FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL SHARON BOCK, CASE NUMBER: 2014CA015168 DIVISION: AB Filing 21815056 Electronically Filed 12/ 19/2014 12:29:55 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 15?h JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Frank X. Cid, CASE NO: Plaintiff, V. JOHN LEHMAN, an individual, FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF RECOVERY RESIDENCES. INC. a Florida not for pro?t corporation, and CASHBOX SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendants. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, FRANK X. CID, by and through his undersigned counsel, sues Defendants, JOHN LEHMAN, FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF RECOVERY RESIDENCES, INC., and CASHBOX SOLUTIONS, LLC., and states: 1. This is an action for damages in excess exclusive of costs, attomeys? fees and interest and is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. 2. All acts giving rise to this action occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida and therefore, venue is proper in Palm Beach County, Florida. 3. Plaintiff, FRANK X. CID, is an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida and is otherwise suijuris. 4. Plaintiff is the owner/operator of residential drug and alcohol recovery related businesses includingi detoxification facilities, sober living facilities, inpatient and outpatient after- care counseling service providers, as well as businesses offering products and services related to such treatment providers and facilities. Plaintiff?s businesses and facilities include: Royal Recovery Resources, Inc., The Haven Detox, LLC, Recovery Resources Enterprises, Inc.. and Shield Investment Group, Inc. (collectively ?the CID Recovery Companies?). 5. Defendant, JOHN LEI-IMAN is an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida and is otherwise suit juris. 6. Defendant, FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF RECOVERY RESIDENCES, INC. is a Florida non-pro?t corporation existing under the laws Florida having its principal place of business in and doing business in Palm Beach County, Florida. 7. Defendant, CASHBOX SOLUTIONS, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company having its principal place of business in and doing business in Palm Beach County, Florida. 8. LEI-IMAN is the self-proclaimed ?managing partner? of CASHBOX. 9. CASHBOX company provides payment systems designed for recovery residences. 10. After establishing CASHBOX, LEHMAN incorporated FARR. 11. Since its inception, LEHMAN has been the of?cer in control of the operations of FARR. 12. At all times material hereto, LEHMAN was acting on behalf of FARR and CASHBOX 13. FARR company is a self-proclaimed ?watchdog? of the recovery residence industry in Broward and Palm Beach County, Florida. 14. LEHMAN established FARR for improper and self-serving ptuposes and improperly used FARR to ?extort? recovery residence businesses into contracting for Page 2 of 8 services in exchange for protection from being the subject of watchdog reporting to law enforcement. 15. In fact, LEHMAN publicly warns the recovery residence industry that: FARR unilaterally and voluntarily reports felonious conduct (insurance fraud and illegal patient brokering) to law enforcement; and, (ii) ?participation? in enforcement is solely one- sided in that law enforcement does not solicit FARR for cooperation and does not communicate with or inform FARR of its investigations, pending or otherwise. 16. At the same time as LEHMAN warns the recovery residence industry of its participation with law enforcement, LEHMAN solicits the recovery residence facility owners to become FARR members and CASHBOX customers using the power of intimidating ?watchdog? mission. 17. Recently, LEHMAN publically announced, and the FBI con?rmed, that the highly publicized September 11, 2014 FBI raid upon a Palm Beach County recovery residence facility was based on a ?tip? by FARR. 18. LEHMAN solicited Plaintiff for CID Recovery Companies to use CASHBOX business and, simultaneously, enlist, as a FARR paid member. 19. There is an inherent con?ict of interest in solicitation for both FARR and CASHBOX and use of FARR to generate business for CASHBOX. 20. Indeed, dual solicitation implied an ?offer of protection,? reminiscent of tum-of?the-century ma?a extortion tactics. 21. Accordingly, Plaintiff rejected solicitations. 22. Thereafter, Advanced Recovery Systems, Inc. a large network enterprise of recovery residence facilities took note of Plaintiff?s success with the CID Recovery Companies Page 3 of8 and solicited Plaintiff to sell the CID Recovery Companies to ARS. 23. ARS executives agreed to pay Plaintiff approximately $32,500,000.00 for the CID Recovery Companies. 24. After months of diligent review of the CID Recovery Companies? books and records, Plaintiff and preparation and negotiation of complex agreements for the purchase of the CID Recovery Companies, the parties agreed to the ?nal temis of the sale. ARS counsel scheduled execution for of the ?nal purchase and sale documents to take place on September 30, 2014 at 2:00 pm. 25. On September 29, 2014 at 11:00 pm, ARS con?rmed that Plaintiff and the CID Recovery Companies would execute in the morning, and ARS would execute in the afternoon so that ARS executives could ?rst attend the 2014 recovery residence conference in Palm Beach County, Florida. 26. On September 30, 2014, Plaintiff and the necessary representatives of the CID Recovery Companies executed all the agreed purchase and sale documents. 27. On September 30, 2014, prior to scheduled execution of the purchase and sale documents, LEHMAN, representing himself as president of FARR and also acting on behalf of made false statements to ARS regarding Plaintiff?s operations ofthe CID Recovery Companies. 28. Speci?cally, on September 30, 2014, at the Moments of Change 2014 Foundations Recovery Network Event (at The Breakers in Palm Beach, Florida), LEHMAN informed CEO/Chairman, Dr. Lewis Gold, that Plaintiff was engaging in insurance fraud and patient brokering, criminal felonies, in his operation of the C1D Recovery Companies; and, that Plaintiff was the subject of a pending FBI criminal investigation for insurance fraud and patient brokering Page 4 of 8 and about to be indicted. 29. statements to ARS were false and defamatory and were intended to interfere with the ARS purchase or CID Recovery Companies to ARS and in retaliation of Plaintiff refusal to join FARR and contract for CASHBOX services. 30. As a result of defamatory statements to ARS, ARS failed to execute citing risk of liability based upon the pending criminal investigation into the CID Recovery Companies. Notwithstanding that Plaintiff denied any knowledge of any investigation to ARS, (ii) Plaintiff denied any wrongdoing that could lead to investigation to ARS, and ARS had already continued Plaintiff 3 records were devoid ofevidence of wrongdoing, ARS refused to proceed with the purchase and sale transaction based upon statements. 32. A11 conditions precedent to the ?ling of this Action have been performed or waived or have otherwise expired. 33. As a result of the Defendants? actions, Plaintiff has been forced to retain the undersigned counsel to represent him in this Action and agreed and is obligated to pay counsel a reasonable fee for her services. Plaintiff intends to seek an award of attomeys? fees against Defendants pursuant to Florida law. COUNT I Defamation Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through and including 33 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 34. LEHMAN. on behalf and CASHBOX. through his false oral statements and communications to executives, imputed to them that Plaintiff unlawfully Operated his Recovery Residence Companies thereby disparaging Plaintiff?s conduct and character to represent that Plaintiff Page 5 of8 was incompatible with the proper exercise ofhis lawful business, trade and profession. 35. LEH MAN made said false statements to ARS executives about Plaintiffwhile knowing the statements were false or with reckless disregard of as to the truth or falsity of the statement 36. LEHMAN knew that such false statements would likely result in material and substantial defamation of Plaintiff and his business practice. 37. defamatory statements sought to impute to others conduct, characteristics, and/or conditions incompatible with the proper exercise of Plaintiff?s lawful business, trade, and/or profession. 38. false statements to ARS constitutes a defamation per se against Plaintiff. 39. defamation per se against Plaintiff was willful, wanton, reckless, intentional, malicious, unjusti?able, and intended to cause Plaintiff harm in retaliation for Plaintiff?s refusal to do business with LEHMAN and participate in his organization. 40. As a result of defamation per 32 against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been damaged. Such damages include but are not limited to profits lost by Plaintiff that he would have gained the ARS purchase proceeded plus attorneys? fees incurred by Plaintiff associated with the preparation of the purchase and sale transaction documents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, FRANK X. CID, demands judgment against Defendants, JOHN LEHMAN, individually, and FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF RECOVERY RESIDENCES, INC. a Florida corporation, and CASHBOX SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, jointly and severally, for damages, including lost pro?ts, as well as any and all further reliefthis Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Page 6 0f8 Count Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through and including 33 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 42. A contractual and/or advantageous relationship between ARS and Plaintiff through which Plaintiff had legal rights. 43. Plaintiff had a business relationship with ARS evidenced by an actual and identi?able understanding or agreement, which in all probability, would have been completed but for interference. 44. LEHMAN had knowledge of Plaintiff and relationship and agreement and the value of same to Plaintiff. 45. LEHMAN, individually and on behalf of CASHBOX and FARR, improperly, intentionally, unjustifiany and without privilege interfered with the business relationship between Plaintiff and ARS by making defamatory statements about Plaintiff? 5 business operations to ARS. 46. actions constitute a wrongful, improper, unjustified and non- privileged interference with the contractual and business rights and privileges of Plaintiff. 47. improper, unjusti?ed and non-privileged interference was willful, wanton, reckless, and malicious and intended to cause Plaintiff harm in retaliation for Plaintiff refusal to associate and do business with LEHMAN and participate in his organization, FARR. 48. improper, unjustified and non-privileged interference did in fact cause damage to Plaintiff. Such damages include but are not limited to pro?ts lost by Plaintiff that he would have gained had the sale to ARS proceeded as agreed plus attorneys? fees incurred by Plaintiff associated with the preparation of the purchase and sale transaction documents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, FRANK X. CID, demands judgment against Defendants, JOHN Page 7 of 8 LEHMAN, individually, and FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF RECOVERY RESIDENCES, INC. a Florida corporation, and CASHBOX SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, jointly and severally, for damages, special damages consistent with the allegations in this Count including lost pro?ts, as well as any and all further reliefthis Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. DATED: December 19, 2014. LAW OFFICE OF STACI H. GENET, PA A Plaintz?? I323 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Iaudcrdalc. Fl; 33316 954?754?onus? I Emails {ensuesqtaugat?lic?:colu 31:53.? @1639 ll .11? Iu x'?4g. m, u- ?'31 Li" "f I araei ?4 Florida [Ir Cm 20 Page 8 of8