UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

DTV AMERICA CORPORATION and 

HC2 BROADCASTING INC. (f/k/a DTV 

HOLDINGS INC.), 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JOHN N. KYLE II; KING FORWARD, INC.; 

KING SPECTRUM, L.L.C. f/k/a DTV 

AMERICA I, LLC; TIGER EYE 

BROADCASTING CORPORATION; TIGER 

EYE LICENSING, L.L.C.; KRISTINA C. 

BRUNI; and BELLA SPECTRA 

CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 

COMPLAINT AND REQUEST 

FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Plaintiffs DTV America Corporation (“DTV”) and HC2 Broadcasting Inc., which was 

formerly known as DTV Holding Inc. (“HC2” and, collectively with DTV, “Plaintiffs”), by their 

undersigned attorneys, as and for their complaint against Defendants John N. Kyle II (“Kyle”), 

King Forward, Inc. (“King Forward”), King Spectrum, L.L.C. (“King Spectrum”), which was 

formerly known as DTV America I, LLC (“DTV I”), Tiger Eye Broadcasting Corporation 

(“Tiger Eye” and, collectively with Kyle, King Forward, and King Spectrum, the “Kyle 

Defendants”), Tiger Eye Licensing, L.L.C. (“Tiger Eye Licensing”), Kristina C. Bruni (“Bruni”), 

and Bella Spectra Corporation (“Bella Spectra” and, collectively with Bruni, the “Bruni 

Defendants”), allege as follows: 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 1 of 40
2 

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

1. This is an action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, declaratory 

relief, fraud in the inducement, bad faith, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. 

2. This action arises out of Defendants’ multiple intentional and egregious breaches 

of (i) a November 9, 2017 Non-Competition, Non-Solicitation and Non-Disparagement 

Agreement entered into by and between Plaintiff DTV, Defendant Kyle, and Kyle’s company, 

Defendant King Forward (the “Kyle Non-Compete Agreement”), attached as Exhibit 1, in 

connection with the purchase of certain securities and assets from Defendants and their affiliates, 

Kyle and King Forward’s provision of consulting services to DTV, and the award of certain 

restricted stock units to King Forward; and (ii) a substantially identical November 9, 2017 NonCompetition, Non-Solicitation and Non-Disparagement Agreement between DTV and the Bruni 

Defendants (the “Bruni Non-Compete Agreement” and, collectively with the Kyle Non-Compete 

Agreement, the “Non-Compete Agreements”), attached as Exhibit 2. 

3. Defendants’ actions also breached their obligations under (i) a November 9, 2017 

Consulting Agreement between DTV and King Forward (the “Kyle Consulting Agreement”), 

attached as Exhibit 3, and (ii) a substantially similar November 9, 2017 Consulting Agreement 

between DTV and Bella Spectra (the “Bruni Consulting Agreement” and, collectively with the 

Kyle Consulting Agreement, the “Consulting Agreements”), attached as Exhibit 4. Under the 

Consulting Agreements, Defendants Bruni and Kyle and their respective companies were 

obligated to perform services solely and exclusively for the benefit of DTV, and “shall not 

perform services for any other person or entity”, including themselves or their affiliates. 

4. Defendants breached the Non-Compete Agreements and Consulting Agreements, 

without limitation and for example, by: 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 2 of 40
3 

a. failing to abide by their obligations of diligence, loyalty, and exclusivity 

under the Consulting Agreements by pursuing and engaging in self-interested transactions, 

continuing to own and remain involved with competing entities, and destroying records relating 

to Defendants’ conduct. 

b. procuring approval from the Federal Communications Commission 

(“FCC”) for a construction permit allowing the construction of a new television station with a 

broadcast coverage area, or “contour,” almost entirely within the broadcast contour of an existing 

television station construction permit held by Plaintiffs; 

c. reinstating the corporate existence of DTV I, a corporate entity owned and 

controlled by Kyle and/or King Forward that had been defunct for several years, and renaming it 

King Spectrum; 

d. causing King Forward, King Spectrum, and Tiger Eye, another corporate 

entity owned and controlled by Kyle and/or King Forward, to file with the FCC amendments to 

several pending applications for additional television station construction permits, requesting 

updated channel assignments for those new television stations; and 

e. procuring approval from the FCC for several of those amended 

applications for construction permits, allowing the construction of new television stations with 

broadcast contours substantially overlapping with the broadcast contours of Plaintiffs’ existing 

holdings, including one such permit for a new station in Florida granted by the FCC just 

yesterday. 

5. Defendants’ breaches of the Non-Compete Agreements and Consulting 

Agreements damaged and, if not enjoined, will continue to further damage Plaintiffs’ business 

imminently and irreparably by competing directly with Plaintiffs “in the business of owning and 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 3 of 40
4 

acquiring low power television (LPTV) broadcast licenses and construction permits (CPs) across 

the US”, “own[ing] and operat[ing] LPTV stations”, and “launch[ing] . . . LPTV stations in the 

US”—conduct expressly proscribed by the Non-Compete Agreements during the “forty-eight 

month[]” term and within the geographic scope of the Non-Compete Agreements. 

6. Defendants’ breaches of the Non-Compete Agreements require Plaintiffs to 

request preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to protect Plaintiffs’ legitimate business 

interests secured by the Non-Compete Agreements. 

7. If Defendants’ actions are not enjoined, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages 

from Defendants, including lost profits and other losses, expenditures, and costs incurred by 

Plaintiffs as a result of those actions. 

8. Plaintiff HC2 and Defendants King Forward, Tiger Eye, Tiger Eye Licensing, and 

Bella Spectra entered into a Final Asset Purchase Agreement dated as of June 27, 2017 (the 

“APA”), attached (excluding voluminous schedules and exhibits) as Exhibit 5. 

9. HC2 also entered into a related Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of June 

27, 2017 (the “SPA”) with Defendants Kyle, King Forward, Tiger Eye Licensing, and the Bruni 

Defendants, among other non-parties to this action. 

10. The APA included as closing conditions the execution and delivery by 

Defendants of the Non-Compete Agreements and the Consulting Agreements—each of which 

incorporated as exhibits the corresponding Non-Compete Agreement and a related Restricted 

Stock Unit Award Agreement (respectively the “Kyle Stock Award Agreement” and “Bruni 

Stock Award Agreement”, and collectively the “Stock Award Agreements”). 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 4 of 40
5 

11. On information and belief, Defendants made false representations to Plaintiffs 

during the negotiation of the APA, SPA, Non-Compete Agreements, Consulting Agreements, 

and Stock Award Agreements (collectively, the “Agreements”). 

12. Based on those false representations, HC2 entered into the Agreements, which 

together contemplated total consideration to Defendants and their affiliates in excess of $17 

million. 

13. On information and belief, to induce Plaintiffs to enter into the Agreements, 

Defendants intentionally deceived Plaintiffs by falsely representing to Plaintiffs that Defendants 

would perform consulting services diligently and exclusively for Plaintiffs, and that Defendants 

would not take actions to compete with Plaintiffs during the terms of the Non-Compete 

Agreements. 

14. Contrary to those representations, during the terms of the Non-Compete 

Agreements, Defendants procured multiple construction permits and pressed forward with 

applications for additional construction permits for new television stations with broadcast 

contours overlapping substantially with the contours of Plaintiffs’ existing holdings. 

15. Plaintiffs would not have entered into the Agreements had they been aware that 

Defendants intended to violate the Consulting Agreements and Non-Compete Agreements. 

16. Defendants’ fraud in the inducement damaged, and will continue to damage, 

Plaintiffs’ business by, without limitation and for example, causing Plaintiffs to pay more 

consideration to Defendants and their affiliates than the assets and services purchased were 

worth, diminishing the value of the assets and services purchased by Plaintiffs, and causing lost 

profits, loss of revenue, and loss of market share due to Defendants’ direct competition with 

Plaintiffs. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 5 of 40
6 

17. On information and belief, Defendants Kyle, King Forward and the Bruni 

Defendants entered into the Non-Compete Agreements with the intention of using confidential 

information about Plaintiffs’ business gained from their sale of assets to HC2 and consulting 

arrangement with DTV to compete directly and/or indirectly with Plaintiffs. 

18. Plaintiffs would not have agreed to share confidential information about their 

business with Defendants if Plaintiffs had been aware that Kyle, King Forward, and the Bruni 

Defendants entered into the Non-Compete Agreements with the improper purpose of using 

confidential information about Plaintiffs’ business and competing with Plaintiffs during the 

terms of the Non-Compete Agreements. 

19. On information and belief, the Kyle Defendants, Tiger Eye Licensing, and the 

Bruni Defendants entered into the APA with the intention of gaining a competitive advantage to 

compete directly and/or indirectly with Plaintiffs during the terms of the Non-Compete 

Agreements. 

20. Defendants’ misconduct damaged, and will continue to damage, Plaintiffs’ 

business by, without limitation and for example, causing Plaintiffs to pay more consideration to 

Defendants and their affiliates than the assets and services purchased were worth, diminishing 

the value of the assets and services purchased by Plaintiffs, and causing lost profits, loss of 

revenue, and loss of market share due to Defendants’ direct competition with Plaintiffs. Such 

damages presently are estimated to exceed $1 million, and continue to accrue. 

21. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the Non-Compete 

Agreements are valid and enforceable, that Defendants breached the Non-Compete Agreements, 

and for the Court to determine the tolling dates of the non-competition provisions in the 

Non-Compete Agreements, as well as an award of attorneys’ fees and costs for this action. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 6 of 40
7 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

22. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 

1332 because there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy 

exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, 

disbursements and counsel fees claimed. 

23. Venue for this action is proper in this Court because the events giving rise to the 

claims occurred in the Southern District of Florida and the parties agreed, in Section 8 of the 

Non-Compete Agreements, Section 18 of the Consulting Agreements, and Section 12.5 of the 

APA, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in Broward County, Florida. 

24. This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants in this action because, as 

alleged below, all Defendants are domiciled in Broward County, Florida, within the geographic 

jurisdiction of this Court, and under Florida Statutes Section 48.193 because, inter alia, all 

Defendants operate, conduct, engage in, and/or carry on a business or business venture in the 

State of Florida and have an office in the State of Florida. 

PARTIES 

25. DTV is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 450 Park 

Avenue, 30th Floor, New York, NY 10022. 

26. HC2 is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 450 Park 

Avenue, 30th Floor, New York, NY 10022. 

27. Defendant Kyle is a citizen and domiciliary of the State of Florida with a business 

address of 1671 NW 144th Terrace, Suite 106, Sunrise, FL 33323. 

28. Defendant King Forward is a Florida profit corporation with its principal place of 

business at 1671 NW 144th Terrace, Suite 106, Sunrise, FL 33323. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 7 of 40
8 

29. Defendant King Spectrum, formerly known as DTV I, is a Florida limited liability 

company with its principal place of business at 1671 NW 144th Terrace, Suite 106, Sunrise, FL 

33323. On information and belief, King Spectrum is owned by Kyle and/or King Forward, and 

Kyle is the managing member and registered agent of King Spectrum. 

30. Defendant Tiger Eye is a Florida profit corporation also currently doing business 

under the name King Spectrum, L.L.C., with its principal place of business at 1671 NW 144th 

Terrace, Suite 106, Sunrise, FL 33323. On information and belief, Tiger Eye is owned by Kyle 

and/or King Forward, and Kyle is the president and a director of Tiger Eye. 

31. Defendant Tiger Eye Licensing is a Florida limited liability company with its 

principal place of business at 1671 NW 144th Terrace, Suite 106, Sunrise, FL 33323. On 

information and belief, Tiger Eye Licensing is owned by Kyle and/or King Forward, and Kyle is 

the managing member and registered agent of Tiger Eye Licensing. 

32. Defendant Bruni is a citizen and domiciliary of the State of Florida with a 

business address of 2045 SW 127th Avenue, Davie, Florida 33325. 

33. On information and belief, Bruni is married to Kyle. 

34. Defendant Bella Spectra is a Florida profit corporation with its principal place of 

business at 2045 SW 127th Avenue, Davie, Florida 33325. On information and belief, Bella 

Spectra is owned by Bruni, and Bruni is the president of Bella Spectra. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS (¶¶ 35–71) 

35. HC2 entered into the APA for the purpose of acquiring licenses and permits to 

operate several television stations, along with associated pending applications for licenses and 

construction permits, certain assumed contracts, associated tangible and intangible assets, 

including the goodwill of the acquired television stations, all proprietary and technical 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 8 of 40
9 

information relating to the business or operation of the acquired television stations, and the 

books and records of the acquired television stations. 

36. In connection with the APA, HC2 also entered into the SPA, pursuant to which 

Kyle, Bruni, King Forward, Tiger Eye Licensing, Bella Spectra, and other parties sold certain 

shares of common stock of Plaintiffs and where such consideration included goodwill that was 

dependent on certain restrictive covenants, including those contained in the Non-Compete 

Agreements. 

37. The APA set a purchase price of $2,672,707.00, and the SPA set a purchase price 

of $13,200,158.00, for a total transaction price of $15,872,865.00. 

38. As closing conditions for the APA, Kyle and King Forward entered into the Kyle 

Non-Compete Agreement, and King Forward concurrently entered into the Consulting 

Agreement with DTV, pursuant to which DTV engaged King Forward (and Kyle) on an 

exclusive basis for a period of 24 months—i.e., through November 2019—to assist DTV in: 

(i) identifying and helping execute strategic opportunities for [Plaintiff] in such 

areas as low power television acquisitions and industry consolidation in order to 

assist [Plaintiff] in meeting its spectrum acquisition goals, and (ii) in its advisory 

role, to work directly with designated . . . employees [of Plaintiff], with the 

highest priority of assisting in the deployment of new stations from the 

[Plaintiff]’s portfolio of licenses and construction permits . . . . 

39. The Kyle Consulting Agreement provided that DTV would pay King Forward 

$10,416.67 twice per month for a period of up to two years, totaling $500,000.16. 

40. Section 14 of the Kyle Consulting Agreement acknowledged that Kyle, King 

Forward, and other parties would, in the course of performing services for Plaintiffs, learn 

“Confidential Information” about Plaintiffs that was “not generally available to the public, and 

may be of value to a competitor.” 

41. Section 4 of the Kyle Consulting Agreement, entitled “Exclusivity”, provides that: 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 9 of 40
10 

Consultant, in its sole and absolute discretion, has determined that to fulfill the 

Services as set forth herein, it will need to devote substantially all of its business 

efforts to performance under this Agreement. Consultant, of its own 

determination, shall not perform services for any other person or entity to 

appropriately fulfill its Services hereunder. Consultant will provide up to 120 

hours per month to the Company to perform the Services contemplated by this 

Agreement. Consultant agrees and recognizes it has chosen to provide exclusivity 

to the Company in performance of the Services and based on its reasonable 

estimation of the attention required to perform such Services. (Emphasis added.) 

42. In Section 15 of the Kyle Consulting Agreement, King Forward agreed to 

indemnify Plaintiffs, in pertinent part, for: 

[A]ny and all . . . losses, . . . damages, [and] expenses of any kind or nature 

whatsoever, including attorneys’ fees and costs . . . actually or allegedly, directly 

or indirectly, arising from or resulting from or connected with: (a) Consultant’s 

performance or failure to honor any promises made herein, or Consultant’s 

performance or failure to perform Services under this Agreement; [or] (b) the 

omission or commission of any act, lawful or unlawful, by Consultant or any 

agent or employee of Consultant, whether or not such act is within the scope of 

employment of such agents or employees . . . . 

43. Concurrently with the Non-Compete Agreement, and as expressly contemplated 

by the Consulting Agreement, King Forward entered into the Kyle Stock Award Agreement, 

pursuant to which King Forward would receive vested restricted stock units with a total value of 

$700,000 through November 9, 2021—i.e., through the entire four-year term of the Kyle 

Non-Compete Agreement. 

44. The Non-Compete Agreement provides in relevant part that: 

For forty-eight months from the date of this Agreement [i.e., through November 

9, 2021], each of the Restricted Parties [i.e., Kyle, King Forward, and their 

respective successors and assigns] shall not, directly or indirectly through another 

person or entity, become employed by, work for, or provide services to, or engage 

in (whether as a principal, agent, independent contractor, consultant, employee, 

employer, partner, director, member, shareholder (other than as an owner of 2% 

or less of the stock of a public corporation) or in any other capacity), any person 

or entity engaged in a business which is competitive with the Business of the 

Company (as defined below). 

45. The Non-Compete Agreement further provides in relevant part that: 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 10 of 40
11 

The Parties hereby acknowledge that: (i) the Company is engaged in the business 

of owning and acquiring low power television (LPTV) broadcast licenses and 

construction permits (CPs) across the US to build a wireless distribution platform 

covering select DMAs [i.e., Designated Market Areas]: (ii) the Company 

currently owns and operates 52 LPTV stations and intends to launch more than 50 

new broadcast LPTV stations in the US over the next 12 months using LPTV 

licenses and CPs in its portfolio; and (iii) the Company is also engaged in the 

development of technology to optimize the use of broadcast TV spectrum and the 

distribution of video content over its LPTV broadcast distribution platform 

(subsections (i)-(iii) referred to collectively herein as the “Business of the 

Company”). 

46. Concurrently with the Kyle Non-Compete Agreement, Kyle Consulting 

Agreement, and Kyle Stock Award Agreement, the Bruni Defendants entered into the 

substantially identical Bruni Non-Compete Agreement, and Bella Spectra entered into the 

substantially identical Bruni Stock Award Agreement and the substantially similar Bruni 

Consulting Agreement. 

47. The Bruni Consulting Agreement provided that DTV would pay Bella Spectra 

$4,166.67 twice per month for a period of up to two years, totaling $200,000.16. 

48. Defendants have repeatedly breached their obligations under the Consulting 

Agreements and Non-Compete Agreements. 

49. In addition, actions taken by Defendants before the Agreements were executed 

demonstrate that Defendants did not intend to honor their obligations under the Consulting 

Agreements and Non-Compete Agreements, and instead intended to defraud Plaintiffs for 

Defendants’ own personal gain. 

50. During the negotiations that led to the execution of the Agreements, Defendants 

secretly and repeatedly took actions to enrich themselves or their affiliates at the expense of the 

assets being purchased by Plaintiffs pursuant to the APA. For example and without limitation: 

a. Prior to the execution of the Agreements, Defendants failed to pay key 

vendors amounts exceeding $1 million notwithstanding vendor warnings of default and 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 11 of 40
12 

restocking fees, reducing the value of the assets Plaintiffs purchased pursuant to the APA by 

delaying payments until the assets were under Plaintiffs’ control. 

b. Similarly, Defendants failed to make several months’ worth of payments 

on capital leases in connection with the assets Plaintiffs purchased pursuant to the APA. 

Defendants’ delinquency resulted in litigation being threatened against DTV and required a 

bridge loan to ensure the outstanding balance was paid. 

c. Defendants also failed to pay tower leases, utility bills, and network bills 

as they came due in the time leading up to the change of control of the assets Plaintiffs purchased 

pursuant to the APA. 

d. At the same time as Defendants were deliberately failing to pay bills, 

apparently as part of a scheme to saddle Plaintiffs with those expenses, default fees, and 

litigation expenses, Defendants used cash from the assets Plaintiffs purchased pursuant to the 

APA to enrich themselves and their allies, including causing vast sums of cash to be paid to prior 

board members and allies of Defendants in the lead-up to the execution of the APA and 

subsequently transferring cash from assets purchased by Plaintiffs to third parties. 

51. Defendants’ misconduct continued after they executed the Agreements, including, 

for example and without limitation, Kyle causing DTV to pay utility bills for King Forward and 

using DTV’s law firm to prepare Kyle’s own personal taxes. 

52. On information and belief, Defendants failed to discharge their obligations 

diligently under the Consulting Agreements. 

53. Kyle, King Forward, and the Bruni Defendants identified numerous purported 

“strategic” opportunities pursuant to their duties under the Consulting Agreements which were 

self-interested or impracticable transactions brought for improper purposes to direct money to 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 12 of 40
13 

Defendants’ allies and associates at substantial disadvantage to the Plaintiffs. For example and 

without limitation, Kyle attempted to persuade Plaintiffs to acquire assets at inflated prices from 

sellers that, upon investigation, turned out to be friends or associates of Defendants. 

54. Kyle also interfered with Plaintiffs’ business, in breach of his obligations under 

the Consulting Agreement, by attempting to promote initiatives clearly prohibited by FCC rules 

and guidelines. 

55. On information and belief, Defendants willfully and deliberately concealed, 

encrypted, and/or destroyed financial records of assets that Plaintiffs purchased pursuant to the 

APA, making it impossible for Plaintiffs to completely calculate and identify the full extent of 

Defendants’ misconduct prior to fact discovery in this action. 

56. On information and belief, Kyle, King Forward, and the Bruni Defendants’ 

breaches of their respective Non-Compete Agreements and Consulting Agreements began 

contemporaneously with the execution of those agreements in November 2017. Among other 

things, Kyle’s actions in causing DTV to pay utility expenses for King Forward violated the Kyle 

Consulting Agreement and the Kyle Non-Compete Agreement, and, especially coupled with 

Defendants’ spoliation of financial data, suggests that Defendants were engaged in additional 

activity in competition with, and to the detriment of, Plaintiffs that has not yet come to light. 

57. Defendants’ breaches of the Non-Compete Agreements became more brazen in 

November 2019, as Defendants embarked on a campaign of actions to compete directly and/or 

indirectly with Plaintiffs notwithstanding the fact that Kyle, King Forward, and the Bruni 

Defendants had expressly agreed to contemporaneous Non-Compete Agreements that had 

longer, four-year terms and contemporaneous Stock Award Agreements that would (but for 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 13 of 40
14 

Defendants’ breaches) continue to compensate them in the form of vested restricted stock units 

through the entire four-year terms of the Non-Compete Agreements. 

58. Defendants breached the Non-Compete Agreements by procuring approval from 

the FCC in November 2019 for a permit allowing construction of a new television station, 

K24OD-D, broadcasting in the vicinity of Carteret County, North Carolina (the “K24OD-D 

Construction Permit”). 

59. Defendants’ acquisition of the K24OD-D Construction Permit occurred less than 

three years into the Non-Compete Agreements’ four-year terms and clearly fell within the NonCompete Agreements’ definition of the Business of the Company. 

60. Defendants’ acquisition of the K24OD-D Construction Permit breached the NonCompete Agreements by competing directly with Plaintiffs in a particular geographic market in 

which Plaintiffs are already engaged in the Business of the Company as defined in the NonCompete Agreement. A map depicting the substantial geographic overlap between the broadcast 

contour of Defendants’ K24OD-D Construction Permit and the broadcast contour of an existing 

permit held by Plaintiffs allowing the construction of a new television station with the call sign 

WFEJ-LD, is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. As Exhibit 6 demonstrates, the broadcast contour of 

Defendants’ K24OD-D Construction Permit (depicted in red) is almost entirely within the 

broadcast contour of Plaintiffs’ construction permit for WFEJ-LD (depicted in black). 

61. Kyle also breached the Kyle Non-Compete Agreement by filing with the Florida 

Department of State’s Division of Corporations to reinstate DTV I as an active corporate entity, 

listing Kyle as both manager and registered agent of DTV I, on January 16, 2020. On or around 

that same date, Kyle filed Articles of Amendment to DTV I’s Articles of Organization, changing 

DTV I’s name to King Spectrum. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 14 of 40
15 

62. Kyle’s reinstatement of King Spectrum, which occurred less than three years into 

the Kyle Non-Compete Agreement’s four-year term, falls within the Kyle Non-Compete 

Agreement’s definition of the Business of the Company because, prior to ceasing operations in 

2016, DTV I was engaged in the business of owning and acquiring low power television 

broadcast licenses and construction permits, and/or owning and operating low power television 

stations. 

63. Kyle’s reinstatement of King Spectrum breaches the Kyle Non-Compete 

Agreement by competing directly with Plaintiffs in the Business of the Company as defined in 

the Kyle Non-Compete Agreement. 

64. Defendants further breached the Non-Compete Agreements by causing King 

Forward to file with the FCC in late January 2020 amendments to several applications for 

construction permits relating to television stations with the following facility identification 

numbers in the following geographic markets (collectively, the “King Forward Applications”): 

a. Facility ID:182289 (Gainesville, FL); 

b. Facility ID:182294 (Gainesville, FL); 

c. Facility ID:182301 (Gainesville, FL); 

d. Facility ID:182322 (Ocala, FL); 

e. Facility ID:182358 (Tallahassee, FL); 

f. Facility ID:182367 (Tallahassee, FL); 

g. Facility ID:182370 (Tallahassee, FL); 

h. Facility ID:182667 (Bowling Green, KY); 

i. Facility ID:182912 (Montgomery, AL); 

j. Facility ID:182914 (Montgomery, AL); 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 15 of 40
16 

k. Facility ID:182923 (Albany, GA); 

l. Facility ID:182927 (Valdosta, GA); and 

m. Facility ID:182928 (Valdosta, GA). 

65. Defendants further breached the Non-Compete Agreements by causing King 

Spectrum, after its reinstatement, to file with the FCC on January 30, 2020 amendments to 

several applications for construction permits relating to television stations with the following 

facility identification numbers in the following geographic markets (collectively, the “King 

Spectrum Applications”): 

a. Facility ID:181941 (Evansville, IN); 

b. Facility ID:181944 (Evansville, IN); 

c. Facility ID:181947 (Evansville, IN); 

d. Facility ID:182067 (Santa Barbara, CA); 

e. Facility ID:182277 (Sebastian, FL); 

f. Facility ID:182349 (Athens, GA); and 

g. Facility ID:182356 (Athens, GA). 

66. Defendants further breached the Non-Compete Agreements by causing Tiger Eye 

to file with the FCC on January 30, 2020 amendments to two applications for construction 

permits relating to television stations with facility identification numbers 181937 and 181948 in 

the Evansville, Indiana market (the “Tiger Eye Applications” and, collectively with the King 

Forward Applications and the King Spectrum Applications, the “Amended Applications”). 

67. Defendants further breached the Non-Compete Agreements by procuring from the 

FCC, as recently as yesterday, approval of several of the applications listed above, granting 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 16 of 40
17 

permits allowing the construction of the following new television stations (collectively, the 

“2020 Construction Permits”): 

a. Call sign W19EW-D (Evansville, IN), granting King Spectrum’s 

application for Facility ID 181944; 

b. Call sign W06DG-D (Evansville, IN), granting King Spectrum’s 

application for Facility ID 181947; 

c. Call sign W15EO-D (Sebastian, FL), granting King Spectrum’s 

application for Facility ID 182277; 

d. Call sign W28EZ-D (Gainesville, FL), granting King Forward’s 

application for Facility ID 182289; 

e. Call sign W18FA-D (Gainesville, FL), granting King Forward’s 

application for Facility ID 182294; 

f. Call sign W19EX-D (Gainesville, FL), granting King Forward’s 

application for Facility ID 182301; 

g. Call sign W17EK-D (Ocala, FL), granting King Forward’s application for 

Facility ID 182322; 

h. Call sign W04DX-D (Tallahassee, FL), granting King Forward’s 

application for Facility ID 182358; 

i. Call sign W13DT-D (Montgomery, AL), granting King Forward’s 

application for Facility ID 182912; and 

j. Call sign W26FJ-D (Valdosta, GA), granting King Forward’s application 

for Facility ID 182927. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 17 of 40
18 

68. Defendants’ filing of the Amended Applications and procurement of the 2020 

Construction Permits occurred less than three years into the Non-Compete Agreements’ 

four-year terms and clearly fell within the Non-Compete Agreements’ definition of the Business 

of the Company. 

69. Defendants’ actions with respect to the Amended Applications and 2020 

Construction Permits breach the Non-Compete Agreements by competing directly with Plaintiffs 

in geographic Designated Market Areas (“DMAs”) in which Plaintiffs are already engaged in the 

Business of the Company as defined in the Non-Compete Agreements. Maps depicting the 

substantial geographic overlaps between the broadcast contours of Plaintiffs’ existing holdings in 

the relevant DMAs in Florida, Georgia, California, Indiana, Kentucky, and Alabama (depicted in 

black) and the broadcast contours of Defendants’ 2020 Construction Permits and the Amended 

Applications (depicted in red) are attached hereto as Exhibits 7–15: 

a. Exhibit 7 depicts the overlaps between the broadcast contours of King 

Forward’s construction permits and Plaintiffs’ existing holdings in the vicinities of Gainesville, 

Florida and Ocala, Florida. 

b. Exhibit 8 depicts the overlaps between the broadcast contours of King 

Forward’s construction permits and still-pending applications and Plaintiffs’ existing holdings in 

the vicinity of Montgomery, Alabama. 

c. Exhibit 9 depicts the overlaps between the broadcast contours of King 

Spectrum’s construction permits, King Spectrum and Tiger Eye’s still-pending applications, and 

Plaintiffs’ existing holdings in the vicinity of Evansville, Indiana. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 18 of 40
19 

d. Exhibit 10 depicts the overlap between the broadcast contours of King 

Spectrum’s construction permit and Plaintiffs’ existing holdings in the vicinity of Sebastian, 

Florida. 

e. Exhibit 11 depicts the overlap between the broadcast contours of King 

Forward’s construction permit and still-pending applications and Plaintiffs’ existing holdings in 

the vicinity of Tallahassee, Florida. 

f. Exhibit 12 depicts the overlap between the broadcast contours of King 

Forward’s still-pending application and Plaintiffs’ existing holdings in the vicinity of Bowling 

Green, Kentucky. 

g. Exhibit 13 depicts the overlap between the broadcast contours of King 

Forward’s still-pending application and Plaintiffs’ existing holdings in the vicinity of Albany, 

Georgia. 

h. Exhibit 14 depicts the overlap between the broadcast contours of King 

Spectrum’s still-pending application and Plaintiffs’ existing holdings in the vicinity of Santa 

Barbara, California. 

i. Exhibit 15 depicts the overlap between the broadcast contours of King 

Spectrum’s still-pending applications and Plaintiffs’ existing holdings in the vicinity of Athens, 

Georgia. 

70. Kyle, King Forward, and the Bruni Defendants acknowledged in the 

Non-Compete Agreements that DTV is engaged in the business of operating and building a 

wireless distribution platform covering select DMAs, including by acquiring low power 

television broadcast licenses and construction permits and launching new low power television 

stations in the United States using such broadcast licenses and construction permits. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 19 of 40
20 

71. Defendants’ intimate knowledge of the U.S. broadcast television business based 

on their prior ownership and operation of the television stations, licenses, construction permits, 

and applications acquired by Plaintiffs, combined with the Confidential Information that Kyle, 

King Forward, and the Bruni Defendants gained during their service as exclusive consultants to 

Plaintiffs, position Defendants to damage Plaintiffs’ business imminently and irreparably by 

competing directly with Plaintiffs in the Business of the Company, as defined in the NonCompete Agreements, in DMAs in which Plaintiffs are already operating. 

COUNT I (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT) (¶¶ 72–77) 

AGAINST KYLE DEFENDANTS AND TIGER EYE LICENSING 

72. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if fully 

set forth herein. 

73. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2201, Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and Florida Statutes Section 86.021, Plaintiffs respectfully demand confirmation and 

findings of the validity of the Kyle Non-Compete Agreement and seek to obtain a declaration of 

their rights against Defendants thereunder, both as a result of Defendants’ alleged breaches 

thereof and by way of anticipation with respect to any acts not yet done by Defendants in breach 

thereof, specifically for this Court to determine the date the tolling of the non-competition 

provisions began, and to interpret the effect of Defendants’ multiple breaches alleged herein on 

the tolling period. 

74. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 86.091, Defendants Kyle, King Forward, 

King Spectrum, Tiger Eye, and Tiger Eye Licensing are all proper parties to this claim for 

declaratory judgment because, on information and belief, each of them has an interest which 

would be affected by the declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs seek. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 20 of 40
21 

75. The Kyle Non-Compete Agreement is a valid restraint of trade or commerce 

under Florida Statutes Section 542.335. 

76. The Kyle Non-Compete Agreement is a valid written contract signed by Kyle on 

behalf of himself, King Forward, and their respective successors and assigns. 

77. The restrictions in the Kyle Non-Compete Agreement are reasonable in time, 

area, and line of business and are supported by adequate consideration and justified by Plaintiffs’ 

legitimate business interests, including without limitation protecting Plaintiffs’ confidential 

business information and protecting Plaintiffs’ customer goodwill. 

COUNT II (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF) (¶¶ 78–90) 

AGAINST KYLE DEFENDANTS AND TIGER EYE LICENSING 

78. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if fully 

set forth herein. 

79. Plaintiffs respectfully request, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, that this Court issue the preliminary and permanent injunctions set forth in Plaintiffs’ 

Prayer for Relief below. 

80. The allegations in this Complaint fulfill each of the prerequisites for the 

preliminary injunction that Plaintiffs seek. 

81. Defendants’ actions caused—and will, if not enjoined, continue to cause—

immediate and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs’ business. 

82. Unless Defendants and any affiliated individuals and entities in active concert or 

participation with them are enjoined against further violation of the Kyle Non-Compete 

Agreement, Plaintiffs will continue to suffer irreparable injury and harm in the form of, without 

limitation and for example: 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 21 of 40
22 

a. Use and disclosure of Plaintiffs’ Confidential Information by Defendants 

and their affiliates to compete, unfairly and directly, with Plaintiffs in DMAs in which Plaintiffs 

are already operating or intend to launch operations pursuant to their plans to launch dozens of 

new television stations across the United States; 

b. Present economic loss, which is unascertainable at this time, and future 

economic loss, which is incalculable at this time; and 

c. Loss of customer goodwill, damage to customer relationships, loss of 

market position and reputation, both in the DMAs in which Plaintiffs currently operate and in the 

broadcast television industry generally, and damage to the competitive advantage that Plaintiffs 

sought to gain through the transactions and consulting services Plaintiffs procured with the APA, 

the Consulting Agreements, and the Non-Compete Agreements. 

83. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 542.335(j), “[t]he violation of an enforceable 

restrictive covenant creates a presumption of irreparable injury to the person seeking 

enforcement of a restrictive covenant.” 

84. Moreover, in the Kyle Non-Compete Agreement, Kyle and King Forward 

expressly agreed: 

Accordingly, each of the Restricted Parties agrees that if such Restricted Party 

breaches or threatens to breach any of the promises contained in this Agreement, 

[Plaintiff] shall, in addition to all other remedies it may have (including monetary 

remedies), be entitled to seek injunction and/or equitable relief, on a temporary or 

permanent basis, to restrain any such breach or threatened breach without 

showing or proving any actual damage to [Plaintiff]. 

85. The balance of equities weighs in favor of Plaintiffs because the injuries and 

threatened injuries to Plaintiffs alleged herein outweigh any harm that the injunctive relief 

Plaintiffs seek would pose to Defendants. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 22 of 40
23 

86. Plaintiffs currently have no adequate remedy at law for the irreparable injuries 

alleged herein as it relates to the injunctive relief sought. 

87. Public interest supports enforcement of contracts such as the Kyle Non-Compete 

Agreement, which is not overly broad, overly long, or otherwise unreasonable, according to their 

express terms. 

88. Facts alleged in this Complaint demonstrate Plaintiffs have a substantial 

likelihood of prevailing on the merits of this cause of action at trial. 

89. In light of the foregoing, including in particular Kyle and King Forward’s express 

acknowledgment in the Kyle Non-Compete Agreement of Plaintiffs’ entitlement to injunctive 

relief, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court waive Plaintiffs’ obligation under Rule 65(c) 

to post a bond or, in the alternative, require Plaintiffs to post a bond in only a nominal amount. 

90. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 86.081, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the 

Court award Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs for this action, and further request a hearing 

at the earliest possible time. 

COUNT III (FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT) (¶¶ 91–103) 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

91. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if fully 

set forth herein. 

92. Defendants knowingly and voluntarily entered into the Agreements. 

93. In negotiating the Agreements, Defendants misrepresented their then-present 

intention to continue engaging in competitive and other activities to Plaintiffs’ detriment both in 

advance of and after execution of the Agreements, and within the four-year terms of the 

Non-Compete Agreements. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 23 of 40
24 

94. On information and belief, in negotiating the Agreements, Defendants 

misrepresented the status of certain then-pending construction permit applications and their thenpresent intentions with respect to such applications. 

95. Specifically, on information and belief, Defendants misrepresented their 

ownership, control, and/or ability to sell or procure the authority to sell certain then-pending 

construction permit applications, including without limitation the King Forward Applications, 

the King Spectrum Applications, and the Tiger Eye Applications, in connection with the 

transaction embodied in the Agreements in order to induce Plaintiffs to agree to exclude such 

applications from acquisition pursuant to the APA. 

96. On information and belief, the Kyle Defendants conspired and worked in concert 

with Tiger Eye Licensing and the Bruni Defendants in making the foregoing misrepresentations 

to Plaintiffs and concealing their true intentions to (i) gain valuable confidential information 

about Plaintiffs through the Consulting Agreements and Non-Compete Agreements and (ii) use 

the permit applications that they fraudulently induced Plaintiffs not to acquire, including without 

limitation the King Forward Applications, the King Spectrum Applications, and the Tiger Eye 

Applications, for the purpose of directly and/or indirectly competing with Plaintiffs during the 

terms of the Non-Compete Agreements. 

97. On information and belief, Defendants knew that the foregoing representations 

made to Plaintiffs were false and that Defendants intended, notwithstanding the clear terms of 

the Non-Compete Agreements, to use the permit applications not acquired by Plaintiffs, 

including without limitation the King Forward Applications, the King Spectrum Applications, 

and the Tiger Eye Applications, to compete with Plaintiffs directly and/or indirectly during the 

terms of the Non-Compete Agreements. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 24 of 40
25 

98. Defendants also intended to continue funding the expenses of King Forward, 

which is now competing against Plaintiffs in breach of the Kyle Non-Compete Agreement, at 

Plaintiffs’ expense, as demonstrated by the fact that Kyle continued to cause DTV to fund such 

expenses after the Agreements were executed. 

99. On information and belief, Defendants knew that the Non-Compete Agreements 

were material terms of the APA, and integral to their respective Consulting Agreements and 

Stock Award Agreements, and that Plaintiffs would not have entered into the Agreements had 

they been aware of the truth regarding the permit applications excluded from acquisition 

pursuant to the Agreements and Defendants’ true intentions with respect to those permit 

applications and the confidential information gained pursuant to the Consulting Agreements. 

100. On information and belief, Defendants intentionally deceived Plaintiffs to enter 

into the respective Non-Compete Agreements and Consulting Agreements for the expressly 

prohibited purpose of acquiring confidential information to compete directly and/or indirectly 

with Plaintiffs. 

101. Defendants’ efforts to conceal, encrypt, and/or destroy historical data concerning 

their business activities, including financial records of assets that Plaintiffs purchased pursuant to 

the APA, demonstrate that Defendants acted with deliberate intent to conceal material 

information from Plaintiffs in connection with the transaction embodied in the Agreements. 

102. The misrepresentations alleged herein injured Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs 

reasonably relied upon these misrepresentations. Had Plaintiffs known these representations 

were false, Plaintiffs would not have entered into the Consulting Agreements, compensated King 

Forward or Bella Spectra pursuant to the Consulting Agreements or Stock Award Agreements, or 

shared confidential information with Kyle, King Forward, or the Bruni Defendants. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 25 of 40
26 

103. Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer substantial damages as a result of their 

reasonable reliance on Defendants’ multiple false representations, including without limitation 

and for example: 

a. Defendants’ unfair competitive advantage arising from confidential 

information shared by Plaintiffs; 

b. Monies paid to King Forward and Bella Spectra under the Consulting 

Agreements; 

c. Grossly inaccurate valuation of the assets acquired pursuant to the APA, 

resulting in substantial overpayment for those assets; 

d. Loss of customer goodwill; 

e. Loss of profits; 

f. Loss of revenue; and 

g. Loss of market share. 

COUNT IV (BAD FAITH) (¶¶ 104–08) 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

104. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if fully 

set forth herein. 

105. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 671.203, Defendants Kyle and King Forward 

failed to negotiate in good faith when contemplating, executing, and failing to perform under the 

Kyle Non-Compete Agreement. 

106. On information and belief, Defendants conspired and worked in concert with one 

another when they entered into the Agreements with the intentions to: 

a. Induce HC2 to enter into the APA; 

b. Induce DTV to enter into the Consulting Agreements; 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 26 of 40
27 

c. Obtain confidential information about Plaintiffs’ business; and 

d. Use the confidential information received pursuant to the Consulting 

Agreements to compete directly and/or indirectly with Plaintiffs during the terms of the NonCompete Agreements. 

107. On information and belief, Defendants conspired and worked in concert with one 

another to induce DTV to enter into the Non-Compete Agreements while intending to violate the 

Non-Compete Agreements, failing to demonstrate good faith in the performance of the NonCompete Agreements. 

108. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages from Defendants for bad faith 

negotiations, including without limitation all profits lost due to Defendants’ actions alleged 

herein and other losses, expenditures, and costs incurred by Plaintiffs as a result of those actions. 

COUNT V (UNJUST ENRICHMENT) (¶¶ 109–12) 

AGAINST KING FORWARD AND BELLA SPECTRA 

109. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if fully 

set forth herein. 

110. Plaintiffs bring this count against Defendants King Forward and Bella Spectra 

pursuant to the common law prohibition against unjust enrichment. 

111. As a result of the conduct described herein, Plaintiffs paid King Forward and 

Bella Spectra funds to which they were not entitled under the Consulting Agreements and Stock 

Award Agreements. 

112. In equity and good conscience, Defendants King Forward and Bella Spectra 

should not be permitted to retain monies and stock awards wrongfully received from Plaintiffs. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 27 of 40
28 

COUNT VI (UNJUST ENRICHMENT) (¶¶ 113–16) 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

113. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if fully 

set forth herein. 

114. Plaintiffs bring this count against all Defendants pursuant to the common law 

prohibition against unjust enrichment. 

115. As a result of the conduct described herein, Plaintiffs paid for assets under the 

APA in substantial excess of what such assets were worth and Defendants were entitled to. 

116. In equity and good conscience, Defendants should not be permitted to retain 

monies wrongfully received from Plaintiffs. 

COUNT VII (BREACH OF KYLE NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT) (¶¶ 117–20) 

AGAINST KYLE AND KING FORWARD 

117. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if fully 

set forth herein. 

118. Defendants Kyle and King Forward knowingly and voluntarily entered into the 

Kyle Non-Compete Agreement. 

119. Kyle and King Forward’s actions described in this Complaint violated the 

reasonable restrictions of the Kyle Non-Compete Agreement and injured Plaintiffs. 

120. To the extent Defendants’ actions are not enjoined, Plaintiffs are entitled to 

recover damages from Kyle and King Forward for their breaches of the Kyle Non-Compete 

Agreement in an amount to be proven at trial, including without limitation all profits lost due to 

Defendants’ actions and other losses, expenditures, and costs incurred by Plaintiffs as a result of 

those actions. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 28 of 40
29 

COUNT VIII (BREACH OF BRUNI NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT) (¶¶ 121–24) 

AGAINST BRUNI DEFENDANTS 

121. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if fully 

set forth herein. 

122. Defendants Bruni and Bella Spectra knowingly and voluntarily entered into the 

Bruni Non-Compete Agreement. 

123. Bruni and Bella Spectra’s actions described in this Complaint violated the 

reasonable restrictions of the Bruni Non-Compete Agreement and injured Plaintiffs. 

124. To the extent Defendants’ actions are not enjoined, Plaintiffs are entitled to 

recover damages from the Bruni Defendants for their breaches of the Bruni Non-Compete 

Agreement in an amount to be proven at trial, including without limitation all profits lost due to 

Defendants’ actions and other losses, expenditures, and costs incurred by Plaintiffs as a result of 

those actions. 

COUNT IX (BREACH OF KYLE CONSULTING AGREEMENT) (¶¶ 125–28) 

AGAINST KYLE AND KING FORWARD 

125. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if fully 

set forth herein. 

126. Defendants Kyle and King Forward knowingly and voluntarily entered into the 

Kyle Consulting Agreement. 

127. Kyle and King Forward’s actions described in this Complaint violated their 

obligations to Plaintiffs under the Kyle Consulting Agreement and injured Plaintiffs. 

128. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages from Defendants for their breaches of 

the Kyle Consulting Agreement in an amount to be proven at trial, including without limitation 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 29 of 40
30 

all payments made under the Kyle Consulting Agreement, profits lost due to Defendants’ actions 

and other losses, expenditures, and costs incurred by Plaintiffs as a result of those actions. 

COUNT X (BREACH OF BRUNI CONSULTING AGREEMENT) (¶¶ 129–32) 

AGAINST BRUNI DEFENDANTS 

129. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if fully 

set forth herein. 

130. The Bruni Defendants knowingly and voluntarily entered into the Bruni 

Consulting Agreement. 

131. The Bruni Defendants’ actions described in this Complaint violated their 

obligations to Plaintiffs under the Bruni Consulting Agreement and injured Plaintiffs. 

132. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages from Defendants for their breaches of 

the Bruni Consulting Agreement in an amount to be proven at trial, including without limitation 

all payments made under the Bruni Consulting Agreement, profits lost due to Defendants’ 

actions and other losses, expenditures, and costs incurred by Plaintiffs as a result of those 

actions. 

COUNT XI (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT) (¶¶ 133–38) 

AGAINST BRUNI DEFENDANTS 

133. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if fully 

set forth herein. 

134. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2201, Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and Florida Statutes Section 86.021, Plaintiffs demand confirmation and findings of 

the validity of the Bruni Non-Compete Agreement and seek to obtain a declaration of their rights 

against the Bruni Defendants thereunder, both as a result of the conduct alleged herein and by 

way of anticipation with respect to any acts not yet done by the Bruni Defendants in breach 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 30 of 40
31 

thereof, specifically for this Court to determine the date the tolling of the non-competition 

provisions would begin and to interpret the effect of Defendants’ multiple breaches alleged 

herein on the tolling period. 

135. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 86.031 and 86.051, Plaintiffs may obtain this 

declaratory judgment before there has been any alleged breach of the Bruni Non-Compete 

Agreement, by way of anticipation with respect to any act not yet done, including any act done in 

active concert or participation with any of the Kyle Defendants or Tiger Eye Licensing. 

136. As alleged above on information and belief, Bruni is married to Kyle, and on 

information and belief, the Bruni Defendants have in the past conspired and acted in active 

concert or participation with the Kyle Defendants and Tiger Eye Licensing. 

137. The Bruni Non-Compete Agreement is a valid written contract signed by Bruni on 

behalf of herself, Bella Spectra, and their respective successors and assigns. 

138. The Bruni Non-Compete Agreement is substantially identical to the Kyle NonCompete Agreement and, thus, for all of the same reasons stated above with respect to the Kyle 

Non-Compete Agreement, is a valid restraint of trade or commerce under Florida Statutes 

Section 542.335. 

COUNT XII (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF) (¶¶ 139–44) 

AGAINST BRUNI DEFENDANTS 

139. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if fully 

set forth herein. 

140. The allegations in this Complaint fulfill each of the prerequisites for the 

preliminary injunction that Plaintiffs seek. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 31 of 40
32 

141. Plaintiffs respectfully request, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, that this Court issue the preliminary and permanent injunctions set forth in Plaintiffs’ 

Prayer for Relief below. 

142. On the basis of Plaintiffs’ requests above for preliminary and permanent 

injunctive relief and declaratory judgment, as well as DTV’s rights under the Bruni NonCompete Agreement, Plaintiffs further request, pursuant to Rule 65, that this Court include and 

bind the Bruni Defendants in the preliminary and permanent injunctions set forth in Plaintiffs’ 

Prayer for Belief below. 

143. In light of the foregoing, including in particular Bruni and Bella Spectra’s express 

acknowledgment in the Bruni Non-Compete Agreement of Plaintiffs’ entitlement to injunctive 

relief, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court waive Plaintiffs’ obligation to post a bond 

pursuant to Rule 65(c) or, in the alternative, require Plaintiffs to post a bond in only a nominal 

amount. 

144. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 86.081, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the 

Court award Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs and monetary damages for this action. 

COUNT XIII (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF) (¶¶ 145–49) 

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS 

145. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as if fully 

set forth herein. 

146. The allegations in this Complaint fulfill each of the prerequisites for the additional 

injunctive relief that Plaintiffs seek in this count. 

147. In light of the fact that Defendants willfully and deliberately concealed, 

encrypted, and/or destroyed financial records of assets that Plaintiffs purchased pursuant to the 

APA, Plaintiffs respectfully request, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 32 of 40
33 

that this Court issue the additional injunction set forth in Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief below, 

ordering all Defendants to immediately preserve a forensically sound copy of, and refrain from 

deleting, any data from any source, whether personal or company-owned, which was in use 

and/or existence from June 2016 through the present. 

148. In light of the foregoing, including in particular Kyle, King Spectrum, and the 

Bruni Defendants’ respective express acknowledgments in the Non-Compete Agreements of 

Plaintiffs’ entitlement to injunctive relief, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court waive 

Plaintiffs’ obligation to post a bond pursuant to Rule 65(c) or, in the alternative, require Plaintiffs 

to post a bond in only a nominal amount. 

149. Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 86.081, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the 

Court award Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs and monetary damages for this action. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs individually and collectively pray for relief and judgments, 

damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief against all Defendants, individually and 

collectively as alleged herein, as follows: 

A. Entry of an order temporarily enjoining John N. Kyle II and King Forward, Inc., 

individually or in concert with others, from violating the Kyle Non-Compete 

Agreement, including without limitation taking, or causing any other person or 

entity, including without limitation King Spectrum, L.L.C. f/k/a DTV America I, 

LLC, Tiger Eye Broadcasting Corporation d/b/a King Spectrum, L.L.C., Tiger 

Eye Licensing, L.L.C., Kristina C. Bruni, and Bella Spectra Corporation, to take, 

any of the following actions: 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 33 of 40
34 

• Selling, assigning, conveying, transferring, or otherwise disposing of 

construction permits relating to call signs K24OD-D, W19EW-D, 

W06DG-D, W15EO-D, W28EZ-D, W18FA-D, W19EX-D, W17EK-D, 

W13DT-D, W04DX-D, or W26FJ-D, or any interest in any of those 

construction permits or the applications for them, except to HC2 

Broadcasting Inc. or an affiliate of HC2 Broadcasting Inc. as designated in 

writing by HC2 Broadcasting Inc.; 

• Taking any action, or causing any other person or entity to take any action, 

to commence construction pursuant to construction permits relating to call 

signs K24OD-D, W19EW-D, W06DG-D, W15EO-D, W28EZ-D, 

W18FA-D, W19EX-D, W17EK-D, W13DT-D, W04DX-D, or W26FJ-D, 

except as may be separately authorized in writing by HC2 Broadcasting 

Inc.; 

• Selling, assigning, conveying, transferring, or otherwise disposing of the 

currently pending applications to the FCC for construction permits in 

connection with Facility IDs 182367 (Tallahassee, FL), 182370 

(Tallahassee, FL), 182667 (Bowling Green, KY), 182914 (Montgomery, 

AL), 182923 (Albany, GA), 182928 (Valdosta, GA), 181941 (Evansville, 

IN), 182067 (Santa Barbara, CA), 182349 (Athens, GA), 182356 (Athens, 

GA), 181937 (Evansville, IN), and 181948 (Evansville, IN), or any 

interest in any of those applications, except to HC2 Broadcasting Inc. or 

an affiliate of HC2 Broadcasting Inc. as designated in writing by HC2 

Broadcasting Inc.; 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 34 of 40
35 

• Taking any action, or causing any other person or entity to take any action, 

with respect to the currently pending applications to the FCC for 

construction permits in connection with Facility IDs 182367 (Tallahassee, 

FL), 182370 (Tallahassee, FL), 182667 (Bowling Green, KY), 182914 

(Montgomery, AL), 182923 (Albany, GA), 182928 (Valdosta, GA), 

181941 (Evansville, IN), 182067 (Santa Barbara, CA), 182349 (Athens, 

GA), 182356 (Athens, GA), 181937 (Evansville, IN), and 181948 

(Evansville, IN); 

• Taking any action, or causing any other person or entity to take any action, 

to commence construction pursuant to any construction permits that may 

be granted by the FCC in connection with the currently pending 

applications to the FCC for construction permits in connection with 

Facility IDs 182367 (Tallahassee, FL), 182370 (Tallahassee, FL), 182667 

(Bowling Green, KY), 182914 (Montgomery, AL), 182923 (Albany, GA), 

182928 (Valdosta, GA), 181941 (Evansville, IN), 182067 (Santa Barbara, 

CA), 182349 (Athens, GA), 182356 (Athens, GA), 181937 (Evansville, 

IN), and 181948 (Evansville, IN), except as may be separately authorized 

in writing by HC2 Broadcasting Inc.; 

• Taking any action, or causing or assisting any other person or entity to 

take any action, prior to November 9, 2021 to (i) engage in the business of 

owning and acquiring low power television broadcast licenses and 

construction permits across the United States, (ii) own, operate, or launch 

a low power television station, or (iii) develop technology to optimize the 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 35 of 40
36 

use of broadcast TV spectrum and the distribution of video content over a 

low power television broadcast distribution platform. 

B. Entry of an order permanently enjoining John N. Kyle II and King Forward, Inc. 

from further violating their Non-Compete Agreement, including without 

limitation taking, or causing any other person or entity, including without 

limitation King Spectrum, L.L.C. f/k/a DTV America I, LLC, Tiger Eye 

Broadcasting Corporation d/b/a King Spectrum, L.L.C., Tiger Eye Licensing, 

L.L.C., Kristina C. Bruni, and Bella Spectra Corporation, to take, any of the 

following actions: 

• Selling, assigning, conveying, transferring, or otherwise disposing of 

construction permits relating to call signs K24OD-D, W19EW-D, 

W06DG-D, W15EO-D, W28EZ-D, W18FA-D, W19EX-D, W17EK-D, 

W13DT-D, W04DX-D, or W26FJ-D, or any interest in any of those 

construction permits or the applications for them, except to HC2 

Broadcasting Inc. or an affiliate of HC2 Broadcasting Inc. as designated in 

writing by HC2 Broadcasting Inc.; 

• Taking any action, or causing any other person or entity to take any action, 

to commence construction pursuant to construction permits relating to call 

signs K24OD-D, W19EW-D, W06DG-D, W15EO-D, W28EZ-D, 

W18FA-D, W19EX-D, W17EK-D, W13DT-D, W04DX-D, or W26FJ-D, 

except as may be separately authorized in writing by HC2 Broadcasting 

Inc.; 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 36 of 40
37 

• Selling, assigning, conveying, transferring, or otherwise disposing of the 

currently pending applications to the FCC for construction permits in 

connection with Facility IDs 182367 (Tallahassee, FL), 182370 

(Tallahassee, FL), 182667 (Bowling Green, KY), 182914 (Montgomery, 

AL), 182923 (Albany, GA), 182928 (Valdosta, GA), 181941 (Evansville, 

IN), 182067 (Santa Barbara, CA), 182349 (Athens, GA), 182356 (Athens, 

GA), 181937 (Evansville, IN), and 181948 (Evansville, IN), or any 

interest in any of those applications, except to HC2 Broadcasting Inc. or 

an affiliate of HC2 Broadcasting Inc. as designated in writing by HC2 

Broadcasting Inc.; 

• Taking any action, or causing any other person or entity to take any action, 

with respect to the currently pending applications to the FCC for 

construction permits in connection with Facility IDs 182367 (Tallahassee, 

FL), 182370 (Tallahassee, FL), 182667 (Bowling Green, KY), 182914 

(Montgomery, AL), 182923 (Albany, GA), 182928 (Valdosta, GA), 

181941 (Evansville, IN), 182067 (Santa Barbara, CA), 182349 (Athens, 

GA), 182356 (Athens, GA), 181937 (Evansville, IN), and 181948 

(Evansville, IN); 

• Taking any action, or causing any other person or entity to take any action, 

to commence construction pursuant to any construction permits that may 

be granted by the FCC in connection with the currently pending 

applications to the FCC for construction permits in connection with 

Facility IDs 182367 (Tallahassee, FL), 182370 (Tallahassee, FL), 182667 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 37 of 40
38 

(Bowling Green, KY), 182914 (Montgomery, AL), 182923 (Albany, GA), 

182928 (Valdosta, GA), 181941 (Evansville, IN), 182067 (Santa Barbara, 

CA), 182349 (Athens, GA), 182356 (Athens, GA), 181937 (Evansville, 

IN), and 181948 (Evansville, IN), except as may be separately authorized 

in writing by HC2 Broadcasting Inc.; 

• Taking any action, or causing or assisting any other person or entity to 

take any action, prior to November 9, 2021 to (i) engage in the business of 

owning and acquiring low power television broadcast licenses and 

construction permits across the United States, (ii) own, operate, or launch 

a low power television station, or (iii) develop technology to optimize the 

use of broadcast TV spectrum and the distribution of video content over a 

low power television broadcast distribution platform. 

C. Entry of an order requiring all Defendants to immediately preserve a forensically 

sound copy of, and refrain from deleting, any data from any source, whether 

personal or company-owned, which was in use and/or existence from June 2016 

until the present. 

D. Awarding Plaintiffs damages in amounts to be proven at trial, including without 

limitation for all breaches of contract alleged herein, lost profits and other losses, 

expenditures, and costs incurred by Plaintiffs, monies paid to King Forward and 

Bella Spectra pursuant to the Consulting Agreements, stock awarded to King 

Forward and Bella Spectra pursuant to the Stock Award Agreements, 

overpayment for the assets acquired pursuant to the APA, diminution in the value 

of the assets and services purchased by Plaintiffs pursuant to the Agreements, 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 38 of 40
39 

losses of customer goodwill, revenue, and market share, and other present and 

future economic losses, presently estimated to exceed $1 million and continuing 

to accrue, as well as consequential damages, punitive damages, and pre- and 

post-judgment interest; 

E. Awarding Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs in this action pursuant to 

Florida Statutes Section 86.081, as the prevailing party in this action pursuant to 

Florida Statutes Section 542.335(k), pursuant to the fee-shifting indemnification 

provisions in the Consulting Agreements, and as may be appropriate under 

Florida Statutes Section 57.105; and 

F. Such further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

Dated: May 19, 2020 /s/ Edward R. Nicklaus 

Edward R. Nicklaus, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 138399 

Nicklaus & Associates, P.A. 

4651 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 200 

Coral Gables, Florida 33146 

(305) 460-9888 

(305) 460-9889 Facsimile 

edwardn@nicklauslaw.com 

HUTH REYNOLDS LLP 

Karl C. Huth (pro hac vice application forthcoming) 

New York Bar No. 4338851 

Matthew J. Reynolds (pro hac vice application 

forthcoming) 

New York Bar No. 4435202 

41 Cannon Court 

Huntington, NY 11743 

(212) 731-9333 

(646) 664-1512 (fax) 

huth@huthreynolds.com 

reynolds@huthreynolds.com 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 39 of 40
40 

Counsel for Plaintiffs DTV America Corporation 

and HC2 Broadcasting Inc. 

Case 0:20-cv-60995-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/19/2020 Page 40 of 40