CASE NUMBER: Division: AK Filing 72716380 E-Filed 05/25/2018 11:18:52 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH, FLORIDA ROBERT GIBSON, Case COMPLAINT JEFFREY MARC SISKIND, AND Defendant. JURY DEMAND COMES NOW Plaintiff, Robert Gibson, and sues Defendant, Jeffrey Marc Siskind, and states as follows: 1. This is an action for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars and therefore satis?es the jurisdictional requirements of this court. 2. Plaintiff, Robert Gibson, was, at all times material hereto, a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. 3. Defendant, Jeffrey Marc Siskind, was, at all times material hereto, a licensed attorney at law living and doing business in Palm Beach County, Florida. 4. Plaintiff, Robert Gibson, entered into a representation agreement with Defendant, Jeffrey Marc Siskind, in Palm Beach County, Florida. 5. Venue ?or this action properly lies in Palm Beach County, Florida. COUNT I PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE 6. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 5 above as if more fully set forth herein. 7. Plaintiff retained the professional services of Defendant to represent him in a lawsuit for false arrest, seeking compensatory damages for the physical and intentional battery and subsequent unlawful arrest and incarceration of Plaintiff, Robert Gibson, a licensed private investigator, who was arrested, incarcerated, criminally prosecuted, and thrust into the public spotlight for crimes he did not commit. FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 05/25/2018 11:18:52 PM 8. Defendant, Jeffrey Marc Siskind ?led the original complaint in the US Southern District Court on September 10, 2013, on the eve of the statute of limitation deadline. 9. Defendant, Jeffrey Marc Siskind ?led an Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial on February 15, 2014, (see attached as Exhibit 10. On April 2, 2014, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause, which order directed Defendant to ?le a response to a Motion to Dismiss, (see attached as Exhibit ll. Defendant failed to respond the Motion to Dismiss, as a result of which the Court entered its Order Granting Motions to Dismiss on May 28, 2014 and an Order Dismissing the Case on June 9, 2014, which order contained the following footnotes: 1 On May 27, 2014 the Court granted Defendants Luc Havann, Margarita lsland, and West Palm Beach Police Department's Motions to Dismiss by default. (DE 27). Defendant Kelli R. Mackey (?Mackey?) has not appeared or otherwise ?led any pleading in the instant matter. The Court notes that there is no indication on the record that Ms. Mackey was served. Of?cer itz-coy, therefore, is the only remaining Defendant who has appeared in this case. 2 Mr. Gibson ?led this matter on September 17, 2013. (DE 1). He ?led an Amended Complaint (DE 16) on February 15, 2014. 3 Of?cer itZ-coy represents that his counsel sent Mr. Gibson's counsel an email on May 27, 2014 regarding the Court's Order Requiring Status Report. The next day, after receiving no response, Of?cer itz-Coy's counsel called and spoke with Mr. Gibson's counsel, who stated he would email a proposed joint report. Of?cer itz-Coy's counsel emailed Mr. Gibson's counsel again on May 30, 2014, but after receiving no proposed joint report or response, Of?cer itz- Coy's counsel ?led a Unilateral Status Report. 4 Additionally, on April 1, 2014, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (DE 25) after Mr. Gibson failed to respond to Defendants Luc Havan, Margarita lsland, and West Palm Beach Police Department's Motions to Dismiss (DE 20, 23). Mr. Gibson did not respond to the Court's Order. As noted previously, the Court granted Defendants Luc Havan, Margarita Island, and West Palm Beach Police Department Motions to Dismiss by default on May 27, 2014. (DE 27). (see attached Exhibits 12. By virtue of their agreement for legal representation, Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to provide Plaintiff with competent legal counsel. l3. Defendant violated that duty when he failed to respond timely to the Court?s Order. By that time and date, the applicable four (4) year Florida Statute of Limitations, being Florida Statute ?95 .1 barred this Plaintiff from seeking any economic relief for his damages, all to his economic damage. 14. Defendant?s negligently and or intentionally failed to timely advise the Plaintiff that he had failed to timely file the required responses. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the professional negligence of the Defendant, the Plaintiff has forever lost his right to seek recovery for his damages and economic losses suffered in the unfortunate incident, all to his economic damage. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the professional negligence of the Defendant, Plaintiff has sustained economic damages, in that he has medical bills which remain unpaid, has suffered damage to his credit rating, and cannot recover any money for his pain and suffering which continues to this date and will continue into the future. JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED FOR ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Robert Gibson demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Marc Siskind, Esq for compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and any other relief this court may deem just and proper. COUNT II - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 17. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 6 above as if more fully set forth herein. 18. All at times relevant to this action and due to representations of Plaintiff in his false imprisonment and malicious prosecution case, Plaintiff reasonably relied upon Defendant, Jeffrey Marc Siskind Esq. as his attorneys at law. 19. By Virtue of this relationship, Defendant, Jeffrey Marc Siskind, Esq. owed Plaintiff the highest ?duciary duties of honesty, integrity, ?delity, loyalty, candor, and diligence. 20. Defendant, Jeffrey Marc Siskind, Esq. breached his ?duciary duties to Plaintiff as follows: a. He improperly failed to meet deadlines fatal to the case, by failing to timely respond the Court?s direct Order to Show Cause, at which time and date, the applicable four (4) year Florida Statute of Limitations barred Plaintiff from seeking any economic relief for his claims. b. He negligently and/ or intentionally failed to timely advise Plaintiff that he had failed to timely respond to the Court?s Order to Show Cause until after the Order Dismissing the Case had been entered. 21. As a direct result of Defendants' breach of ?duciary duties, Plaintiff has sustained substantial economic damages. JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED FOR ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE 22. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Robert Gibson, demands judgment against Defendant, Jeffrey Marc Siskind, Esq. for compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest, costs, and any other relief the court deems just and proper. Robert Gibson Robert Gibson 1709 22nd Ave North Lake Worth, Florida 33401 intelexigent@gmail.com Tel. (561) 868-2100 Case Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2014 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION ROBERT GIBSON, CASE NO: Plaintiff, v. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND KELLI R. MACKEY, Her unknown DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Boyfriend, his Accomplice, and LUC HAVAN, MARGARITA ISLAND INC. doing business as SAND BAR ISLAND BAR GRILL, OFFICER SIDNEY FITZ- COY, in his individual capacity, and WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants. Plaintiff, Robert Gibson (?Gibson?) sues Defendants, Kelli R. Mackey (?Mackey?), her unknown boyfriend and his unknown accomplice, Luc Havan (Havan), Margarita Island Inc. doing business as Sand Bar Island Bar Grill (Sand Bar), Of?cer Sidney Fitz-Coy, in his individual capacity and the West Palm Beach, Police Department and alleges the following: JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff, Robert Gibson, is a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States. 2. This complaint seeks damages in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars 3. Defendant, Kelli R. Mackey, (Mackey) is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida and is otherwise sui juris. 4. On information and belief, Mackey?s unknown boyfriend resides in Palm Beach County, Florida and his identi?cation may be established through regular discovery procedure. Case Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2014 Page 2 of 14 5. On information and belief, the accomplice of Mackey?s unknown boyfriend may be established through regular discovery procedure. 6. Margarita Island Inc. doing business as Sand Bar Island Bar Grill is a Florida corporation located in Palm Beach County, Florida. 7. Defendant, Of?cer Fitz-Coy was, at all relevant times, a sworn law enforcement of?cer for the City of West Palm Beach, Florida and is being sued in his individual capacity. 8. At all relevant times, the alleged conduct of Fitz-Coy, in investigating the activities of Plaintiff and drafting the probable cause af?davit concerning purported criminal activity of Plaintiff, was within the scope of his employment as an of?cer and he was acting under color of law as an law of?cer of the City of West Palm Beach, Florida. 9. The conduct of Fitz-Coy as alleged in this Complaint is not indemni?ed by the State of Florida. 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. ?l983; the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. ??133l and 1343(a); the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the United States; and this Court?s supplementary jurisdiction powers. INTRODUCTORY FACTS 11. This Complaint seeks compensatory damages for the physical and intentional battery and subsequent unlawful arrest and incarceration of Plaintiff, Robert Gibson by Defendants respectively. Plaintiff, a licensed private investigator, was arrested, incarcerated, criminally prosecuted, and thrust into the public spotlight for crimes he did not commit. Defendants falsely lodged criminal allegations against Mr. Gibson who suffered, and continues to suffer, signi?cantly as a result of the Defendants? wrongful acts. Case Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2014 Page 3 of 14 12. The factual scenario leading to the Defendants? false allegations against Mr. Gibson concerned a solitary visit by Plaintiff to an establishment MARGARITA ISLAND INC. doing business as SAND BAR ISLAND BAR GRILL and known simply as the ?Sand Bar? at 520 Forest Hill Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida 33405. 13. After consuming and paying for one beer, Plaintiff Visited the men?s room on his way out. 14. Upon arriving at the Men?s room, Plaintiff discovered that the Men?s Room door was locked and from the voice shouting ?just a minute? from inside, was occupied by a female. 15. After a few minutes, a further knock resulted in a female now believed to be Defendant, Kelli R. Mackey, storming out of the men?s room with irritated expletives directed at Plaintiff. 16. Some minutes after entering the men?s room while standing at the sink, two men, still unknown to Plaintiff, entered and savagely attacked Plaintiff from the rear. 17. Plaintiff was left unconscious on the ?oor until lifted to his feet and drug out the front door of the establishment by a male, now believed to be Luc Havac. 18. Plaintiff made his way to his vehicle and called 911 to report the crime. 19. Defendant, Of?cer Fitz-Coy, responded to the call and met Plaintiff at his vehicle to take the report. 20. Upon taking the report, and after speaking with other witnesses, Fitz-Coy handcuffed Plaintiff and transported him to an interim holding area, then to St. Mary?s hospital for unrequested procedures and ?nally on to a holding facility on Gun Club Road. 21. At this point in Plaintiff?s career, he was negotiating a joint venture between his company and a ?nance company by the name of House Account Funding, LLC. Case Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2014 Page 4 of 14 22. In light of the arrest and outstanding charges against Plaintiff, House Account Funding reduced their offer by an amount far in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars 23. Although, the state eventually dropped the charges against Plaintiff, he was required to retain counsel and incur ongoing expenses in association with the charges in the interim. 24. All Defendants had their own illegitimate motives for committing crimes and/or asserting that Plaintiff had committed a crime. 25. Defendant, Mackey, apparently wanted to visit revenge on an individual who would dare to interrupt her use of the men?s room, notwithstanding the availability of an adjacent women?s room. 26. Unknown Defendant friends of Mackey undoubtedly sought out Plaintiff to prove that the two of them were tough enough to beat up an old man attacking from behind. 27. Defendant, Luc Havan, simply wanted to get rid of the battery Victim discovered in his establishment without pointing the ?nger at his regular patrons. 28. Defendant, Fitz-Coy ignored the legitimate complaints of the battered Plaintiff and took the easy path, by helping the establishment in his patrol out of a jam. 29. Defendant, Fitz-Coy charged Plaintiff under Florida Statute 877.03 Breach of the peace; disorderly conduct which states: Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or ?ghting, or engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 30. An arrest under 877.03 either requires a warrant or the witness of the police of?cer. Case Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2014 Page 5 of 14 31. An exception two witness of an of?cer is available under Florida Statute 509.143 (2) if the law enforcement of?cer has probable cause to believe that the conduct created a threat to the life or safety of the person or others. 32. Defendant Fitz-Coy?s probable cause af?davit states no such thing. 33. As a matter of law, Plaintiff arrest was illegal. 34. The prosecution terminated in a manner that indicated Plaintiff? innocence of the charge leveled against him. 35. Any of Defendants? allegations to the contrary in this regard were simply false. 36. Defendant Fitz-Coy initiated the arrest, con?nement, and prosecution of Plaintiff. 37. His investigation gave rise to factual conclusions in reckless disregard for the truth. 38. Defendants? actions caused Plaintiff to be beat up, arrested and exposed to reasonably foreseeable fallout emanating from the scandalous police report which falsely characterized Plaintiff as a criminal. 39. Defendant, Fitz-Coy knew, prior to the ?ling of his af?davit which supported the arrest of Plaintiff that he was simply sweeping the bad acts occurring at the subject establishment by its patrons under the rug. 40. Defendant, Mackay knowingly generated false information which led to the beating incurred by Plaintiff and ultimately ended in his arrest. 41. This joint action renders Defendants liable under 42 U.S.C. ?l982 for their coordinated conduct. 42. The joint action of all Defendants proximately caused the wrongful arrest, incarceration, and criminal prosecution of Plaintiff. Case Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2014 Page 6 of 14 43. The joint action of all Defendants left Fitz-Coy with the absence of arguable probable cause to believe that Plaintiff committed any criminal activity. 44. These Defendants, acting together, engaged in a reckless campaign to cause the arrest of Plaintiff and cause him to suffer tremendously. SPECIFIC ACTS OF MISCONDUCT OF OFFICER FITZ-COY 45. On September 17, 2009, Fitz-Coy generated an af?davit (?Af?davit?) supplying the basis for the arrest and incarceration of Plaintiff. 46. The Af?davit was designed to cause the arrest of Plaintiff. 47. The Af?davit did cause the arrest of Plaintiff. 48. The Af?davit listed criminal conduct attributed to Plaintiff. 49. The listed allegations against Plaintiff in the Af?davit were false. 50. Defendant, Fitz-Coy was devoid of probable cause to draft and/or assert the existence of criminal allegations of misconduct by Plaintiff. 51. Fitz-Coy was devoid of arguable probable cause to draft and/or assert the existence of criminal allegations of misconduct by Plaintiff. 52. Fitz-Coy alleged that Plaintiff violated the following Florida Statute: 877.03 Breach of the peace; disorderly conduct?Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. History.?s. 1, ch. 59-325; s. 1147, ch. 71-136; s. 2, ch. 86-174. 53. Defendant, Fitz-Coy lacked arguable probable cause and/or probable cause to believe that Plaintiff violated the above statute. 54. Fitz-Coy implied that he was entitled to arrest Plaintiff with immunity from liability pursuant to the following Florida Statute: Case Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2014 Page 7 of 14 509.143 Disorderly conduct on the premises of an establishment; detention; arrest; immunity from liability.? (1) An operator may take a person into custody and detain that person in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time if the operator has probable cause to believe that the person was engaging in disorderly conduct in violation of s. 877.03 on the premises of the licensed establishment and that such conduct was creating a threat to the life or safety of the person or others. The operator shall call a law enforcement officer to the scene immediately after detaining a person under this subsection. (2) A law enforcement officer may arrest, either on or off the premises of the licensed establishment and without a warrant, any person the officer has probable cause to believe violated s. 877.03 on the premises of a licensed establishment and, in the course of such violation, created a threat to the life or safety of the person or others. (3) An operator or a law enforcement officer who detains a person under subsection (1) or makes an arrest under subsection (2) is not civilly or criminally liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention on the basis of any action taken in compliance with subsection (1) or subsection (2). (4) A person who resists the reasonable efforts of an operator or a law enforcement officer to detain or arrest that person in accordance with this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, unless the person did not know or did not have reason to know that the person seeking to make such detention or arrest was the operator of the establishment or a law enforcement officer. History.?s. 1, ch. 86-174; 55. 14, 52, ch. 90-339; s. 4, ch. 91-429. 55. Defendant, Fitz-Coy lacked both arguable probable cause and probable cause to believe that Plaintiff? actions created a threat to the life or safety of the person or others. 5 6. Defendant, Fitz-Coy is therefore not immune from liability for his illegal actions. 5 7. Defendant, Fitz-Coy performed a reckless investigation, which ultimately led to Plaintiff?s wrongful arrest and incarceration. COUNT I JOINT ACTION ?1983 False Arrest 58. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 5 9. As a result of Defendants? misrepresentations, Plaintiff was arrested and incarcerated. 60. Defendant Mackey knew that Plaintiff did not commit any offense in her presence. 61. Defendants acted jointly with Defendant Fitz?Coy to cause the arrest of Plaintiff without probable cause to believe that Plaintiff committed criminal activity. 62. Therefore, the conduct of all of these Defendants violated of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Case Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2014 Page 8 of 14 63. The above described actions of the Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of the Constitutional Violations set forth above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorney?s fees against all Defendants, jointly and severally, and all additional relief this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT II OFFICER FITZ-COY ?1983 False Arrest 64. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 65. As a result of Of?cer Fitz-Coy?s misrepresentations, Plaintiff was arrested and incarcerated. 66. . The actions of Of?cer Fitz-Coy caused the arrest of Plaintiff without probable cause and/or arguable probable cause to believe that Plaintiff committed any criminal activity. 67. Therefore, the conduct of Of?cer Fitz-Coy violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 68. The aforementioned actions of Of?cer Fitz-Coy were the direct and proximate cause of the Constitutional violations set forth above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorney?s fees against Of?cer Fitz-Coy, and all additional relief this Court deems equitable and just. Case Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2014 Page 9 of 14 COUNT JOINT ACTION ?1983 Malicious Prosecution 69. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 70. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was being arrested absent probable cause. 71. Defendants participated with Of?cer Fitz?Coy in the arrest of Plaintiff in joint action. 72. Defendants acted jointly with Of?cer Fitz-Coy to fabricate false probable cause. 73. Fellow Defendants acted jointly with Of?cer Fitz-Coy to fabricate false allegations against Plaintiff. 74. Fellow Defendants of Of?cer Fitz-Coy knew that Plaintiff did not commit a crime. 75. All the Defendants intended and foresaw that Plaintiff would be prosecuted with a crime causing Plaintiff to be incarcerated, suffer corresponding damage to his reputation, endure emotional pain and suffering, and experience signi?cant ?nancial loss. 76. The conduct of all of these Defendants in joint action violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 77. The above described actions of the Defendants were the direct and proximate cause of the Constitutional violations set forth above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorneys? fees against the Defendants, and all additional relief this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT OFFICER FITZ-COY ?1983 Malicious Prosecution 78. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. Case Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2014 Page 10 of 14 79. Of?cer Fitz-Coy knew that the allegations he asserted in the Af?davit were false and/or were made absent arguable probable cause. Notwithstanding this fact, Of?cer Fitz-Coy contrived a story that Plaintiff committed a crime. 80. The actions of Of?cer Fitz-Coy caused the arrest of Plaintiff without probable cause to believe that Plaintiff committed any criminal activity. Of?cer Fitz-Coy knew that, as a result of the arrest and fabrication of information, Plaintiff would be prosecuted, causing Plaintiff to be incarcerated, suffer damage to reputation, emotional pain and signi?cant ?nancial loss. 81. The conduct of Of?cer Fitz-Coy violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 82. The above described actions of Of?cer Fitz-Coy were the direct and proximate cause of the Constitutional violations set forth above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorneys? fees against Of?cer Fitz-Coy, and any additional relief this Court deems equitable and just COUNT OFFICER FITZ-COY State Claim - Malicious Prosecution 83. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 84. Of?cer Fitz-Coy knew that the allegations he asserted in the Af?davit were false and/or lacked probable cause. Notwithstanding this fact, Of?cer Fitz-Coy contrived a story that Plaintiff committed a crime. 85. The actions of Of?cer Fitz-Coy caused the arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff without probable cause to believe that Plaintiff committed any criminal activity. 86. The conduct of Of?cer Fitz-Coy violated of Florida State Law. Case Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2014 Page 11 of 14 87. The above-described actions of Of?cer Fitz-Coy were the direct and proximate cause of the violations of Florida State Law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages and costs against Of?cer Fitz-Coy, and all additional relief this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT VI REMAINING DEFENDANTS State Claim Malicious Prosecution 88. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 89. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was being arrested absent a reasonable belief that Plaintiff any committed illegal activity. 90. Defendants knew that Plaintiff did not violate the law of the State of Florida and/or any other law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages and costs against the Defendants, and all additional relief this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT VII OFFICER State Claim False Arrest 91. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 92. Of?cer Fitz-Coy arrested and/or proximately caused the arrest of Plaintiff absent of probable cause to believe that Plainitff committed a crime. 93. Of?cer Fitz-Coy arrested and/or proximately caused the arrest of Plaintiff absent of arguable probable cause to believe that Plaintiff committed a crime. 94. Conduct of Of?cer Fitz-Coy violated Florida State Law. Case Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2014 Page 12 of 14 WHEREFORE, Plainitff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plainitff and award Plainitff compensatory damages and costs from Of?cer, and all additional relief this court deems equitable and just. COUNT REMAINING DEFENDANTS State Claim False Arrest 95. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 96. As a result of the misrepresentations of the Co?Investors, Plaintiff was arrested and incarcerated for a period of time. 97. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff would be arrested absent probable cause that Plaintiff had committed a crime. 98. Defendants knew that Plaintiff did commit any crimes under the laws of the State of Florida. 99. Defendants contrived a story that Plaintiff misrepresented the nature of an Option. The actions of all of the Co-Investors caused the arrest of Plaintiff without probable cause to believe that Plaintiff committed criminal activity. This misconduct also proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer emotional pain and suffering, a detention, and signi?cant ?nancial loss. 100. The conduct of all of the Co?Investors violated Florida law by proximately causing the arrest of Plaintiff. COUNT IX UNKOWN DEFENDANTS State Claim Battery 101. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 102. Unknown boyfriend of Defendant Mackey and his unknown accomplice with the aid of Defendant Luc Havan committed acts intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with plaintiff, to wit: pummeled Plaintiff into unconsciousness. Case Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2014 Page 13 of 14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages and costs, and all additional relief this Court deems equitable and just COUNT State Claim Negligent Supervision 103. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 104. Defendant employer, MARGARITA ISLAND INC. doing business as SAND BAR ISLAND BAR GRILL becomes aware, or should have become aware, of problems with an employee Luc Havan that indicated his un?tness; 105. The Defendant employer owes a duty to plaintiff to protect the plaintiff from a particular injury or damage; 106. The Defendant employer breached its duty by failing to take further action, such as investigation, discharge, or reassignment; 107. Defendant employer's breach was the proximate cause of injury or damage to plaintiff; and 108. Plaintiff suffered damages in the caused by a physical impact as a result of the breach. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages and costs, and all additional relief this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT XI WEST PALM BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT State Claim Negligent Supervision 109. Plaintiff re-alleges the numbered paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein. 110. Defendant employer, West Palm Beach Police Department becomes aware, or should have become aware, of problems with an employee Fitz-Coy that indicated his un?tness; Case Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/15/2014 Page 14 of 14 111. The Defendant employer owes a duty to plaintiff to protect the plaintiff from a particular injury or damage; I 112. The Defendant employer breached its duty by failing to take ftu'ther action, such as investigation, discharge, or reassignment; 113. Defendant employer's breach was the proximate cause of injury or damage to plaintiff; and 114. Plaintiff suffered damages caused as a direct result of the breach. WI-IEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and award Plaintiff compensatory damages and costs, and all additional relief this Court deems equitable and just. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable. Dated: February 14, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Je?i- . Siskind, Esq FBN 138746 525 Flagler Drive, Suite 5 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 832-7720 Fax: (561) 832-7668 Case Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2014 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. ROBERT GIBSON, Plaintiff, vs. KELLI R. MACKEY, et al., Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Motion by Defendants Luc Havan and Margarita Island, Inc. To Dismiss Amended Complaint (DE 20), ?led on March 7, 2014 and Motion by Defendant West Palm Beach Police Department, by Special Appearance, to Dismiss Plaintiff 5 Amended Complaint and Quash Service (DE 23), ?led on March 12, 2014 (collectively, ?Motions?). Plaintiff Robert Gibson?s Responses to the instant Motions were due on March 24, 2014, as to Mr. Havan and Margarita Island?s Motion to Dismiss (DE 20), and March 31, 2014, as to the West Palm Beach Police Department?s Motion to Dismiss (DE 23). As of today, Mr. Gibson has failed to ?le a Response to either Motion. Southern District of Florida Local Rule 7.1(c) states: Each party opposing a motion shall serve an opposing memorandum of law no later than fourteen (14) days after service of the motion. Failure to do so may be deemed suf?cient cause for granting the motion by default. S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(c) (emphasis added). Accordingly, it is hereby Case Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/02/2014 Page 2 of 2 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Mr. Gibson shall, by 5:00p.m. on April 7, 2014, show cause why the instant Motions should not be granted by default, including in the Responses to this Order a Memorandum of Law addressing the merits of the instant Motions (DE 20, DE 23). ach, Florida, this day of April, DONE AND ORDERED at Chambers in West Palm Be 2014. DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record Case Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2014 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. ROBERT GIBSON, Plaintiff, VS. KELLI R. MACKEY, er al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Motion by Defendants Luc Haven and Margarita Island, Inc. To Dismiss Amended Complaint (DE 20), ?led on March 7, 2014, and Motion by Defendant West Palm Beach Police Department, by Special Appearance, to Dismiss Plaintiff?s Amended Complaint and Quash Service (DE 23), ?led on March 12, 2014 (collectively, ?Motions?). Plaintiff Robert Gibson?s (?Gibson?) Responses to the instant Motions were due on March 24, 2014, as to Mr. Havan and Margarita Island?s Motion to Dismiss (DE 20), and on March 31, 2014, as to the West Palm Beach Police Department?s Motion to Dismiss (DE 23). On April 2, 2014, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Mr. Gibson to: (1) show cause why the instant Motions should not be granted by default, and (2) address the merits of the instant Motions. As of today, Mr. Gibson has failed to ?le a Response to either Motion. Therefore, Defendants Luc Havan, Margarita Island, Inc., and West Palm Beach Police Department?s Motions are due to be granted by default. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: Case Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/28/2014 Page 2 of 2 1. Defendants Luc Havan and Margarita Island, Inc.?s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (DE 20) is 2. Defendant West Palm Beach Police Department?s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff?s Amended Complaint and Quash Service (DE 23) is 3. This matter is DISMISSED as to Defendants Luc Havan, Margarita Island, Inc., and West Palm Beach Police Department; and 4. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE Defendants Luc Havan, Margarita Island, Inc., and West Palm Beach Police Department from the instant matter. DONE AND ORDERED at Chambers in West Palm Bea - Florida, this day of May, 2014. - M. MIDDLEBROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record Case Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2014 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. ROBERT GIBSON, Plaintiff, VS. KELLI R. MACKEY, et Defendants. ORDER DISMISSING CASE THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Unilateral Status Report (DE 28) by Defendant Of?cer Sidney Fitz-Coy (?Of?cer Fitz-Coy?) ?led on May 30, 2014. The Court has reviewed the record and is otherwise in the premise. Plaintiff Robert Gibson (?Gibson?) ?led the instant matter seeking compensatory damages for the allegedly physical and intentional battery and unlawful arrest of Mr. Gibson by Defendants.1 (Amended Comp1., DE 16).2 Of?cer Fitz-Coy ?led an Answer to the Amended Complaint. A Pretrial Scheduling Order (DE 12) and an Order of Referral to Mediation (DE 13) were entered on November 14, 2013. A Trial in the instant matter is set for the two-week trial period commencing June 16, 2014. (DE 7). In United States Magistrate Judge Dave L. Brannon?s Pretrial Scheduling Order (DE 12), the Parties were warned, ?Non-compliance with any provision of this Order may subject the 1 On May 27, 2014, the Court granted Defendants Luc Havan, Margarita Island, and West Palm Beach Police Department?s Motions to Dismiss by default. (DE 27). Defendant Kelli R. Mackey (?Mackey?) has not appeared or otherwise ?led any pleading in the instant matter. The Court notes that there is no indication on the record that Ms. Mackey was served. Of?cer Fitz-Coy, therefore, is the only remaining Defendant who has appeared in this case. 2 Mr. Gibson ?led this matter on September 17, 2013. (DE 1). He ?led an Amended Complaint (DE 16) on February 15, 2014. Case Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2014 Page 2 of 3 offending party to sanctions or dismissal.? (DE 12 at 3 119). In Magistrate Judge Brannon?s Order of Referral to Mediation (DE 13), the parties were ordered to complete mediation at least sixty days before the scheduled trial date. (DE 13 at 1 1). The Order of Referral to Mediation also informed the Parties that ?if mediation or a settlement conference is not completed, the case may be stricken from the trial calendar, and other sanctions may be imposed.? Id. at 4 11 13. The Court issued an Order Requiring Status Report sua sponte because Court-imposed deadlines had passed without ?lings from the Parties. (DE 26). In his Unilateral Status Report, Of?cer Fitz-Coy represents that ?no discovery has taken place and the Parties have not engaged in mediationaddition, Of?cer Fitz-Coy represents that counsel ?made several unsuccessful attempts to reach [Mr. Gibson?s] counsel in an effort to comply with the Court?s Order Requiring Status Report.? (DE 28 at 1 116).3 As of today, Mr. Gibson has neither ?led any response to the Court?s Order Requiring Status Report nor provided any explanation regarding his failure to respond to the Court?s Orders in the instant matter.4 Due to Mr. Gibson?s failure to abide by or respond to the Court?s Orders, the Court that dismissal of this case is warranted. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. This matter is 3 Of?cer Fitz?Coy represents that his counsel sent Mr. Gibson?s counsel an email on May 27, 2014 regarding the Court?s Order Requiring Status Report. The next day, after receiving no response, Of?cer Fitz?Coy?s counsel called and spoke with Mr. Gibson?s counsel, who stated he would email a proposed joint report. Of?cer Fitz-Coy?s counsel emailed Mr. Gibson?s counsel again on May 30, 2014, but, after receiving no proposed joint report or response, Of?cer Fitz- Coy?s counsel ?led a Unilateral Status Report. 4 Additionally, on April 1, 2014, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (DE 25) after Mr. Gibson failed to respond to Defendants Luc Havan, Margarita Island, and West Palm Beach Police Department?s Motions to Dismiss (DE 20, 23). Mr. Gibson did not respond to the Court?s Order. As noted previously, the Court granted Defendants Luc Havan, Margarita Island, and West Palm Beach Police Department Motions to Dismiss by default on May 27, 2014. (DE 27). Case Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2014 Page 3 of 3 2. Any pending motions are DENIED AS and 3. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this day of June, 2014. DMLD DDLEBROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of record