UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-21865-CIV-MORENO/LOUIS

PALM SPRINGS MILE ASSOCIATES, LTD., 

a Florida limited partnership; and PHILIPS

LAKE WORTH LLC, a Florida limited

Partnership,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC., a

Virginia corporation; and ROSS STORES,

INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

AMENDED COMPLAINT

PALM SPRINGS MILE ASSOCIATES, LTD. and PHILIPS LAKE WORTH LLC hereby 

sue ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC., and ROSS STORES, INC. (collectively, “Ross 

Defendants”), and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for breach of leases and guarantees, seeking damages in excess of 

$5.5 million, and for declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

2. Ross – a major tenant, with three (3) separate stores, in Plaintiffs’ shopping centers 

– has implemented a predetermined, national policy of refusing to pay rent when due. 

3. Invoking the circumstances of COVID-19, they have engaged in economic selfhelp by failing and refusing to meet their contractual obligations to pay rent and other charges for 

the spaces they lease from the Plaintiffs. 

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 1 of 17
2

4. The Plaintiffs, of course, recognize the challenges posed by COVID-19, including 

on their own business – as their financial obligations (for which they depend on their tenants’ rent 

payments) remain. Under the express terms and provisions of the Defendants’ leases and 

guarantees, however, the Ross Defendants are obligated to pay rent and that obligation is not 

excused. 

5. Nevertheless, in early April of 2020, the Ross Defendants announced their intent 

not to pay rent and then repudiated their obligation to pay future rent in advance of the next due 

date. True to their word, they failed to pay rent when due on May 1, 2020.

6. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were forced to take this legal action to compel 

Defendants’ compliance with their payment obligations. 

7. The facts are set forth in detail below.

THE PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

8. Plaintiff PALM SPRINGS MILE ASSOCIATES, LTD. (“PSM”) is a Florida 

limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Its 

partners are as follows: 

a. SL Florida LLC, a Florida limited liability company, whose members are Sheila 

Chess, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New York; Sheila Levine Irrevocable 

Grantor Trust, a traditional trust, whose trustee is Jordan Pilevsky, a citizen of New 

York; and Palm Mile Corp., a New York corporation with its principal place of 

business in New York;

b. Allen Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New York;

c. Palm Springs Mile GP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, whose members 

are as follows:

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 2 of 17
3

i. Philip Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New York;

ii. PP Palm Springs Mile LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, whose 

sole member is Philip Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New 

York;

iii. SIP Palm Springs Mile LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, whose 

members are as follows:

a. SIP Hialeah Trust, a traditional trust, whose trustees are 

Michael T. Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and a citizen of 

New York; and Samantha J. Hoffman, who is domiciled in 

and a citizen of New Jersey; and

b. SIP Descendants Hialeah Trust, a traditional trust, whose 

trustee is Seth Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and a citizen of 

New York;

iv. SJH Palm Springs Mile LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, whose 

members are as follows:

a. SJH Hialeah Trust, a traditional trust, whose trustees are 

Seth Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New 

York; and Michael Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and a 

citizen of New York; and

b. SJH Descendants Hialeah Trust, a traditional trust, whose 

trustee is Samantha Hoffman, who is domiciled in and a 

citizen of New Jersey;

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 3 of 17
4

v. MTP Palm Springs Mile LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, whose 

members are as follows:

a. MTP Hialeah Trust, a traditional trust, whose trustee is Seth 

Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New York; 

and

b. MTP Descendants Hialeah Trust, a traditional trust, whose 

trustee is Michael Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and a citizen 

of New York;

vi. HSL Palm Springs Mile LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, whose 

members are as follows:

a. HSL Hialeah Trust, a traditional trust, whose trustees are 

Michael Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and of New York; and 

Josef Leifer, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New 

Jersey; and

b. HSL Descendants Hialeah Trust, a traditional trust, whose 

trustees are Heidi Leifer, who is domiciled in and a citizen 

of New Jersey; and Josef Leifer, who is domiciled in and a 

citizen of New Jersey;

vii. Corinne Sprung, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New York;

viii. Jordan Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New York;

ix. Stephanie Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New York; and

x. Joshua Levine, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New York.

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 4 of 17
5

9. Plaintiff PHILIPS LAKE WORTH LLC (“PLW”) is a Florida limited liability 

company, with its principal place of business in Palm Beach County, Florida. Its sole member is 

PL Lake Worth, LLC, whose members are as follows: 

a. Four individuals as follows: Michael Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and a citizen 

of New York; Corinne Sprung, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New York; 

Josef Leifer, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New Jersey; and Sheila Chess, 

who is domiciled in and a citizen of New York;

b. JL Trust, a traditional trust, whose Trustee is Philip Pilevsky, who is domiciled in 

and a citizen of New York; and, 

c. Lake Worth LP Member LLC, whose members are as follows:

i. Seth I. Pilevsky Descendants Trust, a traditional trust, whose Trustee is 

Michael Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New York; 

ii. Seth Pilevsky, who is domiciled in and a citizen of New York; and 

iii. Four traditional trusts – The Andrew Leifer 2503(c) Trust, The Molly 

Leifer 2503(c) Trust, The Matthew Leifer 2503(c) Trust, and The Ella 

Leifer 2503(c) Trust – whose Trustees are Josef Leifer, who is 

domiciled in and a citizen of New Jersey.

10. Defendant ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC. (“Tenant”) is a Virginia corporation 

with its principal place of business in Dublin, California. 

11. Defendant ROSS STORES, INC. (“Guarantor”) is a Delaware corporation with its 

principal place of business in Dublin, California. 

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 5 of 17
6

12. This Court has jurisdiction under diversity principles pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1332. The matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and 

costs, and is between citizens of different States. 

13. Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), where a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, and where the payment being 

sought is due. 

14. This Court has personal jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute, through 

Defendants’ operation of retail stores in this district. Defendants operate, conduct, engage in, and 

carry on business or business ventures in this state or have an office or agency in this state; have

caused injury to persons or property within this state arising out of an act or omission by the 

Defendants outside this state, while the Defendants were engaged in solicitation or service 

activities within this state; and breached contracts in this state by failing to perform acts required 

by the contractsto be performed in this state. Defendantsregularly do or solicit business, or engage 

in other persistent courses of conduct, or derive substantial revenue from goods used or consumed 

or services rendered in this state. The activities of Defendants within the state are substantial and 

not isolated. In addition, this action arises out of transactions and operations connected with and 

incidental to Defendants’ business within the state and, specifically, the business relationship 

between Plaintiffs and Defendants.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

The Ross Hialeah Lease – Store #511

15. On or about July 27, 2000, PSM, as Landlord, and Tenant’s predecessor in interest, 

as Tenant, entered into a Lease (the “511 Lease”) for the Premises, as defined in the 511 Lease, 

consisting of an approximately 30,936 square foot area in the Palm Springs Mile Shopping Center

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 6 of 17
7

located in Hialeah, Florida and owned by PSM. Tenant operates the Ross Dress for Less Store 

#511 at the Premises. 

16. PSM references and incorporates the 511 Lease, as amended, and the terms as 

defined therein, a true and correct copy of which is Exhibit “1” hereto. 

17. The 511 Lease, as amended, is for a term of years expiring on January 31, 2022. 

The total Rent and other charges for the remaining term of the 511 Lease are in excess of $1.1

million.

18. On or about July 27, 2009, the Guarantor executed and delivered to PSM a 

Guaranty of the 511 Lease (“511 Guaranty”), which guaranteed “the performance of all obligations 

of Tenant under the Lease.” A true and correct copy of the 511 Guaranty is attached as Exhibit 

“2” hereto.

19. Tenant is currently in possession of the 511 Premises, pursuant to the 511 Lease.

 The Ross Lake Worth Lease – Store # 1345

20. On or about September 22, 2009, PLW (as Landlord) and Tenant, entered into a 

Lease (the “1345 Lease”) for the Premises, as defined in the 1345 Lease, consisting of an 

approximately 25,668 square foot area in the Palm Springs Plaza Shopping Center located in Lake 

Worth, Florida and owned by PLW. Tenant operates the Ross Dress for Less Store #1345 at the 

Premises. 

21. PLW references and incorporates the 1345 Lease, as amended, and the terms as 

defined therein, a true and correct copy of which is Exhibit “3” hereto. 

22. The 1345 Lease, as amended, is for a term of years expiring on January 31, 2026. 

The total Rent and other charges for the remaining term of the 1345 Lease are in excess of $2.4

million. 

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 7 of 17
8

23. On or about September 22, 2009, the Guarantor executed and delivered to PLW a 

Guaranty of the 1345 Lease (“1345 Guaranty”), which guaranteed “the performance of all 

obligations of Tenant under the Lease.” A true and correct copy of the 1345 Guaranty is attached 

as Exhibit “4” hereto.

24. Tenant is currently in possession of the 1345 Premises, pursuant to the 1345 Lease.

 The DD Store Lease – Store # 5296

25. On or about May 14, 2015, PLW (as Landlord) and Tenant, entered into a Lease 

(the “5296 Lease”) for the Premises, as defined in the 5296 Lease, consisting of an approximately 

24,592 square foot area in the Palm Springs Plaza Shopping Center located in Lake Worth, Florida 

and owned by PLW. Tenant operates DD Store #5296 at the Premises. 

26. PLW references and incorporates the 5296 Lease, as amended, and the terms as 

defined therein, a true and correct copy of which is Exhibit “5” hereto. 

27. The 5296 Lease, as amended, is for a term of years expiring on January 31, 2027. 

The total Rent and other charges for the remaining term of the 511 Lease are in excess of $2 

million. 

28. On or about May 14, 2015, the Guarantor executed and delivered to PLW a 

Guaranty of the 5296 Lease (“5296 Guaranty”), which guaranteed “the performance of all 

obligations of Tenant under the Lease.” A true and correct copy of the 5296 Guaranty is attached 

as Exhibit “6” hereto.

29. Tenant is currently in possession of the 5296 Premises, pursuant to the 5296 Lease.

30. PSM and PLW will be referred to collectively as “Plaintiffs.” The 511, 1345 and 

5296 Leases will be referred to collectively as “Leases.” The 511, 1345 and 5296 Guarantees will 

be referred to collectively as “Guarantees.”

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 8 of 17
9

The Covid-19 Circumstances Do Not Excuse Payment of Rent

31. The Plaintiffs themselves are experiencing the challenges posed by COVID-19 on 

their own business – as their financial obligations (for which they depend on their tenants’ rent 

payments) remain. Under the express terms and provisions of the Leases and Guarantees, 

however, Defendants are obligated to pay Rent and that obligation is not excused. 

32. While the Leases do contain a force majeure provision (Article 26.11 in the 511 

Lease; 26.13 in the 1345 and 5296 Leases), the provision does not apply to these circumstances. 

The provision also excludes from its scope the “making of payments.” Accordingly, since the 

provision is not applicable, and the Tenant’s failure to pay rent is not excused, there is no 

contractual basis for the Tenant to avoid its obligation to pay rent.

Tenant and Guarantor’s Breaches of the Leases and Guarantees

33. Nevertheless, invoking the circumstances of COVID-19, the Ross Defendants have 

engaged in economic self-help in breach of the Leases and Guarantees by failing and refusing to 

meet their contractual obligations to pay rent and other charges for the Premises they lease from 

the Plaintiffs. 

34. Their actions were pursuant to a predetermined, national policy of refusing to pay 

rent when due, without regard to their contractual obligations or the economic detriment caused to 

their landlords by the non-payments. 

35. Thus, by letter dated March 31, 2020 (Exhibit “7” hereto), Defendants’ Group 

Executive Vice President wrote that Defendants had made the “decision to temporarily close all of 

its stores.” The letter indicated that Defendants would “advance April rent,” but provided notice 

that “[i]n the coming days and weeks,” they would be demanding “rent relief and credit” for the 

future. (Emphasis added).

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 9 of 17
10

36. By email on April 9, 2020 (Exhibit “8” hereto), Ross’s Director of Real Estate

forwarded a Letter of Intent (“LOI”) for the Landlords to sign “regarding rent now and going 

forward until we’re out of this mess.” The LOI provided for “No Rent,” and demanded that the 

Landlord confirm “Tenant shall not owe any, and Landlord agrees to abate, all rentals under the 

Lease” for indefinite future. (Emphasis original).

37. The LOI also explained what Ross had meant by the term “advance” with respect 

to the April rent, in its prior letter of March 31, 2020. According to Ross, the funds were “prepaid 

rent,” which Landlord was to “credit . . . against Tenant’s future rent and lessor charges.”

38. In a follow up phone conversation, the Plaintiffs’ Senior Vice President advised 

that the LOI was not acceptable, and that rent needed to be paid on time and unconditionally. 

Plaintiffs then sent a counter-proposal in the form of a revised LOI by email on April 22, 2020

(Exhibit “9” hereto).

39. Five days later, by email on April 27, 2020 (Exhibit “10” hereto), Ross’ Real Estate 

Director rejected the counter proposal, sarcastically asking “Did you read it” and advising “your 

proposal won’t fly so we’ll just go from here.” 

40. Ross made no further proposals or offers. Instead, by letter dated April 30, 2020

(Exhibit “11” hereto) – prior to the due date for the next payment under the Leases – Ross’ Group 

Executive Vice President emailed another letter stating that “Ross is not required to pay rent or 

additional charges” and advising that “Ross does not intend to advance rent or additional charges 

for the month of May 2020 or possibly thereafter until its business has been reestablished to its 

pre-pandemic level.”

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 10 of 17
11

41. Having anticipatorily repudiated its obligation to pay Rent on May 1, 2020 and 

thereafter, Tenant then breached its obligations in fact by failing to pay Rent when due on May 1, 

2020. 

42. Guarantor also failed to pay as required pursuant to the Guarantees. 

43. The Ross Defendants’ actions in anticipatorily repudiating and then breaching their 

payment obligations, waived and excused any further notices or demands by Plaintiffs to seek 

payment. As their conduct and communications also demonstrated, any further notices or demands 

by Plaintiffs were futile and would have been in vain. 

44. As well, the Ross Defendants’ failure and refusal even to respond to the Landlord’s 

April 22 proposal – other than to say it “won’t fly so we’ll just go from here” – demonstrates the 

futility of any further efforts by Landlord informally to resolve or mediate the Ross Defendants’ 

premeditated and unilateral refusal to pay as obligated under the Leases.

45. The Ross Defendants had made a predetermined decision not to pay rent, had cut 

of negotiations, and had no intent to reconsider their position.

46. Nevertheless, the Landlord, through counsel, did send a further demand for 

payment on May 4, 2020 (Exhibit “12” hereto), and an offer to “try in good faith to settle the 

dispute, including by mediation” (Exhibit “13” hereto).

1

 

47. The Ross Defendants, however, neither paid nor agreed to mediate. Instead, in a 

letter dated May 13, 2020 (Exhibit “14” hereto), through counsel, they again confirmed their 

1 While Landlord offered to mediate, mediation is not a precondition to filing an action for 

damages. See 5296 Lease at Art. 20.3. As well, the Leases provide that “either party” to the Lease 

may decline “to participate in mediation” and exercise “the option” to have the dispute “determined 

by suit or action in court.” Id. Art. 20.2.2.

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 11 of 17
12

refusal to pay Rent and provided further notice that they were “withholding rent” for the future. 

The letter also provided notice that the Ross Defendants would not participate in mediation. 

48. That response re-confirmed the futility of any notices or demands by Landlord, as 

the Ross Defendants’ predetermined refusal and anticipatory repudiation of their obligations to 

pay rent had already demonstrated. 

49. Additionally, given the Ross Defendants’ refusal to participate in mediation, this 

dispute must be determined by this Court.

50. Accordingly, all conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been fulfilled, 

satisfied, waived, excused or are futile. 

51. Plaintiffs again declare and assert the defaults, and declare the full amount of the 

Rents and charges for the remaining term of the Leases to now be due, in excess of $5.5 million.

52. This action does not waive the right of Plaintiffs, which is expressly reserved, to 

seek eviction of Tenant, including in a separate legal action.

53. Pursuant to the Leases, including Article 20.4.2, and the Guarantees, Plaintiffs are

entitled to the award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendants.

54. Plaintiffs have retained the law firm of Coffey Burlington, P.L. and is obligated to 

pay the firm a reasonable fee.

COUNT I

ACTION FOR PAST DUE RENTS

55. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained above as if fully set forth 

herein, and further states as follows:

56. This is an action for damages arising out of Tenant’s breach of the Leases.

57. Plaintiffs and Tenant entered into the Leases as alleged above.

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 12 of 17
13

58. Tenant anticipatorily repudiated its obligation to pay pursuant to the Leases. 

59. Tenant then failed to pay, when due, the rents and other charges pursuant to the 

Leases, and is therefore in default of the Leases.

60. Plaintiffs made demand upon the Tenant for payment of the amounts due, but 

despite the demand, Tenant failed to pay. 

61. As a direct and proximate result of Tenant’s breaches, Plaintiffs have suffered 

damage.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Tenant for the past-due amounts under 

the Leases, as well as for additional Rent and other charges that may continue to accrue, plus 

interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II

ACTION FOR ACCELERATED RENTS

62. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained above as if fully set forth 

herein, and further state as follows:

63. This is an action for damages arising out of Tenant’s breaches of the Leases.

64. Plaintiffs and Tenant entered into the Leases as alleged above.

65. Tenant anticipatorily repudiated its obligation to pay pursuant to the Leases. 

66. Tenant then failed to pay, when due, the rents and other charges pursuant to the 

Leases, and is therefore in default of the Leases.

67. Plaintiffs made demand upon the Tenant for payment of the amounts due, but 

despite the demand, the Tenant failed to pay the amounts. 

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 13 of 17
14

68. Tenant, moreover, has further advised that is “withholding rent” and that its nonpayment of Rent will continue, which is an anticipatory repudiation and breach of its ongoing

payment obligations under the Leases.

69. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to any and all remedies available under the 

Leases, and as expressly provided by the Leases, “all other remedies at law, or in equity.” Leases, 

Art. 5.6.

70. Pursuant to Article 20 of the Leases, and applicable Florida law, based on the 

Tenant’s default, repudiation and anticipatory breach of its obligations under the Leases, the 

Plaintiffs are entitled to accelerate the Tenant’s obligation to pay the balance of the future Rents 

and other charges for the full remaining term of the Leases, which are in excess of $5.5 million. 

Plaintiffs have declared and hereby asserts the default and declares the full amount of the Rents 

and other charges for the remaining term of the Leases to now be due.2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Tenant for the full amount of future 

Rents and charges under the Leases, plus interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as 

this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III

ACTION ON THE GUARANTY

71. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained above as if fully set forth 

herein, and further state as follows:

2 Plaintiffs expressly reserve and in no way waive their rights to terminate the Leases or 

Tenant’s right of possession, or to seek eviction of the Tenant – although those rights are not being 

pursued in this action.

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 14 of 17
15

72. The Guarantor executed and delivered the Guarantees to Plaintiffs, which 

guaranteed “the performance of all obligations of Tenant under the Lease.” 

73. As alleged above, Tenant anticipatorily repudiated its obligation to pay pursuant to 

the Leases. 

74. Tenant then failed to pay, when due, the rents and other charges pursuant to the 

Leases, and is therefore in default of the Leases.

75. The Guarantor has also failed to pay or cause to be paid the amounts due. 

Accordingly, the Guarantor is in breach of the Guarantees.

76. Defendants, moreover, have further advised that they are “withholding rent” and 

that their non-payment of Rent will continue, which is an anticipatory repudiation and breach of 

its ongoing payment obligations under the Leases and Guarantees.

77. The payment obligations under the Leases, for which Guarantor is obligated, 

include the past due amounts and the balance of future Rents and other charges for the full 

remaining term of the Leases, which are in excess of $5.5 million. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Guarantor for damages, including 

past due Rents and amounts under the Leases, and the balance of future Rents and other charges 

for the full remaining term of the Leases, which are in excess of $5.5 million, plus interest, costs, 

attorneys’ fees, and such further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT IV

ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

78. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained above as if fully set forth 

herein, and further state as follows:

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 15 of 17
16

79. Defendants have failed and refused to pay Rents pursuant to the Leases, based on 

the Covid-19 circumstances. 

80. Defendants, moreover, have further advised that they are “withholding rent” and 

that their non-payment of Rent will continue, which is an anticipatory repudiation and breach of 

its ongoing payment obligations under the Leases and Guarantees.

81. While the Leases do contain a force majeure provision (Article 26.11 in the 511 

Lease; 26.13 in the 1345 and 5296 Leases), the provision does not apply to these circumstances. 

The provision also excludes from its scope the “making of payments.” Accordingly, Plaintiffs 

contend that since the provision is not applicable, and the Defendants’ failure to pay rent is not 

excused, there is no contractual basis for the Defendants to avoid their obligation to pay rent.

82. Accordingly, there is a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal 

interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.

83. Declaratory relief would serve a useful and important purpose in clarifying and 

settling the legal relations in issue, and would terminate and afford relief from the uncertainty, 

insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the proceeding.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court issue a judgment declaring (a) that the 

Force Majeure provision under the Lease does not excuse Defendants’ obligation to pay Rent and 

other amounts; (b) that Defendants’ failure and refusal to pay Rent based on the force majeure 

provision is not warranted, and constitutes a breach of the Lease; (c) that Defendants are obligated 

to pay Rent and other amounts due, in an amount to be determined by the Court; and (e) awarding 

Plaintiffs interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees, along with such other and further relief as may be 

permitted. 

Respectfully submitted,

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 16 of 17
17

By: /s/ Kevin C. Kaplan

Kevin C. Kaplan, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 933848

kkaplan@coffeyburlington.com

lperez@coffeyburlington.com 

service@coffeyburlington.com

COFFEY BURLINGTON, P.L.

2601 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse One

Miami, Florida 33133

Telephone: (305) 858-2900

Facsimile: (305) 858-5261

Counsel for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by Notice of Electronic 

Filing generated by CM/ECF, on May 21, 2020, on all counsel or parties of record on the Service 

List below.

/s/ Kevin C. Kaplan

Kevin C. Kaplan

SERVICE LIST

Palm Springs Mile Associates, Ltd., et al. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., et al.

Case No. 20-21865-CIV-MORENO/LOUIS

Edward Soto, Esq.

Edward.Soto@weil.com

Nicole Comparato, Esq.

Nicole.Comparato@weil.com

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 577-3100

Facsimile: (305) 374-7159

Counsel for Defendants

Ross Dress for Less, Inc., and Ross Stores, Inc.

Paul R. Genender, Esq. 

(pro hac vice pending)

Paul.Genender@weil.com

Nathan White, Esq.

(pro hac vice pending)

Nathan.White@weil.com

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

200 Crescent Court, Suite 300

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 746-7700

Facsimile: (214) 746-7777

Counsel for Defendants

Ross Dress for Less, Inc., and Ross Stores, Inc.

Case 1:20-cv-21865-FAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/21/2020 Page 17 of 17