IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

Case No.:

Division: AA
502014? 00497 2 II

CATHERINE FREDERICKS

Plaintiff,
vs.

PRINCELLA LEWIS, CONNIE LEWIS,

PRESTIGIOUS LIFECARE FOR SENIORS

LLC f/k/a PL FIRM, LLC, a Limited

Liability Company, SOVEREIGN 0 
HEALTHCARE OF BOYNTON BEACH, EC FOR 
LLC d/b/a BOYNTON BEACH 
REHABILITATION CENTER, a Limited APP- 2 5 201?!
Liability Company, I sow
JOHN DOE and JANE DOE W-

- 

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Catherine Fredericks, by and through the undersigned counsel, files this
Complaint against Defendants, PRINCELLA LEWIS (?Princella,? ?Lewis? or
?Princella Lewis?), CONNIE LEWIS (?Connie? or ?Connie Lewis?), PRESTIGIOUS
LIFECARE FOR SENIORS LLC PL FIRM, LLC Firm?), SOVEREIGN
HEALTHCARE OF BOYNTON BEACH, LLC d/b/a BOYNTON BEACH

REHABILITATION CENTER (?Boynton Rehab?), John Doe, and Jane Doe.
I

PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff Catherine Fredericks (“Ms. Fredericks” or “Plaintiff”) is a

resident of Palm Beach County.
2.

Defendant Princella Lewis is a resident of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

3.

Defendant Connie Lewis is a resident of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

4.

Defendant PL Firm, a Florida limited liability company, has its principal

place of business in Tamarac, Florida.
5.

Defendant Boynton Rehab, a Florida limited liability company, has its

principal place of business in Boynton Beach, Florida.
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
6.

The amount in controversy exceeds $15,000.00, excluding interest, costs

and attorney's fees, which is within the jurisdiction of the court in accordance with
Section 26.012 of the Florida Statutes.
VENUE
7.

Venue in Palm Beach County, Florida is proper in this action under
2

 Section 47.011 of the Florida Statutes because the activities giving rise to this action
occurred in this county.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8.

Fredericks suffered an injury in 2012 and, following a hospitalization, was

transferred to Boynton Rehab. Ms. Fredericks is 88 years old and has no living family
or close friends.
9.

After Ms. Fredericks was admitted, Boynton Rehab introduced her to PL

Firm and its owner, Princella Lewis (“Princella”).
10.

Boynton Rehab requested that PL Firm qualify Ms. Fredericks for

Medicaid, so that Boynton Rehab could receive Medicaid government payments for Ms.
Fredericks. In exchange for arranging for PL Firm and Princella to obtain control over
Plaintiff Ms. Fredericks, Boynton Rehab sought to and, on information and belief, did
receive and continues to receive substantial Medicaid payments so that Boynton Rehab
can continue to be paid large sums from the government for so long as Plaintiff Ms.
Fredericks is a resident of Boynton Rehab’s facility.
11.

Upon meeting Ms. Fredericks, Princella quickly sought to have Ms.

Fredericks execute a durable power of attorney so that Princella could take control of all
3

 of Ms. Fredericks money, property and assets, which Princella did. On information
and belief, Princella did not immediately apply for Medicaid for Ms. Fredericks, but
instead obtained total control of Ms. Fredericks, a woman who Princella had never met
prior to Boynton Rehab arranging for Ms. Fredericks to do business with Princella and
PL Firm
12.

The ostensible power of attorney, in which Princella was to act as agent for

Plaintiff Ms. Fredericks, was purportedly dated as of June 23, 2012.
13.

Then, just four (4) days later, after Boynton Beach solicited PL Firm and

Princella to meet Ms. Fredericks to obtain power of attorney over Ms. Fredericks,
Boynton Rehab “found” that Ms. Fredericks lacked legal capacity, in whole or in part.
14.

Boynton Rehab claims that Ms. Fredericks had legal capacity on June 23,

2012 when Boynton Rehab solicited Princella to meet with Ms. Fredericks and obtain
power of attorney over Ms. Fredericks, yet Boynton Beach Rehab claims that Ms.
Fredericks did not have legal capacity as of June 27, 2012,
15.

Boynton Rehab’s internal and nonjudicial determination that Ms.

Fredericks was legally incapacitated made the power of attorney appear to be permanent
and irreversible because Ms. Fredericks purportedly had suddenly lost legal capacity to
renounce or revoke the power of attorney obtained by Princella just days earlier.
4

 16.

Princella used the power of attorney to obtain substantially all of the assets

of Ms. Fredericks.
17.

By December 2012, Princella had taken substantially all of Ms. Fredericks’

liquid assets, which was a sum of at least $57,000.
18.

On or about December 14, 2012, Princella used the power of attorney over

Ms. Fredericks to obtain a check for $57,000 from Ms. Fredericks and to deposit this
sum in PL Firm’s bank account.
19.

PL Firm is managed by Princella and her sister, Connie Lewis (“Connie”).

20.

Both Princella and Connie are signatories to the PL Firm bank account to

which Ms. Fredericks’s $57,000 was deposited.
21.

Princella represented to Ms. Fredericks that her $57,000 would be placed

in a trust account for the benefit of Ms. Fredericks.
22.

Beginning in December 2012, PL Firm began paying itself $2,500 per

month each month for alleged “care management” services to Ms. Fredericks.
23.

The alleged “care management” services were not authorized by Ms.

Fredericks, and PL Firm was not and is not entitled to pay itself any amount from Ms.
Fredericks’ funds.
5

 24.

Boynton Rehab was advised in approximately March 2013 by former

employees of Princella and PL Firm that there was significant evidence and allegations
that Princella and PL Firm was misappropriating, stealing, using undue influence and
unscrupulous practices against elderly victims and that Boynton Rehab should take
steps to protect Ms. Fredericks from abuse and financial mischief by Princella.
Accordingly, Boynton Rehab has been on actual notice of the danger to Ms. Fredericks
property and person for over one (1) year.
25.

During this more than one (1) year period, Princella and PL Firm has

unlawfully paid itself at least $2,500 per month for “care management” services, which
Plaintiff has never received and which is a blatant conflict of interest under Florida law
because Princella purports be acting as “agent” to Plaintiff under a durable power of
attorney and is simultaneously unlawfully charging Plaintiff an outrageous sum for
fictional “care management” services.
26.

Boynton Rehab has stated opposite positions at different times – on the one

hand stating that Princella had been “banned” from the nursing home, but then on
alternative occasions stating that it had taken no action to prevent contact between
Princella and Ms. Fredericks.
27.

Boynton Rehab solicited PL Firm to obtain Medicaid benefits for Ms.
6

 Fredericks for its own purposes to receive government payments and, in exchange for
arranging the improper solicitation of Ms. Fredericks by Princella and Lewis, Boynton
Rehab enriched itself to Ms. Fredericks’ financial and personal detriment.
28.

Boynton Rehab has a blatant conflict of interest in isolating Ms.

Fredericks’ from undersigned counsel, because Boynton Rehab is motivated to cover its
bad acts in injecting PL Firm and Princella into Ms. Fredericks’ life to the irreparable
detriment of Plaintiff.
29.

The undersigned counsel expressly advised Boynton Rehab of the

malfeasance and financial abuse by Princella against Ms. Fredericks.
30.

However, Boynton Rehab has refused to bar Princella from access to Ms.

Fredericks.
31.

Instead, Boynton Rehab has wrongfully prevented Ms. Fredericks from

any contact with her own attorney.
32.

Defendants together have removed and withheld Ms. Fredericks’ important

legal documents, such as any documentation needed to validate her identity to a notary,
which is desirable so that Plaintiff Ms. Fredericks can fully and finally effectuate the
severance of all documents improperly obtained from Plaintiff Ms. Fredericks through
7

 improper means by Defendants.
33.

The undersigned counsel has advised Princella through her legal counsel

that any supposed agreement for “care management” services to Ms. Fredericks is void
and that Princella must immediately return the improperly obtained $57,000 to
undersigned counsel for the benefit of Ms. Fredericks. A copy of such letter is attached
as Exhibit “A” hereto.
34.

Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel and is obligated to pay

reasonable fees and costs for such services.
35.

Plaintiff has performed all conditions precedent, or they have occurred,

been waived, or otherwise been excused.
COUNT I
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION –
DEFENDANT BOYNTON REHAB
36.

Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this

Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 32.
37.

Defendant Boynton Rehab has wrongfully confined Plaintiff by preventing

her from having contact with her own attorney and by refusing to provide her
8

 authorized representatives with her medical records pursuant to a valid release.
38.

Defendant Boynton Rehab’s confinement and isolation of Plaintiff was and

is without legal authority and is contrary to federal law.
39.

Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if Boynton Rehab is not enjoined

from continuing to wrongfully confine Plaintiff.
40.

Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

41.

Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

42.

An injunction will serve the public interest by protecting the frail and
elderly Plaintiff from continued abuse.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter an emergency mandatory
injunction enjoining Boynton Rehab from continuing to wrongfully prevent Plaintiff
from contact with her own attorney and from continuing to wrongfully withhold
Plaintiff’s proof of identification.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF RESIDENT’S RIGHTS UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE –
DEFENDANT BOYNTON REHAB

9

 43.

Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this

Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 35.
44.

Defendant Boynton Rehab has refused to allow Plaintiff the right to

private, uncensored communication.
45.

Defendant Boynton Rehab refused to allow providers of legal services to

meet with Plaintiff.
46.

Defendant Boynton Rehab made contradictory statements and took

contradictory positions that violated Plaintiff’s rights.
47.

On the one hand, Defendant Boynton Rehab demands that Plaintiff is

irrevocably stuck with having Defendants Princella and PL Firm as “agents” and “care
managers” because Boynton Rehab invited Defendants PL Firm and Princella into the
facility to take control of Plaintiff’s finances.
48.

Defendant Boynton Rehab acknowledges that Defendants Princella and PL

Firm were complete strangers to Plaintiff until such time as Defendant Boynton Rehab
unilaterally injected Defendants Princella and PL Firm into Plaintiff’s finances and
affairs.
49.

Defendant Boynton Rehab maintains that its patient, Plaintiff, had legal
10

 capacity to enter into a durable power of attorney on June 23, 2012 and then
inexplicably maintains that Plaintiff became legally incapacitated four (4) days later,
rendering Plaintiff legally incapable of revoking such alleged durable power of attorney
in favor of Defendants PL Firm and Princella.
50.

Defendant Boynton Rehab alleged that only providers of financial and

legal services that Boynton Rehab introduces to residents, such as Princella and PL
Firm may enter its facility to provide services to residents, such as Plaintiff Ms.
Fredericks.
51.

Pursuant to Florida Statute 400.022(1) Residents’ rights.—
All licensees of nursing home facilities shall adopt and make public a
statement of the rights and responsibilities of the residents of such
facilities and shall treat such residents in accordance with the provisions of
that statement. The statement shall assure each resident the following: …
(b) The right to private and uncensored communication, including, but
not limited to, receiving and sending unopened correspondence, access to
a telephone, visiting with any person of the resident’s choice during
visiting hours [and] (c) Any entity or individual that provides health,
social, legal, or other services to a resident has the right to have reasonable
access to the resident.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands damages against Defendant Boynton Rehab
for violation of Plaintiff’s resident rights under Florida statutes, including attorney’s
fees, and such other relief this Court deems just and proper.
11

 COUNT III
EMERGENCY INJUNCTION – ALL DEFENDANTS
52.

Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this

Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 35.
53.

Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if Princella, PL Firm, and Connie are

not enjoined from any and all further contact with Plaintiff and access to her finances
and financial affairs. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if Boynton Rehab permits
contact between Princella, PL Firm, and Connie and Plaintiff.
54.

Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

55.

Plaintiff has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

56.

An injunction will serve the public interest by protecting the frail and

elderly Plaintiff from continued abuse.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to enter an injunction
enjoining Princella Lewis, PL Firm, and Connie Lewis from any and all further contact
with Plaintiff and access to her finances and financial affairs and for such other relief as
this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
12

 COUNT IV
FALSE IMPRISONMENT – DEFENDANT BOYNTON REHAB
57.

Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this

Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 35.
58.

Defendant Boynton Rehab intended to confine Plaintiff.

59.

Defendant Boynton Rehab performed acts resulting in Plaintiff’s

confinement, including preventing her from having contact with her own attorney and
refusing to provide her with her proof of identification.
60.

Defendant Boynton Rehab’s confinement of Plaintiff was and is without

legal authority.
61.

Defendant Boynton Rehab’s confinement of Plaintiff has caused Plaintiff

to suffer damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands damages against Defendant Boynton Rehab
for false imprisonment and such other relief this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT V
EQUITABLE ACCOUNTING – DEFENDANTS PL FIRM AND PRINCELLA
13

 62.

Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this

Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 35.
63.

Plaintiff and Defendants share a fiduciary relationship and/or entered a

complex transaction.
64.

An equitable accounting of Plaintiff’s funds is required.

65.

A remedy at law is inadequate.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands damages against Defendants PL Firm and
Princella for an equitable accounting and such other relief this Court deems just and
proper. Specifically, Plaintiff demands that PL Firm and Princella shall (a) complete an
accounting of the Plaintiff’s funds obtained by PL Firm from the time that PL Firm and
Princella first met Plaintiff in the summer of 2012, (b) provide an accounting of all the
use of all of Plaintiff’s funds.
COUNT VI
CIVIL THEFT – DEFENDANTS PL FIRM, PRINCELLA AND CONNIE
66.

Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this

Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 35.
67.

Defendants Princella, Connie and PL Firm knowingly obtained over
14

 $57,000 from Plaintiff with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of the right to the property and
to appropriate the property to Defendants’ Princella and PL Firm own use in violation
of Section 772.11 of the Florida Statutes.
68.

Plaintiff has been injured because of the violation of Section 772.11 of the

Florida Statutes and has lost at least $57,000 in funds plus interest from the date of the
theft.
69.

Plaintiff, on March 12, 2014, through their undersigned counsel, served on

Defendants written notice of the urgent demand for the return of these funds dollars of
Plaintiff’s funds, which letter is attached as Exhibit A.
70.

Plaintiff, on March 27, 2013, through their undersigned counsel, made a

written demand for $171,000, which amount represents three times the amount taken by
Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants PL Firm and
Princella and each of them for general damages, damages in the amount of three times
the at least $57,000 taken and demanded to be returned to Plaintiff, pre and
postjudgment interest, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and for such other and
further relief, in law or in equity, as this Court deems just and proper under the
circumstances.
15

 COUNT VII
CIVIL RICO (FLORIDA) – ALL DEFENDANTS
71.

Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this

Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 35.
72.

Defendants violated Florida Statute Section 772.103 and Plaintiff is

entitled to a civil, statutory remedy under Florida Statute Section 772.104(1).
73.

Florida Statute Section 772.103 provides that:
It is unlawful for any person:
(1) Who has with criminal intent received any proceeds derived,
directly or indirectly, from a pattern of criminal activity or through
the collection of an unlawful debt to use or invest, whether directly
or indirectly, any part of such proceeds, or the proceeds derived
from the investment or use thereof, in the acquisition of any title to,
or any right, interest, or equity in, real property or in the
establishment or operation of any enterprise.

(2) Through a pattern of criminal activity or through the
collection of an unlawful debt, to acquire or maintain, directly or
indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise or real
property.

16

 (3) Employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or
participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a
pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.

(4) To conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of
subsection (1), subsection (2), or subsection (3).

74.

Florida Statute Section 772.104(1) provides that:
Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or
she has been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of
s. 772.103 shall have a cause of action for threefold the actual
damages sustained and, in any such action, is entitled to minimum
damages in the amount of $200, and reasonable attorney’s fees and
court costs in the trial and appellate courts.

75.

Defendants did conspire to violate the provisions of subsection (1),

subsection (2), or subsection (3) of Florida Statute 772.103.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants and each of
them for general damages, damages in the amount of three times the actual damages
sustained, pre and postjudgment interest, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and for
such other and further relief, in law or in equity, as this Court deems just and proper
under the circumstances.

17

 COUNT VIII
CIVIL CONSPIRACY (COMMON LAW) – ALL DEFENDANTS
76.

Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this

Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 35.
77.

Defendants are parties to a civil conspiracy.

78.

Defendants conspired to do an unlawful act.

79.

Defendants conspired to take control of the over $57,000 belonging to
Plaintiff.

80.

All Defendants owed a duty to Ms. Fredericks to protect her and her

property and to protect her from theft.
81.

Defendant Boynton Rehab owed a duty to Plaintiff to not refer Plaintiff to

a financial predator and, upon learning of allegations of impropriety by Princella, to
take steps to protect Ms. Fredericks and her property.
82.

Defendants Princella, Connia and PL Firm owed a duty to Plaintiff not to

wrongfully take and control the $57,000 plus of funds from the Plaintiff.
83.

Defendants committed an overt act in further of the conspiracy when they
18

 arranged to have Plaintiff deliver legal documents that gave total control over the
Plaintiff’s money and person to PL Firm and Princella and then promptly made it
impossible for Ms. Fredericks to revoke or disavow the alleged power of attoreny.
84.

Defendants’ conspiracy and their respective overt acts caused Plaintiff to

suffer damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter a
judgment for damages against Defendants, pre and post judgment interest, and such
other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the circumstances.
COUNT IX
CONVERSION – DEFENDANTS PL FIRM, PRINCELLA and CONNIE
85.

Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this

Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 35.
86.

Defendants PL Firm and Princella converted to their own use the

approximately $57,000 plus that belongs to Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for damages against Defendants, pre
and post judgment interest, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just
and proper under the circumstances.
19

 COUNT X
UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES -- ALL DEFENDANTS
87.

Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this

Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 35.
88.

Pursuant to Florida Statute §501.204(1) it is unlawful to conduct unfair or

deceptive acts or practices in any trade or commerce.
89.

The Defendants’ acts described herein constitute unfair and deceptive trade

practices in the business dealings that the Defendants had with Plaintiff.
90.

Florida Statute §501.211(2) provides the following:
(2) In any action brought by a person who has suffered a loss
as a result of a violation of this part, such person may
recover actual damages, plus attorney's fees and court costs
as provided in s.501.2105.

91.

Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages incurred as a result of

Defendants’ deceptive and unfair trade practices and to attorney’s fees pursuant to
Florida Statute §501.2105.

20

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter a
judgment for actual damages against Defendants, pre and post judgment interest,
attorney’s fees and costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper under the circumstances.
COUNT XI
BREACH OF FIDICUARY DUTY – BOYNTON REHAB
92.

Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this

Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 35.
93.

At the time of the acts that gave rise to this action, Boynton Rehab, acting

as a fiduciary for Ms. Fredericks in her acute health care and personal needs, shared a
relationship whereby Ms. Fredericks (a) reposed trust and confidence in Boynton
Rehab, and (b) Boynton undertook such trust and assumed a duty to advise each
Plaintiff with respect to each Plaintiff’s healthcare and financial decisions, including
that Princella and PL Firm, who were total strangers to Ms. Fredericks, should obtain an
ostensible durable power of attorney over Ms. Fredericks.
94.

Boynton Rehab breached his fiduciary duty to Plaintiff.

95.

The breaches by Boynton Rehab caused Plaintiff to suffer damages.
21

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter a
judgment for damages against Defendant Miller, pre and post judgment interest, and
such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the
circumstances.
COUNT XII
BREACH OF FIDICUARY DUTY – DEFENDANTS PRINCELLA AND
PL FIRM
96.

Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this

Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 35.
97.

At the time of the acts that gave rise to this action, PL Firm and Princella,

acting as legal agent for each of Ms. Fredericks, shared a relationship whereby each
Plaintiff (a) reposed trust and confidence in PL Firm and Princella, and (b) PL Firm and
Princella undertook such trust and assumed a duty to advise Plaintiff with respect to
each Plaintiff’s healthcare and financial decisions.
98.

Florida’s statutes regarding the duties of an agent holding a power of

attorney provide, in part, that “An [power of attorney] agent is a fiduciary. …” Florida
Statute 709.2114 (1) and further provides that:

22

 Except as otherwise provided in the power of attorney, an
agent who has accepted appointment shall: (a) Act loyally
for the sole benefit of the principal; (b) Act so as not to
create a conflict of interest that impairs the agent’s
ability to act impartially in the principal’s best interest;
… Florida Statute 709.2114 (2) (emphasis supplied)
99.

PL Firm and Princella breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff.

100. The breaches by PL Firm and Princella caused Plaintiff to suffer damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter
judgment for damages against Defendants PL Firm and Princella, pre and post judgment
interest, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the
circumstances.
COUNT XIII
CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD – ALL DEFENDANTS
101. Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this
Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 35.
102. Defendants committed constructive fraud against Plaintiff by misusing
their positions of trust and influence over Plaintiff.
103. Defendants each had a duty under a confidential or fiduciary relationship
23

 that has been abused.
104. PL Firm and Princella took unconscionable advantage of Plaintiff.
105. PL Firm and Princella made misrepresentations and concealed material
information from Plaintiff causing Plaintiff to take actions that lead to the loss of
Plainttiff’s money and additional damages.
106. Defendants used their positions of trust and influence over Plaintiff to
obtain control of over funds belonging to Plaintiff.
107. Defendants committed constructive fraud by using their position of trust
and influence of Plaintiff to enrich Defendants, to wrongfully obtain funds belonging to
Plaintiff, and to charge Defendants amounts of money that are commercially
unreasonable and/or unconscionable for alleged “care management”.
108. Defendants have committed constructive fraud against Plaintiff because
Defendants, regardless of whether they “intended” to do so or not, abused their position
of trust and took unreasonable and unfair advantage of Plaintiff, who is vulnerable due
to her age and injury upon entering the confines of Boynton Rehab.
109. The transactions that Defendants caused Plaintiff to make resulted in the
Plaintiff being damaged by Defendants and such damaging transactions had the same
24

 effect as though such damaging actions by Defendants were intended. This constitutes
constructive fraud under Florida law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter a
judgment for damages against Defendants, pre and post judgment interest, attorney’s
fees and costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper
under the circumstances.

COUNT XIV
UNJUST ENRICHMENT – DEFENDANTS PRINCELLA AND PL FIRM
110. Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this
Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 35.
111. Plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the Defendants Princella and PL Firm,
who each have knowledge thereof.
112. Defendants Princella and PL Firm voluntarily accepted and retained the
benefit conferred on them by Plaintiff.
113. The circumstances render such Defendants’ retention of the benefit
inequitable unless Princella and PL Firm pay to Plaintiff the value of the benefit.
25

 Princella and PL Firm have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff. Plaintiff
is entitled to damages as a result of such unjust enrichment, including the disgorgement
of all monies unlawfully accepted by Princella and PL Firm from Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter a
judgment for monetary damages against Defendants Princella and PL Firm for unjust
enrichment and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper
under the circumstances.
COUNT XV
NEGLIGENCE – DEFENDANT BOYNTON REHAB
114. Plaintiff adopts by reference, as if set out fully and completely in this
Count, the following statements of this Complaint: Paragraphs 1 through 35.
115. Defendant Boynton Rehab owed Plaintiff a duty of care.
116. Boynton Rehab owed Plaintiff a duty of care when it directed Princella and
PL Firm to meet with Plaintiff in 2012 and instructed Plaintiff to cooperate with PL
Firm and Princella.
117. Boynton Rehab owed Plaintiff a duty of care when it learned in
approximately March 2012 of the allegations against Defendants PL Firm and Princella.
26

 118. Boynton Rehab breached its duty of care to Plaintiff.
119. The breach(es) of the duty of care owed to Plaintiff by Defendant Boynton
Rehab are the cause of damage and injury to Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter a
judgment for monetary damages against Defendant Boynton Rehab for negligence and
for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper under the
circumstances
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
120. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all triable issues.

Respectfully submitted,
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
By: /s/Webb Millsaps
WEBB MILLSAPS
Florida Bar No.: 32414
Webb@WebbMillsapsLaw.com
WEBB MILLSAPS LAW, PL
160 W. Camino Real, #190,
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: 561-900-7238
Facsimile: 561-880-0013
DONNA GREENSPAN SOLOMON
Florida Bar No.: 59110
27

 Donna@SolomonAppeals.com
DONNA GREENSPAN SOLOMON, P.A.
901 South Federal Hwy, Ste. 300
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: 561-762-9932

28

 Webb Millsaps Law, PL
160 W. Camino Real, # 190
Boca Raton, Florida 33432

Webb Millsaps, Esq.
Office: 561-900-7238
Cell: 561-400-8453
Fax: 866-741-0009
Email: webb@webbmillsapslaw.com
www.webbmillsapslaw.com

March 12, 2014
VIA EMAIL

CEASE and DESIST; DEMAND FOR FUNDS

Bruce S. Rosenwater, Esq.
Bruce S. Rosenwater & Associates, P.A.
1601 Forum Place, Centurion Tower, Suite 1200
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Email: bsr@rosenwater.com,

Re: Ms. Catherine Fredericks

Dear Mr. Rosenwater:
Please be advised that our firm represents Ms. Catherine Fredericks (“Ms. Fredericks”). Please
instruct your clients, Princella Lewis (“Ms. Lewis”) and Prestigious Lifecare For Seniors LLC
f/k/a PL Firm, LLC (the “Company” and, together with Ms. Lewis, the “Defendants”) to hereby
cease and desist all direct and indirect contact with Ms. Fredericks, including any
communications with Boynton Beach Rehabilitation Center in connection with Ms. Fredericks.
This cease and desist directive includes any and all agents and employees of Ms. Lewis and the
Company. None of them are permitted to have direct or indirect contact with Ms. Fredericks.
Defendants unlawfully obtained a large sum from Ms. Fredericks. On information and belief, the
amount is at least $57,000, plus interest. Further, the unlawful taking by Defendants of Ms.
Fredericks’ property constitutes Civil Theft under Florida law. Accordingly, we hereby demand
payment of treble damages in the amount of $171,000, pursuant to section 772.11(1), Florida
Statutes.
Your clients allegedly had certain documentation prepared in connection with Ms. Fredericks.
However, Ms. Fredericks (like my other clients who encountered the Defendants) never received
copies of any documents, agreements, statements, applications, receipts or anything whatsoever
Exhibit "A"

 Bruce Rosenwater, Esq.
March 12, 2014
Page 2
from the Defendants. We hereby demand that your clients provide our firm with copies of any
and all documents that Ms. Lewis or the Company alleges were signed by or agreed to or
performed in relation to Ms. Fredericks, including without limitation any alleged power of
attorney, designation of health care surrogate, and contract(s).
Ms. Fredericks has expressly revoked and disavowed any document allegedly giving Ms. Lewis
or her Company power of attorney or health care surrogate status over or for Ms. Fredericks.
Further, Ms. Fredericks expressly disavows any so-called “care management agreement” that
Defendants may allege. Any such alleged contract is fraudulent and void ab initio. Ms.
Fredericks expressly disavows that she authorized Defendants to obtain any of her funds and
disavows that she ever authorized Defendants to pay themselves any amount of money for any
purpose, for so-called “care management services,” or otherwise.
Sincerely,

s/Webb Millsaps

Webb Millsaps, Esq.

cc:

client

2