1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

KANAYO DERHEM, )

) Case No.

Plaintiff, )

v. )

) COMPLAINT and JURY

) DEMAND

BAY HOUSE MIAMI CONDOMINIUM )

ASSOCIATION, CHARLES BRUMSTED, )

JR., SEAN ZAHNISER, MIKE DESIMONE )

JAMES PINKERT, JOSHUA PAUL, )

ALEJANDRO ENRIQUE UTRERA BADENES, )

JONATHAN FERREIRA, KW PROPERTY )

MANAGEMENT, LLC, and JOSE VIDAL )

)

Defendants. )

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is an action by Plaintiff Kanayo Derhem pursuant to (1) the Fair Housing Act of 1968, 

42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. (“FHA”), including (a) housing discrimination based on race and 

gender, including sex stereotyping, gender identity, gender expression and gender nonconformity, and (b) retaliation for housing discrimination complaints; (2) the Civil Rights Act 

of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, including (a) 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (contract 

discrimination), 42 U.S.C. § 1982 (property discrimination), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights 

discrimination), 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (conspiracy to discriminate), 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (neglect to 

prevent conspiracy to discriminate); (3) supplemental claims under the Florida Civil Rights 

Act, Fl. St. § 760.01, et seq. (“FCRA”); (4) supplemental claims under the Florida 

Condominium Act, Fl. St. § 718.101 et seq., et seq. (“Condo Act”); and (5) supplemental 

claims under state common law, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and 

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 1 of 45
2

misrepresentation. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to end the harassment and 

discrimination, in addition to compensatory and punitive damages, and other available relief.

II. PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Kanayo Derhem is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Dade 

County, Florida.

3. Defendant Bay House Miami Condominium Association, Inc. (“BHMCA”) is a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the law of the State of Florida with its 

principal address at 600 NE 27th Street, Miami, Florida 33137. 

4. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an owner and resident of unit #2605 (the “Unit”)

in the residential development owned and operated by Defendant BHMCA at 600 NE 27th Street, 

Miami, Florida 33137 (the “Development”).

5. KW Property Management, LLC (“KWPM”), with corporate headquarters at 8200 NW 

33rd Street, Suite 300, Miami, Florida 33122, was a property manager hired by BHMCA to manage 

the property during relevant times until approximately January 1, 2020.

6. The defendants listed below shall be known as the “Individual Defendants” collectively.

7. Mr. Charles Brumsted, Jr. is and has always been at all relevant times the President of the 

Board of Directors for Defendant BHMCA.

8. Sean Zahniser is and has always been at all relevant times the Treasurer of the Board of 

Directors for Defendant BHMCA.

9. Mike Desimone is and has always been at all relevant times the Secretary of the Board of 

Directors for Defendant BHMCA.

10. James Pinkert is and has been at all relevant times a member of the BHMCA 

Fining/Grievance Committee.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 2 of 45
3

11. Joshua Paul was a member of the BHMCA Fining/Grievance Committee at relevant times.

12. Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes was a member of the BHMCA Fining/Grievance

Committee at relevant times.

13. Jonathan Ferreira was a manager employed by BHMCA’s management company, Castle 

Management Co. since at least March of 2020.

14. Jose Vidal was a manager employed by BHMCA’s management company, KW Property 

Management, LLC until approximately February 1, 2020.

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

15. Plaintiff has taken all necessary steps to fulfill all conditions precedent to the 

commencement of this lawsuit.

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3613, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 

and 1343 in that this is a civil action seeking to redress the deprivation of the right to fair housing 

and equal protection secured to the Plaintiffs by the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Acts of 

1866 and 1871, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337 in that defendants’ unfair housing practices 

create a restraint on commerce; and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 for declaratory and 

injunctive relief.

17. The Court has jurisdiction of the state law supplemental claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1367, which arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts, circumstances, occurrences, 

witnesses and evidence, and are thereby so related to claims in the action within such original 

jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the 

United States Constitution, 

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 3 of 45
4

18. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) because all Defendants are residents of Florida and reside in the 

Southern District of Florida, and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise 

to the claim occurred in the Southern District of Florida.

V. FACTS

19. Plaintiff is a female citizen of the United States Of America.

20. Plaintiff has a female gender identity.

21. Plaintiff has a feminine gender expression.

22. Plaintiff is a woman who is transgender.

23. Plaintiff is Black and is of African and African-American descent.

A. Sex, Gender, Gender Expression, and Gender Identity

24. Sex is a term that includes gender, gender expression, and gender identity within its 

meaning.

25. Sex stereotyping refers to the application by an employer of stereotypes related to sex to 

restrict, disparage, or discriminate on the basis of an employee’s gender expression or identity.

26. Gender refers to cultural expectations specific to the sexes.

27. Gender expression refers to a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior, whether 

or not stereotypically associated with the person’s sex assigned at birth.

28. Gender identity refers to a person’s internal sense of sex, being male, female, or other.

29. Gender identity is intractably rooted at a very early age and cannot be changed.

30. Transgender individuals are people who have a gender identity that does not match the sex 

they were assigned at birth.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 4 of 45
5

31. Gender transition. Transgender individuals often seek out legal, social, and medical means 

of aligning external manifestations of their sex and gender with their gender identity. This process 

is colloquially known as gender transition or transition.

32. Discrimination against transgender people for being transgender is based on their sex, sex 

stereotyping, gender, gender expression, gender identity, or gender transition.

33. Gender dysphoria is the formal diagnosis used by physicians and psychologists to describe 

people who experience significant distress with the sex they were assigned at birth.

34. Gender dysphoria is found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 

Fifth Edition of the American Psychiatric Association.

35. Based on many scientific studies during the past two decades, gender dysphoria has been 

identified as resulting from a physiological condition of the brain and neurological system.

36. Scientific studies have shown that transgender persons have brain structures that are typical 

of non-transgender people with the same gender identity. For example, transgender women (i.e., 

individuals whose sex assigned at birth is male but who have female gender identity) have brain 

structures that are similar to those of non-transgender women.

37. It is appropriate to refer to a transgender woman who has transitioned with female titles, 

honorifics (e.g., Miss, Ms., or Mrs.), and pronouns (e.g., her, hers, and she).

B. Discrimination in Housing

Discrimination in Purchase of Condominium

38. Plaintiff purchased condominium unit #2605 (the “Unit”) at Defendant 

BHMCA’s Development in February 2019.

39. The Development is a condominium building with 168 individual units, including the Unit 

occupied by the Plaintiff.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 5 of 45
6

40. The Development features a number of amenities available for use of the residents, 

including a swimming pool, a hot tub, a grill, a sun terrace, a fitness center, a business center, a 

media/ theatre room and other recreation areas (collectively, the “Amenities”).

41. The Development also contains a number of common areas which are necessary to access 

in order to gain access to the unit: such as hallways, elevators, stairways, a lobby and a parking 

garage (collectively, “the Common Areas”).

42. The Development employs a number of staff, including a valet service and a 24-hour 

concierge service.

43. The Unit is a three-bedroom apartment of approximately 1677 interior square feet and two 

terraces measuring a combined 296 square feet.

44. The Unit is on the 26th floor of the Development.

45. The Unit is a dwelling, as defined within the FHA.

46. Defendant BHMCA was aware of Plaintiff’s race, sex, gender, gender identity, gender 

expression and gender non-conformity as a result of readily available public information regarding 

Plaintiff and the extensive background checks performed by Defendant in her purchase of the 

Unit.

47. In the process of closing, Defendant BHMCA failed and refused to approve Plaintiff’s 

application in a reasonable amount of time, and without offering a legitimate, non-discriminatory 

reason for delays.

48. On information and belief, other applicants similarly situated to Plaintiff, BHMCA 

approved their applications in less time. 

49. Plaintiff and her closing attorney made numerous attempts to contact Defendant BHMCA 

and Mr. Brumsted

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 6 of 45
7

50. Mr. Brumsted did not return phone calls or emails, provided no information about his 

whereabouts or alternate persons to contact in his absence.

51. Upon information and belief, this was a deliberate effort to dissuade and prevent Plaintiff 

from proceeding with the closing based upon her race, sex, gender and disability.

52. Mr. Brumsted’s personal purpose for engaging in such actions were to indulge his personal 

prejudices against Plaintiff’s race, gender and perceived disability, and to protect what he 

perceived to be a threat to his personal property values based on prejudice.

53. Defendant BHMCA and KWPM were aware of these actions, and tolerated, participated 

in, condoned and ratified Brumsted’s actions.

54. Mr. Brumsted approved the closing only after direct contact from Plaintiff’s attorney, Jodi 

Strang, on the morning of February 12, 2019. In her contact, Strang advised of the planned filing 

of an anti-discrimination lawsuit based if Defendant BHMCA failed to respond to Plaintiff. As a 

result, Mr. Brumsted reluctantly met with Plaintiff that same afternoon.

Discriminatory Comments and Actions by Mr. Brumsted towards Plaintiff

55. Mr. Brumsted has demonstrated continued hostility against Plaintiff on the basis of 

her race and gender, and perceived handicap.

56. At the meeting arranged by Plaintiff’s attorney on the afternoon of February 12, 2019, 

Mr. Brumsted asked Plaintiff in a brusque manner designed and intended to humiliate her 

“Can you have kids?” He also restated at this time, “this is a family-oriented building,”

implying that Plaintiff’s presence was offensive to families with children. 

57. This was a reference to Plaintiff’s sex and gender, as Mr. Brumsted was seeking to 

verify whether Plaintiff was assigned female at birth.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 7 of 45
8

58. On December 11, 2019, Mr. Brumsted made a comment referencing Plaintiff, while 

she and others were standing nearby in the lobby, that “the elevator is taking too long, why 

doesn’t she go and report that as discrimination...”

59. The import of this remark was to indicate that Plaintiff had made complaints of 

discrimination, and that such complaints were as ill-founded as a discrimination complaint 

against the elevator would be. The intent of the remark was to humiliate Plaintiff because of 

her discrimination complaints and to dissuade her from making further complaints.

60. Michael Brown, a new owner who is also black, witnessed this event. Mr. Brown was 

speaking with the Plaintiff at the time of the event.

61. In regard to Mr. Brown, Mr. Brumsted asked Plaintiff: “Is this another one of your 

illegal Airbnb’s, your illegal renters?”

62. The import of this question was to assert that the Plaintiff’s meeting and association 

with Mr. Brown was a violation of the condominium’s bylaws, and that Mr. Brown’s presence 

in the building was therefore illegal. The design and intent of the remark was to humiliate 

Plaintiff because of her race, her association with another Black person, and her 

discrimination complaints, to dissuade her from making further complaints, and to suggest to 

a third party that she was engaged in criminal, illegal and unsavory behavior.

63. Plaintiff explained that Mr. Brown was a new owner, with whom he had previously 

met.

64. Mr. Brumsted stated that he had not recognized Mr. Brown and apologized to him.

65. On or around December 11, 2019, and again on December 21, 2019, Mr. Brumsted 

stated to Plaintiff in the presence of others that she is “a disgrace to the building”.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 8 of 45
9

66. On or around December 12, 2019, Mr. Brumsted referred to Plaintiff as a “monkey” 

following a meeting of the condominium’s Grievance Committee.

67. Plaintiff was not allowed to speak to dispute the fines brought against her.

68. “Monkey” and other comparisons to primates is a well-known racial slur denigrating 

the humanity of Black people.

69. Mr. Brumsted intended to denigrate and humiliate Plaintiff by means of this remark, 

and to improperly influence the Grievance Committee to implement discriminatory fines

against Plaintiff .

70. Mr. Brumsted also made comments and took actions designed and intended to make 

life at BHMCA difficult for Plaintiff because of his animus based on race, gender and 

disability. For example, he told Plaintiff "you are not allowed to have roommates," but stated 

that he aided a neighbor not in Ms. Derhem’s protected categories in his official capacity to 

have roommates because he "likes those guys."

71. BHMCA was aware of and perpetuated, condoned and/or ratified Mr. Brumsted’s 

pattern of discriminatory conduct, despite repeated specific complaints to BHMCA.

72. The other Individual Defendants were aware of and perpetuated, condoned and/or 

ratified Mr. Brumsted’s pattern of discriminatory conduct, despite repeated specific 

complaints of which they were aware

Discriminatory Comments and Actions by Mr. Vidal towards Plaintiff

73. Mr. Jose Vidal, a manager employed by BHMCA’s management company, working 

on location at BHMCA, has demonstrated continued hostility against Plaintiff on the basis 

of her race, gender, and perceived handicap.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 9 of 45
10

74. For example he wrote a text message regarding Plaintiff that he sent to her guest, 

stating regarding Plaintiff: “I try to avoid her at all cost” and “my staff dislikes her."

75. Plaintiff’s guest advised Plaintiff that Mr. Vidal, Mr. Brumsted and the association’s 

attorney had said to the guest that they intended to “get you,” referring to Plaintiff, and 

intended “to take your home,” referring to taking damaging actions against Plaintiff. 

76. When Plaintiff asked him a question in his office, Mr. Vidal yelled and cursed at 

her, and called the police to have her forcibly removed.

77. Mr. Vidal was told by the police that this was not a legitimate reason to call the 

police.

78. Mr. Vidal showed Plaintiff a picture of her that he had researched on the internet 

prior to her gender transition, of which Plaintiff was unaware, and indicated by facial 

expression, body language and gestures that he was calling into question her femininity.

79. Additionally, Mr. Vidal instructed his staff to harass the Plaintiff and her guests.

80. He encouraged his staff to disrespect the Plaintiff and to refuse her services.

81. He attempted to interfere with her ability to stand for election as a Board member, 

including failing to mail the Plaintiff’s board election registration form, and ignoring her 

requests for vital information regarding elections.

82. Mr. Vidal’s personal purpose for engaging in such actions was to indulge his personal 

prejudices against Plaintiff’s race, gender and perceived disability and to fulfill Mr. Brumsted, 

BHMCA and defendant’s directives.

83. Defendant BHMCA was aware of these actions and tolerated, participated in, condoned 

and ratified Brumsted’s actions.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 10 of 45
11

84. KWPM was aware of and perpetuated, condoned and/or ratified Mr. Vidal’s pattern 

of discriminatory conduct, despite repeated specific complaints to KWPM.

85. The other Individual Defendants were aware of, perpetuated, condoned and/or 

ratified Mr. Vidal’s pattern of discriminatory conduct, despite repeated specific complaints 

of which they were aware

Misuse of Violations System Targeting Plaintiff

87. In or about July or August 2019, Plaintiff’s reasonable access to her Unit and the 

Amenities were denied, through deactivation by BHMCA and Defendants Brumsted, 

Zahniser and Desimone, of the fob key issued to her as an owner, without good reason or 

justification, in violation of Defendant BHMCA’s Rules & Regulations and in derogation of 

her rights as an owner of a unit.

88. Plaintiff contacted management to determine the grounds for this denial of access and 

was refused any explanation. 

89. Given the erratic and discriminatory behavior of Mr. Brumsted, Mr. Zahniser and Mr. 

Desimone, Plaintiff decided that it would be in the best interests of the condominium owners, 

if she were to run for election to the Board of Directors.

90. Plaintiff filed documents on October 17, 2019, with the condominium in preparation 

for her run for the Board.

91. Plaintiff emailed Mr. Vidal and Mr. Brumsted requesting information about how to 

run for the Board. Those emails went unanswered. 

92. Mr. Vidal and Mr. Brumsted attempted to thwart Plaintiff’s board candidacy, ignoring 

her emails, failing to mail the Plaintiff’s board election registration form, and by changing 

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 11 of 45
12

Plaintiff’s name on the ballot so as to misrepresent Plaintiff's name and confuse voters by 

using her maiden name.

93. The rules of the Development stipulate that an individual cannot run for Board of 

Directors if they have unpaid fines for violations.

94. Plaintiff was later informed that, at a meeting of the Board of Directors on October 

22, 2019, Mr. Brumsted, Mr. Zahniser and Mr. Desimone approved $2100 in fines against 

Plaintiff.

95. The rules of the Development stipulate that denial of access cannot occur until 90 days 

of delinquency have passed.

96. On December 28, 2019, Sara Lopera, acting on behalf of BHMCA and KWPM, 

blocked Plaintiff’s access to the condo unit, parking garage, front door, all doors and 

amenities. They did this by deactivating her key fob.

97. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to walk down the stairs to exit.

98. She left the building and used the callbox to ask the front desk to let her in. The front 

desk refused to let her in to access the elevator. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to climb 26 

stories to her unit.

99. 90 days of delinquency had not yet passed at the time that reasonable access to her 

Unit and the Amenities was denied by deactivation of her fob key.

100. The fines were imposed without a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.

101. The reason the fines were imposed was for the purpose of discrimination against 

Plaintiff based on race, sex and disability, and in advancement of their scheme to discriminate 

against the Plaintiff, to implement fines as leverage toward a potential foreclosure proceeding 

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 12 of 45
13

and to gain possession of her unit in foreclosure, as well as to block her from running for a 

Board position.

102. In order to regain access to her Unit and the Amenities, Plaintiff was forced to pay 

these discriminatory fines that were imposed with discriminatory intent.

103. On December 16, 2019, five days after she filed documents with the condominium in 

preparation for her run for the Board, Plaintiff received four letters from Defendant Jose Vidal 

imposing fines for various alleged violations and advising her to appear before the 

Fining/Grievance Committee, consisting of Defendants Pinkert and Ms. Elizabeth Perez, for 

a hearing on December 30, 2019. 

104. These proposed fines were without merit, and known to Defendants to be without 

merit. 

105. For example, the first letter stated that she had received a proposed $100 fine “for 

attempting”.

106. It is unclear to what this referred.

107. Two of the letters charged her for having a dog without a leash in the elevator, for 

which a fine of $100 was sought.

108. Upon information and belief, Defendants first became aware of these incidents upon 

reviewing elevator video for the purpose of targeting the Plaintiff in an attempt to find 

violations with which they could charge Plaintiff so that she could not serve on the Board, 

and to make life at BHMCA hard for Plaintiff to advance their discriminatory scheme.

109. The first letter related to an incident in which Plaintiff’s dog unintentionally escaped 

the Unit and was retrieved without incident.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 13 of 45
14

110. The second letter related to an incident in which Plaintiff was not holding a leash due 

to a shoulder injury, for which she provided medical documentation to Defendants BHMCA 

and Brumsted.

111. Other residents, not in Plaintiff’s protected categories, have taken their dogs without 

a leash in the elevator and other Common Areas, of which Defendants were aware, and these 

residents were not charged with a violation.

112. Another letter imposed a $1000 fine on Plaintiff, alleging she had a minimum of ten 

violations for “having an unapproved person living in the unit for more than 21 days.”

113. This was patently untrue, because Plaintiff notified Defendant BHMCA of her guest’s 

visit on November 2, 2019 and notified them to add her to the guest list as an “approved 

guest.”

114. Plaintiff subsequently notified Defendant BHMCA on November 21, 2019 that her 

guest would be leaving on November 23, 2019 and returning on November 24 or 25.

115. Thus, Plaintiff’s guest was not an “unapproved guest.”

116. Defendant BHMCA had no reasonable basis on which to disapprove of Plaintiff’s 

guest. 

117. The alleged violations were all meritless, and were known to Defendants to be 

meritless.

118. The Committee, including Individual Defendants, prosecuted these meritless 

violations and imposed fines because of Plaintiff’s race, gender and perceived disability, and 

in retaliation for her complaints.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 14 of 45
15

119. Defendants engaged in a pattern of heightened scrutiny of Plaintiff in order to find 

violations not enforced against other owners not in Plaintiff’s protected categories, intended 

and designed to advance their discriminatory schemes.

120. Defendants imposed fines upon Plaintiff because of her protected categories and in 

retaliation for her discrimination complaints.

121. Defendant BHMCA engaged in selective prosecution based on the Plaintiff’s race, 

gender and perceived disability because Defendant was aware that other owners, not in 

Plaintiffs’ protected categories, had engaged in similar behavior but did not allege violations 

against those owners.

122. The alleged violations and proposed fines were lodged in order to disqualify Plaintiff 

for Board service, as well as to make her life at BHMCA as difficult as possible, because of 

her race, sex and disability and in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination.

123. Defendant BHMCA was aware of these actions, and tolerated, participated in, condoned 

and ratified the discriminatory actions.

124. KWPM was aware of and perpetuated, condoned and/or ratified this discriminatory 

conduct, despite repeated specific complaints to KWPM.

125. The other Individual Defendants were aware of, perpetuated, condoned and/or 

ratified this discriminatory conduct, despite repeated specific complaints of which they were 

aware.

Harassment Regarding Board Elections

126. Plaintiff ran for the Board of Directors in an election held on December 11, 2019.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 15 of 45
16

127. On December 6, 2019, Plaintiff received an anonymous email disparaging her, signed 

“BAY HOUSE OWNERS SINCE 2015” which was sent to several other neighbors in the 

building.

128. In this email, Plaintiff was falsely accused of being late on her condo dues and 

threatened with foreclosure.

129. Plaintiff was also falsely alleged to have been investigated by the police at the Unit.

130. Plaintiff was described as “not good for our values”, which was followed by the 

statement “Children live here.”

131. The references to “our values” and “children” were a reference to dislike for Plaintiff’s

sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression and gender non-conformity.

132. Plaintiff requested this individual to stop harassing her, and denied the false 

allegations.

133. In response, the anonymous owner referred to her as a “stalker,” which was a reference 

to alleged criminal activity.

134. The email then included a statement contrasting her behavior with the “professional 

and classy” behavior of Mr. Brumsted and the Board of Directors, which was a reference to 

Plaintiff as unprofessional and déclassé.

135. Plaintiff found these emails unwelcome and offensive based on her race and gender, 

as well as physically threatening, creating fear for her physical safety and emotional distress.

136. Plaintiff notified Defendants Brumsted and Defendant Vidal and Defendant BHMCA 

of these emails.

137. These Defendants did not take prompt and effective action to stop this harassments.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 16 of 45
17

138. Upon information and belief, these Defendants supplied the emails to the BHMCA 

community. 

139. Plaintiff reasonably believed these false allegations were intended to threaten her and 

to dissuade her from standing for election and to dissuade others from supporting her.

140. As a result, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s family feared for her safety and for the safety of 

her guests.

Discriminatory Treatment of Plaintiff’s Guests and Family Members

141. On December 21, 2019, Sara, a member of BHMCA staff at the front desk not in Plaintiff’s 

protected categories, refused to serve Plaintiff, and stated “we don’t provide concierge services to 

you.”

142. This reference to “concierge service” was a reference to the fact that the BHMCA staff was 

unwilling to serve Plaintiff because of her race and sex and because she had made discrimination 

and safety complaints.

143. On December 25, 2019, in the presence of Plaintiff’s mother, Sara again made a statement 

to the same effect.

144. Sara also stated that her superiors were aware of her behavior and that they condoned it.

145. On December 27, 2019, Sara made a similar statement to Plaintiff in front of a third party.

146. At this time, Defendant Brumsted came to the lobby.

147. Plaintiff asked Mr. Brumsted to provide support to Plaintiff as an owner deserving of 

services.

148. In response, Mr. Brumsted explicitly condoned her statement, stating “I won’t get 

involved.”

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 17 of 45
18

149. On numerous occasions, including but not limited to September 14, 2019, November 8, 

2019, December 25, 2019, and December 30, 2019, Plaintiff’s guests were interrogated by 

Defendant BHMCA’s staff members in a hostile and defamatory manner in a manner intended and 

calculated to humiliate and embarrass Plaintiff.

150. For example, they have made statements and posed questions to Plaintiff’s guests such as

a. “You are not even supposed to be here” 

b. “You’re an illegal Airbnb” 

c. “How much did you pay to be here?”

d. “I don't know what kind of business she’s running up there”

e. “This is a family place...you’re not welcome here”

f. “Children live here”

g. “You make this place look bad; I’m a classy guy”

h. “How long are you staying here?”

i. “Don’t you know she is behind on her dues?”

j. “Don’t you know she’s about to get foreclosed on?”;

k. “Don’t you know they’re about to take her house?” 

l. “None of my staff likes her”

m. “She’s a disgrace to the building”

n. “She tried to sue her other building”

151. Defendant Brumsted encouraged Sara to aggressively and negatively engage with the 

Plaintiff in an effort to try to catch the Plaintiff in some sort of wrongdoing so that BHMCA could 

then impose more fines against her, report her to the authorities, and/or further engage in his 

scheme to defame the Plaintiff, discriminate against her, retaliate against her, deny her peaceful 

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 18 of 45
19

enjoyment of her home and to fraudulently create discriminatory fines as cause of action for 

foreclosure and repossession of her home.

152. For example, Sara sent security up to Plaintiff’s unit and demanded that Plaintiff’s nail 

technician, who had arrived to do her nails, be removed from the premises.

153. Sara also called the police and lied to them about Plaintiff, stating that Plaintiff was not the 

owner of the unit.

154. Defendant Brumsted was aware of these facts and circumstances but nonetheless allowed 

and encourage them to continue in order to harm Plaintiff.

155. The reason for these statements and interrogations was to harass and intimidate Plaintiff 

because of her race, sex and perceived disability, and because of making discrimination 

complaints.

156. Plaintiff notified Defendants BHMCA and KWPM of the harassing actions and statements 

set forth above, but BHMCA failed to acknowledge or to take prompt and effective action to stop 

the harassment.

157. Despite the dozens of complaints that Plaintiff made concerning the harassment, safety and 

discrimination against her, her family members and her guests, the hostility still continues.

158. Defendant BHMCA was aware of these actions, and tolerated, participated in, condoned 

and ratified these actions.

159. KWPM was aware of and perpetuated, condoned and/or ratified this discriminatory 

conduct, despite repeated specific complaints to KWPM.

160. The other Individual Defendants were aware of, perpetuated, condoned and/or 

ratified this discriminatory conduct, despite repeated specific complaints of which they were 

aware.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 19 of 45
20

Discriminatory Treatment of Plaintiff’s Short Term Rentals

161. Defendant BHMCA’s representative represented, on two separate occasions, that owners 

would be able to earn income by means of short-term rentals.

162. Defendant BHMCA’s representative knew or should have known that this representation 

was false or misleading.

163. Plaintiff purchased her unit based, in large part, on the understanding and representation of 

Defendant BHMCA that earning income, by means of short term rentals, would be permitted.

This representation was material to the Plaintiff’s home-purchase transaction. Defendant BHMCA 

intended that the representation induce Plaintiff to enter into the purchase transaction.

164. Nothing in any Bay House governing document or regulation prohibited such short term 

renting. After Plaintiff purchased her condominium unit in reliance on the representations and

governing documents pertaining to short-term rentals, Bay House adopted new Rules and 

Regulations prohibiting Airbnb rentals.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT 1 

Housing Harassment and Hostile Work Environment on the Basis of Race, Gender and 

Perceived Disability

42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. and 24 CFR § 100.600, et seq.

[As to all Defendants]

165. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.

166. Plaintiff is a member of a protected category with regard to race.

167. Plaintiff is a member of a protected category with regard to sex and gender, including sex 

stereotyping, gender expression, gender nonconformity, and gender identity.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 20 of 45
21

168. Defendants regarded Plaintiff as having gender dysphoria, and perceived this as a handicap.

169. Defendants instituted, participated in, were aware of, condoned and/or ratified a campaign 

of harassment and discrimination because of and motivated by race, sex and gender (including sex 

stereotyping, gender expression, gender non-conformity, and gender identity), and because of and 

motivated by handicap.

170. This harassment was related to and in connection with the availability, sale, rental, 

and use or enjoyment of Plaintiff’s dwelling, and the terms, conditions, and privileges of the 

sale and rental thereof, and the provision and enjoyment of services and facilities, and the 

availability, terms, and conditions of a residential real estate-related transaction.

171. Plaintiff was targeted for harassment by the Defendants because of her race, sex and 

gender, including sex stereotyping, gender expression, and gender non-conformity, and because 

of handicap.

172. Defendants Brumsted and Vidal made statements regarding Plaintiff that were derogatory 

based on her race, sex and gender (including sex stereotyping, gender expression, gender nonconformity, and gender identity), and handicap.

173. All Defendants engaged in acts and statements that, although otherwise seemingly neutral 

with regard to race, gender and perceived disability, were intended to harass Plaintiff based on 

race, gender and perceived disability, by making circumstances at BHMCA so difficult and 

intolerable for Plaintiff that she would leave the development, all because Defendants held animus 

against Plaintiff’s race, gender and perceived disability.

174. The other Defendants acted in concert with Defendants Brumsted and Vidal to perpetuate, 

condone and/or ratify the hostile environment based on race, gender and perceived disability.

175. This harassment was and is severe and pervasive.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 21 of 45
22

176. This hostile environment unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff’s reasonable enjoyment of 

her property.

177. The hostile environment began at the time Plaintiff sought to purchase the unit, and 

continued after her purchase to the present time.

178. The effects of the hostile environment alleged herein were pervasive because they were 

felt by Plaintiff daily. Plaintiff felt daily humiliation and despair as a result of her reasonable fear 

of continued harassment at any moment.

179. Defendants’ actions occurred because of Plaintiff’s race, sex and gender (including sex 

stereotyping, gender expression, gender nonconformity, and gender identity), and perceived 

disability.

180. Defendant’s actions also occurred because of retaliation against Plaintiff based on her 

reasonable and good faith complaints of discrimination as detailed above. 

181. Defendants acted intentionally or in a manner deliberately indifferent to the rights of 

Plaintiff.

182. Defendants BHMCA and KWMP, as the owner and operator of the property, 

respectively, are liable for the violation of Plaintiffs' rights because, at all times relevant 

hereto, Defendants Charles Brumsted and Jose Vidal were acting (a) at the express direction 

of, and/or (b) with the consent of, and/or (c) under the control and supervision of, and/or (d) 

within his authority as an agent of these Defendants.

183. Defendants Brumsted and Vidal are liable for the violation of Plaintiff’s rights 

because of their discriminatory and harassing behavior towards Plaintiff.

184. The other Defendants are liable for the violation of Plaintiff’s rights because of their 

acting in concert with Defendants BHMCA, KWMP, Brumsted and Vidal to tolerate, 

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 22 of 45
23

perpetuate, ratify and condone the harassment and discrimination, of which they were aware 

and in which they participated.

185. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful discrimination, Plaintiff incurred 

damages including but not limited to humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, 

damage to her reputation, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

COUNT 2

Discrimination in Contracts on the Basis of Race, Gender and Perceived Disability

42 U.S.C. § 1981

[GOOD FAITH ARGUMENT FOR EXTENSION,

MODIFICATION OR REVERSAL OF LAW]

[As to All Defendants]

186. Under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, “all persons within the jurisdiction of 

the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce 

contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and 

proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens . . . .” 42 U.S.C 

§ 1981(a).

187. Defendants’ actions did not accord Plaintiff the right to make contracts and the right to full 

and equal benefits as is enjoyed by other citizens.

188. Defendants’ actions did not accord Plaintiff the right to make contracts and the right to full 

and equal benefits as is enjoyed by white citizens.

189. Defendants’ actions constituted a disparity in treatment between Plaintiff and other 

citizens, including white citizens, in regard to contracts and benefits.

190. Defendants’ actions were because of and motivated by Plaintiff’s race, sex and gender 

(including sex stereotyping, gender expression, gender nonconformity and gender identity) and 

perceived disability.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 23 of 45
24

191. Defendants’ discriminatory actions facially based on sex and perceived disability were 

motivated by race.

192. Because of Plaintiff’s race, she was not considered sufficiently female.

193. Because of Plaintiff’s race, she was regarded as having a disability.

194. Defendants’ discriminatory actions were intentional.

195. Defendants excluded the Plaintiff from enjoying an environment free from a hostile and 

intimidating environment based on race.

196. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for making reasonable and good faith complaints 

about her right to make contracts and the right to full and equal benefits.

197. Defendants BHMCA and KW Property Management, as the owners and operators of the 

property, are liable for the violation of Plaintiffs' rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 because, at all 

times relevant hereto, the Individual Defendants were acting (a) at the express direction of, and/or 

(b) with the consent of and/or (c) under the control and supervision of, and/or (d) within authority 

as an agent of Defendant BHMCA and/or KW Property Management.

198. Defendants’ conduct in discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff due to her race, sex 

and perceived disability was intentional.

199. Defendants engaged in discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference 

to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff.

200. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful discrimination, Plaintiff incurred 

damages including but not limited to humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, 

damage to her reputation, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 24 of 45
25

COUNT 3

Discrimination in Property on the Basis of Race, Gender and Perceived Disability

42 U.S.C. § 1982

[GOOD FAITH ARGUMENT FOR EXTENSION,

MODIFICATION OR REVERSAL OF LAW]

[As to All Defendants]

201. Under Section 1982 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, “[a]ll citizens of the United States 

shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to 

inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property.” 42 U.S.C § 1982.

202. Defendants’ actions did not accord Plaintiff the right to purchase, lease, or otherwise hold 

or convey real property as is enjoyed by other citizens.

203. Defendants’ actions did not accord Plaintiff the right to purchase, lease, or otherwise hold 

or convey real property as is enjoyed by white citizens.

204. Defendants’ actions constituted a disparity in treatment between Plaintiff and other 

citizens, including white citizens, in regard to purchase, lease, or otherwise holding or conveying 

real property.

205. Defendants’ actions were because of and motivated by Plaintiff’s race, sex and gender 

(including sex stereotyping, gender expression, gender nonconformity and gender identity) and 

perceived disability.

206. Defendants’ discriminatory actions facially based on sex and perceived disability were 

motivated by race.

207. Because of Plaintiff’s race, she was considered a gender non-conforming female.

208. Because of Plaintiff’s race, she was regarded as having a perceived disability.

209. Defendants’ discriminatory actions were intentional.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 25 of 45
26

210. Defendants excluded the Plaintiff from enjoying an environment free from a hostile and 

intimidating environment based on race.

211. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for making reasonable and good faith complaints 

about her right to purchase, lease, or otherwise hold or convey real property.

212. Defendants BHMCA and KW Property Management, as the owners and operators of the 

property, are liable for the violation of Plaintiffs' rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 because, at all 

times relevant hereto, the Individual Defendants were acting (a) at the express direction of, and/or 

(b) with the consent of and/or (c) under the control and supervision of, and/or (d) within authority 

as an agent of Defendant BHMCA and/or KW Property Management.

213. Defendants’ conduct in discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff due to her race, sex

and perceived disability was intentional.

214. Defendants engaged in discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference 

to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff.

215. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful discrimination, Plaintiff incurred 

damages including but not limited to humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, 

damage to her reputation, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

COUNT 4

Conspiracy to Deny Equal Protection

of the Laws on the Basis of Race, Gender and Perceived Disability

42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)

[As to all Defendants]

216. Under Section 1985(3) of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,

If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire...for the purpose of 

depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal 

protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws...; in 

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 26 of 45
27

any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged 

therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such 

conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of 

having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the 

party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages 

occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the 

conspirators.

217. Defendants communicated with one another in person, by telephone and by email regarding 

Plaintiff and the purchase and management of her Unit.

218. Defendants each were aware of statements and actions by other Defendants regarding 

Plaintiff’s race, gender and perceived disability. 

219. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ communications with one another included 

communications regarding Plaintiff’s race, gender and perceived disability.

220. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ communications with one another included 

communications regarding Plaintiff’s complaints regarding safety and discrimination based on 

race, gender and perceived disability.

221. In these communications, each Defendant conspired with at least one other Defendant to 

deprive Plaintiff of the equal protection of the laws and equal privileges and immunities of citizens, 

as set forth above in detail.

222. Defendants’ conspiracy was because of and motivated by Plaintiff’s race, sex and gender 

(including sex stereotyping, gender expression, gender nonconformity and gender identity) and 

disability.

223. Defendants’ conspiracy was designed and intended to interfere with Plaintiff’s right to 

purchase property, engage in contracts, enjoy her property without unreasonable interference, and 

to be free from harassment and discrimination based on race, gender and perceived disability.

224. Acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were committed by one or more Defendants.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 27 of 45
28

225. Each Defendant was aware of at least one act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

226. Plaintiff was injured in her person and property as a result of these acts in furtherance.

227. Defendants’ discriminatory actions facially based on sex and perceived disability were 

motivated by race.

228. Because of Plaintiff’s race, she was considered a gender non-conforming female.

229. Because of Plaintiff’s race, she was regarded as having a disability.

230. Defendants engaged in discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference 

to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff.

231. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful discrimination, Plaintiff incurred 

damages including but not limited to humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, 

damage to her reputation, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

COUNT 5

Action for Neglect to Prevent Conspiracy

to Deny Equal Protection of the Laws on the Basis of Race, Gender and Perceived 

Disability

42 U.S.C. § 1986

[As to all Defendants]

232. Under Section 1986 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, 

and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having 

power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or 

refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party 

injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, 

which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented ...

233. Defendants each had knowledge that other Defendants conspired to commit wrongs 

mentioned in 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 28 of 45
29

234. Defendants each had power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of these 

wrongs.

235. Defendants each could have prevented such wrongful acts from occurring by reasonable 

diligence.

236. Defendants each neglected to take action to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of 

these wrongs.

237. On the contrary, each Defendant actively participated in, condoned and/or ratified these 

wrongs.

238. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ neglect to take action to prevent or aid in 

preventing the commission of these wrongs, Plaintiff incurred damages including but not limited 

to humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, damage to her reputation, and other 

pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

COUNT 6

Discrimination in Housing on the Basis of Race, Gender and Perceived Disability

Supplemental Claim - Fl. St. 760.01 et seq.

[As to all Defendants ]

239. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.

240. Plaintiff is a member of a protected category with regard to race.

241. Plaintiff is a member of a protected category with regard to sex and gender, including sex 

stereotyping, gender expression, gender nonconformity, and gender identity.

242. Defendants regarded Plaintiff as having gender dysphoria, and perceived of this as a 

handicap.

243. Defendants instituted, participated in, were aware of, condoned and/or ratified a campaign 

of harassment and discrimination because of and motivated by race, sex and gender (including sex 

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 29 of 45
30

stereotyping, gender expression, gender non-conformity, and gender identity), and because of and 

motivated by handicap.

244. This harassment was related to and in connection with the availability, sale, rental, 

and use or enjoyment of Plaintiff’s dwelling, and the terms, conditions, and privileges of the 

sale and rental thereof, and the provision and enjoyment of services and facilities, and the 

availability, terms, and conditions of a residential real estate-related transaction.

245. Plaintiff was targeted for harassment by the Defendants because of her race, sex and 

gender, including sex stereotyping, gender expression, and gender non-conformity, and because 

of handicap.

246. Defendants Brumsted and Vidal made statements regarding Plaintiff that were derogatory 

based on her race, sex and gender (including sex stereotyping, gender expression, gender nonconformity, and gender identity), and handicap.

247. The other Defendants acted in concert with Defendants Brumsted and Vidal to perpetuate, 

condone and/or ratify the hostile environment based on race, gender and perceived disability.

248. This harassment was and is severe and pervasive.

249. This hostile environment unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff’s reasonable enjoyment of 

her property.

250. The hostile environment began at the time Plaintiff sought to purchase the unit, and 

continued after her purchase to the present time.

251. The effects of the hostile environment alleged herein were pervasive because they were 

felt by Plaintiff daily. Plaintiff felt daily humiliation and despair as a result of her reasonable fear 

of continued harassment at any moment.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 30 of 45
31

252. Defendants’ actions occurred because of Plaintiff’s race, sex and gender (including sex 

stereotyping, gender expression, gender nonconformity, and gender identity), and perceived 

disability.

253. Defendants’ actions also occurred because of retaliation for Plaintiff’s reasonable and good 

faith complaints of discrimination.

254. Defendants acted intentionally or in a manner deliberately indifferent to the rights of 

Plaintiff.

255. Defendants BHMCA and KWMP, as the owner and operator of the property, 

respectively, are liable for the violation of Plaintiffs' rights because, at all times relevant 

hereto, Defendants Charles Brumsted and Jose Vidal were acting (a) at the express direction 

of, and/or (b) with the consent of, and/or (c) under the control and supervision of, and/or (d) 

within his authority as an agent of these Defendants.

256. Defendants Brumsted and Vidal are liable for the violation of Plaintiff’s rights 

because of their discriminatory and harassing behavior towards Plaintiff.

257. The other Defendants are liable for the violation of Plaintiff’s rights because of their 

acting in concert with Defendants BHMCA, KWMP, Brumsted and Vidal to tolerate, 

perpetuate, ratify and condone the harassment and discrimination, of which they were aware 

and in which they participated.

258. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful discrimination, Plaintiff incurred 

damages including but not limited to humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, 

damage to her reputation, and other pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 31 of 45
32

COUNT 7

Violation of Rights of Condominium Owner

Supplemental Claim - Breach of Contract and Fl. St. 718.101, et seq.

[As to Defendant Charles Brumsted, Jr.]

259. On December 9,10, 2019 and before, Plaintiff properly submitted, in writing, to Bay House 

Miami Condominium Association, Inc. (“Bay House”) her requests for certain documents and 

records.

260. Bay House did not respond to Plaintiff’s requests for documents and records, and has not 

made the same available to her for inspection.

261. Plaintiff and various attorneys have followed up with Bay House multiple times demanding 

the documents and records.

262. Bay House refused to tender or make available for inspection the items requested.

263. Months after the request, the management company sent an email on January 30, 2020, 

indicating that documents could be reviewed, but not specifying the means of access. 

264. Pursuant to the Bay House Bylaws: “A Unit Owner who is denied access to official records 

is entitled to the actual damages or minimum damages for the Association's willful failure to 

comply. Minimum damages shall be $50 per calendar day up to 10 days, the calculation to begin 

on the 11th working day after receipt of the written request. The failure to permit inspection of the 

Association records as provided herein entitles any person prevailing in an enforcement action to 

recover reasonable attorney's fees from the person in control of the records who, directly or 

indirectly, knowingly denied access to the records.”

265. Defendant Brumsted is the President of Bay House, and is and was in control of the records 

requested.

266. Defendant Brumsted denied Plaintiff access to such records.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 32 of 45
33

267. Defendants Brumsted BHMCA are in breach of the Bay House Bylaws.

268. It has been determined by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation 

that “the Division has determined that the Association is in violation for failing to provide access, 

and we are moving forward with requesting Administrative Actions”.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Ms. Kanayo Derhem requests this Court enter judgment against 

Charles Brumsted, Jr., award damages of five hundred dollars, award attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and for any and all other relief this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT 8

Violation of Rights of Condominium Owner

Supplemental Claim - Breach of Contract and Fl. St. § 718.303

[As to Defendants BHMCA, Charles Brumsted, Jr., James Pinkert,

Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes, and Joshua Paul (Separately)]

269. On March 19, 2020 Bay House held a Fining/Grievance Committee Hearing to decide 

whether or not to levy various fines against Plaintiff.

270. James Pinkert, Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes, and Joshua Paul (collectively 

“Committee”) were the members of the 3 (three) person Fining/Grievance Committee.

271. The March 19, 2020 hearing was the second hearing conducted on these matters.

272. The previous Fining Committee Hearing was held on December 30, 2019 and was made 

up of only 2 (two) members, James Pinkert and Elizabeth Perez, in violation of Florida Statute 

718.303.

273. The December 30, 2019 Fining Committee did not afford Plaintiff an opportunity to be 

heard and elected to table the matter of Plaintiff’s fines.

274. Defendant James Pinkert was the only member of the Committee that imposed the fines on 

Plaintiff that also sat on December 30, 2020 Fining Committee.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 33 of 45
34

275. After the previous Fining Committee tabled the matter of Plaintiff’s fines, Bay House 

President, Charles Brumsted, Jr., aggressively berated the 2 (two) committee members saying 

“You let that monkey walk all over you... two is not enough... I need to add more to the 

committee...” followed by coaching and ordering the committee to impose the fines next time and 

without allowing the Plaintiff an open forum to refute or defend against the fines.

276. Elizabeth Perez expressed concerns and discontent with Charles Brumsted, Jr.’s orders and 

was subsequently removed from the committee. She specifically expressed concern about not 

being able to “see the picture [evidence]” that the HOA had brought against Plaintiff. To which 

Mr. Brumsted responded: “all you need to do is to implement the fine--that's it; implement the 

damn fine!”

277. The Committee acting on behalf of Bay House on March 20, 2020, with 2 (two) newly 

appointed members, Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes, and Joshua Paul, imposed the fines 

against Plaintiff.

278. At the March 20, 2020 hearing, Plaintiff was not afforded the opportunity to be heard 

because the Committee incorrectly said she was given the opportunity to be heard at the prior 

hearing.

279. Contrary to this assertion, Plaintiff was not given any opportunity to be heard on these new 

matters at the previous hearing, and she made the Committee aware of this, and her right to do so 

under Florida law.

280. Despite being made aware of these facts and Florida statutes, the Committee refused to 

allow Plaintiff to be heard, refused to take any meeting minutes of the March 20, 2020 hearing, 

and entered all fines against Plaintiff.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 34 of 45
35

281. The Bay House Bylaws and Florida Statutes afford Plaintiff the right to be heard before 

the committee prior to entering fines against her.

282. Bay House, Charles Brumsted, Jr., the Committee members, and Ferreira acted in bad faith, 

jointly and severally as alleged maliciously, illegally, willfully, intentionally, and knowingly 

breaching the Bay House Bylaws and Florida Statutes by refusing to allow Plaintiff and 

opportunity to be heard and entering various fines against her. 

283. As a result of the actions by the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered damage in the form of fees, 

fines, liens, attorneys’ fees and costs, and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kanayo Derhem, requests this Court enter judgment against each 

respective Defendant James Pinkert, Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes, and Joshua Paul, award 

damages in the amount of the total amount of fines entered against her, punitive damages, 

attorneys’ fees and costs, and for any and all other relief this Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT 9

Violation of Rights of Condominium Owner

Supplemental Claim - Fl. St. § 760.37 

[As to Defendants BHMCA, Charles Brumsted, Jr., James Pinkert,

Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes, and Jonathan Ferreira (Separately)]

284. It is unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person in the exercise 

of, or on account of her or his having exercised, or on account of her or his having aided or 

encouraged any other person in the exercise of any right granted under ss. 760.20-760.37. This 

section may be enforced by appropriate administrative or civil action. 

285. Charles Brumsted, Jr., President of Bay House, continuing his discriminatory actions and 

policies targeting Plaintiff, facilitated the appointment of James Pinkert, Joshua Paul, and 

Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes to Fining Committee for sole purpose of, with instruction, and 

understanding of continuing his coercing, intimidating, threatening, and interfering with Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 35 of 45
36

rights under Florida Statute 760, his scheme of discrimination against Plaintiff, and his retaliation 

against Plaintiff for her previous reasonable good faith attempts to exercise her rights.

286. Plaintiff’s numerous requests to be a member of this committee was ignored by Mr. 

Brumsted and Mr. Vidal.

287. Defendants, Jonathan Ferreira (“Ferreira”), James Pinkert, Joshua Paul, and Alejandro 

Enrique Utrera Badenes, attended a Fining Committee Hearing on March 20, 2020, which was to 

determine the entry of certain discriminatory fines against Plaintiff.

288. At such meeting, and at the direction of Charles Brumsted, Jr., the Bay House President, 

the Committee and Ferreira did intentionally, tortuously, and illegally interfere, coerce, intimidate, 

threaten, and interfere with Plaintiff’s exercise of her rights under the Florida Fair Housing Act by 

imposing unlawful and discriminatory fines against Plaintiff.

289. Ferreira further aggressively counseled the Fining Committee on the Bylaws and Florida 

law, despite not being an attorney or representative of Bay House, in an effort to ensure that 

Plaintiff could not, and did not exercise her rights.

290. Charles Brumsted, Jr., the Committee members, and Ferreira acted in bad faith, jointly and 

severally, as alleged above for discriminatory purposes.

291. On April 9, 2020 Bay House and Charles Brumsted, Jr. sent Plaintiff a Notice of Intent to 

Record a Claim of Lien citing unpaid Maintenance & Special Assessments “thru April 2020” (not 

yet delinquent), Late Fee, Fines, Interest, Certified Mail Charges, Other Costs, and Attorneys 

Fees.

292. The unpaid items that are delinquent are the illegal and discriminatory fines imposed on 

Plaintiff.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 36 of 45
37

293. Florida 718.303 expressly states “The association may levy reasonable fines for the failure 

of the owner of the unit or its occupant, licensee, or invitee to comply with any provision of the 

declaration, the association bylaws, or reasonable rules of the association. A fine may not become 

a lien against a unit.”

294. The Notice of Intent to Record a Claim of Lien is illegal and part of the greater 

discriminatory scheme.

295. Plaintiff has been forced to retain counsel and suffered damages as a result of the above 

stated events.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kanayo Derhem, requests this Court enter judgment against each 

respective Defendant, Bay House Condominium Association, Inc., Charles Brumsted, Jr., James 

Pinkert, Joshua Paul, Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes, and Jonathan Ferreira, award damages, 

punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any and all other relief this Court deems just and 

proper.

COUNT 10

Violation of Rights of Condominium Owner

Supplemental Claim - Fl. St. §§ 718.110, 718.303 and 718.123

[As to Defendant BHMCA]

296. Prior to purchasing her condominium, Plaintiff verified with Bay House that short term 

rentals, such as those through Airbnb, were permitted.

297. Plaintiff’s was contingent on short term rentals being permitted.

298. Bay House affirmed that Plaintiff could rent her prospective unit for short terms via Airbnb 

on two separate occasions.

299. Nothing in any Bay House governing document or regulation prohibited such short term 

renting.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 37 of 45
38

300. After Plaintiff purchased her condominium unit in reliance on the representations and 

governing documents pertaining to short term rentals, Bay House adopted new Rules and 

Regulations prohibiting Airbnb rentals.

301. The Rules and Regulations prohibiting Airbnb rental materially and adversely affect 

Plaintiff’s rights in violation of Florida Statute 718.110.

302. Following their bad faith, illegal adoption of the Rules and Regulations, Bay House 

illegally deactivated Plaintiff’s key fob, denying her access to certain amenities and common areas, 

citing the imposition of fines for violating the newly adopted prohibition on Airbnb rentals.

303. The illegality of the actions referenced above aside, the fines were not ninety days 

delinquent, making the denial of Plaintiff’s access to common areas and amenities a violation of 

Florida Statute 718.303 and Bay House’s governing documents.

304. Plaintiff has been damaged and suffers denial of her use and enjoyment of the property, 

and has been forced to retain counsel concerning such matters.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kanayo Derhem, requests this Court enter judgment against Bay 

House Condominium Association, Inc., award damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any and all 

other relief this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT 11

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Supplemental Claim under Florida Common Law

[As to Defendant Charles Brumsted, Jr.]

305. Pursuant to Florida Statute 718.111 Charles Brumsted, Jr., as its President, owed Bay 

House and its unit owners a fiduciary duty.

306. Charles Brumsted, Jr. breached his fiduciary by intentionally and willfully acting and 

directing others, in bad faith, to engage in illegal, fraudulent, malicious, discriminatory, and 

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 38 of 45
39

grossly reckless behavior under the color of authority granted by the Bay House Condominium 

Association, Inc.

307. Charles Brumsted, Jr. misappropriated association funds and resources for his own benefit 

relating to prior claims of his misconduct regarding unit owners, association officials, employees, 

staff and Plaintiff.

308. Charles Brumsted, Jr. deliberately failed to keep and make available records and 

documents required by Florida law and Bay House Governing documents.

309. Charles Brumsted, Jr. implemented and executed the selective and specific application of 

Bay House powers and authority to disproportionately target Plaintiff in retaliation for her previous 

disagreements, desire to be a board member; desire to participate in community activities; 

inquiries, reasonable and good faith complaints, etc., and to satisfy his own racial/ discriminatory 

biases because of her African American ethnicity and gender expression and identity.

310. The totality of Charles Brumsted, Jr.’s actions are reckless, in bad faith, with malicious 

purpose, wanton, and with willful disregard of human rights, safety, and property.

311. Charles Brumsted, Jr.’s breaching of his fiduciary duty is the direct and proximate cause 

of irreparable damages suffered by Plaintiff has been forced to retain counsel as a result of Charles 

Brumsted, Jr.’s breach.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kanayo Derhem, requests this Court enter judgment against 

Charles Brumsted, Jr., award damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any and 

all other relief this Court deems just and proper.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 39 of 45
40

COUNT 12

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Supplemental Claim under Florida Common Law

[As to Defendants James Pinkert, Joshua Paul and

Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes (Separately)]

312. Pursuant to Florida Statute 718.111 James Pinkert, Joshua Paul, and Alejandro Enrique 

Utrera Badenes, as members of the Bay House Fining Committee, owed Bay House and its unit 

owners a fiduciary duty.

313. Each Committee member was recruited and placed on the Fining/Grievance Committee 

by, and at the direction of Charles Brumsted, Jr., Bay House President, for sole purpose of carrying 

out and furthering Charles Brumsted, Jr.’s scheme to illegally retaliate, coerce, intimidate, 

threaten, deny Plaintiff the exercise of her rights, and deny her human rights.

314. Each Committee member did breach their fiduciary duties by intentionally and willfully 

acting in bad faith, to engage in illegal, fraudulent, malicious, discriminatory, and grossly reckless 

behavior under the color of authority granted by the Bay House Condominium Association, Inc.

315. Each Committee member imposed and executed the selective and specific application of 

Bay House powers and authority to disproportionately target Plaintiff in retaliation for her previous 

disagreements, reasonable and good faith complaints, and decision to run for the board, inter alia, 

and in furtherance of Charles Brumsted, Jr.’s, and their own respective racial biases because of her 

African American ethnicity.

316. Each Committee member deliberately imposed illegal fines against Plaintiff recklessly, in 

bad faith, with malicious purpose, wanton, and with willful disregard of human rights, safety, and 

property.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 40 of 45
41

317. Each Committee member’s breaching of their fiduciary duty is the direct and proximate 

cause of irreparable damages suffered by Plaintiff has been forced to retain counsel as a result of 

Committee’s breach.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kanayo Derhem, requests this Court enter judgment against each 

respective Defendant, James Pinkert, Joshua Paul, and Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes, award 

damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any and all other relief this Court deems 

just and proper.

COUNT 13

Gross Negligence

Supplemental Claim under Florida Common Law

[As to Defendants James Pinkert, Joshua Paul and

Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes (Separately)]

318. Each and every one of the Defendants; James Pinkert, Joshua Paul, and Alejandro Enrique 

Utrera Badenes owed Plaintiff, Kanayo Derhem, a duty to execute their duties and responsibilities 

as members of the Bay House Fining Committee legally, ethically, fairly, impartially, and pursuant 

to governing documents of BHMCA.

319. Defendants, James Pinkert, Joshua Paul, and Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes willfully 

and intentionally accepted appointment to Fining/Grievance Committee for sole purpose of, with 

instruction, understanding, and intent of maliciously continuing BHMCA President Charles 

Brumsted Jr.’s coercing, intimidating, threatening, interfering, and deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights 

under Florida Statute 760, his scheme of discrimination against Plaintiff, and his retaliation against 

Plaintiff for her previous attempts to exercise her rights.

320. The Committee acting on behalf of Bay House on March 20, 2020, with 2 (two) newly 

appointed members, Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes, and Joshua Paul, imposed the fines 

against Plaintiff.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 41 of 45
42

321. At the March 20, 2020 hearing, Plaintiff was not afforded the opportunity to be heard 

because the Committee incorrectly said she was given the opportunity to be heard at the prior 

hearing.

322. Contrary to this assertion, Plaintiff was not given any opportunity to be heard on these new 

matters at the previous hearing, and she made the Committee aware of this, and her right to do so 

under Florida law.

323. Despite being made aware of these facts and Florida statutes, the Committee refused to 

allow Plaintiff to be heard, refused to take any meeting minutes of the March 20, 2020 hearing, 

and entered all fines against Plaintiff.

324. The Bay House Bylaws and Florida Statutes afford Plaintiff the right to be heard before 

the committee prior to entering fines against her.

325. The Committee members acted in bad faith, jointly and severally as alleged maliciously, 

illegally, willfully, intentionally, and knowingly breaching the Bay House Bylaws and Florida 

Statutes by refusing to allow Plaintiff and opportunity to be heard and entering various fines 

against her.

326. Each Committee member imposed and executed the selective and specific application of 

Bay House powers and authority to disproportionately target Plaintiff in retaliation for her previous 

disagreements, complaints, and decision to run for the board, inter alia, and in furtherance of 

Charles Brumsted, Jr.’s, and their own respective racial biases because of her African American 

ethnicity.

327. Each Committee member deliberately imposed illegal fines against Plaintiff recklessly, in 

bad faith, with malicious purpose, wanton, and with willful disregard of human rights, safety, and 

property.

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 42 of 45
43

328. Thus, each Committee member did breach the duty owed to Plaintiff by intentionally and 

willfully acting in bad faith, to engage in illegal, fraudulent, malicious, discriminatory, and grossly 

negligent behavior under the color of authority granted by the Bay House Condominium 

Association, Inc.

329. Each Committee member’s breaching of the duty is the direct and proximate cause of 

irreparable damages suffered by Plaintiff in the form of fines, liens, emotional distress, and having 

been forced to retain counsel as a result of Committee’s breach. Despite being made aware of these 

facts and Florida statutes, the Committee refused to allow Plaintiff to be heard, refused to take any 

meeting minutes of the March 20, 2020 hearing, and entered all fines against Plaintiff.

330. The actions of each Committee member were grossly negligent.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Kanayo Derhem, requests this Court enter judgment against each 

respective Defendant, James Pinkert, Joshua Paul, and Alejandro Enrique Utrera Badenes, award 

damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any and all other relief this Court deems 

just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues triable by a jury.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Declare that the acts, practices, and omissions complained of herein by Defendants are 

unlawful and violate the Federal Housing Act, the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 and 1871, 

the Florida Civil Rights Act, and the Florida Condominium Act, and constitute the state law torts 

of breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty; 

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 43 of 45
44

B. Permanently enjoin Defendants BHMCA and KWPM, their officers, agents, servants, 

employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with them from engaging 

in the unlawful conduct of discriminating against residents based on race, gender, and perceived 

disability;

C. Order Defendants BHMCA and KWPM to institute and carry out policies, practices, 

programs, and training for employees which eradicate the effects of Defendants’ past and present 

unlawful housing practices;

D. Order other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of the unlawful housing 

practices of Defendants BHMCA and KWPM;

E. Direct all Defendants to pay for past and future compensatory pecuniary and non-pecuniary 

losses, including punitive damages, resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in the 

foregoing paragraphs, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of 

life, and humiliation, in an amount to be determined at trial;

F. Award Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements as provided by law; and

G. Award such additional relief as justice may require.

Dated: June 2, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

___s/ Marlin S. Muller____________

Marlin Muller

Bar No. 1003675

The Hidalgo Law Firm

25 SE 2nd Ave Suite 1235

Miami, FL 33131

(305) 846-9192

marlin@thehidalgolaw.com

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 44 of 45
45

___s/ Jillian T. Weiss____________ 

Jillian T. Weiss, Esq.

Pro Hac Vice Pending

Law Office of Jillian T. Weiss, P.C.

 527 Hudson Street

 P.O. Box 20169 

 New York, New York 10014 

 (845) 709-3237 

 jweiss@jtweisslaw.com

Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22318-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 45 of 45