmolojoy reqttestedchargebackson allinvoices,even thoughTechnolojoyreceivedsomeconformingshipments,wasbecauseTechnölojoyprepaid BHPH fora11invoicesandtheinvoice!and discountswereinterrelated.1d.Algahim tesiified that Teclmolojoy succeededin obtaining$260,000inchargebacks.'A lgahim D epo at12à.He . calculatesthatTechnolojoyisstillowed$444,575byBHPH.BHPH disputesthisfigureand claimsthp, tatterreceivingphonesandchargebackrequeststliatTechnolojoy wastmjustly enriched by $266,192. Asaresultofthe many chargeback requests,BHPH wassuedby ElectronicM erchant Systems,theprocessor.BHPH settled thatcase,FrancisDavid Corp.d/b/a Electronicj' ferchant Systemsv.BHPH Consulting Servicesd/b/aBHpllphonesServices,etal.,CaseN o.19.920921 in theCuyahoga County CourtofCom mon Pleas.BHPH settled the caseand wasplaced on a CçM atch''listorterm inated m erchantlist,such thatno creditcard processorw ould accepttheir business.BH PH w asblocked from accepting creditcard ordersfor alltm specified tim e. C.M essagesRelevanttoDefendants'Defamation Counterclaim Asaresultoftheterm ination ofthisbusinessrelationship,Algahim sentam essageon the BetterBusinessBureau'sm essaging board,whith isprivateand cannotbepublicly accessed. FouzailoffDepo.at206,Exh.W (D.E.138-10).Algahim'smessagewqssenttotheautomated emailsystem,donotreplv@ bluebbb.org,thenforwardedtoSlutskiy,whothenforwardeditto FouzailoffySlutskiy D epo.at92-93,Exh' .W .In the A ugust9,2019 m essage,A lgahim m ade the follow ing statem ents:Gc-fhese docum ents are fake.The refundsw ere nevergiven.A side from these fake refunds,there are m ultiple m ore invoicesthatwere notsentorcredited.1w as' defrauded by both Anatoliy Slutsldy and Sean Fouzailoff.'' Them essajefurtherenum erated severalpotentialcrim es:fraud,creditcard frauds,extodion,forgery,honestservice fraud,m oney laundering,ponzischeine,racketeering andwirefraud.Exh.W . slutskiytestifiedthathedidnotlcnow theidentityotànypersonthathadaccçsstothe BetterBusiness Bureau m essage thatA lgahim sent.Slutskiy D epo.at94.A lthough the content boardispublicly available,Slutskiy didnotknow whocoulctaccessthemessageorw'hether anyoneaCCCSSCdtlkemessageOnanygiVCndate.Headdedthathedidnotseeanyonecomment on the m essage thatA lgahim posted on the B etterBusinessBureau board.Slutskiy D epo.at95. ExhibitW alsocolgainsan em'ailfrom TechnolojoytoSlutskiy.Exh.W at4;Fouzailoff D epo.at210-211.In the em ail,A lgahim states thatSlutskiy and Fouzailoffdefrauded his company and thathereportedthem atterto 1aw enforcem ept. Fouzailoffacknowledgedthatno onewascopied on the emailandhçwastherecipient.Heiùdicated som epne cpuld beblindly copied?butthatdid nothappen to hisknow ledge.Slutskiy D epo.at96. . . ' . ,. . . The lastm essage relating to the defam ation claim is a socialm edia postby som eone nnmedDavid.Exh.W at5;Slutskiy Depo.at211.NeitherAlgahim'snamenoyTechnolojoy appearqn the socialm edia post.1d. Finally,there is a screenshotofa textexdhange thatw asposted on Facebook by a D avid Becerra.Id at6-7.Becerra'spostshowsShatAlgahim texted saying:GdAlthough Iprefernotto text,1believeyou w erescam med by BHPH/Seéh/Tony.''Slutskiy Depd.at216. 1. L eqalStandatd FederalRuleofCivilProçedure56provides,Gtsummaryjudgmentisappropriatewhere thereSis 'nogenuineissueàstoanymaterialfact'andthemovingpartyisçentitledtojudgmentas amatteroflaw.'''S& Alabamav.. h(Caroliha,130S.Ct.2295,2308(2010)(quotingFed.R. Civ.P.56(a)).Theexistenceofsomefactualdisputesbetweenlitigantswillnotdefeatan ' . otherwiseproperly groundmotionforsummaryjudgment;Sçtherequirementisthattherebeno genuineissueofmaterialfact.''Andersonv.LibertyLobby,Inc.,477U.S.242,248(1986) (emphasisadded).Mem (tmetaphysicaldoubtastothematerialfacts''willnotsuffice. Matsushitaf' fcc.Indus.Co.v.zenithRadioCorp.,k75U.S.574,587(1986). Thebasicissuebeforethecourton amotionforsummaryjudgmentis(Cwhetherthe evidencepmsentsasufficientdisagreementtorequiresubmissiontoajuryorwhetheritisso 0ne-Sidectthatonepartymustprevailasamatieroflaw.''Anderson,ï77U.S.at251(1986).The m ovingparty hasthe' burden ofshowing theabsenceofagenuineissue asto any m atetialfact, ' . '' ' ' and in deciding w hdherthe m ovanthas nletthisburden the courtm ustview the. m okant's evidence and allfactualinferences atising from itin the lightm ostfavorable to the non 'm oving 8 party.Allenv.TysonFoods,lnc.',121F.3d642,646(11thCir.1997).Cçlfreasonablemindscould differon the infyrencès arising froin undisputed facts,then a cout'tshould deny sum m ary judgment.''Mirandav.. D & B Caih Grocery Store,Jnd.,975F.2d 1518,1534(11th Cif.1992). II. LegalA nalvsis Thepartiçsfiledcross-motionsforsummaryjudgment.Defendantspoveforsummaly judgment'onPlaintiff'sComplaint:Count1forbreachoforal.contract,Count2forquaptum meruit,Count3forunjustenrichment,Count4forfraudulentmisrepreéentation,Couny5for fraudulentinducem ent,Count6 forfraud,and Count7 forviolation ofFlorida's D eceptive and UnfairTradePracticesAct.Defendantsdopotmoveforsgmmaryjudgmenton Cotmt8foropen account.Plaintiffsseparatelymoveforsummaryjudgmentorètheirownbreach ofcontractclaim, Cotmt1ofthe Am ended Com pléint,requesting theCoul'tfind liability and dnm ages. PlaintiffsmoveforsummaryjudgmentastotheDefendants'Colmteplaim :Count1for ''' - . - ' breachofcontract,Count2forunjustemiçhment,Count3fordefamation,Count4forviolation ofthe Florida D eceptive and U nfair Tp de Practices A ct,and Count5 for com m on law indemnity.befendantsseparatelymoveforsummaryjudgmentohtheirCotmterclaim requesting theCourtfifldPlaintiffsliableon Counts1,2,4and5- al18utCount3'sdetamation clai' m. A. TheQ'ontractClaints 1. count. /ofthepizzycntoy tomplaint..Breachofcontract . ' . Toestablish abreachofcontract,theièmustbea(1)validcontract;(2)amaterialbreach, . . ' and(3)dnmages.A,il.Aeronauticaicorp.,1nc.v.Aviatione' /igfncseri,Inc.,caseNo.1221276-C1V,2013W L 1499353(S.D.FlatApril10,2013).ltisundisputédthatthepartieshada contractforthèptlrdhase and jaleoftellùlarphonés.Plaintiffsasset Defendntjm aterially ' . breachédthe contractby failingtb prokidé gèodsthatconform ed tothe invoiced prices. 9 Plaintiffsasserttheypaid forphonesnotreceived and phonesnotm eeting invoicespecifications. Plaintiffsclaim they arçdam aged asaresultbecausethey overpaid forphonesby $444,575. D efendants agree thatattim esthe phone shipm entsdid notm eetthe invoices'quantity or productspecifications.D efendants,how ever,assertthatPlaintiffsreceived refundsw hen that occurred and ultim ately,obtained chargebacks f' rom the creditcard com panies.D efendants' position is thatPlaintiffs,rather than being dam aged by the breaches,received refunds exceeding whattheywereowedtotaling$266,192.Whetherornottherefundamountssufficiently com pensated Plaintiffsforthe breach isa disputed issue ofm aterialfact.A ccordingly,the Court deniesDefendants'motionforsummaryjudgmentastoPlaintiffs'breachofcontractclaim in Count1.Because the Courtfindsthere is an issue offactas to dam ages,the Courtalso denies ' ' Plaintiffsmôtionforsummaryjudgmentastoitsbreachofcentractclaim inCountt. Countel-claim Ct?z/n/1. 'Breacjofcontract PlàintiffsalsomovedforsummaryjudgmentonCount1oftheCounterclaim forbreach ofcontract.In Count1oftheCounterclalm,BHPH arguesthatTechnolojoybreachedthe'' contractSdforthe sale and purchase ofthe Apple iphonesand A pple W atches;m em orialized by theinvoices''by Ssnotpayingthef' u11amountowingthereunderwhenitm 'onjfully initiated chargebacksagainstBHPH.''BHPH allegesthatitsuffered dam agesofatleast$264,000 asa directandproximateresultofTeclmolojoy'sallegedbreach.(ttnbreach ofcontractactions,a plaintifflhay recovero'' nly ifthe dam agesw ere a proxim ate resultofthe breach.''Cibran Enters. lnc.v.BP Products. N)Am.,Inc.,365F.Supp.2d 1241,1254'(S.D.Fla.2005)(citingChi pmanv. Chonin,597 So.2d363,364(Fla. '.3dDCA 1992)). First,the Cotll'tm ustdeterm ine w hetherPlaintiffsbreached the contract.Plaintiffs' obligation underthe contractistôpay forcellphonesand otheritemspurchased from BIIPH . FouzailofftestitiedthatTechnolojoyf'ullyprepaideachinvoicesubmitledbyBHPH.Fouzailoff 10 Depo.at41-42.In fact,ZHPH adqu 'iredthecellphonesitso'ldtoTechnolojoy with Techno1ojpy'sfunds.Id.at37.Thus,t'echnolojoy didnotmaterlallybreachthecontract. VHPH'Sclaim thatTechnolojoybreàchedthecontractbyseekingchargebacksisbelied bytherecordevidencethatBHPH agreedthatTechnolojoyseekthosechargebacks. Counterclaim at!21 (concedinginitspleadingsthatitagreedTechnolojoy seekchargebacksin theamountof$105,995forlnvoiceNos.235,236,241,atld249). Therecordalsosho 'wsthat' reclmolojoy soughtchargebacksonJuly 16,1019,whichis8 daysafterBHPH terminatedthebusinessrelationship.Algahim Affidavitat!28;Fouzailoff Depo.at131(testifyingthatrelationshipended on July 8,2019).Atthetimeitsoughtthe chargebacks,therewasnocontractinplacebetweentheparties,whichTechnolojoyand Algahim breached.Accordinglf,theCourtfindstherecor 'ctevidencedoes'notshow that ' PlaintiffsVea'chedthebontractbyrequestingchargebacksfrorhAmericanExpress. Becausetherecordevidehcedoesnotshow that' Teclmolojoy breachedthecontractwhen itrequested thechargebacks,theDefendantsareunableto.ejtablish thatthepurported breach is theproximatecauseofdam agessuffered by Defendants.TheCourtfindsthatDefendantsare unable to establish a cotm terclaim forbreach ofcontractw here they cannotshow Plaintiffs breached by requesting chargeba jcks ' they them selves authorized. A ccordingly,the Cbul4 grants . plainiiffs'motionforsummav juctgmentastocount1oftheCounterclaim anddenies Defendarits'motionforsummaryjudgmentonCotmt1oftheCounterclaim. B. The Equitable Claim. t AmendedConiplaintCounts2and3..( uantum X?erui tand UnjustEnrichment .) ; . ' DefendantsmoveforsummaryJudgineptbystatingthatthequàntum meruitandunjust em ichm entclaim s are duplicative ofthe breach ofcontractclaim .Plaintiffs'claim s forquantum menlitandunjustemichmentarebasedontheeyidencethatTeclmplojoyprepaidBHPH forcell phpnes,butBHPH failedtp deliverthecellphonesorrefundthef'undsreceived from . . ' . . . ' Technolojoy. : ' Theexistenceofan expressconjractgenerally extinguishestheequitableclaimsofunjust enrichmzntandquantum meruit..$ç(A)ntmjustenrichmentclaim canonly bepledinjhe altemativeifoneormorepartiescontesttheexistenceofan expresscontract.''Zarrellav.Pacsc L# Ins.Co.,755F.Supp.2d 1218,.1227(S.D.Fla.2010)(citinglnre:M anagedCareLitig., 185F.Supp.2d 1310,1337(S.D.Fla.2002)).Plaintiffsrely onHardenv.TR% Inc.,959F.2d 201,204(11thCir.1992)toarguethattheyshouldbeabletosubmitexpresscontract,quantum mçruit,andunjustemichmenttheoriestothejuryifthereissufficiehtevidencetosupportthem. f/Grd:F/,itselfyrecognizesthat(Cwheretheevidence' isoverwhelm 'ing,acourtmayfindthe existenceofan expressçontract,asam atteroflaw,and thereby preclude équantum m enzit recovery.''16L Therecord isundisputed thatthepm-tieshad avalid,enforceablecontract.The Plaintiffsallegetheexistenceofan oralcontract,and BHPH adm itted to itaswell.Because neithersideconteststhevalidityofthecontract,summaryjudgmentisdueonPlaintiffs' equitableclaimsthatstem from thesamesubjectmatterasPlaintiffs'contractclaim.W herethere isan adequaterem edy 'atlaw,courtsroutinely disallow claimsin equity.White Const.Co.v. M artinMariettaMaterials,Inc.,633F. 'Supp.2d 1302,1332(M .D.Fla.2009)(statingitiswell settled thatFloridalaw willnotimply acontractwherean expresscontractexistsconcerning the samesubjectmatter);ThunderWave' ,Inc.v.CarnivalCoPp.,954F.Supp.1562,1566(S.D.Fla. 1997)(statingthatconclusiveproofofvalidexpresscontractprecludessuitforrecoveryin quantum meruitandunjusterlrichmentsincet'the1aw willnotimply acontractwhereavalid eXPI-CSS'Contrad eXiStS.''). 12 ' ' q I k5 ! . : ; . Attemptingtosurvivesummal'yjudgment,PlaintiffscontendthatBVPH relièdon fraudulentinvoicesto dispute the term s ofthe contractbetw een the partiys. A lgahim A ffidavitat 1 . !23.Algahim testifiedthatBHPH àlteredtheinvoicesitfiledwith thedourt.1d.ét27(citing D .E . 28-1).TwoWeeksafterûlingtheinvoiceswiththeCoul t BHPH contacsedZohoLegal . Team requesting'itcontirm the ihvoices are tGtrue and accurate ànd have notbeen altered or éhangedsincéthetimetheywerecreated.''FouzailoffDepo.atExh.I1,E-maildatebDecember ' 10,2019.Fouzailoffattached a draft(tDeclaration ofRepresentativeofZoho Corporation''for execution.Id atExh.JJ.ZohoLegalTeam entan em ailin responsestating:Gçunfottunately,we w illnotbe able to sign the A ffidavitasisforthe follow ing reasons.Zoho willnotbe able to authorizetheauthenticityofthedataaddedinthçinvoicesg.qtdFouzailoffDep.Ex.II,Email datedJan,6,2020.1Giventhiscontentionofikaudulentbçhavior,thePlaintiffsclaim they are entitled topursuetheirequitable claims.Plaintiffshavenotprovided supportthatthisevidence . ' . wouldalluw them ttjpursuemuliiplùtheoriesofrecovely'attrial,espe' çially whereèlaintiifsdo ' . . notcontestthatthereexistsavalidcontract.Accordingly,theCourtgrarltssummaryjudgmenton Counts2and3forquantum meruitandunjustemichmentbecausethereisanadequateremedyat ' law . ' . . . ' . . . 2 Defendahts'Counterclaim Ctpv /2. .UnjustEnrichment '' ' Defendants'counterclaim forunjttstemichmentdoesnotstem from thesnmesubject matterastheparties'contractualrelationship.Theunjustezjrichmentclaim stemsfrom Plaintiffs' , conductafterthécontractualrelationship endedwhen itrequested thechargebacksfrom . . .. . . .. . AmericanExpress.DefendantscontendthatPlaintiffsre' ceivedchargebacksexceedingwiatthey wereowed,andwerethus,unjustlyerlriched. ' lTheZohoemailchainisthesubjectofamotioninlimine,whereDefendantsarguethatitisunfairlyprejudicial ' uqdqrFçderalRuleofCivilProcedure403toallow thePlaintiffsto àrguethatZohorefusedto certifytheinvqices . becausetherewasfraud.YheCourtdenièl'themotioninliminewithleavetoreargpeattrial. , 13 . . . '' ' ' . . ' . . Both sideshavemovùdforsummaiyjudjmentbnthisclaim.Certainly,totheextentthat ' BtIPH ismovingasamatterof1àw ?orthecourttofindthatTeihnololj 'oywasutjustly emi ' ched, themotionisdeniedastherearentaterialissuesoffactastowhetherTechnolojoyredeivedmore in chmvebacksthan itwasowed.'fheCourtmustthenexnminewhetherthereissufficientrecord evidenceforBHPH tq survivesurhmaryjudgmentonthiscounterclaim.Notably,thisclaim differsfrom Technolojoylsunjustemichmentclaim asitdozsnotariseoutofthesubjectmatter o/theùontract.Indeed,theCoul'tgrantedsummaryju' dgmentastoDefendants'contractual counterclaim findingthatthechargebackswerenotpartofthesubjed matterofthepatties' contract.Thechargebackswereayemedy forTechnolojoytopotentiallymitigateitsdamages forgoodspiid forbutnotreceived. Torecoverunderanunjustenrichmentthzol'y,aplaintiffmustdemonstrate;<F(1)abenefit conferreduponadefendantbytheplaintiff,(2)thedefendant'sappreciationofthebenefit,nd (3)thedefendant'sacceptahceandreiention ofthebenefk undercircumstanc' esthatmakeit inequitableforhim ttjretainitwitàoutpayingthevaluethereof.''Vegav.t-MobileU' u $k,Inc., 564F.3d 1256,1274(11thCir.2009). Therecordevidencegndisputedly showst1)atTechnolojoyreceivedchargebackstotaling $260* ,000.ThereisanissueofnpterialfactastowhetherthenmountreceivedbyTechnolojoy exceedswhatitwasowed orwhetàeritreceivedcellularphonesorotherremtmeration as considerationftjritspaymentstoBHPH .Acgoréingly,theCourtdeniesPlaintiffs'motionfor summaryjudgmentastoBHPH'Scounterclaim forunjustem'ichment. Amended ComplaintCoupts4-6:Yrtzzf#Claims Theindividua1Defendants,FouzailoffandSlutskiy,moveforsummaryjudgmenton'the fraudclaiis.BHPH didnotmoveforsummaryjudgment.Cotmts4through6oftheAmended Complaintareforfraudtzlentmisrepresentation,fraudulentinducement,andfraud.Deibndants 14 moveforsummaryjudgmentundertheindependenttortdoctrine.Theyarguesummaryjudgment isduebecausethefraud claim sarenotindependentofPlaintiffs'breach ofcontractclaim and therecord evidence doesnotshow Plaintiffssuffered separatedamagesforthepurported fraud. çsltis wellsettled in Florida that,where alleged m isrepresentationsrelate to m atters already covered in awritten contract,such representationsarenotactionablein ffal ud.''Peeblesv. Pttig,223So.3d 1065,1068(F1a.3dDCA 2017).(tltissimilarlywellsettledthat,foranalleged m isrepresentation regarding acontractto beactionable,thedam agesstemm ing from thàt m isrepresentation m ustbe independent,separate,and distinctfrom the dam ages sustained from the contract's breach.''fJ.Florida's independenttortdoctrine ûdprohibits claim s in tol' tfor dam ages,which are the sam e asforbreach ofcontractso asto preventplaintiffs from recovering duplicativedamagesforthesam:wrongdoing.''Ptrezv,Sco' ttsdaleIns.Co.,No.19-21761,2019 WL 5457748,*3(S.D.Fla.Oct.24,2019).Thequestioniswhethertheallegationssupporting thefraudcountsareCtinextricably intertwinedwiththeallegebbrèachofcontract.''Id (citing Temurianv.Piccolo,No.18-cv-62137,2019WL 1763022 (S.D.Fla.April22,2019)(dismissing fraudclaimsinextricablyintertwinedwithcbntractclaiml). The record evidence sufficiently createsan issue ofm aterialfactas to w hetherthe . invoicing system w astransparentorw hetheritw as intended to defraud Plaintiffs. There is record evidence thatD eféndantsissued fraudulentinvoices,cancelled refundsaftersaying they Werebeingprocessed,andinstructedTechnolojoy téinitiatechaigebackswith AmeiicanExpress whilediscreditingthesamerequests.AlgahifnAffidavitat!I!18,20,21,22,and23.Cértainly, there are issuesoffactasto w hetherPlaintiffsw ere defrauded. Plaintiffsm ustalso establish dam ages separate and apartfrom dam agesstem m ing from breachofcontract.Technolojoy'seek' sdamagesof$444,571fordamagesstemmingfrom the breach ofcontract.Algahim also testified thatasto thedam agesfrom fraud,Plaintiffsrelied on BHPH 'Smisrepresentationsaboutthecreditcard refundsin the amountof$74,060 and paid BHPH $44,100forinventorythesameday.fJ.at!21.Additionally,Algahim testifedthatthe fakecreditsanddiscountsinducedTechnolojoytocontinuethebusinessrelationship.Finally, Algahim testifiedthatAm erican Expressultim ately denied $444,575 in chargebacksdueto fraud.Id.at!23.Asaresultoftheconduct,Algahim testifiedthatTechnolojoy hadinsufticient f'undstobuy cellularphonesfrom othersources.1d.at!24.TheCourtfindsthereisanissueof factasto whetherPlaintiffs were dam aged by the purported fraud,separate and apartfrom the breach ofcontract.Accordingly,themotionforsummaryjudgmentisdeniedastothefraud counts. D.Plaintp 'Amended CômplaintCount7andDi/c/ 1dants'Countel-claim Count4. FloridaDeceptiveand UnfairTradePracticesAct: The parties are each suing each otherunderthe Florida D eceptive and UnfairTrade , PracticesA ct.Plaintiffs allegethatBHPH violated the Florida D eceptive and U nfairTrade PracticesA ctby çtrequesting and accepting fundsfrom Plaintiffunderknow ingly false pretenses; fraudulently representing to Plaintiffthe statusofTheirorderqand refunds;and providing ' . . . . . Plaintiffw ith fraudulentdocum entatipn and statem ents to induce Plaintiffto continue m aking paym ents form çrchandise thatBHPH had no intention ofdel:ivering. ''D efendantsm ove for . . . . summaryjudgmentstatingthat.plaintiffscannotestablish actualdamages.Altelmatively, . ' . . . . DefendantsarguesummaryjudgmentisappropriatetotheextentthePlaintiffs'claim ispremised on BH PH 'Sfailure to deliverconform ing goods orrefund instancesitfailed to deliver. Defendants'counterclaim undertheFioridaDeceptiveandUnfairTradePracticesAct allegesthatTechnolojoyviolatedthestatttizby CcfalselyclaimingthatBHPH didnotship and : . deliverconfonuing producis;falsely and fraudulently initiating chargebacks on a1lpaym ents . madeto BHPH ;andfnaking false and defamatory statementsaboutBHPH and itsprincipalsand employeesto third partieswith Fhom BHPH had businessrelationships.''Plaintiffsm ovefor summaryjudgment.onthiscountercl .aim arguingthereisnorecordevidencethatthey committed . . ' anunfairordeceptivepracticethatinjuredaconsumer. TheFloridaDeceptiveandUnfairTradePracticesActprohibitsCilulnfairmethodsof com petition,unconscionable acty orpractices,and unfairordeceptive acts orpracticesip thç conductofany tradeorcommerce,...''j501.204(1),Fla.Stat.A claim undertheActhasthree elements:(1)adeceptiveactorunfairpractice' ,(2)causation;and (3)actualdamages.See Virgiliov.Ryland Corp.,lnc.,680F.3d 1. 329,l338n.25 (11th Cir.2012), .Rollins,Inc.v. Butland,951So.2d 860,869(F1a.2dDCA 2006);M aciasv.HBC ofFla. ,Inc.,694 So.2d 88, , 90(F1a.3dDCA 199/). AnunfairpracticeisçsonethatSoffeltdsestablishedpublicpolicy'anà onethatis timmoral,tmethical,oppressive,unsctuptzlous,orsubstantiallyinjurioustoconsumers.''' Samuelsv.KingM otorCo.ofFortLauderdale,782So.2d489,499(F1a.4thDCA 2001) (citation omitted).(CgDjeceptionocctzrsifthereis(representaiion,omission,orpràcticethatis likely to m islead the consum eracting rbàsonably in th' e circum stanc4s,to the consum er's detriment.'-' PNR,Inc.v.Beac6nProp.j#g 'mt,znc.,842so.2d'773,777(Fla.2003)(citation . omitted).CtM/hilean entityneednotàeaconsumertcjbringa'cléim gunderthe' A ctq,itstillmust ' provetheelementsoftheclaim,inçluding injurytoti' leconsurfler.''stewartAgency,Inc.v. ArrigoEntelw,Inc.,266So.3d207,212 (F1a.2019)(citingPNR,Inc.,842So.2dat777). The C ourtw illexam ine the Plaintiffs'çlaim underthe A ctand w hetherthere is sufficient record evidence ofdam ages. A lgahiin testified that:' ' ' . ' . .. : ;. . . . è: ' .. .. .' ' .. . Vrom March2019throughVlyi019,BHPH iknple 'me' ntedaiiauéulentschemzwhereby . itst>ted dijcouptsoflseveralinvpi cçsto ipduceTechnolojoytobçliqvethat. J' BHPH was . . . . curing deficienciesresultipg from priorùon-conforming shipm entsofcellphones. H ow evel,Technolpjoywasnotgett ingg14ydiscpuntorcreditasBHPH repyesçntedonits , i!1voices.Theallegeddiscotmtswerecarriedfrom oneinvoiceiotheotheraSBHPH , nçverfully applied any qfthe creditq/discounts.In.otherwprds,BHPH,Fquyailpff,apd Slutskiy,a11ofwhom prepared and subm itted invoices atone pointoranotherbetween . . Marùh2011tlupughJuly.2019,issuçd fqkepreditsordiscountstoTechnolojoy. . @ BHPH prepaid $1,292,046to BHPH and received approxim ately $587;471worth ofcell phones,someofwhichwerenonconforminj.Techonolojoy successfullyreceived . $260,000inchargebacks.Todate,Teclmolojoyhasnotfullytecoyeredthefundsitlost asaresultofBHPH'Sbreaches;Technolojoyisstillowed$445,575. Algahim Affidavitat!! 18,28.. Thereissufficientrecordevidencefrom whichareasonablejurycouldfindTèclmolojoy wasactuallydamagedbytheDefendants'actions.A reasonablejurycouldcertainlyfindthat BHPH'Sadionsin canyingcreditsfrom invpicetoinvoicedeceptively inducedTechnolojoyto believethatdeticienciesfrôm priorshipm entswerebeing cured. Theteissufficientevidence thatTeclmolojoysufferedactualdnmagesbecauseitprepaid$1,292,046andreceiveb goods . ' , valuedat$587,471.Yomitigateitsdamagesof$704,5#5,Technolojoyinstitutedchargebacks andobtained$260,000.ThedifferencewouldbeTechnolojoy'sactualdamagesof$445,575.By . thesame' token,therçisalsorecordevidencethattheGoogleSheetwashufficienilyclearasto whatwasbeing provided and creditçd,and theinvoiqecreditswere nota deceptivepractice intendedtomisleadTechnolojoy.Accordingly,theCourtdeniessumm'aryjudgmentastothe Plaintiff s claim underthe Florida D eceptive ahd UnfairTrade Pradices A ctclaim becatzse there isadisputedissueofmaterialfactastowhetherDefendants'actionsweredeceptiv:andwtwther the Plaintiffssuffered actualdam agesasa result. Defendants counterclaim undertheAct,however,dcjesnotwithstandsummaryjudgment scrutiny.ThereisnorecordevidencethatTechnolojoy committedan'upfairanddeceptive practicethatinjured aconsumer.First,DefendantsarguethatTechnolojoyfalselyclimedthat BHPH did notdeliverconformingphones.Theuncontroverted record evidence beliejthis contention.Undisputédly;BHPH jentnonconform ihg shipl entsofphonesrepeatedly.There can beno violation oftheActin thiscontext. Second,BHPH aryuesthatTechnolojoyviolatedtheXctby initiating chargebacksona11 invoices.Theuncontr6vertedevidenéeshowsthatBHPH agmedthqtTechnolojoy shouldinitiate thechargebacks.Therefore,theCourtcnnnotsaythatTeclmolojoy engagedin antmfairpractice, when Defendantsrequested Plaintiffsengagein thekery conduct,they now claim tobeunfair. Third,BHPH arguesthatTechnolojoyviolatedtheActbymakingdefnmatorystatements to third pm ies w ith w hom B HPH had business relationships.This also doesnotconstitute an unfairpractice tm derthe A ctasthe record evidence doesqotshow thatany com m entsm ade by . ' Technolojoy caused actualdamagejasrequiredbytheAct. TheCoul'tfindsthereisinsufficientrecordevidehcetosupporttheCounterclaim tmber theFloridabeceptiveandUnfairTradePracticesAct.Thereisnoevidencethataconstlmerwas injuredbyPlaintiffs'conductorthatPlaintiffs'cpnductcausedDefendantsactualdnmages.' A ccordingly, theCourtgrantsPlaihti( ffs.ymotionforsummaryjudgmentonthecounterclaim fora' violationoftheFloridaDeceptiveandUnfairTradeéracticesAct. E. Count3ofcounterclaim:Defamation InCotmt3oftheCounterclaim,BHPH allegesthatAlgahim andYechnolojoymade defam atory statem ents. These inclttde a statem entthatBH ISH failed to ship products and that BHPH defraudedthem .Counterclaim at:46.Plaintiffsrhoveforsummaryjudgmentontllis counterclaim arguing the defnm ation claim failsbecause itlacks specificity,the com m unications do notm eetthe publication requirem ent,and som e ofthe m essagesw ere m ade orpublished by a, third party nam ed D avid Becerra. Defam ation claim srequirespecificity.Gçln a dçfnm ation case,aplaintiffmustallege certain factssuch astheidentity ofthespealcer,adescription ofthe statem ent,and ptovideatime . . . . è...1 . .. . . .. . . ' - . . . . fmmewithinFhichthepuàlication occurred.''FiveforEnt.S.A.v.Rodriguez,877F.Supp.2d 1321,1328(S.D.Fla.2012)(dismissingthedefamation slaim forfailuretopleadwhenthe allegedly defnmatorystatemenssweremadeandasufficientdescriptionofthosestatements);see Jackwnv.N Broward Cn@.Hosp.Dist.,766So.2d256,257(Fla.4thDCA 2000)(findingthat ' thedefamation cotmtfailed becauseitdidnotidentify thepersonsto whom theallegedly defamatorycommentsweremadeandtolinkaparticularremarktoaparticulardefvn' dant).A . . . ' plaintiff(çm ustsetoutthe substanceofeach allegedly defamatory statem ènton which itis proèeeding;thedate,'place,andrflannerofpublication;towhom çach statementwasmade;mld factsshowing'the damagesflowing from each statem ent. '''Beteauv.Cable Equi p.Servs.Inc., No.14-24538-C1V,2015W L 3540009,t*4 (S.D.Fla.M ay27,2015); The' elepuntsofadefamation'claim tmderFloridalaw are(1)publicatiùh;(2)falsity;(3) thattheactorm adethestatemeùtswith kriowledge orrecklessdisregard asto the falsity on a ' v m atterconcbrning apublicofficial, pratleastnegligently on amatterconcerning'aprivat: , . . . , Person;(# acttzaldamages;and(5)thatthejtatementisdefamatory.ld (cittngJewsforJesus, . Inc.v.kapp,'997 So.2d 1098, '1* 106(F1a.2008)).CiA defamatpzy statemeniddesnotbecome actionable,how ever,untilitispublished orcom rfm nicated to a third person;statem entsm ade to ' thepersonallegingthe'defamatton' donotquàlify.''AmericanAirlinesv. 'Cedàes,I60'So.24830, à33(FI.3dDcA 2007).'' 20 Paragraph 46 oftheCounterclaim statesthatAlgahim m adethedefamatory jtatem entsto Stpaypal,EM S,Arherican Ekpress,1aw enforcem entofficialsaizd govérnment,and others.'' BHPH failsto statethedates,the' placeofpublication,them annerofpublication,theidentity of theindividualsWho read,heard örsaw the alleged statem ents,and any fadsshowingthe dam agestlowing frorh each statementsetforth in paragraph 46 oftheCounterclaim .Theclaim thereforelacksspeciscity. Additionally,ExhibitW to Fouzailoffsdeposition,doesnotshow how Plaintiffs published the defnm atory com ments.TheAugust9,2019 messageAlgahim senton theBetter BusinçssBureau'sautom ated m ailing system doesnotshow how itwaspublished to athird part/.Thereisnorecord evidencethatathirdpal' tyaccessedit.In fact,Slutskiytestifiedthathe did notseeany third partiescom menton thethread.Slutskiy Depo.at93-95.TheJuly 11,2019 emailfrom Technolojoy to Slutsldy doesnotshow thatanythirdpartywascopied orblindcopied.The socialmediaposting wûsby som eonenam ed DavidBecerra,and accordingly, Algahim andTechnolojoyarenotthepublishers. The only m essage thatm eets the publication requirem entcould be the textm essage exchangbwhere Algahim wrotetoDavid Becerra.Thepublication ofa statementin a defam ation claim only requiresthedissem ination bfafalsu statem entto aperson otherthan the defamedperson.Klaymanv.Jud katch,Inc.,22F.Supp.3d 1240,1i5t(S.D.Fla.2014).Even ifthepublicationrequiremehtismetinthisoneinstdnce,thebefendantsdi' dnotshow evidence ofbeing dam aged by the defam atory com m ents.Indeed,Slutskiy testifed thatBH PH 'Scustom er baseincreasedafterBHPH terminateditsrelationshipwithTechnolojoy.SlutskiyDepo.at110. Accordingly,Plaintiffs'motionforsummaryjudgmentisgrantedastothede?amationclaim. F.Counterclaim Count5..Comm on Zcw Indtm nity BHPH seeksindemnityfrom TeclmolojoyformoniesitpaidEM SandElavonstemming from chargebacksTeclmolojoyreceived.A claim forcommqn1aw indemnitytsshiftstheentire lossfrom onewho,althoughwit11outactivenegligenceorfault,hasbeènpbligatedtopày, becauseofsom çvicarious,constructive,derivative,orteclmicalliability,to anotherwho should bearthecostsbecauseitwasthelatler'swrongdoingforwhichthe formerisheld liable.'' HoudailleIndus.Inc.v.Edwards,374So.2d490,493(f'1a.1979).Thepartyseekingindemnity mustallegethreeelements:ûç(1)thatheiswhollywithoutfault;(2)thattheparty9om whom he isseekingindemnityisatfault' ,and(3)thatheisliabletotheinjurédpal' ty onlybecauseheis vicariotlsly,constructively,derivatiyely,orteclm ically liable forthe wrongfulacts ofthe party from whom heisseekingindemnity.''Fla.Farm BureauGen.Ins.Co.v.Ins.Co.ofN Am.,763 So.2d429,435 (Fla.5thDCA 2000).' Therecord evidence doesflotsupportthisclaim .First,theunçontrovel-ted evidence showsthatBHPH sentnonconform ing shipm entsofcellularphonep,andthereforeisn:tdlwholly Withoutfault.''fouzailoffadmiqedtheGoogleSheetaccuratelylistectthegroblems 'withthecell phonesitshippedtoR'echnolojoy.HçalsoadmittedtoowingTechnolojoy money beforethe relationshipended.Second,therecordevidencedoesnotsupportthatTechnolojoyWasçtat ' . '. fault''itlseeking the chargebacks. Therecor ' d evide rnceisbeyond dispuyethatBHPH ' instructed ' TechnolojoytoinstimtethechargebackstomitigatethemoniesowedbyBHPH toTechnolojoy. ' . . . . Third,'BHPH cannotsatisfythethiréelementoftheclaim forùommonlaw indemnitybecauseit isdirectly liable to EM S and/orElakon.EM S aqflElvon processcreditcard paymentsfor BHPH.Teclmolojoyinstitutedchargebacksfrom AmericanExpress.Thereisnoyelationship ' ' . . ' . whereTechnölojoywouldàedirectly liabletoEM S ahd/orElavon,whichwouldthenmake BHPH vicariougly liable.Rathef,BHPH'Sliabilityto' EM S and/orElavon i!directbecausethose '' . ' . ; ' . 4 . . ' i compani esprocessedçhargetackslstemmi ngfrom BHPH'Snonc opforming shipmenjs. , , , Accordinglvsthe sèPla'.int iffs'm.otion.forsllm ma.ry judgm çntasto the.count erclaim r Cour 'tgr ---' ant z'. -'---.' --- . .. .. . ' . . ---' *' - . . forcom mon 1!aw indempity! .' . ' '' . . . .. ' ' . .. . ,: r .. . . DONE AND ORDERED tnehambersatM iami,Florida,this < .r ' . FEbERICO . UNITED ST Copies furnished to: CounselofRecord . 23' .. : ... ofV arch2022. NO ES DISTRICT JUDGE .' . .
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
