IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND ...€¦ · Venue is proper in the...

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff,

V.

BEACH BLVD AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a Florida Corporation; BEACH BLVD AUTO FINANCE, INC. , a Florida Corporation; JOHN 0. KING, SR. , individually, and as owner, officer and/or di rector of BEACH BLVD AUTOMOTIVE, INC., BEACH BLVD AUTO FINANCE, INC., and BARBARA KING, ind ividually and as an agent of BEACH BLVD AUTOMOTIVE, INC.

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 2010-CA-010947 DlVISI"ON: CV-G

I ------------------------------------------

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DAMAGES, CIVIL PENAL TIES AND OTHEI{ STATUTORY RELIEF

The Plaintiff, STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS (hereinafter referred to as "Attorney General" and/or

"Plaintiff''), by and through the undersigned Assistant Attorney General , hereby sues

Defendants, BEACH BLVD AUTOMOTIVE, INC. ("BBA"), a Flori da Corporation; BEACH

BLVD AUTO FINANCE, INC. ("BBAF"), a Florida Corporation; JOl-IN 0. KING, SR.

("KING'), ind ividually, and as owner, officer and/or director of BEACH BLVD

AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and BEACH BLVD AUTO FINANCE, INC., (hereinafter referred to

individually as "Defendant", BBA, BBAF, and KING, respectively, and collectively as

"Defendants") and BARBARA KING, individually and as an agent of BEACH BLVD

AUTOMOTIVE INC.

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc ., et. al ; 1'1 Amended Complaint of67

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, civil penalties, costs,

damages, attorney's fees, and any other statutory relief available, pursuant to the

Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 50 I, Part II, Fla. Stat.

(2010), the Florida Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices; Vehicles, Chapter 50 1, Part

VI, Fla. Stat. (201 0), and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Chapter

559, Part VI, Fla. Stat. (2010).

2. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 501,

Part II, Fla. Stat., specifically section 501.207, which outl ines the remedies of the

Offi ce of the Attorney General as the enforcing authority.

3. All actions and conduct of the Defendants of unfair methods of competition, or

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

commerce, which are material to the Complaint occurred within two (2) years for

purposes the Chapter 55 9, Part VI, and four ( 4) years for purposes of Chapter 50 I

Parts Il and VI, of the fi ling of this lawsuit.

4. Venue is proper in the Circui t Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit , in and for Duval

County, Florida as the statutory violations alleged herein occurred in, or affected,

residents of more than one judicial circuit in the State of Florida, as well as outside

the state.

5. Venue is also proper in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for

Duval County, Florida as the Defendants conducted, or continue to conduct, business

in Duval County, Florida.

2

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. al; I st Amended Complain t of 67

THE PLAINTIFF

6. The Plaintiff is an "enforcing authority" of the Florida Deceptive and Unlawful Trade

Practices Act ("FDUTP A''), Chapter 50 1, Part II , Fla. Stat., and is authorized to bring

this action and to seek damages, injunctive relief and all other avai lable statutory

relief. Pursuant to section 501.203(3)(c), the Office of the Attorney General, as the

enforcing authority, may initiate an action based on a vio lation of "[a]ny law, statute,

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

unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices."

7. The Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, has reviewed this matter and determined

that this action is necessary to serve the public interest and protect the public from

unfai r methods of competition, or unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or

practices. See the Determination of Public Interest (DPI) attached hereto as Exhibit

"A", and previously attached to the Complaint. Additionally, the State Attorney of

the Fourth Judicial Circuit has deferred this matter to the Office of the Attorney

General. See the Notice of Deferral of Action from the State Attorney of the Fourth

Judicial Circuit, as Exhibit "A".

THE DEFENDANTS

8. Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, at all material times hereto, advertised, provided

and offered for sale tangible and intangible goods or services as defined by Section

50 1.203(8), Fla. Stat., within Duval County and elsewhere in the United States,

related to the sale, financing and servicing of vehicles as a dealer as defined by

Section 501.975, Fla. Stat.

3

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc .. et. a l; I st Amended Complaint of 67

9. Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, at all material times hereto, solicited consumers

within the definition of Section 50 1.203(7). Fla. Stat., and customers within the

definition of Section 501.975, Fla. Stat.

10. Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, at all material times hereto, were engaged in a

trade or commerce within the definition of Section 501.203(8), Fla. Stat. as a dealer

within the definition of Section 501.97 5.

11. Defendant, BARBARA KING, at all material times hereto, was acting with the

express and impl ied authorization of BBA to solicit consumers within the definition

of Section 50 1.203(7), Fla. Stat.. and actively sought to engage in a trade or

commerce within the definition of Section 50 1.203(8), Fla. Stat., by posting false

positive comments that appear on review websites (i.e., City Search, Insider Pages,

Yahoo Local, etc.), using fake names or consumer information without the consumers

knowledge or authorization.

Defendant, BEACH BOULEVAR D A UTOMOTJVE, INC.

12. Defendant, BBA, is a Florida Corporation established on or about May 23, 1969, and

at all times material, BBA operated or operates from a location at 6833 Beach

Boulevard, .Jacksonville, Florida 32216.

13. Defendant, BBA, is engaged in the sale of motor vehicles and all related activities.

14. Defendant, BBA, employs or contracts sale persons who sol icit consumers to

purchase vehicles from BBA.

15. KING participates in, manages, controls and has knowledge of the day-to-day

activities of the company's business, to include the supervision of vo lunteer workers,

employees, agents and independent contractors. Former, as well as current

4

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. al; I 51 Amended Complaint of 67

employees, consumers and third-party business entities have provided information

establishing that BBA conducted certain business practices re lated to the sale of

vehicles, which are unfai r, deceptive and/or unconscionable. Specifically, KING

through BBA has reported or produced discovery representi ng the sale of vehic les to

consumers and other third-party businesses that did not occur. Furthermore, through

BBA, KING has reported or disclosed sales of vehicles using vehicle identification

numbers that do not exist and has completed credit life appl ications for consumers

based on the sale of non-existent vehicle(s).

Defendant, BEACH BOULEVARD AUTO FINANCE, INC.

16. Defendant, BBAF, is a Florida Corporation established on or about March 15, 1983,

and at all times material BBA operated or operates from an office located at 6833

Beach Boulevard, Jacksonvil le, Florida 32216.

17. Defendant, BBAF, is engaged in the fi nancing of motor vehicles sold by BBA

exclusively and all related activities. Defendant, BBAF, employs fi nance personnel

who work to finance BBA veh icles for consumers who purchase vehicles from BBA.

18. KING participates in , manages, controls and has knowledge of the day-to-day

activities of the company's business . Former, as well as current employees,

consumers and third-party business enti ties have provided information establi shing

that BBAF conducted certain business prac ti ces related to the financ ing of vehicles,

which are unfair, deceptive and/or unconscionable. Specifically, KING through

BBAF, has reported or produced discovery (i.e. , Retail Installment Contract)

representi ng that a vehicle was fi nanced, when in actual ity instead of an automobile

being financed, BBAF executed a personal loan to the consumer and the vehicle

5

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc ., et. a l; I st Amended Complaint of 67

descri bed and identified in the Retai l Install ment Agreement was never actually

fi nanced. Addi tionall y, BBAF has reported the fi nanc ing of vehicles using vehicle

identification numbers that do not exist and has completed credit life applications for

consumers based on the fi nancing of non-existent vehic le(s). Moreover, BBAF has

reported or disc losed that certain consumers financed a vehicle bearing a specific

vehicle identification number, when no such transaction took place.

Defendant, JOHN 0. KIN G, SR.

19. The Defendant, KING, is a natural person who is registered with the Florida

Department of State, Division of Corporations, as the president, secretary and

treasurer of BBA, as well as president and director of BBAF. KING is sued

individually, in his capacity as an officer and di rector of BBA and BBAF based on his

sole control of the day-to-day operations of the respecti ve companies, as well as his

personal interactions with actual and prospective consumers duri ng the sale, fi nance

and repossession of BBAF financed vehicles . (See list of domain name registration

and registration with the Florida Department o(State Division o( Corporations as

Composite Exhibit "B") .

20. As a di rector and officer of BBA and BBAF, KING presently, and at all times

material to the al legations in this Complaint, participates in, manages, controls and

has, or should have, knowledge of the day-to-day activi ties of the company's

business, which includes the adverti sing and promoting of BBA via electronic media

through the World Wide Web. KING has been identified by former, as well as current

employees and consumers as the primary and sole decision maker of BBA and

BBAF. KING also trains or assists with the training of employees and independent

6

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. al; I st Amended Complaint of 67

contractors of BBA and BBAF who sells or finance vehicles and is the final arbiter as

to any and all sales, finance, repossession and other related business practices

conducted by BBA and BBAF. Former, as well as current, employees, consumers and

third-party business entities have also provided information establishing that KING

instituted certain business practices related to the sale of BBA vehicles and the

financing of the same through BBAF, which are unfair, deceptive and/or

unconscionable. Specifically, through BBA, KING has reported or disclosed sales of

vehicles to consumers and other businesses that did not occur. Furthermore, through

BBAF, King has reported or produced discovery (i .e., Retail Installment Contract)

representing that a vehicle was financed. when in actuality instead of an automobile

being financed, BBAF executed a personal loan to the consumer, and the vehicle

described and ident ified in the Retail Installment Agreement was never actually

financed. Additionally, through BBA and BBAF, KING has reported or disclosed

sales of vehicles and financing of vehicles using vehicle identification numbers that

do not exist and has completed credit life applications for consumers based on the

sale of non-existent vehicle(s). Moreover, through BBAF, KING has reported or

disclosed that certain consumers financed a veh icle bearing a specific vehicle

identification number, when no such transaction took place.

21. Moreover, KING was and is responsible for and directs the consumer complaints

process directly through, but not limited to, the following: consumers, Better Business

Bureau (see attached as Composite Exhibit "C"), enforcing agenc ies and the courts.

Such responses to consumer complaints were only possible through KING's intimate

knowledge of the businesses and the day-to-day participation with BBA and BBAF

7

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive . Inc ., et. al; I st Amended Complaint of 67

that fostered unfair, deceptive and unconscionable acts through the sale of motor

vehicles .

22. Furthermore, KING gave express or implied authorization to BBA volunteers,

employees, agents or independent contractors to uti lize BBA and BBAF computer

equipment to establish fake profi les for the purpose of posting false posi ti ve

comments on multiple review websites (i.e., City Search, Insider Pages, Yahoo Local ,

etc.), to inappropriately promote, adverti se or defend BBA and BBAF from

consumers with complaints about their experience with BBA and BBAF.

Addi tionally, the false positive comments were intended to artificially improve the

online reputation of BBA and BBAF, to attract consumers and induce them to

purchase vehicles from BBA.

23. There exists and, at all times relevant hereto, has existed, a uni ty of interest between

KING and the subject businesses, BBA and BBAF, such that any individuality and

separateness of KING from BBA and BBAF have ceased to exist. To adhere to such a

fiction would serve to promote unfair, deceptive and unconscionable business

practices, as well as promote injustice to consumers.

24. For purposes of this Complaint, any references to the acts and practices of Defendants

shall mean that such acts and pract ices are by and through the acts of JOHN 0.

KING, SR., as well as the officers, members, owners, directors, employees and other

agents BBA and BBAF.

Defendant, BARBARA KIN G

25. The Defendant, BARBARA KING, is a natural person who in her individual

capacity, or as an agent of BBA and BBAF, at the express or implied di recti on of

8

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc ., et. a l; 1 ~ 1 Amended Complaint of67

BBA and BBAF was given access to the companies' computer systems and consumer

data to create fake online profiles to post false positive comments across the World

Wide Web. BARBARA KING is sued individually, in her capacity as an agent of

BBA and BBAF, based on her role as the advertising contact for BBA and BBAF in

posting false positive comments that appear on multiple review websites (i.e., City

Search, Insider Pages, Yahoo Local, etc.), to inappropriately promote, advertise or

defend BBA and BBAF from consumers with complaints about their experience wi th

BBA and BBAF. Add it ionally, the fa lse positive comments were intended to

artificially improve the online reputation of BBA and BBAF in an effort to attract

consumers and induce them to purchase vehic les from BBA. (See attached as Exhibit

"D" excerpts (rom tlte sworn statement o(BARBARA KING).

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

26. At all pertinent times, Defendant, BBA, marketed and so ld used motor vehicles to

consumers in Florida, as well as throughout the United States.

27. At all times pertinent, Defendant, BBAF, fi nanced select vehicles for consumers,

which herein and throughout this Complaint shall include individuals, as well as other

third-party businesses, unless otherwise stated, who purchased vehicles from BBA.

28 . At all times pertinent. Defendant, JOHN 0. KING, SR., owner, di rector and officer of

BBA and BBAF was in charge of and directed the day-to-day sales, fi nanc ing and

other business activities (i .e., service, repossessions, customer complaints, completion

of business re lated reports for financial and or tax purposes, etc.) related to the sale

and finance of veh icles to BBA consumers. KING also supervised employees of BBA

and BBAF who took instruction directly from. or on behalf of, KING. With certain

9

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. a! ; I st Amended Complaint Page I 0 of 67

sales and finance activities, BBA posted the false sales of vehicles to consumers,

listing the names of the individual or third-party businesses as the buyer or financed

party to the contract when BBA, BBAF and/or KING knew or should have known

that neither the sale nor the financ ing occurred. BBA, BBAF and/or KING also

attached vehicle identification numbers to the purported sale and/or financing of

vehicles to consumers using vehicle identification numbers that did not exist.

Moreover, BBA, BBAF and/or KING submitted application for credit life insurance

based on the sale or financing of a vehicle using a vehicle identification number that

did not exist. BBA, BBAF and/or KING also, on at least one occasion, entered into a

personal loan with a consumer using a veh icle identification number that did not exist

and where the consumer did not own or have possession of the vehicle represented in

the Retail Installment Contract signed by the consumer and BBAF.

29. At all pertinent times, the business model of the Defendants, BBA and BBAF,

consisted of BBA advertising and offering vehicles for sale to consumers and BBAF

contracting with select consumers to provide financin g for the purchase of the

vehicle.

30. At all pertinent times, Defendants, BBA and BARBARA KING, was that advertising

contact for BBA and BBAF, created fake online profi les, and/or used consumer data

without the knowledge or authorization of the consumers, to post false positive

comments across the World Wide Web (also known as "astra-turfing").

31 . Additionally, BBA and/or BBAF, under the direction of KING, monitors consumers'

payment and insurance status, tracks vehicles via GPS tracking devices without

10

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. al; I st Amended Complaint Page II of 67

consumer knowledge or authorization, and conducts unconscionable repossessions of

vehicles.

32 . As part of its business practi ce, Defendant, BBA, has engaged, and engages, in a

systematic pattern of add ing optional items to the sales transaction that increases the

consumers monthly payments without proper or adequate disclosure to the consumer

that the optional items have been added on and causes an increase to the monthly

payments that would not be present if the optional items were not included ("payment

packing") . Such items inc lude credi t life, credi t disability and GAP coverage.

33. As part of its business practices, BBA and/or BBAF, under the direction of KING,

requires select consumers to pay a pre-del ivery inspection (PDI) fee in the amount of

$399.00, when no such inspection was ever conducted by BBA or BBAF employees.

Moreover, the PDJ fee is not reflected on BBAF's Instal lment Contract.

34. Additionally, in connection wi th the PDI fee, BBA 's USED VEHICLE BILL OF

SALE document, unti l on or about February 201 1, did not contain the fol lowing

statutorily required language: "This charge represents costs and profit to the dealer

for items such as inspecting, cleaning, and adjusting vehicles, and preparing

documents related to the sale."

35. Additionally, BBA represented to consumers and led consumers to bel ieve that on

vehicles "SOLD WITH WARRANTY" BBA would honor the warranty "for 30 days

or 1,000 miles whichever comes first after del ivery on a 100% retail basis of parts and

labor used." However, on several occasions neither BBA nor KING honored the

warranty as written or verbally represented to the consumers. Consumer complained

that the vehicles, when presented were not repaired pursuant to the warranty, or that

II

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc ., et. al; 1st Amended Complaint of67

BBA or KING required them to pay for warranty services that were to be covered by

the dealer. Additionally, consumers were often delayed by the service department of

BBA, such that the 30 day warranty period expired or the 1,000 mile limit was

reached. This delay tactic allowed BBA and KING to decline to service a vehicle that

should have been repaired or inspected subject to the warranty.

36. In connection with the operation of its business, BBA, BBAF or KING through their

employees or individuals, acting at the express or implied direction of BBA, BBAF or

KING, such as BARBARA KING, as the advertising contact for BBA and BBAF

posted false positive reviews that appear on various websites used for customer

reviews to promote the business.

3 7. In an attempt to collect debts from BBAF consumers, some of whom were not

delinquent on payments at the time of the collection call, KING violated Florida law

by: I) threatening to use force to repossess vehicles; 2) disclosing information

concerning the existence of a debt known to be reasonably disputed by the debtor

without disclosing that fact; 3) using profanity, obscene, vulgar or willfully abusive

language in communicating with the debtor; or 4) claim ing, attempting or threatening

to enforce a debt when BBA, BBAF or KING knew, or should have known, that the

debt was not legitimate, or asserting the existence of some other legal right to collect

a debt when BBA, BBAF or KING knew, or should have known, that the legal right

did not exist.

38. During certain periods of existence, BBA, BBAF and KING have engaged in the

business of sell ing motor vehicle retail installment contracts without a license through

the Office of Financial Regulation.

12

OAG v. Beach 13ou levard Automotive, Inc., et. al: I s• Amended Compla int Page I 3 of 67

39. These related acts of trade or commerce by BBA, BBAF, KJNG and BARBARA

KING, as stated above led to unfair, deceptive and/or unconsc ionable business

practices, which violate Florida law.

EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC ACTS OF DECEPTIVE, UNFA IR AN D

UNCONSCI ONABLE TRADE PRACTICES BY DEFENDANTS

Payment Packing of Consumers' Total Sales Transaction bv Adding Credit Life In.mrance to

Increase the Monthlv Pavments Without Proper or Adequate Disclosure (See excerpts (rom

the sworn statement and {ile o(lrma D. Funches, BBA and BBAF Sales Spreadsheets as

produced bv BBA and BBAF, am/ excerpts (rom sworn statement o(Robert Norris attached as

Composite Exhibit "E")

40. On or about June 11,2010, Irma D. Funches, a senior citizen, purchased two vehicles

from BBA; a 2003 Pontiac Bonnevi lle and a 2003 Lincoln Aviator.

41. Both vehicles purchased by Ms. Funche were financed by BBAF.

42. At the time of the sale, BBA, BBAF and/or KING automatically added an optional

item, credit life insurance, to Ms. Funches' transaction thereby increasing her

monthly payments. This act of payment packing was made without proper or

adequate disclosure to the consumer and resulted in the unfair increase of the monthly

payment amounts paid by Ms. Funches.

43 . The app lications for the purchase of credit life insurance with Life of the South

Insurance Company for the Pontiac (Group Policy Number Ce11ificate No .: 30538) in

the amount of $212.53, and the Lincoln (Group Policy Number Certificate No. :

30537) in the amount of$92.5 1.

13


44. The disclosures related to the credit life insurance on both vehicles sold to Ms.

Funches, and the affect of those optional items to the overall monthly payments, were

not proper or adequate.

45. The retail installment contract was pre-printed by BBA without proper or adequate

disclosure to Ms. Funches regarding the optional item automatically added by BBA,

BBAF or KING.

46. Ms. Funches did not authorize and would not have purchased the credit life insurance,

or any other optional items sold by BBA, BBAF or KING, if she was provided with

proper or adequate disclosures.

47. Neither BBA, BBAF nor KING provided Ms. Funches with proper or adequate

disclosure regarding the adding of the optional items. As such, Ms. Funches was

prevented from making an informed decision as a consumer.

48 . BBA, BBAF and KING were aware and approved ot: or should have been aware that,

the optional items were automatically added to Ms. Funches vehicle purchases

without proper or adequate disclosure. The addition of the optional item caused an

increase in the monthly payments .

49. Moreover, with Group Policy Certificate Numbers 30538 and 30537, both documents

are incomplete because the purported agent of Life of the South Insurance Company

failed to provide an "Agent license number" per the application.

50. The funds paid for credit life insurance on the Pontiac and Lincoln were financed and

bear an annual interest rate of23.87% and 26.26%, respectively.

51. Based on documentation produced by BBA and BBAF for 2007 to 20 I 1, several

hundred BBA and BBAF consumers, possibly no less than seventy percent (70%) of

14

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automot ive, Inc ., et. a!; I st Amended Complaint of 67

the consumers' vehicles purchased through BBA and fi nanced by BBAF, had

optional items added to their vehicle purchases that increased their monthly payments

without proper or adequate disclosure.

Payment Packing of Consumers' Total Sales Transaction by Adding Credit Disability

Insurance to Increase the Monthly Pavments Without Proper or Adequate Disclosure(See

portions of Composite Exhibit "E", speci0cal/y, BBA and BBAF Sales Spreadsheets as

produced bv BBA and BBAF and excerpts (rom sworn statement o{Robert Norris, as well as

excerpts {rom the sworn statement and {ile o{Aislw N. Ducksworth attached as Composite

Exhibit "F")

52. On or about February 10, 2010, Aisha N. Ducksworth purchased from BBA a 2000

Infiniti I30.

53. The vehicle purchased by Ms. Ducksworth was financed by BBAF.


item, credit disabi lity insurance, to Ms. Ducksworth transaction thereby increasing

her monthly payments. This act of payment packing was made without proper or

adequate disclosure to the consumer and resulted in the unfair increase of the monthly

payment amounts paid by Ms. Ducksworth.

55 . In addition to the credit disability insurance, BBA, BBAF and/or KING also

automatically added another optional item, credit life insurance, which increased Ms.

Ducksworth' s monthly payments without proper or adequate disclosure.

56. Ms. Ducksworth did not authorize and would not have agreed to the optional items

being added to the purchase of the vehicle if she was provided with proper or

adequate disclosures by BBA, BBAF or KING.

15


57. The optional items were automatically pre-printed onto the retail installment contract

by BBA without proper or adequate disclosure to Ms. Ducksworth .

58. Ms. Ducksworth did not request the addition of the optional items.

59. Ms. Duckswmth was not given the option to purchase credit disabi lity insurance from

any other insurer or agent aside from Life of the South Insurance Company.

60. BBA, BBAF and KING were aware and approved of, or should have been aware that,

the optional items were automatically added to Ms. Duckworth's vehicle purchase

without proper or adequate disclosure. The addition of the optional item caused an

increase in the monthly payments.

61 . Neither BBA, BBAF nor KING provided Ms. Davis with proper or adequate

disclosure regarding the adding of the optional items. As such, Ms. Davis was


62. Moreover, with Group Policy Certificate Number 44330, the document is incomplete

because the purported agent of Life of the South Insurance Company fa iled to provide

an "Agent license number" per the appl ication.

63 . Based on documentation produced by BBA and BBAF for 2007 to 2011, several


the consumers' vehicles purchased through BBA and financed by BBAF, had

optional items added to their vehicle purchases that increased their monthly payments


16

---- -- -------- ··--- ---

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. al; I 51 Amended Complaint of 67

P(qmzent Packing of Consumers' Total Sales Transaction br Adding GAP Coverage to

Increase the Month!)' Payments Without Proper or Adequate Disclosure(See portions of

Composite Exhibit "E", speci(ical/y, BBA and BBAF Sales Spreadsheets as produced by BBA

and BBAF and excerpts [rom sworn statement o[Robert Norris, as well as excerpts [rom the

sworn statement and file o[Sarah 0. Davis attached as Composite Exhibit "G")

64 . On or about August 21, 2010, Sarah 0. Davis purchased from BBA a 2002 Ford

Escape (NOTE: The transaction date li sted on the sales documents as August 10,

20 10 and signed by BAA and BBAF representatives is not accurate).

65. The vehicle purchased by Ms. Davis was financed by BBAF.


item, GAP coverage, to Ms. Davis' transaction thereby increasing her monthly

payments. Th is act of payment packing was made without proper or adequate

di sclosure to the consumer and resulted in the unfair increase ofthe monthly payment

amounts paid by Ms. Davis.

67. In addition to the GAP Insurance, BBA, BBAF and/or KING also automatically

added other opti onal items, credit life and credit disability insurance, which resulted

in an increase to Ms. Davis' monthly payments without proper or adequate disclosure.

68 . Ms. Davis did not authorize and would not have agreed to the optional items being

added to the purchase of the vehicle if she was provided with proper or adequate

disclosures.

69. Ms. Davis did not request the addition of the optional items.

70. The opti onal items were automatically added and pre-printed onto the retail

installment contract by BBA without proper or adequate disclosure to Ms. Davis .

17


71. The retail installment contract was pre-printed by BBA and Ms. Davis was not given

the option to purchase GA P insurance from any other insurer or agent aside from

Safe-Gap.

72. BBA, BBAF and KING were aware and approved of, or should have been aware that,

the optional items were automatically added to Ms. Davis' vehicle purchase without

proper or adequate disclosure. The addition of the optional item caused an increase in

the monthly payments.

73. Neither BBA, BBAF nor KING provided Ms. Davis with proper or adequate

disclosure regardi ng the adding of the optional items. As such, Ms. Davis was


74. The funds paid for the GAP insurance, similar to the cred it life and credit disability

insurances, were financed and bear an annual interest rate of 27.44%.

75. Based on documentation produced by BBA and BBAF for 2007 to 20 11 , several


the consumers' vehicles purchased through BBA and financed by BBAF, had

optional items added to their vehic le purchases that increased thei r month ly payments


Placement of GPS Devices on Vehicles Purchased at BBA Without the Knowledge,

A uthorization or Approval o(the Consumer (See GPS Unit Documentation as provided hv

BBAF, excerpts (rom the sworn statement ofKerri Willis, BBA/BBAF GPS Unit Report and

{ile of Tror Clark & Crvstal Amerson attached as Composite Exhibit "H")

76. On or about March 1, 2010, Troy Clark and Crystal Amerson (husband and wife),

both residents of the State of Georgia, purchased a 2005 Toyota Camry from BBA.

18

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. a t; I st Amended Complaint of 67

77. At the time of purchase, Mr. Clark and Ms. Amerson purchased credit life insurance

($478.25) and GAP insurance ($399.00), because they were advised such insurance

was required by Florida law. (NOTE: The al legations as to the cred it li fe and GAP

insurance issues for thi s specitic consumer and all other affected consumers is

explained in the Credit Life Insurance Made Condition of Sale and GAP Insurance

Made Condition of Sales portions of this plead ing).

78. Mr. Clark and Ms. Amerson did not authorize and would not have agreed to the

optional items being added to the purchase of the vehicle if they were provided with

proper or adequate disclosures.

79. When the vehicle was purchased by Mr. Clark and Ms. Amerson, BBA, BBAF or

KING ordered the placement of a GPS tracking device on the vehicle identified in the

file as #4009618 .

80. Neither Mr. Clark nor Ms. Amerson was aware that the device was placed on the

vehicle.

81. Neither BBA, BBAF nor KING received the expressed authorization of Mr. Clark or

Ms. Amerson to place the GPS tracking device on the vehicle .

82. BBA, BBAF or KING placed the GPS tracking device on the veh icle purchased by

Mr. Clark and Ms. Amerson to monitor the vehicle without the knowledge of either

Mr. Clark or Ms. Amerson.

83. BBA, BBAF or KING placed the GPS tracking device on the vehicle purchased by

Mr. Clark and Ms. Amerson to monitor the vehicle wi thout the approval of either Mr.

Clark or Ms. Amerson.

19

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc .. et. al ; 1 '1 Amended Complaint of 67


Mr. Clark and Ms. Amerson to monitor the vehicle without the consent of either Mr.

Clark or Ms. Amerson.

85. Pursuant to BBA's Retail Instal lment Sales Contract, BBA, BBAF or KING is

required to provide consumers with a separate Disclosure agreeing to the placement

of a GPS tracking device on a vehicle purchased.

86. The Retail Installment Sales Contract specifically states that: "By s1gmng this

Contract, you agree to the installation and use of the System [GPS tracking device] as

outlined in the separate Disclosure Statement signed by you, . .. "

87. If consumers, such as Mr. Clark or Ms. Amerson did not sign a separate Disclosure

Statement regarding the placement of a GPS tracking device on their vehicle, BBA,

BBAF or KING should not have authorized the placement of such a device.

88 . Based on documentation produced by BBAF for GPS Units installed on consumers'

vehicles, over one thousand ( 1 ,000) BBA and BBAF consumers, possibly no less than

eighty-five percent (85%) of the consumers' vehicles purchased through BBA and

financed by BBAF were equipped with GPS tracking devices wi thout the knowledge,

consent or express agreement/authorization of the consumer.

Pre-Printed Pre-Deliverv Inspection Fee (See Chapter 501, Part VI, Fla. Stat. ('lpeci(icallv

section 501.976(18) and Used Vehicle Bill o(Sa/e attached as Composite Exhibit"!")

89. On or about March 1, 2010, Felicia A. Toliver purchased from BBA a 2002 Kia Rio

(NOTE: The transaction date listed on the sales documents as February 26, 2010 and

signed by BAA and BBAF representatives is not accurate) .

20

OAG v. Beach Bou levard Automotive, Inc., et. al; 1'1 Amended Complaint of67

90. At the time of purchase, Ms. Tol iver purchased credit life insurance ($1 1.77) and

credit disabi lity insurance ($36.45), on a vehicle with a remaining balance of

$1 ,949.08 (NOTE: Cash price of vehicle was $4,949.08, Ms. Toliver paid BBA a

$3,000.00 cash down payment on the vehicle).

91. The funds paid for credit life and credit di sability insurance on the Kia Rio were

financed and bear an annual interest rate of27.44 %.

92. Ms. Toliver did not authorize and would not have agreed to the optional items being

added to the purchase of the vehicle if she was provided with proper or adequate

disclosures.

93 . Additionally, when the vehicle was purchased by Ms. Toliver, BBA, BBAF or KING

ordered the placement of a GPS tracking device on the vehicle identified in the file as

#4009617.

94. Ms. Toliver was not aware that the device was placed on the vehicle and did not

authorize the install ation of the GPS tracking device.

95. Neither BBA, BBAF nor KING received the expressed authorization of Ms. Toliver

to place the GPS tracking device on the vehicle .


Ms. Toliver to monitor and track the vehicle witho ut her knowledge.


Ms. Toli ver to monitor and track the vehicle without her approval.


Ms. Toliver to monitor and track the vehic le without her consent.

21

OAG v. Beac h Bou levard Automotive, Inc ., et. a!; I" Amended Complaint of 67

99. In connection with the purchase of the vehicle, BBA on its "USED VEHICLE BILL

OF SALE" form, added to the "Total Purchase Price" for the vehicle the pre-prin ted

Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) fee of$399.00.

I 00. Ms. Toliver d id not authorize or agree to the fee being charged.

10 I . Neither BBA, BBAF nor KING disclosed to Ms. Toliver the nature of the POI

fee.

I 02. Neither BBA, BBAF nor KING provided Ms. Tol iver with the required

disclosures in the USED VEHICLE BILL OF SALE regarding the purpose of the POI

fee .

103. In connection with the PDJ fee , BBA's contract did not contain the following

statutorily required language: "This charge represents costs and profit to the dealer

for items such as inspecting, cleaning, and adjusting veltic/es, and preparing

documents related to the sale."

104. Based on documentation produced by BBA and BBAF for 2007 to 20 I I, several


the consumers' vehicles purchased through BBA and financed by BBAF were

required to pay the PDJ fee wi thout proper disclosure.

105 . BBA, BBAF and/or KING can provide to the Office of the Attorney General the

exact number of consumers who paid the PDJ fee, as well as any disclosure

documents provided to BBA and BBAF consumers from July 2006 to the present,

evidencing consumers' agreement to the assessment of the POI fee.

22

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. al; 151 Amended Complaint of 67

Posting False Positive Reviews on Review Websites (See portions of Composite Exhibit "E",

speci(icallv, BBA and BBAF Sales Spreadsheets as produced bv BBA am/ BBAF, as well as

sample postings made by Barbara King, and the Federal Trade Commission C'FTC")16 CFR

Part 255: Guidelines Concerning the Use o{Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising

and FTC Order and Decision In the Matter o{Reverb Communications, Inc., and Tracie

Snitker attached as Composite Exhibit "J")

106. InsiderPages.com is a website used by consumers to post their independent

reviews of companies across various industries.

107. Commencing on or about October 2007 through December 2011, BARBARA

KING, employees of BBA or BBAF, or individuals acting at the direction of BBA,

BBAF or KING, posted false positive comments that appear on various review

websites across the World Wide Web, using account names or information that would

give readers of these reviews the impression that the postings were submitted by

independent, impartial consumers.

108. In the reviews, BARBARA KING, employees or BBA or BBAF, or individuals

acting at the direction of BBA, BBAF or KING, endorsed the product and services

provided by BBA and BBAF with four or five star ratings.

109. BARBARA KING, employees of BBA or BBAF, or individuals acting at the

express or implied direction ofBBA, BBAF or KING also submitted positive written

comments, including but not limited to the following examples:

"Fair is Fair"

"These are the best looking used cars"

"I love my Used Buick from Beach Blvd Automotive!!"

23

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. al; 1'1 Amended Complaint of67

"Great car buying experi ence !!!"

"BEACH BLVD AUTOMOT IVE helped me get my credit back in shape"

110. BARBARA KING, as an implied agent of BBA and/or BBAF, as well as

employees of BBA or BBAF, or individuals, were acti ng at the direction of BBA,

BBAF or KING, neither of which was disclosed to the pub li c that the reviews posted

onto the various review websites were posted by BARBARA KING, employees of

BBA or BBAF, or by individuals at the express or implied direction of BBA, BBAF

or KING.

11 1. The subj ect posts, which were posted by persons using the following user names:

James J, Aria C, MyReviewNow, James Jefferson, Pete B, John K, Meme M, Sandi

Hart, Account Executive - WTLV, Christi N, MarieS, Teiluj, myreviewnow,

BikeBuilder, Dave, G Money and potentially others, were created by BARBARA

KING, employees of BBA or BBAF, or by individuals acting at the express or

implied direction ofBBA, BBAF or KING.

112. Additionally, BARBARA KING is an agent ofBBA and/BBAF and has been, and

is, listed and referred to as the advertising "Buying Contact" for BBA and/or BBAF

during all times material.

Requiring or A ccepting a Deposit From a Prospective Consumer Without Adhering to

Florida's Statutor p Requirements (See Documentation o(Pavment o(Binder/Deposit all{l

·excerpts (rom the sworn statements of Melvin Sandlin and Shannon Miller attached as

Composite Exhibit "K")

113. For numerous consumers seeking to purchase a vehicle from BBA and financed

by BBAF, the consumers are required to pay a deposit or binder.

24

OAG v. Beach Bou levard Automotive, Inc., et. al; I st Amended Complaint of 67

114. The language of the deposit or binder agreement is affixed to documents using a

rubber stamp that states as follows: "BBA AGREES TO HOLD ABOVE VEHICLE

UNTIL (date inserted) FOR NON REFUNDABLE BINDER OF (amount inserted)."

115. The deposit or binder agreement does not clearly and conspicuously state upon

what condition(s) the deposit is nonrefundable.

116. In some cases the consumers are not fully advised by BBA, BBAF or their

respective employees that the deposit is nonrefundable.

117. Such customers are led to believe that if they do not purchase the vehicle, they

will receive their deposit back.

118. BBA 's binder agreement does not clearly and conspicuously state that consumers'

deposit of cash is nonrefundable even if they do not purchase the subject vehicle.

119. On or about November 9, 2010, BBA accepted a One Thousand Dollar ($1 ,000)

deposit from a consumer, Shannon Miller, for the purchase of a 2002 Toyota Sequoia,

which was to be held for Ms. Miller until November 19, 2010.

120. A binder agreement was stamped onto the receipt for the $1 ,000.

121. At the time she paid the $1,000 deposit, Ms. Miller as advised by the salesman for

BBA, that if she did not get the vehicle her deposit would be returned.

122. The binder agreement placed on Ms. Miller's receipt for the $1,000 deposit does

not clearly and conspicuously state upon what condition(s) the deposit for the 2002

Toyota Sequoia would be nonrefundable.

123. Ms. Miller did not purchase the vehicle on or before November 19, 20 10.

124. When Ms. Miller returned to purchase the vehicle on or December 9, 2010, she

was advised by BBA that the deposit would not be returned.

25

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. a!; I 51 Amended Complaint of 67

125. In the al ternative, BBA offered to allow Ms. Miller to apply the $1,000 deposit

toward the purchase of another vehicle at BBA.

126. BBA's binder agreement did not and does not clearly and conspicuously state that

BBA will only allow for the transfer of deposit amounts from one vehicle to another

and that any deposit is non-refundable.

127. Ms. Miller has requested her $1,000 deposit back from BBA, BBAF or KING,

and she has not received the deposit back or purchased a vehicle from BBA or

financed a vehicle with BBAF.

128 . BBA, BBAF and/or KING can provide to the Office of the Attorney General the

exact number of consumers who paid the nonrefundable binder fees to BBA, as well

as the exact amount paid to and held by BBA from October 2007 to the present.

Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act Violation (See affidavits ofMercedes McCrav and

Me/Ionia Patterson in the matter ofBBAF v. Kevin McCrav, Final Judgment in the matter of

BBAF v. Willis Beattv and Camilla Beattv, as well as excerpts sworn statement and file of

Terrv Whaley attached as Composite Exhibit "L ")

129. On or about July 10, 2010, Kenneth Whaley and Terry Whaley, husband and

wife, purchased a 2002 GMC Envoy SLT from BBA and financed the vehicle

through BBAF.

130. On or about August 27, 20 I 0, Ms. Whaley spoke directly wi th KING regarding an

insurance issue with the vehicle and his attempts to coiiect a debt related to the

vehicle 's purchase.

131. During the course of the conversation, KING used profane and will fu lly abusive

language in communicating with Ms. Whaley.

26

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc. , et. al; I" Amended Complaint of 67

132. During the course of the conversation, KING threatened force against Ms.

Whaley by indicating that even though her payments on the veh icle were not

delinquent, he was going to have a ''repo man come repossess [the] SUV that day."

133 . Ms. Whaley reported this incident to the Better Business Bureau ("BBB") on or

about August 2010.

134. On or about August 30, 20 I 0, Kerri Willis, an employee of BBA or BBAF,

submitted a response to Ms. Whaley's complaint with the BBB, regarding the issue

with KING and BBA.

135. Kerri Willis submitted the response at the direction of KING.

136. In the response, Kerri W illis stated that KING was attempting to enforce a debt

based on a legal right that did not exist.

137. KING attempted to enforce the debt by claiming that "Florida law requires all

members of the household be listed on the applicati on and ins. policy."

COUNT I

DF-CEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES CHAPTER 501, PART II FLORIDA STATUTES

(Pavment Packing of Consumers' Total Sales Transactions bv A dding Credit Life, Credit Disabilitr, GAP Coverage, etc., to Increase the Montltlr Pavments Without Proper or

Adequate Disclosure)

138. The Plaintiff adopts, incorporates, and realleges herein by reference paragraphs 1-

10, 12-24, 26-29, 32, 39-75, 89-92, and al l exhibits referred to, as if fully set forth

hereinafter, and further a lleges:

139. Section 501.203(3)(c), clearly establishes that the Office of the Attorney General

may initiate an action for violations of "[a]ny law, statute, rule, regulation, or

ordinance which proscribes [prohibits] unfair methods of competition, or unfai r,

27

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automot ive, Inc., et. al : 151 Amended Complaint of67

deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices." Moreover, contrary to Section

501.201 et seq. , these Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, engaged in

unconscionable, unfair or deceptive business acts or practices that did, and will likely

conti nue, to deceive consumers who act and acted reasonably under the ci rcumstances

in seeking to purchase a used vehicle from BBA.

140. Sections 50 1.204( 1) and 50 1.202(2), Fla. Stat. declare that unfair or deceptive

acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.

l41. The Florida Deceptive and Unfai r Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501 , Part II, Fla.

Stat. provides that "unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices,

and unfa ir or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are

hereby declared unlawful."

142. The Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, the Flori da Deceptive and

Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 50 1.201 , Fla. Stat. , by using deceptive and unfair

business practices to automatically add optional items that increase the consumers '

monthly payments without first properly or adequately disclosing the addition of the

optional items to the consumers.

143. During the OAG investi gation, 13BA and BBAF acknowledged the fail ure to

provide proper or adequate disclosures to consumers pr ior to automatically adding

optional items to the consumers' transaction. (See excerpts (rom sworn statement of

Robert Norris (Exhibit "£"), as well as excerpts (rom the sworn statement and {i/e

o(Saralt 0. Davis attached as Composite El:ltibit "G").

144. Chapter 501 , Part II , as well as the FTC Act makes unlawful "unfair or deceptive

acts or practices in or affecting commerce." In making an unfa irness determi nation

28

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc ., et. a!; I st Amended Comp la int of 67

three elements are to be established: 1) an act or practice causes or is likely to cause

substantial injury to consumer; 2) the injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers

themselves; and 3) the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to

consumers or to competition.

145. Following the FTC Policy Statement on Unfairness, in most cases a substantial

injury involves monetary harm, as when sellers coerce consumers into purchasing

unwanted goods or services. Substantial injury can consist of a relatively small harm

to a large number of consumers, or a greater harm to a smaller number of consumers.

146. To be unfair under Chapter 50 l, Part II, as well as the FTC Act, the injury must

be one that consumers could not reasonably have avoided. It has been long

recognized that certain types of sales techniques may prevent consumers from

effectively making their own decisions.

147. Chapter 501, Part II, as well as the FTC Act were implemented to halt some form

of seller behavior that unreasonably creates or takes advantage of an obstacle to the

free exercise of consumer decision-making.

148. The requirement that the injury to consumers not be outweighed by any offsetting

consumer or competitive benefits reflects the recognition that most business practices

entail a mixture of economic and other costs and benefits for purchasers.

149. In order to deem a business practice unfair neither Chapter 50 I nor the FTC Act

requires a showing of injury to consumers or competing business interests .

150. Section 50 1.204(1 ), Florida Statutes declares the following to be unlawful:

" iu]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices and unfair or

deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." The legislature

29

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc .. et. a] ; I st Amended Complaint of 67

passed Chapter 50 l, Part II, Florida Statues, with the purpose of expanding the

protections at1orded to consumers. As such, the statute seeks to "protect the

consuming public" by broadly prohibiting, inter alia, "unfair or deceptive acts or

practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." §§ 501.202(2), 50 1.204(1), Fla.

Stat.

15 1. The Florida Supreme Court has held that an "unfair practice," within the meaning

of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, is one that offends

established public policy and one that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous

or substantially injurious to consumers. See PNR, Inc. v. Beacon Property Mgmt..

Inc., 842 So.2d 773 (Fla. 2003); see also Urling v. Helms Exterminators, Inc., 468

So.2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)( citing Spiegel, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm., 540 F.2d

287, 293 (i11 Cir. 1976)).

152. A deceptive trade practice or act, or deception is a species of unfairness.

According to the FTC Policy Statement on Deception, an act or practice may be

"unfair" without being "deceptive."

153. Furthermore a violation of Chapter 501, Part II, as well as the FTC Act exists

whether an act is unfair, or deceptive, or both.

154. An act or practice is deceptive when: 1) there is a representation or omission of

information; 2) which is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the

circumstances; and 3) the information is material to consumers.

155. The systematic business practi ce of BBA, BBAF and/or KING to increase the

monthly payments consumers pay by adding optional items without first providing

the consumers with proper or adequate disclosures constitutes unfair, deceptive

30

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc ., et. al; I st Amended Complaint of 67

and/or unconscionable trade practices or acts pursuant to Chapter 501, Part II, as well

as the FTC Act.

156. The above-described acts and practices of Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING,

are unfair, deceptive and/or unconscionable in that the subject Defendants are adding

optional items that increase the consumers' monthly payments without proper or

adequate disclosures. Such acts and practices create, or take advantage of, an obstacle

to the free exercise of consumers' decision-making.

157. Unless the Defendants are enjoined from engaging in further unfair, deceptive

and/or unconscionable trade acts and practices complai ned of herein, the continued

activities of the Defendants will result in irreparable injury to the public for which

there is no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT II

DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES CHAPTER 501, PART II FLORIDA STATUTES

(Placement of GPS Tracking Device on Vehicles without Authorization, Approval or Knowledge of Consumer)


10, 12-24,26-29, 3 1, 39, 76-88, 93 -98, 144-155 and all exhibits referred to, as if fully

set forth hereinafter, and further alleges :

159. Section 50 1.203(3)(c), clearly establishes that the Office of the Attorney General

may initiate an action for violations of " [a] ny law, statute, rule, regulation, or

ordinance which proscribes [prohibits] unfair methods of competition, or unfair,


501.20 1 et seq., these Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, engaged in

unconscionable, unfai r or deceptive business acts or practices that did, and will likely

31

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et . al ; I st Amended Comp laint of 67

continue, to deceive consumers who act and acted reasonably under the circumstances

by placing GPS tracking devices on consumers' vehicles without the consumers

expressed authorization, approval or knowledge that the monitoring device was

placed on the vehicle.

160. Sections 501.204(1) and 50 1.202(2), Fla. Stat. declare that unfair or deceptive


161. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 50 I, Part II, Fla.


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


162. The Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, the Florida Deceptive and

Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 501.201, Fla. Stat., by using deceptive and unfair

practices by placing GPS tracking devices on consumers' vehicles without the

consumers' knowledge, authorization or consent, thereby allowing BBA, BBAF or

KING to monitor the consumers' movements, even into areas where there IS an

expectation of privacy, based upon the above-described acts and practices.

163. Based on this unconscionable, unfair and deceptive business practice, BBA,

BBAF and KING on occasion repossessed consumers' vehicles without proper cause

and used the device to harass consumers.

164. Additionally, the Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, the Florida

Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 501.201, Fla. Stat., by using

deceptive and unfair practices in failing to provide consumers with a "Disclosure

Statement" for the consumers' signatures to approve of the installation of the GPS

32

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc ., et. al; 1st Amended Complaint of 67

tracking device pursuant to BBA's own Retail Installment Contract, which is sold to

BBAF by BBA.

165. BBA and BBAF through KING have acknowledged the failure to get the approval

or authorization from consumers to place a GPS tracking device on their vehicles.

166. BBA, BBAF and/or KING are aware that consumers did not have knowledge of

the GPS tracking device at the time BBA or BBAF ordered the installation of the

device, which tracks consumers even into areas where there is an expectation of

pnvacy.

167. BBA and BBAF through KING and the Retail Installment Contract utilized by

BBA and BBAF further acknowledge that a Disclosure Statement is needed to place

the GPS tracking devices on consumers' vehicles.

168. The above-described acts and practices of the Defendants have caused substantial

harm, resulted in actual damages or prejudiced consumers by placing a GPS tracking

device on consumers vehicles without their knowledge, consent or authorization

thereby invading the consumers ' privacy, causing damage to the vehicle due to the

installation of the GPS tracking device or resulting in the wrongful taking of the

consumers' property (i.e., veh icles), and will likely continue to cause harm to and

prej udice the public.

169. Unless the Defendants are enjoined from engaging fmiher in unfai r, deceptive

and/or unconscionable trade acts and practices complained of herein, the continued

activities of the Defendants will result in irreparable injury to the public for which


33

OAG v. Beach Bou levard Automotive, Inc ., et. al; 1 st Amended Complaint of 67

COUNT III

DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES CHAPTER 501, PART II and PART VI FLORIDA STATUTES

(Payment of Pre-Delivery Inspection Fee)


10, 12-24, 26-29, 33-35, 39, 89, 99-105, 144- 155 and all exhibits referred to, as if

fully set fo rth hereinafter, and further alleges:

171. Section 50 1.203(3 )(c), clearly establishes that the Office of the Attorney General

may initiate an action for violations of "[a]ny law, statute, rule, regulation , or



50 1.20 1 et seq. , these Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, engaged in

unconscionable, unfair or deceptive business acts or practices that did, and will likely

continue, to deceive consumers who act and acted reasonably under the circumstances

by adding to the price of used vehicles sold to its customers, a pre-printed flat charge

enti tled "Pre-Delivery Inspection" fee (PDT).

172. Sections 50 1.204( 1) and 50 1.202(2), Fla. Stat. declare that unfair or deceptive


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




34

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc ., et. al; I" Amended Complaint of 67

174. Chapter 501, Part VI, Fla. Stat., specifically Section 501.976, provides m

pertinent part that:

It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice, actionable under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, for a dealer to:

(II) Add to the cash price of a vehicle as defined ins. 520.02(2) any fee or charge other than those provided in that section and in rule 69V-50.00/, Florida Administrative Code. All fees or charges permitted to he added to the cash price by rule 69V-50.001, Florida Administrative Code, must he fully disclosed to customers in all binding contracts concerning the vehicle's selling price.

(18) Charge a customer for any predelivery service without having printed 011 all documents that include a line item for predelivery service the following disclosure: "This charge represents costs and profit to the dealer for items such as inspecting, cleaning, and adjusting vehicles, and preparing documents related to the sale."


Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 501.976, Fla. Stat., by charging consumers the

PDI fee using the pre-printed USED VEHICLE BILL OF SALE without disclosing

the nature and purpose of the fee and without providing the requi red disclosures.

176. Based on thi s unconscionable, unfai r and deceptive business practice, BBA,

BBAF and KING, as a regular and ro utine business practice charged consumers for a

vehicle inspection that was either not authorized or performed.


Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 50 1.20 I, Fla. Stat., by using

decepti ve and unfair practices since the Defendants wrongfully benetitted from the

improper charges.

35

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc ., et. a l; I 51 Amended Complaint of 67

178. BBA and BBAF through KING have acknowledged the alleged violation of

charging consumers POI fees.

179. The above-described acts and practices of the Defendants has caused substantial

harm, resulted in actual damages or prej udiced consumers by requ iring the consumers

to pay for a service they did not receive or incurring an expense based on false

representations by BBA, BBAF or KING furthermore, the failure to include the

statutorily required language is violation of Florida law and will likely continue to

cause harm to and prejudice the public.

180. Unless the Defendants are enjoined from engaging fu rther in unfair, deceptive

and/or unconscionable trade acts and practices complained of herein, the continued

activi ties of the Defendants will result in irreparable injury to the public for which


COUNT IV

DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES CHAPTER 501, PART II and PART VI FLORIDA STATUTES

(Keeping Consumers' Deposits/Binders Without Adequate Disclosure)


10, 12-24, 26-29, 39, 113-128, 144- 155 and all exhibits referred to, as if fu11y set

forth hereinafter, and further alleges:

182. Section 50 1.203(3)( c), clearly establishes that the Ot1ice of the Attorney General


ordinance which prosc ribes [prohibits] unfair methods of competition, or unfair,


501.201 et seq., these Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, engaged in

36

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc. , et. al; I st Amended Complaint of 67

unconscionable, unfair or deceptive business acts or practices that did, and wil l likely

continue, to deceive consumers who act and acted reasonably under the

circumstances, taking deposits or binders from consumers without conspicuously

stating in writing upon what conditions the deposit is refundable or nonrefundable .

183. Sections 50 1.204( I) and 50 1.202(2), Fla. Stat. declare that unfair or deceptive


184. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 50 1, Part II, Fla.




185 . Chapter 501, Part VI, Fla. Stat., specifically Section 50 1.976, provides m

pertinent part that:

It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice, actionable under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, for a dealer to:

(10) Require or accept a deposit from a prospective customer prior to entering into a binding contract for the purchase and sale of a vehicle unless the customer is given a written receipt that states !tow long the dealer will/wid the vehicle from other sale and the amount oftlte deposit, and clearly and conspicuously states whether and upon what conditions the deposit is refundable or nonrefundable.


Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 501.976, Fla. Stat., by requiring certain

consumers to pay a non-refundable deposit or binder on vehicles without clearly and

conspicuously stating "upon what conditions the deposit is refundable or

nonrefundable."

37

OAG v. Beach Bou levard Automotive, Inc., et. al: I" Amended Complaint of 67

187. Based on this unconscionable, unfai r and deceptive business practice, BBA,

BBAF or KING, as a regular and routine business practice, collected nomefundable

binders from consumers for vehicles that the consumers did not purchase, w ithout

adequately disclosing to them upon what conditions the binders were nonrefundable.


Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 50 l Parts II and VI, Fla. Stat., by

using deceptive and unfa ir practices since the Defendants wrongfully benefitted from

the improper, nomefundable deposits or binders.

189. BBA and BBAF through KING have acknowledged the alleged violation of

obtaining non-refundable deposits ti·om consumers or individuals who did not

actually purchase a vehicle from BBA.

190. The above-described acts and practices of the Defendants has caused substantial

harm, resulted in actual damages or prejudiced consumers by taking consumers'

money and not returning the consumers' funds as stated above and this practice will

likely continue to cause substantial harm to and prejudice the public is Defendants,

BBA, BBAF and KING are not required to follow the applicable statutory provisions.

19 1. Unless the Defendants are enjoined from engaging further in unfai r, deceptive and

unconscionable trade acts and practices complained of herein, the continued activi ties

of the Defendants will result in irreparable injury to the public for which there is no

adequate remedy at law.

38


COUNTY

VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 559, PART VI, FLORIDA STATUTES


10, 16-24,27-29, 37, 39, 129-137, 144-155 and all exhibits referred to, as if ful ly set

forth hereinafter, and further alleges:


may initiate an action for violations of " [a ]ny law, statute, rule, regulation, or

ordinance which proscribes [prohibits] unfair methods of competition, or unfai r,


501.201 et seq. , these Defendants, BBAF and KING, engaged in unconscionable,

unfair or deceptive acts or practices that did, and will likely continue, to deceive

consumers who acted reasonably under the circumstances in seeking to purchase used

vehicles.

194. Defendants, BBAF and KING, are and were subject to, and have violated

provisions of Section 559.72, Fla. Stat., (2006 - 20 I 0) by :

a. Will fully using or threatening force or violence.

b. Willfully communicating with a debtor or any member of her or his family

with such frequency as can reasonably be expected to abuse or harass the

debtor or her or his family.

c. Willfully using profane, obscene, vulgar, or willfully abusive language m

communicating with the debtor or members of her or his family.

39

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive. Inc., et. al ; I st Amended Complaint of 67

d. Willfully claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person

knows that the debt is not legitimate or assert the existence of some other legal

right when such person knows that the right does not exist.

195. The Defendants have violated, and continue to vio late, the Florida Deceptive and

Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501 Part II , and the Florida Consumer Collection

Practices Act, Chapter 559, Part VI, Fla. Stat., by collecting or attempting to collect

debts in a manner that is unconscionable, unfair, deceptive and adverse to the

consumer collections process.

196. Based on this unconscionable, unfair and deceptive business practice, BBAF and

KING, as a regular and routine business practice collected monies from certain

consumers in a manner that violated Chapters 501 and 559, Fla. Stat.

197. The above-described acts and practices of the Defendants have caused substantial

harm and prejudiced consumer by violating the provi sion of Florida's Fair Debt

Consumer Collection Practices Act for which damages are appropriate, and

Defendants' , BBAF and KING, wil l likely continue to cause substantial harm and

prejudice to the consumer public.

198. Unless the Defendants are enjoined from engaging further in unfair, deceptive and

unconscionable trade acts and practices complained of herein, the continued activities

of the Defendants will result in irreparable injury to the publ ic for which there is no

adequate remedy at law.

Respondent Superior Liabilitv

199. The acts and omissions of Defendant, KING, as an individual collector, and the

other debt collectors employed as agents by Defendant, BBAF, who communicated

40

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automot ive, Inc ., et. al; I st Amended Complaint of 67

with consumers, were committed within the time and space limits of their agency

relationship with their principal BBAF.

200. The acts and omissions by these individual agents were incidental to, or the same

general nature as, the responsibilities authorized to be performed by KING or BBAF

in collecting consumer debts.

20 1. By committing these acts and omissions against consumers these agents were

motivated to benefit their principal BBAF.

202 . Defendant, BBAF, is therefore liable to consumers through the Doctrine of

Respondent Superior for the intentional and negligent acts, errors, and omissions

done in violation of state and federal law by its collection agents, including but not

limited to, violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act in their

attem pts to collect the debt from consumers.

COUNT VI


(BARBARA KING Posting False Reviews on Internet Websites)


7, 11, 25, 30, 36, 39, 106-1 12, 144-155 and all exhibits referred to, as iffully set forth

hereinafter, and further alleges:


may init iate an action for violations of "[a ]ny law, statute, rule, regulation, or



50 1.201 et seq ., Defendant, BARBARA KING, engaged in unconscionable, unfair or

41


deceptive acts or practices that did, or wi ll likely, deceive consumers who act

reasonably under the circumstances in seeking to purchase used vehicles.

205. Sections 501.204(1) and 501.202(2), Fla. Stat. declare that unfair or deceptive

acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawfu l.

206. Section 50 1.204(2), Fla. Stat., states that "[i]t is the intent of the Legislature that, .

due consideration and great weight shall be given to the interpretations of the

Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to s. 5(a)( 1) of the Federal

Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 45(a)(l) as of.Tuly I, 2006."


Stat., specifically Section 50 1.204(1 ), provides that "unfair methods of competition,

unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the

conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful."

208. The posting of reviews by BARBARA KING and using names that would give

the readers of the reviews the impression that the reviews had been submitted by an

independent, impartial consumer is an unconscionable, unfair and deceptive business

practice.

209. The posting of reviews by BARBARA KING, at the direction of BBA, BBAF or

KING, and using names that would give the readers of the reviews the impression

that the reviews had been submitted by an independent, imparti al consumer is an

unconscionable, unfair and deceptive business practice.

210. BARBARA KING submitted positive written comments that appear on websites

endorsing BBA and BBAF at the express or implied direction of BBA, BBAF or

KING.

42

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. al; 1st Amended Complaint of 67

211. BARBARA KING submitted false positive written comments that appear on

review websites endorsing BBA and BBAF across the World Wide Web at the

express or implied direction ofBBA, BBAF or KING.

212. BARBARA KING created fake online profiles for the purpose of submitting false

positive written comments that appear on websites to endorse BBA and BBAF across

the World Wide Web at the express or implied direction ofBBA, BBAF or KING.

213. Defendant, BARBARA KING has violated, and continually violated, the Florida

Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 501.201, Fla. Stat., by using

deceptive, unconscionable and unfair practices in creating fake online profiles and

posting false positive written comments that appear on review websites to endorse

BBA and BBAF across the World Wide Web to address consumers' comments that

were negative as to BBA or BBAF.

214. The above-described acts and practices of Defendant, BARBARA KING IS

deceptive and unconscionable and civil penalties are appropriate.

215. Unless Defendant, BARBARA KING is enjoined from engaging further in unfair,

deceptive and/or unconscionable trade acts and practices complained of herein, the

continued activities of this Defendant will result in irreparable injury to the public for

which there is no adequate remedy at law.

43

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. al; 1st A mended Complaint of 67

COUNT VII


(BBA, BBAF or KING Posting False Reviews on Internet Websites)


10, 12-30,36, 39, 106-1 12, 144- 155 and all exhibits referred to, as if fully set forth





deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practi ces." Moreover, contrary to Section

50 1.201 et seq., these Defendants, BBA, BBAF or KING, engaged in unconscionable,

unfair or deceptive acts or practices that did, and will likely continue, to deceive

consumers who acted reasonably under the circumstances in seeking to purchase used

vehicles.

21 8. Sections 50 1.204( 1) and 50 1.202(2), Fla. Stat. declare that unfair or deceptive


219. Section 501.204(2), Fla. Stat., states that "[ ijt is the intent ofthe Legislature that,.


Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to s. 5( a)(l ) of the Federal

Trade Commission Act, 15 U. S.C. s. 45(a)( l) as of July 1, 2006."

220. The Florida Deceptive and Unfa ir Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Part II , Fla.


44

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc ., et. a!; I st Amended Compla int of 67

unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices m the


221. The posting of reviews by BARBARA KING, BBA or BBAF employees using

names that would give the readers of the reviews the impression that the reviews had

been submitted by an independent, impartial collSumer is an unconscionable, unfair

and deceptive business practice.

222. The posting of reviews by BARBARA KING, BBA or BBAF employees or

individuals at the direction of BBA, BBAF or KING using names that would give the

readers of the reviews the impression that the reviews had been submitted by an

independent, impartial consumer is an unconscionable, unfair and deceptive business

practice.

223. BARBARA KING, as well as employees or agents of BBA and BBAF submitted

positive written comments on websites endorsing BBA and BBAF at the express or

implied direction of BBA, BBAF or KING.

224. BARBARA KING, as an agent of BBA and/or BBAF, and individuals at the

express or implied direction of BBA, BBAF or KING, submitted false positive

written comments on review websites endorsing BBA and BBAF across the World

Wide Web.

225. BARBARA KING, BBA or BBAF employees, agents or individuals at the

express or implied directions of BBA, BBAF or KING, created fake online profiles

for the purpose of submitting false positive written comments on websites to endorse

BBA and BBAF across the World Wide Web.

45

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc ., et. a l: I 51 Amended Complaint of 67

226. BBA, BBAF or KING knew or should have known that BARBARA KING,

acting as an agent of BBA and/or BBAF, as well as other employees, agents or

individuals at the direction of BBA, BBAF or KING created fake online profi les for

the purpose of submitting false positive written comments on review websites to

endorse BBA and BBAF across the World Wide Web.

227. The Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING have violated, and continue to violate,

the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 501.201, Fla. Stat., by

using deceptive, unconscionable and unfai r practices in posting, allowing or directing

employees, agents or third-parties to create fake online profiles for the purpose of

submitting false positive written comments on review websites to endorse BBA and

BBAF across the World Wide Web.

228. The above-described deceptive and unconscionable trade acts and business

practices of Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING warrant civi l penalties.

229. Unless the Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING are enjoined from engagmg

further in unfair, deceptive and/or unconscionable trade acts and practices complained

of herein, the continued activities of the Defendants will result in irreparable injury to

the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

Respondent Superior Liabilitv

230. The acts and omissions of Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING in directing

employees, agents (implied or express) or third-parties to create false online profi les

for the purpose of submitting positive written comments on websites to endorse BBA

and BBAF, were committed within the time and space limits of their agency

relationship with their principals BBA, BBAF and KING.

46

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automoti ve, Inc., et. al; I" Amended Complaint of 67

231 . The acts and omissions by these employees, agents and third parties were

incidental to, or the same general nature as, the responsibilities authorized to be

performed by B BA, BBAF or KING in creating false online profil es fo r the purpose

of submitting positive written comments on websites to endorse BBA and BBAF.

232. By committing these acts and omissions against consumers these employees,

agents and third parties were motivated to benefi t the principals BBA, BBAF and

KING.

233. Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, are therefore liable to consumers through

the Doctrine o f Respondent Superior for the intentional and negligent acts, errors, and

omiss ions done in violation of state and federal law by its employees, agents (express

or implied) and third parties, including but not limited to, violati ons of the Florida

Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act, in creating false onl ine profi les for the

purpose of subm itting posi tive written comments on websites to endorse BBA and

BBAF.

COUNT VIII


(Engaging in the Business of a Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Seller Without a License)

234. The Plaintiff adopts, incorporates, and real leges herein by reference paragraphs 1-

10, 12-24, 26-29, 38-39, 144- 155 and al l exhibits referred to, as if fu lly set fo rth

hereinafter, and further al leges:

235. Secti on 50 1.203(3)(c), clearly establishes that the Office of the Attorney General



47



501.201 et seq., these Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, engaged in

unconscionable, unfair or deceptive acts or practices that did, and will likely continue,

to deceive consumers who acted reasonably under the circumstances in seeking to

purchase used vehicles.

236. Sections 501.204(1) and 501.202(2), Fla. Stat. declare that unfair or deceptive


237. Section 501.204(2), Fla. Stat., states that "[i]t is the intent ofthe Legislature that,.


Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to s. 5(a)(l) of the Federal

Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 45(a)(l) as of July 1, 2006."

238. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Part 11, Fla.




239. Pursuant to Section 520.03(1), Fla. Stat., "[a] person may not engage m the

business of a motor vehicle retail installment seller or operate a branch of such

business without a license ... . "

240 . On or about December 31, 2010, BBA's license to engage in the business of

selling retail installment contracts expired. (See attached as Composite Exhibit "M"

documents [rom Florida Office of Financial Regulation and BBA and BBAF

related to the expired license and response [rom BBA to include Sections 520.()3(1)

48

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc ., et. a!; l st Amended Complaint of 67

and (4), Florida Statutes (2011 ), and a sample Motor Vehicle Retail Installment

Contract between BBA and Phillip Chamblee signed entered into on 1219111 ).

241. From January 1, 2011 to present, BBA and BBAF, under the direction of KING,

entered into over 600 motor vehicle retail installment contracts with numerous

consumers and collected several millions of dollars, without a valid license to engage

in the business of selling retail installment contracts.

242. From January 1, 2011 to present BBAF has not held a license pursuant to Section

520.03( 1), Florida Statutes (20 10) and as such was not and is not licensed to engage

in the business of selling retai l installment contracts.

243. BBA, BBAF and KING knew, or should have known, that pursuant to Section

520.03( 4): "A licensee may not transact business as a motor vehicle retail installment

seller except under the name by which it is licensed. Licenses issued under this part

are not transferable or assignable ."

244. BBAF holds a sales finance license pursuant to Section 520.52(1 ).

245 . Section 520.52, does not give BBAF the authorization to engage in the business

of selling motor vehicle retail installment contracts.

246. From January 1, 20 11 to present, neither BBA, BBAF nor KING has received a

license to engage in the business of a motor vehicle retail installment seller.

247. From January 1 20 11 to present, BBA, BBAF and KING have operated and

engaged in the business of selling motor vehicle retail installments to numerous

consumers .

49

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. al: I 51 Amended Complaint of 67

248 . From January 20 11 to present, BBA, BBAF and KING were aware or should

have been aware that BBA and BBAF are not licensed to engage in the business of

selling motor vehicle retail installment contracts.

249. From January 2011 to present, employees of BBA and/or BBAF, at the direction

of BBA, BBAF and KING, offered to sell motor vehicle retail installment contracts to

consumers, even though neither BBA, BBAF nor KING were licensed to do so.

250. KING has been in the business of selling used motor vehicles at least since 1970.

251. KING is and has been full y aware of the licenses required by the Office of

Financial Regulation to operate a legitimate used car dealersh ip.

252. BBA, BBAF and KING, from January 1, 2011, have failed to comply with the

Office of Financial Regulation' s requirement to be licensed to engage in business as a

motor vehicle retail installment seller.

253 . BBA, BBAF and/or KING are aware that a pending review of an application to

renew a license to engage in the business of selling retai l installment contracts does

not authorize BBA, BBAF or KING to sell motor vehicle retail installment contracts.

254. Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, have violated, and continue to violate, the

Florida Decepti ve and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 50 1.20 I , Fla. Stat., as well

as Section 520.03(1 ), by using deceptive, unconscionable and unfair practices to enter

into motor vehicle retail installment agreements with consumers when BBA and

BBAF are not licensed.

255. The above-described acts and practices of Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING,

have cause substantial harm to consumers by entering into invalid motor vehicle retail

insta llment contracts since neither BBA nor BBAF are licensed pursuant to Section

50

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automoti ve, Inc., et. al: !'1 Amended Complaint of67

520.03(1 ) and ( 4), and BBA and BBAF are in violation of Chapters 50 1 and 520 and

civil penalties are appropriate. Moreover, consumers are enti tled to actual damages

based on the aforementioned violations which will likely continue to cause substantial

harm and prej udice the public.

256. Unless the Defendants, BBAF and KING, are enjoined from engaging further in

unfair, deceptive and/or unconscionable trade acts and practices complained of

herein, the continued activities of BBA, BBAF and KING will result in irreparable

injury to the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

COUNT IX

DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES CHAPTER 501 , PART II FLORIDA STATUTES

('Vrongful, Unfair and Unconscionable Repossession of Consumers' Vehicles)


10, 16-24, 26-29, 3 7, 39, 144-1 55 and all exhibits referred to, as if fully set forth


258 . Section 50 1.203(3)( c), clearly establishes that the Office of the Attorney General




501.20 1 et seq., these Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, engaged in

unconscionable, unfair or deceptive acts or practi ces that did, and will likely continue,

to deceive consumers who acted reasonably under the circumstances in purchasing

and financing used vehicles.

51

OAG v. Beach Bou levard Automotive, Inc., et. al; l st Amended Complaint of 67

259. Sections 501.204(1) and 50 1.202(2), Fla. Stat. declare that unfair or deceptive


260. Section 50 1.204(2), Fla. Stat., states that "[i]t is the intent of the Legislature that, .


Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to s. 5(a)( 1) of the Federal



Stat., specifically Section 50 1.204( 1 ), provides that "unfair methods of competition,



262. At al l time material, BBA, BBAF and KING have established an unconscionable

business practice whereby these Defendants wrongfully repossess the vehicles of

consumers for reasons other than delinquent payments.

263 . BBA, BBAF and KING have wrongfully repossessed consumers ' vehicles based

on false assertions that the consumers' automobile insurance has lapsed or based on

non-existent liens that are attached to the clear tit le of the owner's vehicle after the

repossession has taken place without notice. (See excerpts/documents (rom sworn

statement of Mariana Carney and documents taken (rom the Office of Financial

Regulation complaints' packets {iled by Lisa A. Mack and Denise Crowder

attached, respectively, as Composite Exhibit "N")

264. At all times material, Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, except where a

consumer's payments are delinquent, have operated and engaged in the act of

52

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. a!: I st Amended Complaint of 67

wrongfully repossessmg consumers' vehicles for reasons that are unfair and

unconscionable.

265. At all times material, Defendants', BBA, BBAF and KING, or employees of the

BBA or BBAF acting at the direction of BBA, BBAF and KING, have wrongfully

repossessed consumers' vehicles, except where a consumer's payments are

delinquent, for reasons that are unfair, deceptive and conscionable.


the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 501.201, Fla. Stat., as

well as Section 520.03(1 ), by wrongfully repossessing consumers ' vehicles using

unconscionable and unfai r practices.

267. The above-described acts and practices of the Defendants, BBAF and KING, have

caused substantial harm to consumers by taking the consumers' property (i.e.,

vehicle) and requiring the consumer to pay repossessions fees or to wrongfully lose

possession of their property where BBA, BBAF or KING have no legal right to

deprive the consumer of their property. Civil penalties and actual damages to

consumers to provide restitution and/or refunds to consumers in connection with the

wrongful and unlawful repossession of their vehicles by BBA and BBAF at the

express or implied direction of KING.

268. Unless the Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, are enjoined from engagmg


of herein, the continued activities of BBA, BBAF and KING will result in irreparable

inj ury to the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

53

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive. Inc ., ct. al; 1'1 Amended Complaint of67

COUNT X

DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES CHAPTERS 50.1, PART II and 3.19, FLORIDA STATUTES

(Reporting of False Sales and Financing Using the Names of Consumers, which includes Third-Party Businesses, and Non-existent Vehicle Identification Numbers)


I 0, 12-24, 26-29, 39, 144-155 and all exhibits referred to, as if fully set forth


270. Section 50 1.203(3 )(c), clearly establishes that the Office of the Attorney General

may initiate an action for violations of " [a ]ny law, statute, rule, regulation, or

ordinance which proscribes [prohi bits] unfair methods of competition, or unfair,


501 .20 I et seq., these Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, engaged in

unconscionable, unfair or deceptive acts or practices that did, and will likely continue,

to deceive consumers who acted reasonably under the circumstances in purchasing

and financing used vehicles.

271. Sections 50 1.204(1) and 50 1.202(2), Fla. Stat. declare that unfair or deceptive


272. Section 501.204(2), Fla. Stat., states that "[i]t is the intent ofthe Legislature that,.


Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to s. 5(a)(l) of the Federal



Stat., specifically Section 50 1.204( I), provides that "unfair methods of competition,


54

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, lnc., et. al : I st Amended Complaint of 67

conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful." Additionally,

Section 50 1.976(9) deems it an unfair and deceptive act or practice, actionable under

the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, for a BBA and/or BBAF to

"[ o ]btai n signatures from a customer on contracts that are not fully completed at the

time the customer signs or which do not reflect accurately the negoti ations and

agreement between the customer and the dealer. "

274. Pursuant to Section 319.33(2), "[i]t is unlawful for any person knowingly to

obtain goods, services, credit, or money by means of an invalid, duplicate, fictitious,

forged, counterfeit, stolen or unlawfully obtained certificate of title, registration, bill

of sal e, or other indicia of ownership of a motor vehicle or mobile home."

275 . At all time material, BBA, BBAF and/or KING established an unfai r, deceptive

and/or unconscionable business practice whereby these Defendants, individually or

jointly, represent that vehicles were sold to third-party individuals or businesses when

no such sale occurred. (See attached Exhibit "E", speci(ical/y, the BBA Sales

Spreadsheet produced by BBA representing twenty-seven (27) sales to Warren

Motors, etc.,· see also attached Exhibit "0" letter {rom President of Warren Motors,

Ellis Warren and copies o{Sections 319.33(2) and 501.976(9)).

276. The reporting of fa lse sales using the name and information of a third-party by

BBA, BBAF and/or KING, as well as invalid documentation (indicia of ownership) to

obtain goods, services, credit or money is unlawful and is an unfair, deceptive and/or

unconscionable business practice.

277. At all time material, BBA, BBAF and/or KING established an unfair, deceptive


55

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. al; l '1 Amended Complaint of 67

jointly. represent that vehicle identification numbers were used to finance a vehicle

when the financing of the vehicle did not actually occur. (See attached Exhibit "E",

specificallv the BBAF Sales Spreadsheet representing the financing ofa vehicle to

Niki Barnwell, Bonnie King, T. Dugger LLC (VJN# 2PCY3349731028/50), etc.,·

see also attached Exhibit "P", as well as excerpts and exhibits (e.g., Retail

Installment Contract, check stub #0 15448 and Substitution of Collateral and

Release) (rom deposition transcript ofNiki Barnwell).

278. The reporting of false automobile finance transactions usmg the name and

information of a third-party by BBA, BBAF and/or KING, as well as invalid

documentation (indicia of ownership) to obtain goods, services, credit or money is

unlawful and is an unfair, deceptive and/or unconscionable business practice.

279. At all time material, BBA, BBAF and/or KING established an unfair, deceptive


jointly, represent that false vehicle identification numbers were used to sell or finance

a vehicle when these Defendants knew, or should have know that a vehicle associated

with the vehicle identification number did not exist. (See attached Exhibit "E",

specificallv the BBAF Sales Spreadsheet produced bv BBAF representing the sale

or financing of a vehicle to Warren Motors, T. Dugger LLC, Robert Norris, etc.,·

see also attached Exhibit "P", exhibits (rom deposition transcript of Niki

Barnwell).

280. The reporting of vehicle identification numbers in association with the false or

illegitimate vehicle sales and/or finance information using the name and information

of a third-party by BBA, BBAF and/or KING, as well as invalid documentation

56

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. a! ; 151 Amended Comp laint of 67

(indicia of ownership) to obtain goods, services, credit or money is unlawful and is an

unfair, deceptive and/or unconscionable business practice.


Chapters 501, Part II and Part VI, and well as Chapter 319, by posting false sales,

false financing and false vehicle identification numbers in association with the names

of consumers, which includes individuals and third-party businesses to obtain goods,

services, credit or money.

282. The above-described acts and practices of the Defendants, BBA, BBAF and

KING, are unfair, deceptive and unconscionable and causes substantial harm to

consumers by using false information to wrongfully associate the consumers, with

deceptive business practices, which are attributable to BBA, BBAF and/or KING

solely. Civil penalties for the above-referenced unfair, deceptive and/or

unconscionable business practices by BBA, BBAF and/or KING is appropriate.

283. Unless the Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, are enjoined from engaging

further in unfai r, deceptive and/or unconscionable trade acts and practices complained


inj ury to the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

284. Alternatively, the transactions between BBA, BBAF and/or KING and select

consumers (i.e. , Niki Barnwell, Bonnie King, Edwards Driggers, Diane Tran, Robert

Norris, Virginia Ol in, etc ., evidence a violation of Section 537.0 13 (j ), by acting as a

title loan lender without an active license. (See attached as Exhibit "0" copy of

Section 537.013).

57


285. Acting as a title loan lender without a license is a violation of Chapter 50 I, Part II,

in that the act of entering into agreements wi th consumers without licensure is unfair,

deceptive and unconscionable.

286. Unless the Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, are enjoined from engaging



injury to the public for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, State of Flo rida, Office of the Attorney General, Department

of Legal Affairs, asks for judgment enjoining Defendants, BBA, BBAF, JOHN KING, SR.,

and/or BARBARA KING (unless referred to individually), their officers, agents, servants,

employees, and those persons in active concert or participation with Defendants (i.e.,

independent contractors), who receive actual notice ofthe injunction, from engaging in methods,

acts or practices which are deceptive, unconscionable or unfair acts and practices. More

specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin and prohibit Defendants' activities as follows:

1. As to COUNT I, enjoin Defendants BBA, BBAF and JOHN 0. KING, SR., from

automatically adding optional items (i.e., credit life, credit disability, GAP

coverage, etc.) to vehicle sales transactions, unless the consumer signs a separate

disclosure statement indicating that BBA, BBAF or KING provided the consumer

with proper and adequate disclosures as to the addition of the optional items and

the affect of the additions of the optional items to the consumers' overall payment

schedule.

2. As to COUNT II, enjoin Defendants BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING, SR., from

58


selling any vehicles with GPS tracking/monitoring devices (also referred to as the

"System") unless the consumer signs a separate disclosure statement expressly

authorizing and consenting to the installment of the device.

3. As to COUNT VI, enjoin and prohibit Defendant, BARBARA KING from

posting false positive comments on the internet using the names of consumers

without the express, written authorization from the consumer or creating fake

profiles to post false reviews related to the business practices of BBA, BBAF or

KING.

4. As to COUNT VII, enJom and prohibit Defendants, BBA, BBAF and JOHN

KING, SR., directing employees, agents or individuals to post false positive

comments on the internet using the names of consumers without the express,

written authorization from the consumer or creating fake profiles to post false

reviews related to the business practices of BBA, BBAF or JOHN KING, SR.

5. As to COUNT IV, enjoin and prohibit Defendant, BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING,

SR., from accepting nonrefundable deposits from consumers to hold a vehicle

without providing the consumer, in writing, with a clear and conspicuous

statement detailing upon what condition(s) the deposit is nonrefundable.

6. As to COUNT IX, enjoin and prohibit Defendants, BBA, BBAF and JOHN

KING, SR. , from repossessing vehicles that are not in default and charging

consumers fees for vehicles that have not actually been repossessed where self

repossession methods are and were employed by BBA, BBAF or JOHN KING,

SR.

7. As to COUNT VIII, enjo in and prohibi t Defendants, BBA, BBAF and JOHN

59

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. a! ; I st Amended Complaint of 67

KING, SR. , from entering into and/or selling motor vehicle retai l installment

contracts where BBA and/or BBAF do not hold an active or valid license through

the Oftice of Financial Regulations, pursuant to Section 520.03(1) and ( 4), Florida

Statutes.

8. As to COUNT VIII, enjoin Defendants, BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING, SR., from

transferring or disposing of any monies received fro m consumers who purchased

a vehicle from BBA and financed through BBAF.

9. As to COUNT X, enjoin Defendants, BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING, SR., from

using false sales documentation, fa lse financing documentation and/or false

vehicle identification numbers to represent the sale or finance to individuals or

third-party businesses to obtain goods, services, credit or money. Also cease

entering into title loans without proper licensure.

10. As to COUNTS I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX, and X enjoin Defendant BBA,

BBAF and JOHN KING, SR., from destroying, altering, transferring or disposing

of any and all related business records or removing any such business records

from the premises of Defendants, to include, but not limited to: sale contracts and

related documents, GPS contracts and documentation of tracking, binder

agreements, credit reports, employee background check data, dealer and finance

documents to evidence sales and deposits on vehicles, automobile auction

documentation, electronic communications to and from consumers;

11. As to COUNTS I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X, Plaintiff seeks any and

all such injunctive remedies deemed appropriate by the Court;

12. As to COUNTS I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X, enjoin Defendant BBA,

60

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. a!; I st Amended Complaint Page 6 J of 67

BBAF JOHN KING, SR., and BARBARA KING, from destroying, altering,

transferring or disposing of any and all related business computers, personal

computers used or located at 6833 Beach Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida 32216,

or electronic data storage devises or systems from the premises of Defendants,

BBA, BBAF and KING;

13 . As to COUNTS I, IL III, IV, V, VII, VIII and IX, enjoin Defendant BBA, BBAF

and JOHN KING, SR., from initiating litigation or filing a claim against

consumers for deficiency judgments until such time that the claims can be

evaluated to determine the validity.

14. As to COUNTS I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X, enjoin Defendant BBA,

BBAF JOHN KING, SR., and BARBARA KING, from engaging in unfair

methods of competition or deceptive or unfair acts or practices as described

above, in violation of Chapters 501 Parts II and VI , as well as Chapters 520 and

559, Florida Statutes; and

15. Grant such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper, to include,

but not limited to enjoining and prohibiting Defendants, BBA, BBAF and JOHN

KING, SR., from adding repair charges to the balance of the auto loan, unless the

charges are fu lly disclosed to the consumers in a binding contract..

Plaintiff~ State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs,

asks for monetary judgments, in addi tion to inj unctive relief, from Defendants, BBA, BBAF,

JOHN KING, SR., and/or BARBARA KING (unless referred to individually), as follows :

1. As to COUNT I, Defendants, BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING, SR., be

required to provide restitution to all consumers who were deceived and harmed by

6 1

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc .. et. al; I st Amended Complaint of 67

these Defendants' actions in connection with the purchase of a used vehicle from

BBA and the financing of used vehicles by BBAF and JOHN KING, SR., where the

consumer purchased Credit Life, Credit Disability, GAP Insurance or paid a PDI fee

without proper or adequate disclosure. Plaintiff is also seeking for BBA, BBAF and

JOHN KING, SR., to pay civil penalties in accordance with Section 501.2075,

Florida Statutes, up to $10,000.00 per violation, and Section 501.2077. Florida

Statutes, up to $15,000.00 per violation.

2. As to COUNT II, Defendants, BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING, SR., be

required to provide resti tution to all consumers whose vehicles were wrongfully

repossessed due to the utilization of the GPS tracking device; such restitution shall

include, but not be limited to: repossession fees, storage fees, late fees and any other

damages incurred by the consumers as a result of the use of the GPS tracking device.

Plaintiff is also seeking for BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING, SR., to pay civil penalties

in accordance with Section 501.2075, Florida Statutes, up to $10,000.00 per violation,

and Section 501.2077, Florida Statutes, up to $15,000.00 per violation for the

installation of GPS tracking devices onto consumers' vehicles without the consumers'

authorization, knowledge or consent.

3. As to COUNT III, Plaintiff is seeking for BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING,

SR .. to pay civil penalties in accordance with Section 501.2075, Florida Statutes, up

to $10.000 .00 per violation, and Section 501.2077, Florida Statutes, up to $15,000.00

per violation, where consumers were charged the Pre-Delivery Inspection (PDI) fee,

by BBA, BBAF, and/or JOHN KING, SR., where BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING,

SR., failed to provide consumers with the statutorily required disclosure pursuant to

62

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. al; I" Amended Complaint of 67

Chapter 50 I , Parts II and VI, Florida Statutes.

4. As to COUNT IV, Defendants, BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING, SR., be

required to provide full restitution to all consumers who paid the deposit or binder

and the consumer did not receive their binder or deposit back when the consumer did

not purchase a vehicle from BBA or finance a vehicle wi th BBAF. Plaintiff is also

seeking for BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING, SR., to pay civil penalties in accordance

with Section 501.2075, Florida Statutes, up to $ 10,000.00 per violation, and Section

501.2077, Florida Statutes, up to $15,000.00 per violation, where BBA, BBAF and

JOHN KING, SR., failed to prov ide consumers with the statutorily required

disclosure pursuant to Chapter 50 I, Parts II and VI, and, clearly and conspicuously

state in writing whether and upon what conditions the deposi t is refundable or

nonrefundab I e.

5. As to COUNT V, Plaintiff is seeking for Defendants, BBA, BBAF and

JOHN KING, SR., to pay civil penalties at the statutory limit of up to One Thousand

Dollars ($ 1 ,000.00) per vio lation of Chapter 559, Part VI. Moreover, where

appropriate, Plaintiff seeks civil penalties in accordance with Section 50 1.2075,

Florida Statutes, up to $10,000.00 per violation, and Section 501.2077, Florida

Statutes, up to $15,000.00 per violation, from BBA, BBAF or JOHN KING, SR. , for

employing deceptive, unfair and unconscionable business practices in seeking to

collect debts from consumers.

6. As to COUNT VI, Plaintiff is seeking for Defendant, BARBARA KING,

to pay civi l penalties in accordance with Section 501.2075, Florida Statutes, up to

$10,000.00 per violation, and Section 501.2077, Florida Statutes, up to $15,000.00

63

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc ., et. al; 1 st Amended Complaint of 67

per vio lation, where BARBARA KING used BBA and/or BBAF consumers'

information or created information, whereby BARBARA KING: a) submitted

positive written comments on websites endorsing BBA and BBAF at the express or

implied direction of BBA, BBAF or JOHN KING, SR.: b) submitted false positive

written comments on review websites endorsing BBA and BBAF across the World

Wide Web at the express or implied direction of BBA, BBAF or JOHN KING, SR.;

or c) created fake online profiles for the purpose of submitting false positive written

comments on websites to endorse BBA and BBAF across the World Wide Web at the

express or implied direction of BBA, BBAF or KING.

7. As to COUNT VII, Plaintiff is seeking for Defendants, BBA, BBAF and

JOHN KING, SR., to pay civil penalties in accordance with Section 501.2075,

Florida Statutes, up to $10,000.00 per violation, and Section 50 1.2077, Florida

Statutes, up to $15,000.00 per violation, where BARBARA KING, BBA or BBAF

employees, or individuals acting at the express or implied direction of BBA, BBAF or

JOHN KING, SR., used BBA and/or BBAF consumers' information or created

information, whereby BARBARA KING, BBA or BBAF employees, or individuals

acting at the express or implied direction of BBA, BBAF or JOHN KING, SR.: a)

submitted positive written comments on websites endorsing BBA and BBAF at the

express or implied direction of BBA, BBAF or JOHN KING, SR.; b) submitted false

positive written comments on review websites endorsing BBA and BBAF across the

World Wide Web.

8. As to COUNT VIII, Defendants, BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING, SR., be

required to provide full restitution to all consumers who entered into motor vehicle

64

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive , Inc., et. al ; I st Amended Complaint of 67

retai l installment contracts with BBA and BBAF, when BBA and BBAF did hold

valid license pursuant to Chapter 501, Part II , as well as Section 520.03 (1) and (4),

Florida Statutes. Plaintiff is also seeking for BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING, SR., to

pay civil penalties in accordance with Section 50 1.2075, Florida Statutes, up to

$ 10,000.00 per violation, and Section 501.2077, Florida Statutes, up to $15,000.00

per violation. Plaintiff asks that Defendants, BBA, BBAF and KING, be required to

provide full restitution to all consumers whose vehicles were wrongfully repossessed

and where BBA, BBAF and KING charged consumers repossession fees when the

vehicles were not actually repossessed.

9. As to COUNT IX, Defendants, BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING, SR., be

required to provide full restitution to all consumers whose vehicles were wrongfully

repossessed where there was no default of the consumers contract at the time of the

repossession or where the vehicle repossessed is subject to an invalid contract entered

into by BBA or BBAF at the direction of JOHN KING, SR., whi le BBA or BBAF did

not hold a valid license to engage in the business of sell ing motor vehicle retail

installment contracts pursuant to Section 520.03( 1) and ( 4 ), and in violation of

Chapter 50 1, Part II, Florida Statutes; such restitution shall include, but not be limited

to: repossession fees, storage fees, late fees and any other damages incurred by the

consumers as a result of the wrongful repossession. Plaintiff is also seeking for BBA,

BBAF and JOHN KING, SR., to pay civil penalties in accordance with

Section50 1.2075, Florida Statutes, up to $10,000.00 per violation, and Section

50 1.2077, Florida Statutes, up to $15 ,000.00 per violation.

10. As to COUNT X, Plaintiff is seeking for BBA, BBAF and JOHN KING,

65

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc ., et. al; 151 Amended Complaint of 67

SR., to pay civil penalties in accordance with Section 501.2075, Florida Statutes, up

to $10,000.00 per violation, and Section 501.2077, Florida Statutes, up to $15,000.00

per violation of Chapters 319, 501 and 53 7. Civil penalties are being sought where in

order to unlawfully obtain goods, services, credit or money BBA, BBAF and or

JOHN KING, SR., used consumers names and information, with or without the

consumers permission, in conjunction with transactions where false sales, false

financing and/or false vehicle identification numbers were utilized, and/or where

BBA, BBAF and/or JOHN KING, SR., acted as a title loan lender without proper

licensure and disbursed funds to consumers in violation of Florida law.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable against Defendants,

BEACH BLVD. AUTOMOTIVE, INC., BEACH BLVD. AUTO FINANCE, INC. , BARBARA

KING and JOHN 0. KING, SR.

Dated this ~ (\d day of May, 2012.

Respectfully Submitted,

PAM BONDI ATTORNEY GENERAL

. JACKSON ATTORNEY GENERAL

Flori ~Bar # 503126 MARK HAMIL TON BUREAU CHIEF Florida Bar # 063 819 Office of the Attorney General Division of Economic Crimes 1300 Riverplace Blvd., Suite 405 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Tel: 904.348.2720 Fax: 904.858.6918

66

OAG v. Beach Boulevard Automotive, Inc., et. al; 1 st Amended Complaint of 67

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that service of the foregoing has been made via US Mail to: Steven L. Worley, Esquire, 4686 Sunbeam Road, Jacksonville, FL 32257, and Kelly B. Mathis, counsel for Defendants, JOHN 0. KING, SR., BEACH BLVD. AUTO FINANCE, INC. and BEACH BLVD. AUTOMOTIVE, INC., 1200 Riverplace Blvd, Suite 902 Jacksonville, FL 32207; and Paul M. Eakin, Esquire, counsel for Defendant, BARBARA KING, 599 Atlantic Blvd., Suite 4, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233, on this ~nd d<,~.y of May, 2012.

' . KSON

TTORNEY GENERAL

67

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND ...€¦ · Venue is proper in the...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND ...€¦ · Venue is proper in the...