eric spalding bso complaint
TRANSCRIPT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
Case No.:
ERIC J. SPALDING, ))
Plaintiff, ))
v. ))
ANDREW TAYLOR, individually, )JUAN L. HERNANDEZ, individually, )MARC SOTO, individually, and )ALFRED T. LAMBERTI, as SHERIFF )of BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, )
)Defendants. )
)
COMPLAINT
1. This is a civil action seeking money damages in excess of $15,000 dollars,
exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney’s fees, against Defendant ANDREW TAYLOR,
individually, Defendant JUAN L. HERNANDEZ, individually, Defendant MARC SOTO,
individually, and Defendant ALFRED T. LAMBERTI, as SHERIFF of BROWARD COUNTY,
Florida.
2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988, and the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida has jurisdiction of this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28
U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Plaintiff further invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of the
United States District Court to hear pendant State tort claims arising under State law, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367(a).
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 1 of 31
3. Plaintiff ERIC J. SPALDING has served notice upon Defendant ALFRED T.
LAMBERTI, as SHERIFF of BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, and Jeff Atwater, as Chief Financial
Officer, Florida Department of Financial Services, pursuant to §768.28 of the Florida Statutes.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff ERIC J. SPALDING is a resident of Broward County, State of
Florida.
5. At all times referred to herein, Defendant ANDREW TAYLOR [hereinafter
Defendant RODRIGUEZ] was acting under color of law as a deputy sheriff for ALFRED T.
LAMBERTI, as SHERIFF of BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, and in such capacity as an agent,
servant, and employee of ALFRED T. LAMBERTI, as SHERIFF of BROWARD COUNTY,
Florida.
6. At all times referred to herein, Defendant JUAN L. HERNANDEZ
[hereinafter Defendant HERNANDEZ] was acting under color of law as a deputy sheriff for
ALFRED T. LAMBERTI, as SHERIFF of BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, and in such capacity as
an agent, servant, and employee of ALFRED T. LAMBERTI, as SHERIFF of BROWARD
COUNTY, Florida.
7. At all times referred to herein, Defendant MARC SOTO [hereinafter
Defendant SOTO] was acting under color of law as a deputy sheriff for ALFRED T. LAMBERTI,
as SHERIFF of BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, and in such capacity as an agent, servant, and
employee of ALFRED T. LAMBERTI, as SHERIFF of BROWARD COUNTY, Florida.
8. Defendant ALFRED T. LAMBERTI, as SHERIFF of BROWARD COUNTY,
Florida, is the Sheriff of Broward County, Florida [hereinafter Defendant ALFRED T. LAMBERTI,
as SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, or Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE],
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 2 of 31
as organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Florida. In this cause,
Defendant ALFRED T. LAMBERTI, as SHERIFF of BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, acted through
its agents, employees, and servants, including Defendant TAYLOR, Defendant HERNANDEZ,
Defendant SOTO, and others.
9. Plaintiff sues Defendant TAYLOR, Defendant HERNANDEZ, and Defendant
SOTO in their individual capacities.
FACTS
10. On Saturday, February 20, 2010, Plaintiff, age 39, and his wife, Alejandra
Spalding, invited several guests to their residence located at 11302 Roundelay Road, Cooper City,
Broward County, Florida, to celebrate the engagement of Johnny Regis to Diana Regis. The guests
included Jon Onaindia and his girlfriend, Sandra Carolina Alarcon, an attorney (in her native
Colombia). Plaintiff, Onaindia, and Johnny Regis were all co-workers at BellSouth (now AT&T).
11. Several other couples were also invited, including Eduardo and Jenny Ibarra,
and Carlos and Lina Marquez. Plaintiff’s brother Todd, and Rodrigo Castro, a police officer for the
City of Sunrise and the recipient of their Officer of the Month Award for July 2009, also attended.
12. Guests began arriving around 9:00 p.m., and socialized both inside Plaintiff’s
residence and a screened enclosure in the back-yard.
13. Shortly after the arrival of guests at Plaintiff’s residence, the Broward
Sheriff’s Office received an anonymous noise complaint.
14. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff’s residence was located in a zero-lot line
townhouse community. There was a history of acrimony between Plaintiff’s family and one of their
neighbors. Based on information and belief, the anonymous noise complaint was made by Plaintiff’s
neighbor.
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 3 of 31
15. Defendant TAYLOR responded to the noise complaint after 10:00 p.m.
Defendant TAYLOR testified: “It was like a party-type environment. You hear some screams, a
short scream and maybe a laugh, you know. That’s pretty much it. You could just hear constant
chatter. The chatter was pretty reasonable, other than the scream or two here and there.” Defendant
TAYLOR left the area without making any arrests or issuing any citations.
16. Within two hours, Defendant TAYLOR responded to Plaintiff’s residence for
a second noise complaint. Again, Defendant TAYLOR left the area without making any arrests or
issuing any citations.
17. After no action was taken by Defendant TAYLOR, Plaintiff’s neighbor called
Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE on February 21, 2011, and alleged that an unknown
assailant threw an egg and/or orange at her residence.
18. Several deputies, including Defendant TAYLOR, Defendant HERNANDEZ,
Defendant SOTO, and deputy sheriff Andrew Rodriguez responded to Plaintiff’s residence and the
residence of Plaintiff’s neighbor.
19. The wooden fence between Plaintiff’s residence and his neighbor’s property
prevents line-of-sight between the two properties. However, Plaintiff was able to observe flashlights
in the back of his neighbor’s residence, and heard a voices yelling: “[T]he party’s over. Everybody
f - - - ing go home.”
20. At that time, Plaintiff’s remaining guests began exchanging end-of-evening
salutations, in preparation for their departure from Plaintiff’s residence.
21. While Plaintiff was in a guest bathroom, Alejandra Spalding and others heard
banging on the front door.
22. Alejandra Spalding opened the front door, whereupon she observed several
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 4 of 31
deputies from Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE, including Defendant TAYLOR,
Defendant HERNANDEZ, Defendant SOTO, and deputy sheriff Andrew Rodriguez (hereinafter
“Rodriguez”).
23. Rodriguez reached into Plaintiff’s residence with his left hand and grabbed
Onaindia shirt, and pulled Onaindia outside the residence, in the absence of voluntary consent or
exigent circumstances sufficient to justify the warrantless entry into Plaintiff’s residence.
24. As Onaindia stood with his hands in the air, Rodriguez pointed his index
finger very close to Onaindia’s face, and screamed: “Who fucking threw the orange?”, whereupon
Rodriguez ordered Onaindia to get on the ground.
25. Upon complying with Rodriguez’s request to get on the ground, Rodriguez
arrested Onaindia for the misdemeanor offense of resisting arrest without violence/obstruction of
justice, in the absence of probable cause that Onaindia committed any criminal offense.
26. Rodriguez then handcuffed Onaindia behind his back.
27. Upon handcuffing Onaindia behind his back, Rodriguez rolled Onaindia onto
his back and proceeded to punch Onaindia in the area of his chest, whereupon Rodriguez stated:
“You’re not so tough now, mother f- - ker.”
28. In the interim, Defendant TAYLOR, Defendant HERNANDEZ, and
Defendant SOTO entered Plaintiff’s residence without warrant, notwithstanding Alejandra
Spalding’s immediate and unequivocal verbal protests directing the deputies to leave the residence.
29. Defendant TAYLOR confronted Plaintiff immediately upon Plaintiff exiting
the guest bathroom, at which time Defendant TAYLOR physically took hold of Plaintiff and placed
him over the back of a nearby couch, and handcuffed Plaintiff behind his back.
30. Defendant TAYLOR then physically threw Plaintiff, while handcuffed, out
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 5 of 31
the front door of his residence and into nearby ficus hedge.
31. Plaintiff came to rest partly on the front of his torso, with his feet caught up
on a raised light fixture located within ficus hedge.
32. As Plaintiff remained hung up in the hicus hedge, in handcuffs, Defendant
HERNANDEZ struck Plaintiff with his knee in the area of Plaintiff’s back.
33. Defendant TAYLOR subsequently charged Plaintiff with the misdemeanor
offense of resisting arrest without violence/obstruction of justice.
34. Following their arrests, Plaintiff and Onaindia were transported to Defendant
BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE substation in Cooper City, followed by a substation in Davie,
Florida. Plaintiff and Onaindia were subsequently transported to the main Broward County Jail in
Fort Lauderdale, for incarceration.
35. Following Plaintiff’s arrest, Defendant TAYLOR prepared a sworn probable
cause affidavit and supplemental report for submission to prosecuting authorities, containing false
statements and material omissions.
36. At all times material hereto, Defendant TAYLOR knew that his probable
cause affidavit and supplemental report would be relied upon by prosecuting authorities for the
commencement and continuation of criminal proceedings against Plaintiff.
37. The probable cause affidavit and supplemental report prepared by Defendant
TAYLOR for submission to prosecuting authorities contained false statements, insofar as the
probable cause affidavit falsely alleged that for officer safety, Plaintiff was ordered to place his hands
behind his back for handcuffing but refused to do so, when in fact, as Defendant TAYLOR knew,
there was no issue of officer safety justifying the handcuffing of Plaintiff in his own residence.
38. The probable cause affidavit and supplemental report prepared by Defendant
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 6 of 31
TAYLOR for submission to prosecuting authorities contained material omissions, insofar as the
probable cause affidavit and supplemental report omitted the material fact that Defendant TAYLOR
was not engaged in the lawful execution of any legal duty at the time of his arrest of Plaintiff, insofar
as Defendant TAYLOR was in the process of violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights during the
warrantless search of Plaintiff’s residence, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. McClish v.
Nugent, 483 F.3d 1231, 1248 (11 Cir. 2007) (“[A] warrantless entry into the home to effect an arrestth
is prohibited absent consent or exigent circumstances”).
39. The conduct of Defendant TAYLOR caused the commencement or institution
of criminal proceedings against Plaintiff, concluding in the trial court conducting a suppression
hearing on October 19, 2011, wherein the trial court determined that Defendant TAYLOR violated
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment by the warrantless search of Plaintiff’s
residence.
40. The criminal proceedings commenced as a result of the conduct of Defendant
TAYLOR reached a bona fide resolution in Plaintiff’s favor, and Plaintiff has never been convicted
by any prosecuting authority of any criminal offense as a result of his arrest by Defendant TAYLOR
on February 21, 2010.
41. At all times material hereto, the conduct of Defendant TAYLOR, Defendant
HERNANDEZ, and Defendant SOTO occurred under color of state law.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT IUNLAWFUL SEARCH CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT TAYLOR,
INDIVIDUALLY, COGNIZABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
For his cause of action against Defendant TAYLOR, individually, in Count I, Plaintiff states:
42. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count I, the allegations
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 7 of 31
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
43. In sworn deposition testimony on September 21, 2010 in State of Florida v.
Eric Spalding, Defendant TAYLOR testified:
A: The third time, well we knocked at the door. Somebody then
answered the door. We looked for Mr. Spalding. We were looking for Mr.
Spalding at the time.
The door was open and we pretty much figured, hey, they didn’t say anything
to us about not being able to come inside and we walked inside the house towards the
front of the house.
Q: Did you ever ask permission to walk inside of the house?
A: I think somebody said, where is Mr. Spalding or where is Eric or
something to that sort and they were looking for the homeowner. And the person
who answered the door, they were standing at the door. We walked inside. I didn’t
hear an objection at that time at that point.
44. In fact, Defendant TAYLOR entered Plaintiff’s residence without warrant or
other lawful authority, including the absence of exigent circumstances or voluntary consent. In
addition, Defendant TAYLOR remained in Plaintiff’s residence notwithstanding Alejandra
Spalding’s immediate and unequivocal verbal protests directing Defendant TAYLOR, Defendant
HERNANDEZ, and Defendant SOTO to leave the residence, and thus, the sworn testimony of
Defendant TAYLOR on September 21, 2010 is materially false.
45. The conduct of Defendant TAYLOR towards Plaintiff was objectively
unreasonable and violated Plaintiff’s clearly established rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to be secure in his house,
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 8 of 31
papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure.
46. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff has suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with
great humiliation, mental suffering, and damaged reputation.
47. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant
TAYLOR, Plaintiff suffered mental anguish and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. Plaintiff’s
losses are either permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future, in violation
of Plaintiff’s civil rights. Plaintiff has also agreed to pay the undersigned a reasonable fee for his
services, herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Judgment for exemplary damages;
c. Cost of suit;
d. Reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
e. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
f. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT IIUNLAWFUL SEARCH CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT HERNANDEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY, COGNIZABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
For his cause of action against Defendant HERNANDEZ, individually, in Count II, Plaintiff states:
48. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count II, the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
49. In sworn testimony at the suppression hearing conducted on October 19, 2011
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 9 of 31
in State of Florida v. Eric Spalding, Defendant HERNANDEZ testified that he could not recall the
details of the incident and whether he received consent to enter Plaintiff’s residence.
50. In fact, Defendant HERNANDEZ entered Plaintiff’s residence without
warrant or other lawful authority, including the absence of exigent circumstances or voluntary
consent. In addition, Defendant HERNANDEZ remained in Plaintiff’s residence notwithstanding
Alejandra Spalding’s immediate and unequivocal verbal protests directing Defendant
HERNANDEZ, Defendant TAYLOR, and Defendant SOTO to leave the residence.
51. The conduct of Defendant HERNANDEZ towards Plaintiff was objectively
unreasonable and violated Plaintiff’s clearly established rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to be secure in his house,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure.
52. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff has suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with
great humiliation, mental suffering, and damaged reputation.
53. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant
HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff suffered mental anguish and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.
Plaintiff’s losses are either permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future,
in violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights. Plaintiff has also agreed to pay the undersigned a reasonable
fee for his services, herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Judgment for exemplary damages;
c. Cost of suit;
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 10 of 31
d. Reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
e. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
f. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT IIIUNLAWFUL SEARCH CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT SOTO,
INDIVIDUALLY, COGNIZABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
For his cause of action against Defendant SOTO, individually, in Count III, Plaintiff states:
54. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count III, the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
55. In sworn deposition testimony on September 24, 2010 in State of Florida v.
Eric Spalding, Defendant SOTO testified:
Q: And you stated before you can’t recall whether or not you heard Mrs.
Spalding allowing Deputy Taylor into the residence, correct?
You didn’t hear her say anything?
A: I didn’t hear anything, but we were allowed in. She opened the store
[sic] and we were allowed in.
Q: When you say you were allowed in, why do you think you were
allowed in?
A: Well, we were conducting an investigation as to what happened
between the neighbor and them and that’s probably why she allowed us in so we
could continue our investigation.
Q: But I’m just trying to get to the point of how you know you’re allowed
in. If somebody opens the door, you ultimately assume you’re allowed in or are they
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 11 of 31
just opening the door because you’re knocking and?
A: No. I ask them if we’re allowed in when I’m a [sic] entering the
residence after the door being opened. So, I’m assuming that we were allowed in.
Q: The only way you know you were allowed in is because Deputy
Taylor had taken that initial action to go in?
A: Yes.
56. In fact, Defendant SOTO entered Plaintiff’s residence without warrant or other
lawful authority, including the absence of exigent circumstances or voluntary consent. In addition,
Defendant SOTO remained in Plaintiff’s residence notwithstanding Alejandra Spalding’s immediate
and unequivocal verbal protests directing Defendant SOTO, Defendant TAYLOR, and Defendant
HERNANDEZ to leave the residence, and thus, the sworn testimony of Defendant SOTO on
September 24, 2010 is materially false.
57. Regardless of Defendant TAYLOR’s decision to enter Plaintiff’s residence,
the unconstitutional behavior of Defendant TAYLOR did not relieve Defendant SOTO of his
responsibility to decide for himself whether to violate clearly established constitutional rights by
intruding into Plaintiff’s residence without a warrant, exigent circumstances, or voluntarily consent.
O’Rourke v. Hayes, 378 F.3d 1201, 1210 (11 Cir. 2004) (“Hayes’s only remaining defense is thatth
he did not make the initial decision to enter the office, but instead merely followed the other officers
inside, ‘defer[ing]’ to their judgment. His defense ultimately boils down to ‘But everyone else was
doing it!’ Without inquiring as to what Hayes would do if everyone else were jumping off a bridge,
we recognize that precedent squarely precludes his claim”).
58. The conduct of Defendant SOTO towards Plaintiff was objectively
unreasonable and violated Plaintiff’s clearly established rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 12 of 31
Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to be secure in his house,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure.
59. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff has suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with
great humiliation, mental suffering, and damaged reputation.
60. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant SOTO,
Plaintiff suffered mental anguish and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. Plaintiff’s losses are
either permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future, in violation of
Plaintiff’s civil rights. Plaintiff has also agreed to pay the undersigned a reasonable fee for his
services, herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Judgment for exemplary damages;
c. Cost of suit;
d. Reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
e. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
f. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT IVFALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT
TAYLOR, INDIVIDUALLY, COGNIZABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
For his cause of action against Defendant TAYLOR, individually, in Count IV, Plaintiff states:
61. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count IV, the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 13 of 31
62. Defendant TAYLOR proximately caused Plaintiff’s arrest in the absence of
lawful authority or probable cause that Plaintiff committed any criminal offense.
63. The conduct of Defendant TAYLOR towards Plaintiff was objectively
unreasonable and violated Plaintiff’s clearly established rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to be free from arrest and detention in the absence of probable
cause.
64. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff has suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with
great humiliation, mental suffering, and damaged reputation.
65. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant
TAYLOR, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty and freedom, bodily injury and resulting pain and
suffering, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. Plaintiff’s losses are either
permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future, in violation of Plaintiff’s
civil rights. Plaintiff has also agreed to pay the undersigned a reasonable fee for his services, herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Judgment for exemplary damages;
c. Cost of suit;
d. Reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
e. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
f. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT V
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 14 of 31
EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE BY DEFENDANT RODRIGUEZ,INDIVIDUALLY, COGNIZABLE UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
For his cause of action against Defendant RODRIGUEZ, individually, in Count V, Plaintiff states:
66. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count V, the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
67. The use of force by Defendant RODRIGUEZ towards Plaintiff was objectively
unreasonable and unnecessary for Defendant RODRIGUEZ to defend himself or any other person
from bodily harm during the arrest of Plaintiff, and constitutes the excessive use of force in violation
of Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
68. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff has suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with
great humiliation, mental suffering, and damaged reputation.
69. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant
RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, mental anguish, and
loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. Plaintiff’s losses are either permanent or continuing and
Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future, in violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights. Plaintiff has also
agreed to pay the undersigned a reasonable fee for his services, herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Judgment for exemplary damages;
c. Cost of suit;
d. Reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 15 of 31
e. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
f. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT VIINVASION OF PRIVACY CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT
BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE
For his cause of action against Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE, in Count VI, Plaintiff
states:
70. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count VI, the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
71. The warrantless entry into Plaintiff’s residence by Defendant TAYLOR and
other members of Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE was in the absence of lawful
authority, including exigent circumstances or voluntary consent.
72. The conduct of Defendant TAYLOR was objectively unreasonable and
occurred in the presence of Plaintiff’s family and guests, and caused Plaintiff outrage, mental
suffering, shame, and humiliation, and was undertaken in such a manner as to cause outrage, or
mental suffering, shame, or humiliation, to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
73. The conduct of Defendant TAYLOR was an invasion upon Plaintiff’s physical
solitude or seclusion, and constitutes invasion of privacy.
74. The conduct of Defendant TAYLOR towards Plaintiff occurred during the
course and scope of his employment as a deputy sheriff for Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S
OFFICE.
75. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Plaintiff has
suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with great humiliation, mental
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 16 of 31
suffering, and damaged reputation.
76. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant
BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty and freedom, bodily injury and
resulting pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.
Plaintiff’s losses are either permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future,
in violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Cost of suit;
c. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
d. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT VIIINVASION OF PRIVACY CLAIM AGAINST
DEFENDANT TAYLOR, INDIVIDUALLY
For his cause of action against Defendant TAYLOR, individually, in Count VII, Plaintiff states:
77. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count VII, the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
78. The warrantless entry into Plaintiff’s residence by Defendant TAYLOR and
other members of Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE was in the absence of lawful
authority, including exigent circumstances or voluntary consent.
79. The conduct of Defendant TAYLOR was objectively unreasonable and
occurred in the presence of Plaintiff’s family and guests, and caused Plaintiff outrage, mental
suffering, shame, and humiliation, and was undertaken in such a manner as to cause outrage, or
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 17 of 31
mental suffering, shame, or humiliation, to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
80. The conduct of Defendant TAYLOR was an invasion upon Plaintiff’s physical
solitude or seclusion, and constitutes invasion of privacy.
81. Alternatively to the allegations set forth in Count VI, if the invasion of
Plaintiff’s privacy by Defendant TAYLOR was committed outside the course and scope of
Defendant TAYLOR’s employment or in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner
exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property, the conduct of
Defendant TAYLOR occurred in his individual capacity.
82. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Plaintiff has
suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with great humiliation, mental
suffering, and damaged reputation.
83. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant
TAYLOR, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty and freedom, bodily injury and resulting pain and
suffering, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. Plaintiff’s losses are either
permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future, in violation of Plaintiff’s
rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Judgment for exemplary damages;
c. Cost of suit;
d. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
e. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 18 of 31
COUNT VIIIINVASION OF PRIVACY CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT
BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE
For his cause of action against Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE, in Count VIII, Plaintiff
states:
84. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count VIII, the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
85. The warrantless entry into Plaintiff’s residence by Defendant HERNANDEZ
and other members of Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE was in the absence of lawful
authority, including exigent circumstances or voluntary consent.
86. The conduct of Defendant HERNANDEZ was objectively unreasonable and
occurred in the presence of Plaintiff’s family and guests, and caused Plaintiff outrage, mental
suffering, shame, and humiliation, and was undertaken in such a manner as to cause outrage, or
mental suffering, shame, or humiliation, to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
87. The conduct of Defendant HERNANDEZ was an invasion upon Plaintiff’s
physical solitude or seclusion, and constitutes invasion of privacy.
88. The conduct of Defendant HERNANDEZ towards Plaintiff occurred during
the course and scope of his employment as a deputy sheriff for Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S
OFFICE.
89. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Plaintiff has
suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with great humiliation, mental
suffering, and damaged reputation.
90. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant
BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty and freedom, bodily injury and
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 19 of 31
resulting pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.
Plaintiff’s losses are either permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future,
in violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Cost of suit;
c. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
d. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT IXINVASION OF PRIVACY CLAIM AGAINST
DEFENDANT HERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY
For his cause of action against Defendant HERNANDEZ, individually, in Count IX, Plaintiff states:
91. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count IX, the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
92. The warrantless entry into Plaintiff’s residence by Defendant HERNANDEZ,
and other members of Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE, was in the absence of lawful
authority, including exigent circumstances or voluntary consent.
93. The conduct of Defendant HERNANDEZ was objectively unreasonable and
occurred in the presence of Plaintiff’s family and guests, and caused Plaintiff outrage, mental
suffering, shame, and humiliation, and was undertaken in such a manner as to cause outrage, or
mental suffering, shame, or humiliation, to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
94. The conduct of Defendant HERNANDEZ was an invasion upon Plaintiff’s
physical solitude or seclusion, and constitutes invasion of privacy.
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 20 of 31
95. Alternatively to the allegations set forth in Count VIII, if the invasion of
Plaintiff’s privacy by Defendant HERNANDEZ was committed outside the course and scope of
Defendant HERNANDEZ’s employment or in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner
exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property, the conduct of
Defendant HERNANDEZ occurred in his individual capacity.
96. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Plaintiff has
suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with great humiliation, mental
suffering, and damaged reputation.
97. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant
HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty and freedom, bodily injury and resulting pain and
suffering, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. Plaintiff’s losses are either
permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future, in violation of Plaintiff’s
rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Judgment for exemplary damages;
c. Cost of suit;
d. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
e. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT XINVASION OF PRIVACY CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT
BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE
For his cause of action against Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE, in Count X, Plaintiff
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 21 of 31
states:
98. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count X, the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
99. The warrantless entry into Plaintiff’s residence by Defendant SOTO and other
members of Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE was in the absence of lawful authority,
including exigent circumstances or voluntary consent.
100. The conduct of Defendant SOTO was objectively unreasonable and occurred
in the presence of Plaintiff’s family and guests, and caused Plaintiff outrage, mental suffering,
shame, and humiliation, and was undertaken in such a manner as to cause outrage, or mental
suffering, shame, or humiliation, to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
101. The conduct of Defendant SOTO was an invasion upon Plaintiff’s physical
solitude or seclusion, and constitutes invasion of privacy.
102. The conduct of Defendant SOTO towards Plaintiff occurred during the course
and scope of his employment as a deputy sheriff for Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE.
103. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Plaintiff has
suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with great humiliation, mental
suffering, and damaged reputation.
104. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant
BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty and freedom, bodily injury and
resulting pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.
Plaintiff’s losses are either permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future,
in violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 22 of 31
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Cost of suit;
c. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
d. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT XIINVASION OF PRIVACY CLAIM AGAINST
DEFENDANT SOTO, INDIVIDUALLY
For his cause of action against Defendant SOTO, individually, in Count XI, Plaintiff states:
105. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count XI, the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
106. The warrantless entry into Plaintiff’s residence by Defendant SOTO and other
members of Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE was in the absence of lawful authority,
including exigent circumstances or voluntary consent.
107. The conduct of Defendant SOTO was objectively unreasonable and occurred
in the presence of Plaintiff’s family and guests, and caused Plaintiff outrage, mental suffering,
shame, and humiliation, and was undertaken in such a manner as to cause outrage, or mental
suffering, shame, or humiliation, to a person of ordinary sensibilities.
108. The conduct of Defendant SOTO was an invasion upon Plaintiff’s physical
solitude or seclusion, and constitutes invasion of privacy.
109. Alternatively to the allegations set forth in Count X, if the invasion of
Plaintiff’s privacy by Defendant SOTO was committed outside the course and scope of Defendant
SOTO’s employment or in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and
willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property, the conduct of Defendant SOTO occurred in
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 23 of 31
his individual capacity.
110. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Plaintiff has
suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with great humiliation, mental
suffering, and damaged reputation.
111. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant SOTO,
Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty and freedom, bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, mental
anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. Plaintiff’s losses are either permanent or
continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Judgment for exemplary damages;
c. Cost of suit;
d. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
e. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT XIIFALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT CLAIM
AGAINST DEFENDANT BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE
For his cause of action against Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE in Count XII, Plaintiff
states:
112. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count XII the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
113. Defendant RODRIGUEZ proximately caused Plaintiff’s arrest and detention
in the absence of probable cause that Plaintiff committed any criminal offense.
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 24 of 31
114. The actions of Defendant RODRIGUEZ, in causing the arrest of Plaintiff in
the absence of probable cause, were taken in the absence of lawful authority. The actions of
Defendant RODRIGUEZ constitute false arrest/false imprisonment of Plaintiff under Florida law.
115. The false arrest/false imprisonment of Plaintiff was committed by Defendant
RODRIGUEZ in the course and scope of his employment as a deputy sheriff for Defendant
BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE.
116. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Plaintiff has
suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with great humiliation, mental
suffering, and damaged reputation.
117. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant
BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty and freedom, bodily injury and
resulting pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.
Plaintiff’s losses are either permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future,
in violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Cost of suit;
c. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
d. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT XIIIFALSE ARREST/FALSE IMPRISONMENT CLAIM
AGAINST DEFENDANT RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY
For his cause of action against Defendant RODRIGUEZ, individually, in Count XIII Plaintiff states:
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 25 of 31
118. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count XIII the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
119. Defendant RODRIGUEZ proximately caused Plaintiff’s arrest and detention
in the absence of probable cause that Plaintiff committed any criminal offense.
120. The actions of Defendant RODRIGUEZ, in causing the arrest of Plaintiff in
the absence of probable cause, were taken in absence of lawful authority. The actions of Defendant
RODRIGUEZ constitute false arrest/false imprisonment of Plaintiff under Florida law.
121. Alternatively to the allegations set forth in Count XII, if Plaintiff’s arrest by
Defendant RODRIGUEZ was committed outside the course and scope of Defendant RODRIGUEZ’s
employment, or in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful
disregard of human rights, safety, or property, the conduct of Defendant RODRIGUEZ occurred in
his individual capacity.
122. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Plaintiff has
suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with great humiliation, mental
suffering, and damaged reputation.
123. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant
RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff suffered loss of liberty and freedom, bodily injury and resulting pain and
suffering, mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. Plaintiff’s losses are either
permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future, in violation of Plaintiff’s
rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Judgment for exemplary damages;
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 26 of 31
c. Cost of suit;
d. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
e. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT XIVBATTERY/UNNECESSARY FORCE CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT
BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE
For his cause of action against Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE in Count XIV, Plaintiff
states:
124. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count XIV, the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
125. The use of force by Defendant RODRIGUEZ towards Plaintiff was objectively
unreasonable and unnecessary for Defendant RODRIGUEZ to defend himself or any other person
from bodily harm during the arrest of Plaintiff, and resulted, as Defendant RODRIGUEZ reasonably
should have foreseen, in a harmful and offensive contact of Plaintiff, against his will.
126. The battery/unnecessary use of force by Defendant RODRIGUEZ towards
Plaintiff occurred during the course and scope of his employment as a deputy sheriff for Defendant
BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE.
127. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Plaintiff has
suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with great humiliation, mental
suffering, and damaged reputation.
128. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant
BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE, Plaintiff suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering,
mental anguish, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. Plaintiff’s losses are either permanent
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 27 of 31
or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Cost of suit;
c. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
d. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT XVBATTERY/UNNECESSARY FORCE CLAIM AGAINST
DEFENDANT RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY
For his cause of action against Defendant BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE in Count XV, Plaintiff
states:
129. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count XV, the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
130. The use of force by Defendant RODRIGUEZ towards Plaintiff was objectively
unreasonable and unnecessary for Defendant RODRIGUEZ to defend himself or any other person
from bodily harm during the arrest of Plaintiff, and resulted, as Defendant RODRIGUEZ reasonably
should have foreseen, in a harmful and offensive contact of Plaintiff, against his will.
131. Alternatively to the allegations set forth in Count XIV, if the conduct of
Defendant RODRIGUEZ occurred outside the course and scope of his employment for Defendant
BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE, or was committed in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in
a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property, then the
battery/unnecessary force was committed by Defendant RODRIGUEZ in his individual capacity.
132. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Plaintiff has
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 28 of 31
suffered grievously, has been brought into public scandal, and with great humiliation, mental
suffering, and damaged reputation.
133. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant
RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, mental anguish, and
loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life. Plaintiff’s losses are either permanent or continuing and
Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Judgment for exemplary damages;
c. Cost of suit;
d. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
e. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
COUNT XVIMALICIOUS PROSECUTION AGAINST DEFENDANT RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY
For his cause of action against Defendant RODRIGUEZ, individually, in Count XVI, Plaintiff states:
134. Plaintiff realleges and adopts, as if fully set forth in Count XVI, the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 41.
135. No reasonably cautious police officer in the position of Defendant
RODRIGUEZ would have believed Plaintiff was guilty-in-fact of any criminal offense.
136. The conduct of Defendant RODRIGUEZ caused the commencement or
institution of criminal proceedings against Plaintiff, resulting in the trial court granting Plaintiff’s
motion to suppress on October 19, 2011.
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 29 of 31
137. The conduct of Defendant RODRIGUEZ, in commending or instituting
criminal proceedings against Plaintiff, was with malice, and in the absence of probable cause that
Plaintiff committed any criminal offense.
138. At all times material hereto, Defendant RODRIGUEZ knew that his arrest
affidavit and supplemental report would be submitted to prosecuting authorities for the determination
of whether criminal charges should be filed against Plaintiff, and included materially false statements
and material omissions necessary to a finding of probable cause.
139. The conduct of Defendant RODRIGUEZ was reckless and without regard to
whether the institution of criminal proceedings against Plaintiff were justified.
140. The criminal proceedings proximately caused by the conduct of Defendant
RODRIGUEZ reached a bona fide resolution in Plaintiff’s favor.
141. As a direct and proximate result of the acts described above, Plaintiff has
suffered grievously and has been brought into public scandal, with great humiliation, mental
suffering and damaged reputation.
142. As a further direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant
RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff suffered loss of his liberty and freedom, mental anguish, and loss of capacity
for the enjoyment of life. Plaintiff also retained a criminal defense attorney to represent him in the
criminal prosecution instituted as a result of the conduct of Defendant RODRIGUEZ, and agreed to
pay him a reasonable fee for her services. Plaintiff’s losses are either permanent or continuing and
Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future, in violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
a. Judgment for compensatory damages in excess of $ 15,000 dollars;
b. Judgment for exemplary damages;
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 30 of 31
c. Cost of suit;
d. Trial by jury as to all issues so triable; and
e. Such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and
appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
143. Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable as of right.
DATED this 23 day of August, 2012.rd
By: s/. Hugh L. Koerner Hugh L. KoernerFlorida Bar No.: 716952Email: [email protected] L. Koerner, P.A.Sheridan Executive Centre3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 208Hollywood, FL 33021Telephone: (954) 522-1235Facsimile: (954) 522-1176Attorneys for Plaintiff Eric J. Spalding
Case 0:12-cv-61651-RSR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2012 Page 31 of 31