in the circuit court of the fifteenth …myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/wf/jmee-9m5rzh/... · in...

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. ___________________

AMERICAN CHILDREN’S CANCER

ASSOCIATION, a New Jersey Corporation

registered to solicit charitable contributions in

Florida f/k/a Children’s Cancer Society, Inc.,

SHAUN HEUSEN a/k/a Sharif “Shaun” Hussein

a/k/a Shaun Heussen, an individual; JOSEPH WAY,

an individual, and PETER KELLY, an individual.

Defendants.

__________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL

AFFAIRS, STATE OF FLORIDA (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or the “Attorney

General”), hereby sues defendants, AMERICAN CHILDREN’S CANCER ASSOCIATION

f/k/a Children’s Cancer Society, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as “ACCA”), a New Jersey

Corporation, registered to solicit charitable contributions in Florida; SHAUN HEUSEN, a/k/a

Sharif “Shaun” Hussein, a/k/a Shaun Heussen; JOSEPH WAY; and PETER KELLY

(“hereinafter collectively referred to as “THE DEFENDANTS”), and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for injunctive relief, damages, attorneys’ fees, penalties and any

other statutory relief available, pursuant to Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act

(hereinafter referred to as “FDUTPA”), Chapter 50l, Part II, Florida Statutes.

Filing # 16054305 Electronically Filed 07/17/2014 04:43:43 PM

2

2. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of FDUTPA and

§ 26.012 Fla. Stat.

3. The statutory violations alleged herein occurred in or affected more than one judicial

circuit in the State of Florida. Venue is proper in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit as the statutory

violations, committed by THE DEFENDANTS as alleged herein, occurred in Palm Beach County,

Florida. Defendant ACCA also maintained a “virtual office” in Palm Beach County for the purpose

of communicating with consumers in Palm Beach County, Florida and elsewhere. Upon

information and belief, Defendant Kelly also resides in Palm Beach County, Florida.

THE PLAINTIFF

4. Plaintiff is an enforcing authority of FDUTPA as defined in Chapter 50l, Part II,

Florida Statutes, and is authorized to seek damages, as well as declarative, injunctive and other

statutory relief pursuant to this part.

5. Plaintiff has conducted an investigation, and the head of the enforcing authority,

Attorney General Pam Bondi, has determined that an enforcement action serves the public interest,

as required by Section 501.207(2), Fla. Stat. A copy of said determination is attached and

incorporated herein as Plaintiff’s Exhibit A.

THE DEFENDANTS

6. Defendant ACCA is a nonprofit corporation registered in New Jersey and a tax-

exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Defendant ACCA

claims that its mission is to “[p]rovide alternative cancer treatment options and provide financial aid

to families that have a child with cancer.” According to ACCA’s 2012 tax return, the most recent

available, the organization collected $116,781 in revenue in 2011, it expended approximately

$5,446 on program expenses (i.e., grants to individuals), and spent the balance of its funds to pay

3

for salaries, marketing and operating expenses. At all material times hereto, Defendant ACCA

constituted an “organization ” as defined within Section 849.0935(1)(b) of the Florida Statutes and a

“charitable organization” as defined within Section 496.404(1) of the Florida Statutes.

7. On or about October 20, 2005, Defendant ACCA entered into a Consent Order with

the New Jersey Attorney General which enjoined Defendant ACCA from violating New Jersey’s

Charitable Registration and Investigation Act, New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, and from

engaging in certain specified activities relating to its solicitation of charitable contributions (“the

New Jersey Injunction”).

8. On or about July 24, 2013, Defendant ACCA submitted an application to become

licensed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (hereinafter referred to as

“FDACS”) as a charitable organization eligible to solicit charitable contributions in Florida.

Defendant ACCA failed to properly disclose the New Jersey Injunction, as required on the licensing

application it filed with FDACS.

9. Defendant ACCA purportedly operated from an address at 109 Brass Castle Road

Washington, New Jersey 07882. However, at all material times hereto, Defendant ACCA also

maintained a “virtual office” in Palm Beach County, located at 1200 Federal Highway, Suite 200

Boca Raton, Florida 33432 (“the Virtual Office”). THE DEFENDANTS used the Virtual Office in

the execution of a fundraising scheme called the Florida Dream Home Raffle (hereinafter referred

to as the “Dream Home Raffle”). Among other things, THE DEFENDANTS directed consumers to

mail in their Dream Home Raffle entry forms and payments to Defendant ACCA’s Virtual Office.

Defendant ACCA, at all material times hereto, was the purported recipient of proceed generated by

the Dream Home Raffle.

4

10. Defendant SHAUN HEUSEN, a/k/a Sharif “Shaun” Hussein and a/k/a Shaun

Heussen (hereinafter referred to as “HEUSEN”), upon information and belief, is an adult individual,

residing in Union County, New Jersey, is not in the military and is otherwise sui juris.

11. On or about October 20, 2005, Defendant HEUSEN, individually and in his capacity

as an officer of ACCA, entered into a Consent Order in connection with the New Jersey Injunction,

which enjoined Defendant HEUSEN from violating New Jersey’s Charitable Registration and

Investigation Act, New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, and from engaging in certain specified

activities relating to its solicitation of charitable contributions (including that he cease using

contributions made to ACCA to pay for expenses personally incurred) .

12. Defendant HEUSEN, at all material times hereto, was Defendant ACCA’s President

according to ACCA’s registration documents with both the New Jersey Attorney General and

FDACS. Defendant HEUSEN was responsible for, among other things, the custody and final

distribution of proceeds from the Dream Home Raffle. Defendant HEUSEN was also the registrant

of one of the web domains ACCA used to advertise the Dream Home Raffle. Defendant HEUSEN,

directly and indirectly, was also responsible for promoting the Dream Home Raffle through a radio

show that aired in South Florida as well as a televised news program that originally aired in South

Florida and was posted on the Internet.

13. Defendant JOSEPH WAY (hereinafter referred to as “WAY”), upon information and

belief, is an adult individual, residing in Hunterdon, New Jersey, is not in the military and is

otherwise sui juris.

14. On or about October 20, 2005, Defendant WAY, individually and in his capacity as

an officer of ACCA, entered into a Consent Order in connection with the New Jersey Injunction,

which enjoined Defendant WAY from violating New Jersey’s Charitable Registration and

5

Investigation Act, New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, and from engaging in certain specified

activities relating to its solicitation of charitable contributions (including that he cease using

contributions made to ACCA to pay for expenses personally incurred).

15. Defendant WAY, at all material times hereto, was Defendant ACCA’s Vice

President. Defendant WAY, along with Defendant HEUSEN, was also responsible for the custody

and final distribution of proceeds from the Dream Home Raffle. Among other things, Defendant

WAY also signed and submitted ACCA’s Charitable Organization Registration Application to

FDACS, he opened the Virtual Office used in the operation of the Dream Home Raffle, and he is

listed as the registrant, administrator and technician of one of the ACCA web domains that THE

DEFENDANTS used to advertise the Dream Home Raffle.

16. Defendant PETER KELLY (hereinafter referred to as “KELLY”), upon information

and belief, is an adult individual, residing in Palm Beach County, Florida, is not in the military and

is otherwise sui juris.

17. Defendant KELLY, at all material times hereto, was an affiliate of Defendant ACCA

and acted as its agent. Defendant KELLY is licensed as a real estate agent in the State of Florida.

Among other things, Defendant KELLY participated in locating the home that was touted as being

offered in the Dream Home Raffle; he appeared as a ACCA spokesperson to promote the Dream

Home Raffle on a television news program and a radio show; and he communicated Dream Home

Raffle information to the public over the Internet as an administrator of the “Florida Dream Home

Raffle by the American Children’s Cancer Association” Facebook account.

18. THE DEFENDANTS solicited, advertised, offered, provided and distributed Dream

Home Raffle tickets, donations and prizes, things of value within the definition of § 501.203(8), Fla.

Stat., at all times material hereto.

6

19. THE DEFENDANTS engaged in trade or commerce within the definition of §

501.203(8), Fla. Stat., at all times material hereto.

20. THE DEFENDANTS solicited consumers within the definition of § 501.203(7), Fla.

Stat., at all times material hereto.

21. THE DEFENDANTS, at all material times hereto, possessed actual and/or

constructive knowledge of the unfair and/or deceptive acts and practices complained of in this

Complaint, they participated directly or indirectly, through affiliates, agents, owners, employees, or

other representatives in the unfair and/or deceptive acts and practices as set forth herein, they

controlled said acts and practices and/or had the authority to control them.

THE DREAM HOME RAFFLE

22. By at least, June 2013, THE DEFENDANTS began collaborating to organize and

form the Dream Home Raffle, as a purported fundraising project for defendant ACCA. THE

DEFENDANTS’ plan regarding the Dream Home Raffle was to promote a raffle (i.e., a drawing by

chance) offering a luxury, waterfront home in South Florida as a means of inducing consumers to

purchase tickets costing eighty dollars ($80) each. As THE DEFENDANTS well knew, they did

not own, nor did they have any binding legal rights to such a luxury home, and accordingly had no

realistic ability to award such a raffle prize.

23. Pursuant to THE DEFENDANTS’ fundraising scheme, on or about June 25, 2013,

Defendant WAY opened the Virtual Office on behalf of Defendant ACCA, for the purpose of

receiving communications from consumers regarding the Dream Home Raffle (including, but not

limited to receiving raffle entry forms and monies for the purchase of raffle tickets).

24. In furtherance of THE DEFENDANTS’ fundraising scheme, on or about July 24,

2013, Defendant WAY submitted a false and misleading application to FDACS on behalf of

7

Defendant ACCA to become licensed as a charitable organization eligible to solicit charitable

contributions in Florida. Specifically, Defendant WAY falsely represented on the application that

neither he, nor Defendants ACCA or HEUSEN had ever previously been involved in any

enforcement actions relating to their charitable solicitation activities. In truth and in fact, on or

about October 20, 2005, Defendants ACCA, HEUSEN and WAY, individually and in their capacity

as officers of ACCA, had previously entered into a Consent Order with the New Jersey Attorney

General, enjoining them from violating New Jersey’s Charitable Registration and Investigation Act

and New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, as well as prohibiting certain other activities relating to

their solicitation of charitable contributions.

25. As a further part of THE DEFENDANTS’ plan regarding the organization and

execution of the Dream Home Raffle, Defendant KELLY began attempting to locate a luxury home

that could be advertised as the raffle’s grand prize. On or about August 4, 2013, Defendant KELLY

contacted a real estate agent located in South Florida, whom Defendant KELLY personally knew,

regarding the Dream Home Raffle. In turn, the real estate agent shared this information with her

client, who had previously listed for sale his luxury, waterfront home located in Lighthouse Point,

Florida (“the Lighthouse Point Home”).

26. Subsequently, THE DEFENDANTS provided the owner of the Lighthouse Point

Home with a “Raffle Permission Agreement,” which purportedly authorized Defendant ACCA to

“advertise” that home in connection with the Dream Home Raffle. Under the terms of this

“agreement,” the owner did not donate his Lighthouse Point Home to Defendant ACCA, nor did he

otherwise grant any ownership rights to the property to THE DEFENDANTS. In fact, the

homeowner was not under any obligation to THE DEFENDANTS whatsoever, in connection with

the Dream Home Raffle.

8

27. As a further part of their fundraising scheme, THE DEFENDANTS planned to tout

the Dream Home Raffle using various advertising methods, including newspapers, radio, television

and Internet advertising.

28. Beginning on an unknown date, but at least by on or about October, 16, 2013, THE

DEFENDANTS began soliciting the public to purchase tickets for the Dream Home Raffle, at a cost

of eighty dollars ($80) per ticket. Tickets for the Dream Home Raffle were purportedly available

for purchase by consumers until March 31, 2014, and the Grand Prize drawing was to purportedly

occur on April 15, 2014.

29. At all material times hereto, the Dream Home Raffle constituted a “drawing by

chance,” “drawing” or “raffle,” as defined within Section 849.0935(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes. At

all material times hereto, THE DEFENDANTS’ promotion and marketing of the Dream Home

Raffle constituted “solicitation” as defined within Section 496.404(20) of the Florida Statutes, and

generated “contributions” as defined within Section 496.404(5) of the Florida Statutes.

30. Throughout the course of the Dream Home Raffle program, THE DEFENDANTS

indicated repeatedly that consumers who purchased raffle tickets would be entered into a drawing

for the Grand Prize consisting of either a “Florida Dream Home” valued at $2,100,000 or a lump

sum payment of $1,600,000. THE DEFENDANTS also deceptively claimed, that every Dream

Home Raffle ticket purchaser “was a winner,” and they would receive a “3 day-2 night vacation” to

one of ten different locations in the United States. THE DEFENDANTS further claimed that

entrants would have the opportunity to win numerous other valuable prizes from related drawings,

including those denoted as, the Early Bird, 50th ticket, 100th ticket, 150th ticket and Refer-a-Friend

drawings.

9

31. Consumers were deceptively lead to believe that, as entrants in the Dream Home

Raffle, they had an actual opportunity to win the luxury, waterfront home THE DEFENDNANTS

were touting. To reinforce this false and misleading impression, THE DEFENDANTS repeatedly

publicized the alleged $2.1 million dollar home as being the Dream Home Raffle’s Grand Prize, and

they prominently featured images of the luxurious Lighthouse Point Home throughout their

advertisements on ACCA’s website, including the images shown below:

32. In truth and in fact, THE DEFENDANTS had no intention of awarding any such

Dream Home Grand Prize unless a minimum of approximately 30,000 to 37,500 tickets were sold at

10

a cost of $80 per ticket, which would enable them to purchase the Lighthouse Point Home outright

from the owner. THE DEFENDANTS failed to conspicuously disclose these facts to consumers of

the Dream Home Raffle in the raffle’s advertisements, order forms and solicitations. Instead, THE

DEFENDANTS buried these details within five-pages of dense, small-font text accessible through a

small link at the bottom of the Dream Home Raffle’s webpage.

33. As a part of the plan to promote the sale of the Dream Home Raffle tickets, in or

about December 2013, Defendant KELLY appeared on a live television news program, which aired

in South Florida and was subsequently posted on the Internet. During that interview, images of the

Lighthouse Point Home were again displayed to consumers as the Grand Prize of the Dream Home

Raffle. Defendant KELLY described the home as being a luxurious 6 bedroom, 6 bathroom home

located in Lighthouse Point, Florida on the intercoastal waterway, with full ocean access.

Defendant KELLY falsely represented during the interview that the Lighthouse Point Home had

been “donated” to the Charity (Defendant ACCA) as a raffle prize. When asked about the donor’s

identity, Defendant KELLY indicated the home was donated by “a nice businessman” whose

identity they were keeping anonymous. In truth and in fact, as THE DEFENDANTS well knew, the

Lighthouse Point Home had not been “donated” to Defendant ACCA for use as a prize in the Dream

Home Raffle.

34. During his televised interview, Defendant KELLY also directly solicited the viewing

public to purchase tickets for the raffle at a cost of eighty dollars ($80) each. When asked if a

minimum number of tickets had to be sold in order to award the Grand Prize, Defendant KELLY

minimized that possibility, by falsely claiming the Dream Home Raffle ticket sales were “going

great.” In truth and in fact, as THE DEFENDANTS well knew, less than 300 tickets had been sold

11

at that time (out of the approximately 30,000 to 37,500 tickets needed by THE DEFENDANTS to

actually complete the Grand Prize drawing).

35. Defendants HEUSEN and KELLY also appeared together on a South Florida radio

talk show program in or about December 2013. THE DEFENDANTS used this opportunity to

promote Defendant ACCA and the Dream Home Raffle ticket sales.

36. Upon information and belief, THE DEFENDANTS were aware that Florida law

(Chapter 849.0935, Fla. Stat.) prohibited the sale of raffle tickets by a charitable organization. As a

result, they buried a disclaimer within a link to the Dream Home Raffle’s website which indicated

that: “Eligible Ticket Purchasers may purchase the $80.00 suggested donation (no purchase

necessary) Raffle tickets online at www.give2kids.com or make a ticket reservation by calling toll-

free 800-448-3254.” However, notwithstanding this disclaimer, at the time an “eligible” ticket was

purchased, the consumer was required to provide their name, address, email, phone number, credit

card number, credit card security code and expiration date. “Eligible Ticket Purchasers” could also

purchase tickets by mailing the filled in ticket entry form to ACCA’s Virtual Office location, but all

entries were required to include payment by check, money order, credit card or PayPal.

37. THE DEFENDANTS failed to conspicuously disclose on their Dream Home Raffle

entry order forms, tickets, advertisements and other printed materials that the eighty dollar ($80)

ticket price was actually only a “suggested donation” and that “no purchase was necessary” to

enter the raffle. Instead, all of THE DEFENDANTS’ conspicuous disclosures indicated that

consumers were required to purchase a raffle ticket, at a cost of eighty dollars ($80) each, in order

to enter the Dream Home Raffle. Along with using the terms “purchase” or “purchaser” more than

45 times in the Dream Home Raffle’s rules and regulations, THE DEFENDANTS made various

12

affirmative representations in their advertisements, printed materials and solicitations regarding the

Dream Home Raffle tickets, including, but not limited to, the following:

a. “all entries must include payment by check, money order, credit card or PayPal.”

b. Defendant ACCA reserves the right to reject any entry form that it deems was

“submitted without good funds.”

c. “$80 per ticket” and “raffle tickets cost $80 each”

d. “ALL SALES ARE FINAL – NO REFUNDS”

e. Additional (early bird) drawings to be held “after every 100th ticket is sold…”

f. Up to 30,000 tickets may be sold and individuals may purchase tickets…

g. Tickets are selling! Thanks everyone. It is for a great cause indeed! Buy a ticket

today and buy another one as a gift!...”

38. As indicated above, despite selling only a tiny fraction (less than one percent) of the

number of tickets required to award the Dream Home Raffle’s grand prize (i.e., the Lighthouse

Point Home), Defendant KELLY, nevertheless, proclaimed that the raffle was “going great” during

his television interview in about mid-December 2013. On or about April 24, 2014, the Dream

Home Raffle was purportedly completed without ever having awarded the Grand Prize.

Nevertheless, Defendant KELLY falsely represented on the Dream Home Raffle’s Facebook page

that the Dream Home Raffle had been “successfully completed.”

39. THE DEFENDANTS also failed to provide consumers the date, time and place

where the winner would be chosen for the Grand Prize and other drawings promoted as part of the

Dream Home Raffle. Moreover, upon information and belief, THE DEFENDANTS also cancelled,

failed to hold or extended the date for holding the drawings relating to the Dream Home Raffle. By

on or about May 2, 2014, Defendant ACCA had issued a total of only $3,000 in cash prizes. On or

about May 7, 2014, after receiving an investigative subpoena from the Plaintiff for ACCA's records

13

relating to the Dream Home Raffle, Defendant ACCA began issuing additional cash prizes (totaling

approximately $11,755), including an award of $8,905 to the purported Grand Prize winner.

COUNT I

DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

CHAPTER 501, PART II FLORIDA STATUTES

40. Plaintiff adopts, incorporates herein and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 39 as if

fully set forth hereinafter.

41. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Part II, Fla.

Stat. (“the Act” or “FDUTPA”) provides that “unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts

or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are

hereby declared unlawful.”

42. The provisions of the Act are to be “construed liberally” to promote the protection of

the “consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods

of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade

or commerce.” Section 501.202, Fla. Stat.

43. Section 501.203(3) of the Act defines a violation as any violation of this act or the

rules adopted under this act and may be based upon, among other things, “…[a]ny law, statute, rule,

regulation, or ordinance which proscribes unfair methods of competition, or unfair, deceptive, or

unconscionable acts or practices.”

44. THE DEFENDANTS have violated, and/or will continue to violate, the FDUTPA,

by among other things, using deceptive and unfair practices in the marketing and sale of Dream

Home Raffle tickets, as more particularly set forth in paragraphs 22 through 39, above.

14

45. These above-described acts and practices of THE DEFENDANTS have injured and

will likely continue to injure and prejudice the public and consumers in the State of Florida.

46. Unless THE DEFENDANTS are permanently enjoined from engaging further in the

acts and practices complained of herein, the continued activities of THE DEFENDANTS will result

in irreparable injury to the public and consumers in the State of Florida for which there is no

adequate remedy at law.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF THE GAMBLING ACT, CHAPTER 849.0935, FLA. STAT.

(CONSTITUTING A PER SE FDUTPA VIOLATION)



48. Section 501.204(1), Fla. Stat., establishes that unfair or deceptive acts or practices in

the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.

49. Section 501.203(3)(c), Fla. Stat., establishes that a violation of any law, statute, rule,


unconscionable acts or practices is a violation of the provisions of Chapter 501, Part II of the

Florida Statutes and is subject to the penalties and remedies provided for such violations.

50. Section 849.0935(6), Fla. Stat., proscribes that any violation of Section 849.0935,

Fla. Stat., is a deceptive and unfair trade practice. Therefore, any violation of § 849.0935, Fla. Stat.,

constitutes a per se violation of FDUTPA, and is subject to the penalties and remedies provided for

such violation.

51. Section 849.9035(3), Fla. Stat., provides in pertinent that: “All brochures,

advertisements, notices, tickets, or entry blanks used in connection with a drawing by chance shall

15

conspicuously disclose: (a) The rules governing the conduct and operation of the drawing.

…(d) The date, hour, and place where the winner will be chosen and the prizes will be awarded,

unless the brochures, advertisements, notices, tickets, or entry blanks are not offered to the public

more than 3 days prior to the drawing. (e) That no purchase or contribution is necessary.”

52. THE DEFENDANTS violated Section 849.9035(3), Fla. Stat., by failing to

conspicuously disclose on all of ACCA’s advertisements, tickets, entry forms and other materials

used in connection with the Dream Home Raffle, a drawing by chance, all of the information

required in Section 849.9035(3) (a), (d) and (e), as more particularly described in paragraphs 22

through 39 , above.

53. Section 849.9035(4), Fla. Stat., provides in pertinent part, that it is unlawful for any

organization that…. “ promotes, operates, or conducts a drawing by chance: … (b) To require an

entry fee, donation, substantial consideration, payment, proof of purchase, or contribution as a

condition of entering the drawing or of being selected to win a prize. … ; (c) To condition the

drawing on a minimum number of tickets having been disbursed to contributors or on a minimum

amount of contributions having been received; … (f) To fail to award all prizes offered; (g) To

print, publish, or circulate literature or advertising material used in connection with the drawing

which is false, deceptive, or misleading; (h) To cancel a drawing; or (i) To condition the

acquisition or giveaway of any prize upon the receipt of voluntary donations or contributions.

54. As more particularly described in paragraphs 22 through 39, above, THE

DEFENDANTS violated Section 849.0935 (4), Fla. Stat., by, among other things: requiring a

donation and/or purchase of a raffle ticket to enter the Dream Home Raffle; conditioning the

drawing and/or the acquisition or giveaway of prizes on a minimum number of tickets having been

disbursed to contributors or on a minimum amount of contributions having been received; failing to

16

award all prizes offered; printing publishing, and circulating literature or advertising material in

connection with the Dream Home Raffle which was false, deceptive, or misleading; and/or

canceling one or more of the scheduled drawings relating to the Dream Home Raffle.





in irreparable injury to the public and to consumers in the State of Florida for which there is no


COUNT III

VIOLATION OF SOLICITATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS ACT, CHAPTER 496.401-

496.424, FLA. STAT. (CONSTITUTING A PER SE FDUTPA VIOLATION)



58. Section 501.204(1), Fla. Stat., establishes that unfair or deceptive acts or practices in

the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.

59. Section 501.203(3)(c), Fla. Stat., establishes that a violation of any law, statute, rule,


unconscionable acts or practices is a violation of the provisions of Chapter 501, Part II of the

Florida Statutes and is subject to the penalties and remedies provided for such violations.

60. Section 496.416, Fla. Stat., proscribes that a violation of any provisions of

Sections 496.401-496.424, Fla. Stat., is an unfair or deceptive act or practice or unfair method of

17

competition in violation of FDUTPA and is subject to the penalties and remedies provided for such

violations.

61. Section 496.415, Fla Stat., provides in pertinent part, that “[i]t is unlawful for any

person in connection with the planning, conduct, or execution of any solicitation or charitable or

sponsor sales promotion to: (1) Operate in violation of, or fail to comply with, the requirements

of Sections 496.401-496.424. (2) Knowingly submit false, misleading, or inaccurate information

in a document that is filed with the department [FDACS], provided to the public, or offered in

response to a request or investigation by the department [FDACS], the Department of Legal Affairs,

or the state attorney. (13) Employ in any solicitation any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud or

to obtain a contribution by means of any deception, false pretense, misrepresentation, or false

promise.”

62. Defendants ACCA, HEUSEN and WAY violated Sections 496.415(1) and (2), Fla.

Stat., by knowingly submitting false and inaccurate information to FDACS in ACCA’s application

to be licensed as a charitable organization eligible to solicit charitable contributions. As set forth

above, Defendants ACCA, HEUSEN and WAY falsely represented that they had never previously

been involved in any enforcement actions relating to their charitable solicitation activities, when in

truth and in fact, as they well knew, Defendants ACCA, HEUSEN and WAY, individually and in

their capacity as officers of ACCA, had previously entered into a Consent Order with the New

Jersey Attorney General on about October 20, 2005, which resulted in the New Jersey Injunction.

63. Each of THE DEFENDANTS also violated Sections 496.415(1) and (13), Fla. Stat.,

in connection with their solicitations for the Dream Home Raffle by, among other things, making

material misrepresentation and omissions regarding the true nature, terms, status, timing and

success of the raffle, as well as concerning THE DEFENDANTS’ overall inability to deliver a

18

“dream home” grand prize, and by obtaining contributions by means of deception, false pretense,

misrepresentation, or false promises, as more particularly described in paragraphs 22 through 39,

above.





in irreparable injury to the public and to consumers in the State of Florida for which there is no


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department

of Legal Affairs, respectfully requests that this Court:

A. GRANT permanent injunctions against THE DEFENDANTS, their officers, agents,

servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with the

Defendants who receive actual notice of this injunction, prohibiting and enjoining such persons

from doing the following acts:

1. Violating the provisions of Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes;

2. Violating Sections 849.9035(3), (4) and (6), Florida Statues;

3. Violating Sections 496.415 and 496.416, Florida Statutes; and

4. Engaging in any business activity or operation involving the solicitation of

contributions through any drawing, raffle or drawing by chance.

B. AWARD full restitution to all consumers who are shown to have been injured,

pursuant to Section 501.207, Florida Statutes.

C. ASSESS civil penalties in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) as

prescribed by Section 501.2075, Fla. Stat., or Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) for victimized

senior citizens or handicapped persons as prescribed by Section 501.2077, Fla. Stat., for each act or

practice found to be in violation of Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes.

D. AWARD attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Section 501.2075, Fla. Stat., or as

otherwise authorized by law.

E. AWARD such equitable or other relief as is just and appropriate pursuant to Section

501.207, Florida Statutes.

F. GRANT such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

Dated this 17 day of July, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,

PAMELA JO BONDI

Attorney General of the State of Florida

_/s/ Howard S. Dargan (for)___

By: Kristen Pesicek

Assistant Attorney General

Florida Bar No. 109212

Office of the Attorney General

Consumer Protection Division

110 Southeast 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Primary: [email protected]

Secondary: [email protected]

Telephone: 954.712.4600

Facsimile: 954.527.3708

Howard S. Dargan

Assistant Attorney General

Fla. Bar No.: 0494089

Office of the Attorney General

Consumer Protection Division

1515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 900

West Palm Beach, FL 33470

Primary: [email protected]

Secondary: [email protected]

Telephone: 561.837.5007

Facsimile: 561.837.5109

mailto:[email protected]



EXHIBIT A

in the circuit court of the fifteenth …myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/wf/jmee-9m5rzh/... · in...

Documents