Motion For Leave To File Counterclaim

Filing # 61301157 E-Filed 09/05/2017 10:08:12 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 16-13139-CA-01
BAYSIDE MARKETPLACE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MIAMI WAVES, LLC, et. al.
Defendants.
______________________________________/
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM
Defendants, MIAMI WAVES, LLC, and OMAR LIMON, by and through their
undersigned counsel, and Rule 1.170, Fla. R. Civ. P., hereby move this Court for an Order granting
them leave to file the attached proposed Counterclaim and state in support therefor:
1.) The instant matter arises from the landlord-tenant relationship between BAYSIDE
MARKETPLACE, LLC (Bayside) and MIAMI WAVES, LLC (Miami Waves) and interested
parties related thereto, e.g, OMAR LIMON (Limon).
2.) The proposed counterclaim (attached hereto) is essentially connected to Baysides
Complaint and the instant litigation in that (i) the parties are the same, (ii) the claims are predicated
upon the same pattern of facts and (iii) events arising and discovered by virtue thereof, and is (iv)
otherwise rationally, legally and factually intertwined with the matters now before the Court.
3.) Pursuant to Rule 1.170(f), Fla. R. Civ. P., [w]hen a pleader fails to set up a
counterclaim or crossclaim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, or when justice
requires, the pleader may set up the counterclaim or crossclaim by amendment with leave of the
1
court. Likewise, Rule 1.190(a), Fla. R. Civ. P. requires Courts to freely grant leave whe[re]
justice so requires. These rules and the case law interpreting and applying same make it
resoundingly clear that absent extreme prejudicial circumstances, leave to amend, including the
filing of a counterclaim (where one has previously been filed) should always be given. See Bill
Williams Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. v. Haymarket Cooperative Bank, 592 So. 2d 302, 306
(Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(reversing trial court ruling denying defendants motion for leave to file third
amended answer and add a counterclaim). Indeed, such principles are so prominent, appellate
courts routinely find a trial courts refusal to permit amended pleadings to be an abuse of
discretion. See Advanced Energy Concepts, Inc. v. Waugh, 510 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA
1987)(granting certiorari and quashing trial court order denying leave to file counterclaim and
holding that special liberty should be accorded to amend to add a compulsory counterclaim and
that refusal to grant such leave constitutes an abuse of discretion).; Bratcher v. Wronkowski, 417
So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) rev. denied 424 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1982); Fuente v. Southern
Ocean Transp., Inc., 933 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); see also Kamareddine v. Demery, 600
So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Bill Williams, 592 So. 2d at 302.
4.) As this is Defendants first request for leave, and the lack of any prejudice or other
harm that may inure to the Plaintiff by granting same, the request should be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
VAZQUEZ, GILLER, SILVERSTEIN &

ORSHAN, LLC
Jason B. Giller, Esq.
Fla. Bar No. 77441
Keith D. Silverstein, Esq.
Fla. Bar No. 086820
Tricia Neimand, Esq.
Fla. Bar No. 102562
Attorneys for Defendants
2
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2000
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 868-0200
Fax: (305) 868-1045
E-mail: keith@silversteinpa.com
E-Mail: jason@gillerpa.com
By: /s/ JASON B GILLER

Florida Bar Number: 77441
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via an
automatic email generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal on this 5th day of September,
2017 and thereafter forwarded via E-Filing to: Paul Renner, Esq. and John C.W. Cherneski, Esq.,
14 East Bay Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202 [prenner@milamhoward.com;
sphipps@milamhoward.com; jcherneski@milamhoward.com; and sjames@milamhoward.com];
Todd Wallen, Esq., Wallen Hernandez Lee Martinez, LLP, 306 Alcazar Ave., Site 301, Coral
Gables, FL 33134 [todd@whlmlegal.com]; Jeffrey Berlowitz, Esq., Siegfried, Rivera, Hyman,
Lerner, De la Torre, Mars & Sobel, P.A., 201 Alhambra Circle, 11th Floor, Coral Gables, FL 33134
[jberlowitz@srhl-law.com and jortega@srhl-law.com]; Gregory Pierre, Esq., John Cody
German, Esq., Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Cole Scott & Kissane Bldg., 9150 S. Dadeland Blvd.,
Suite 1400, Miami, FL 33156 [cody.german@csklegal.com, Gregory.pierre@csklegal.com and
Yvonne.orosa@csklegal.com]; and Harvard Retail Corp., 625 NW 121st Street, North Miami, FL
33168 (via u.s.p.s.).
/s/Jason B. Giller
JASON B. GILLER
3
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 16-13139-CA-01
BAYSIDE MARKETPLACE, LLC,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,
vs.
MIAMI WAVES, LLC, et. al.
Defendants/Counterclaim Plainitffs.
______________________________________/
COUNTERCLAIM
Defendant MIAMI WAVES, LLC (Miami Waves), by and through undersigned
counsel, hereby countersues Plaintiff, BAYSIDE MARKETPLACE, LLC (Bayside) and
alleges:
INTRODUCTION
1. The instant matter is classic David and Goliath situation with Goliath not only vested with
billions of dollars in resources, but unabashed from submitting knowingly altered documents to
this Court, and wrongfully prosecuting litigation premised upon same. While the instant matter is
quite shocking, it has now been discovered that these improper and outrageous tactics have not
only been utilized against Miami Waves, but applied across the board to affect an economic and
legal apartheid of the city owned, but private operated shopping center of its local and regional
tenants in favor of national and international brands. Such conduct is not only troublesome in its
own right, but actionable in this Court.
2. In connection with the foregoing, it is expected that additional parties which are similarly
situated, having been subject to the same or striking similar patterns and practices, contain
1-
VAZQUEZ, G ILLER, SILVERSTEIN & ORSHAN, LLC
701 BRICKELL AVE., 20TH FLOOR MIAMI, FL 33131 TELEPHONE: [305] 999-1906 FACSIMILE: [305] 489-8530
common questions or law or facts, and would be more practical, fair and adequate to raise such
matters in a single action.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This is an action for damages in an amount within this Courts jurisdictional limits, to wit:
in excess of $15,000.00 exclusive of attorneys fees, costs and interest, and for which this Court
has original subject matter jurisdiction.
4. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over Bayside by virtue of its Complaint, and the
fact that it holds a long-term lease over real-property in Miami-Dade County and conducts business
and maintains offices at same.
5. Venue in Miami-Dade County is appropriate by virtue of Baysides Complaint, and
pursuant to Fla. Stat. 47.011 and 47.051. Venue is also appropriate pursuant to Tucker v. Fianson,
484 So. 2d 1370, 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) because the economic damage caused by Baysides
actions was sustained in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
6. Bayside is a limited liability company formed and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware, and registered to do business in Florida. It is owned by two real estate conglomerates,
General Growth Partners (GGP) and Ashkenazy Corp. (Ashkenazy), the latter of which has
oversight and control over Baysides day-to-day operations. Collectively the two firms have a
market capitalization of more than Thirty-One Billion Dollars ($31,000,000,000.00).
7. Miami Waves is an affiliate of another long-term tenant of the shopping center, which was
formed, at the behest and recommendation of Baysides former leasing executive, Mr. Anthony
Maihan. At the time, Mr. Anthony Maihan had represented that the undertaking of another location
within the marketplace would not only provide a handsome return on investment, but would ensure
that Miami Waves and its ownership would have a collective stronghold over the sporting apparel
2-
outlets within the mall, and solidify their presence within the center for years to come.
BACKGROUND
8. As the Court is apprised, Bayside is a tenant of a long-term lease for the property generally
located at 401 Biscayne Blvd and operates the shopping mall located at said location
(Marketplace).
9. In or around January 2016, due to Ashkenazys investment into Bayside, management and
operations were transitioned from GGP and its inhouse managers to Ashkenazy and Jones Lang
Lasalle (JLL).
10. Together with the transition, Bayside has also seemingly adopted its predecessors woeful
management practices, perpetrated post-execution unilateral modification of lease agreements,
engaged in incredulous creative accounting practices, and prosecuted this action premised upon
knowingly inflated and inaccurate ledgers.
11. For example, it is now known that Bayside, through its agents, has wronged not only Miami
Waves, but other tenants by:
a. Inducing them to enter into leases under knowingly false representations that
Bayside would be making millions of dollars in improvements to the Marketplace;
b. Representing that the if the tenants signed the leases when presented, Bayside
would ensure the tenant of continued opportunities in the Marketplace, then to only avoid
those representations and even more so, claim positions directly contrary to those made
pre-execution;
c. Representing that the proposed leases were in accord with current market rates,
when in fact they were not, a material fact Bayside has concealed by using confidentiality
agreements and provisions and threats relating thereto;
d. Representing that the claimed square footage was accurate and expenses predicated
upon same were fairly divided among ownership (Bayside) and tenants when in fact
Bayside intentionally over-stated the actual square footage, resulting in an inordinate
3-
proportion of expenses falling on tenants, causing economic damage exacerbated when the
landlord, despite receiving credits and refunds for such expenses, refused to extend that
credit to the tenants who were charged with the expense but not given the related discount,
credit or refund;
e. Assuring tenants that upon substantial completion of their buildouts Bayside would
promptly return their construction deposits and given them the agreed upon
construction/buildout credit;
f. In an effort to deny tenants their credits, unilaterally alter the lease agreements; and
g. Wrongfully induce tenants to make material and costly improvements to their
spaces under broken and avoided promises to cause a windfall to Bayside who could then
retain the benefit of the improvements and re-let the units out to new tenants at higher rental
rates.
12. However, and once tenants, including Miami Waves signed, Bayside would comport
themselves in a totally different manner.
13. For example, Bayside would, among other things:
a. Refuse to recognize the material difference between the actual square footage and
the size it represented in the lease;
b. Would thereafter charge pass-through expenses based on the wrong square footage;
c. Would refuse to give credit to tenants for refunds and/or discounts that Bayside was
paid or realized for expenses that it had passed through to the tenants;
d. Modify, alter and/or forge lease agreements to avoid honoring agreed upon
construction credits;
e. Fail to remit refunds for construction costs owed to tenants;
f. Refuse to release security deposits to tenants upon completion of construction as
agreed;
g. Mislead tenants by telling them that they may pay a reduced amount of rent and
avail themselves to ownerships rent relief program only to then turn around and present
accountings which are either i) inaccurate or ii) fail to take that program and regime into
account and wrongfully prosecute evictions and claims for breach of contract upon same;
h. Conspire with tenants to price gouge, and commit unlawful trade practices; and
4-
i. Generally set out to undertake actions designed to economically injure tenants that
Bayside no longer desires to have within the Marketplace.
14. Said allegations are confirmed by the court documents attached hereto as Composite
Exhibit A.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
15. In or about April and May, 2015, Bayside, through its agent Mr. Anthony Maihan,
represented to Miami Waves organizers that he had a great deal for a 1,588 square-foot location
within the Marketplace (space #1189)(the Premises).
16. Bayside, through its agent represented that the former operator was generating more than
$800,000.00 per year in gross revenues, and that with some additional square footage and the
proper buildout, the Premises would generate at least $1,000,000.00 per year in gross revenues.
17. In addition, Bayside represented that it was going to be making material improvements to
the shopping center, investing millions upon millions into the mall, which would not only increase
foot traffic and the market perception of the mall, but would in turn increase, demand for space
within the center and surely drive rents up. Under the premise, Bayside urged Miami Waves to
sign the lease immediately to, among other things, secure their general footprint in the mall and
lock-in current market prices which were sure to increase.
18. In reliance of those material representations, on or about May 20, 2015, Miami Waves
signed the lease attached hereto as Exhibit B which was delivered to Bayside (the Lease or
Lease Agreement).
19. Notably, and in connection with the $200,000.00+ buildout of the Premises, Bayside
agreed to give Miami Waves a construction credit of $123,146.00, payable in two installments of
$58,396.00, and $64,750.00, and refund or credit their $5,000.00 construction deposit upon
5-
substantial completion. See Lease, Section 1.18.
20. All conditions precedent to this action have been satisfied, have occurred, or have been
waived.
COUNT I
(Breach of Contract)
Counterclaim Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20 herein and
allege further:
21. The Lease Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit B constituted an effective and binding
agreement between Miami Waves and Bayside.
22. Bayside acted in reliance and performed pursuant to the Lease Agreement, which bound
Bayside regardless of whether or not it countersigned the same lease agreement.
23. However, and upon information and belief, the Lease Agreement was approved by
Bayside, but at some unknown point in time prior to the instant litigation was intentionally
unilaterally altered by Bayside.
24. Bayside breached the Lease Agreement by:
a. Failing to timely remit Miami Waves construction security deposit or give credit
therefore;
b. Failing to apply the construction allowance to Baysides account receivables;
c. Improperly stating the actual square footage of the leased Premises and
improperly charging CAM and other passthrough expenses predicated upon the
wrong square footage
d. Overcharging CAM and other pass-through expenses and by failing to give credit
for refunds and other discounts that Bayside received pertaining to same;
e. By conspiring with direct competitors to drive Miami Waves out of business and
out of the Marketplace;
f. By improperly attempting to modify the agreed upon lease terms;
g. By sending demand letters knowing that their accounting records were either
6-
knowingly false, inaccurate or incomplete;
h. By agreeing to accept a reduced amount of rent in lieu of the rent set forth in the
agreement, only to then turn around and bring legal action upon a knowingly false
and inaccurate lease agreement; and
i. By generally instilling a hostile environment to undermine Miami Waves ability
to conduct business under normal circumstances designed to have the natural
affect of undermining its ability to pay the above-market rental rates to Bayside.
25. The foregoing constituted material breaches of the Lease Agreement.
26. Baysides actions proximately and directly caused Miami Waves damages in an amount to
be proven at trial, including but not limited to lost profits, legal fees, filing fees, and the benefit of
the bargain reached with Bayside.
WHEREFORE, Miami Waves demands judgment against Bayside in an amount to be proven
at trial for actual, compensatory, incidental, consequential and punitive damages, interest,
attorneys fees and costs and any further relief this Court finds proper and just.
COUNT II
(Fraudulent Inducement)
Counterclaim Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, and 24 herein
and allege further:
27. As a consequence of Baysides knowingly false and/or materially misleading
representations to Miami Waves, Bayside fraudulently induced Miami Waves into entering into
the Lease Agreement.
28. Bayside knew of the falsity or materially misleading statements at the time they were made,
and that Miami Waves would reasonably rely upon same.
29. Miami Waves reasonably relied upon Baysides representations, which resulted in Miami
Waves entering into the Lease Agreement.
7-
30. Even more so, Bayside intentionally concealed underlying facts and conditions which had
the egregious effect of not only impairing Miami Wavess ability to discover same, but establish
a relationship wherein Miami Waves was forced to rely upon Bayside for such information (which
is now known to be false).
31. Baysides false and/or misleading statements and the Lease Agreement that was entered
into as a result of same has caused Miami Waves damage in an amount to be proven at trial.
32. After entering into the Lease Agreement, Miami Waves discovered the false
representations, and has brought this action to vindicate their rights relating to same.
WHEREFORE, Miami Waves demands judgment against Bayside in an amount to be proven
at trial for actual, compensatory, incidental, consequential and punitive damages, interest,
attorneys fees and costs, or in the alternative to set aside and rescind the lease agreement, and any
further relief this Court finds proper and just.
COUNT III
(Claim to Rescind Contract for Failure to have Meeting of Minds)
Counterclaim Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20 herein and

allege further:
33. In the alternative to Counts I and II, Miami Waves alleges that to the extent the Lease
Agreement does not conform to the terms each party signed off on, then there was never a meeting
of the minds, and therefore, no valid contract between the parties.
34. In that regard, the proper remedy is to rescind the Lease Agreement at issue, legally
abrogating said Lease Agreement.
35. As the form of the Lease Agreement that Miami Waves consented to, executed and
delivered is not what Bayside claims it signed, with material terms in gross disagreement, the
parties failed to have a meeting of the minds, thus precluding legal formation of any enforceable
8-
agreement.
36. More specifically, Miami Waves believed that it was going to receive a 1,588 square foot
store that would generate gross income of at least $1,000,000.00 per year, and would be given a
construction allowance to be credit against rent obligations in the amount of $123,146.00.
37. Miami Waves was also led to believe, and executed a Lease Agreement wherein their
construction deposit would be promptly returned upon substantial completion.
38. Instead, Bayside gave Miami Waves a materially smaller store which generates a fraction
the amount of the income they were told it would.
39. In addition, Miami Waves signed the Lease Agreement which gave it a construction
allowance of $123,146.00 but Bayside purports to have only agreed to an allowance and
subsequent rent credit of just $58,396.00.
40. At best, there was never a meeting of the minds and no legal contract formed.
41. There is no adequate remedy at law which will fully redress the issues raised herein.
WHEREFORE, Miami Waves demand judgment against Bayside finding that there was never
a legal contract formed, all security and advanced rent repaid, Miami Waves repaid for all
improvements made in the lease premise, together with interest, attorneys fee and such further
relief this Court finds just and proper.
COUNT IV
(Damages for Unfair Trade Practices)
Counterclaim Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, and 24 herein
and allege further:
42. This Count seeks compensatory and punitive damages and other relief under the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, for which this Court has jurisdiction to entertain a
private action.
9-
43. Baysides conduct as described above was in the court of trade and commerce as
defined and used in the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ch. 501, part
II (Unfair Trade Practices Act).
44. Baysides action, particularly with regard to surreptitious after execution unilateral
modification of the lease Agreement, improper accounting and expense allocation practices and
conspiracy to injure Miami Waves business operations are unconscionable as defined and used
in the Unfair Trade Practices Act.
45. Baysides unconscionable acts perpetrated in the course of trade and commerce constituted
a violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act.
46. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act,
Miami Waves has sustained damages as described above and to be proven at trial.
47. For the foregoing reasons, in addition to compensatory damages, Miami Waves is entitled
to punitive damages given the nature of the conduct at issue and Baysides willful intent to exact
same.
48. Miami Waves is entitled to recover its attorneys fees and costs under the Unfair Trade
Practices Act.
WHEREFORE, Miami Waves demands judgment against Bayside for compensatory
damages, punitive damages and an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and for such
further relief this court finds just and proper.
COUNT V
(Fraud)
Counterclaim Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20, 24, and 27-32
herein and allege further:
49. Throughout the relationship between the parties, Bayside made many material
10-
representations to Miami Waves, including but not limited to:
a. The size of the leased premises;

b. CAM charges;
c. Accounting;
d. Good-will; and
e. Receipts.
50. The representations, which were made both before and after the parties entered into the
Lease Agreement, were material to the Lease Agreement and the landlord-tenant relationship.
51. Notwithstanding the materiality, Bayside intentionally made knowingly false and/or
misleading statements, including but not limited to those identified above, which were designed
to, and did in fact, result in Miami Waves relying upon same.
52. Miami Waves reasonably relied upon said representations, and such reliance resulted in
damage.
WHEREFORE, Miami Waves demands judgment against Bayside for compensatory
damages, punitive damages and an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs, and for such
further relief this court finds just and proper.
COUNT VI
(Accounting)
Counterclaim Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20 and 24 herein
and allege further:
53. Bayside and Miami Waves are parties to the Lease Agreement.
54. Pursuant to said Lease Agreement, Bayside was charged with accounting for, and
allocating certain common expenses (CAM charges) for each tenant, including Miami Waves. See,
e.g., Lease Agreement, Article 17.
55. At last count, there are more than 173 tenant spaces within the Marketplace.
56. In addition, and while Bayside charges each tenant their proportionate share of the
11-
CAM/common charges, the tenants, including Miami Waves are not privy to the documents and
accounting supporting same.
57. For example, while Bayside assesses each tenant, including Miami Waves for real estate
taxes, refunds paid to Bayside, despite having been paid, have never been disclosed or extended
to the tenants, including Miami Waves.
58. This regime, wherein Bayside has exclusive access and control over the base expenses, is
applicable to each and every category constituting the CAM/common charges. In turn, and
because Miami Waves, like every other tenant does not have access to this information, they are
forced to rely upon Bayside for representation and accounting of same.
59. Miami Waves believes that the computations, allocations and representations are not
accurate and are belied by the true facts at hand.
60. Given the size of the Marketplace, the number of tenants, the categories representing the
CAM/common charges, extensive and complicated labor is required to account for same.
61. In turn, and in light of the foregoing, it is not clear that a remedy at law is a full, adequate
and expeditious as is an equitable accounting.
WHEREFORE, Miami Waves demands judgment against Bayside for an order:

a. Finding that Miami Waves are entitled to a full and complete accounting for all
CAM/common charges from December 1, 2015 to date;
b. That Bayside produce said accounting within fifteen (15) days of the order finding
entitlement;
c. An award for reasonable attorneys fee and costs;
d. And such any and further relief this Court finds appropriate.
COUNT VII
(Declaratory Action to Determine Guaranty Null, Void and/or Revoked)
Counterclaim Plaintiffs reallege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 32, and herein
and allege further:
62. Annexed to Baysides Complaint is a document styled Guaranty which is purportedly
12-
signed by Mr. Omar Limon (Limon)(the document shall be referred to as the Guaranty,
although Limon contests the legal effect of same). A true and correct copy of said Guaranty is
attached hereto as Exhibit C.
63. The Guaranty, inter alia, purports to secure the performance of Miami Waves pursuant to
the Lease Agreement.
64. However, and as alleged above, Bayside has intentionally and materially impeded Miami
Waves ability to perform pursuant to the Lease, and has otherwise engaged in wrongful conduct
thereby forfeiting all rights, remedies and interest in, and legal basis to enforce the Guaranty.
65. Indeed, the Guaranty, which is legally defective for other reasons, is no longer enforceable
against the Guarantor because it was Bayside that not only breached the Lease Agreement, but
engaged in a campaign designed to illegally injure Miami Waves, which independently
undermines the effectiveness, particularly at this juncture, of said Guarantee.
66. In addition, and in light of Baysides wanton, reckless and wrongful conduct, Omar Limon
hereby again gives notice of revocation of the Guaranty and providing further notice that he will
not be responsible or liable for any indebtedness incurred by Miami Waves after this notice.
67. Contrary to Limons position that the Guaranty is no longer of any legal effect, Bayside
asserts that it is.
68. In connection with the foregoing and vis--vis the Guaranty, there is a doubt about the
existence of non-existence of the rights and remedies alleged by Bayside against Limon.
69. Limon is entitled to have said doubts removed from controversy by way of a declaratory
judgment judicially determining Limon and Baysides rights, remedies and obligations vis--vis
the Guaranty.
70. In turn, there is a bona fide dispute relating to the Guaranty for which there is no adequate
13-
legal remedy at law.
71. This Court has jurisdiction to determine the issues raised in this Count, as well as to
adjudicate the rights and obligations of the parties.
72. Accordingly, Limon is in need of a declaration as to the legal effect and enforceability of
the Guaranty.
WHEREFORE, Limon respectfully requests this Court to enter a declaratory judgment
declaring:
a. The Guaranty is null, void and of no legal effect;

b. Limon has no personal obligations or liability to Bayside;
c. Limon has no personal obligations or liability to Miami Waves; and
d. Any further relief this Court finds necessary or proper.
Respectfully submitted,
VAZQUEZ, GILLER, SILVERSTEIN &

ORSHAN, LLC
Fla. Bar No. 77441
Keith D. Silverstein, Esq.
Fla. Bar No. 086820
Tricia Neimand, Esq.
Fla. Bar No. 102562
Attorneys for Defendants
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2000
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 868-0200
Fax: (305) 868-1045
E-mail: keith@silversteinpa.com
E-Mail: jason@gillerpa.com
By: /s/ JASON B GILLER

Florida Bar Number: 77441
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via an
automatic email generated by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal on this 5th day of September,
2017 and thereafter forwarded via E-Filing to: Paul Renner, Esq. and John C.W. Cherneski, Esq.,
14-
14 East Bay Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202 [prenner@milamhoward.com;
sphipps@milamhoward.com; jcherneski@milamhoward.com; and sjames@milamhoward.com].
/s/Jason B. Giller
JASON B. GILLER
15-

Motion For Leave To File Counterclaim

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Motion For Leave To File Counterclaim

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Filing # 61301157 E-Filed 09/05/2017 10:08:12 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

CASE NO.: 16-13139-CA-01

BAYSIDE MARKETPLACE, LLC,

MIAMI WAVES, LLC, et. al.