UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.

PALM SPRINGS MILE ASSOCIATES, LTD., 

a limited partnership, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

PIZZA BUFFET 749, LLC,

a limited liability company; and 

NABEEL T. ANSARI, an individual,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

COMPLAINT

PALM SPRINGS MILE ASSOCIATES, LTD. hereby sues PIZZA BUFFET 749, LLC 

and NABEEL T. ANSARI, and alleges as follows:

The Parties and Jurisdiction

1. This is an action for breach of a lease, seeking damages in excess of $470,000.

2. Plaintiff PALM SPRINGS MILE ASSOCIATES, LTD. (“PSM or Landlord”) is a 

limited partnership, whose partners are as follows: 

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

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

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

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

in New York;

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

Case 1:20-cv-22096-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 1 of 11
2

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

follows:

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

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

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

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

are as follows:

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

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

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

and a citizen of New Jersey; and

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

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

New York;

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

are as follows:

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

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

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

citizen of New York; and

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

trustee is Samantha Hoffman, who is domiciled in and a 

citizen of New Jersey;

Case 1:20-cv-22096-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 2 of 11
3

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

are as follows:

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

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

and

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

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

of New York;

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

are as follows:

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

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

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

Jersey; and

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

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

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

citizen of New Jersey;

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

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

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

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

Case 1:20-cv-22096-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 3 of 11
4

3. Defendant PIZZA BUFFET 749, LLC (“Pizza Buffet” or “Tenant”) is a limited 

liability company. On information and belief, its sole member is Defendant NABEEL T. ANSARI

(“Ansari”), who is domiciled in and a citizen of Florida. 

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

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

costs, and is between citizens of different States. 

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

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

sought is due. 

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

Defendant’s operation of a restaurant in this district. Defendant operates, conducts, engages in, 

and carries on a business or business venture in this state or has an office or agency in this state; 

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

Defendant outside this state, while the Defendant was engaged in solicitation or service activities 

within this state; and breached a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the 

contract to be performed in this state. Defendant regularly does or solicits business, or engages in 

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

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

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

incidental to Defendant’s business within the state and, specifically, the business relationship 

between Plaintiff and Defendants.

Case 1:20-cv-22096-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 4 of 11
5

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. On or about June 26, 2007, Plaintiff, as Landlord, and Chente Enterprises II, Inc., 

as Tenant, entered into a Lease for the Premises, as defined in the Lease, consisting of an 

approximately 5,390 square foot area in the Palm Springs Mile Shopping Center located in 

Hialeah, Florida and owned by the Plaintiff. 

8. Plaintiff references and incorporates the Lease, as amended, and the terms as 

defined therein, as Exhibit “1” hereto. 

9. Pizza Buffet is the successor in interest to Chente Enterprises II, Inc., pursuant to 

an Assignment and Assumption of Lease, dated February 9, 2017.

10. The Lease is for a term of years, expiring on December 31, 2022. The total Rent 

and other charges for the full term of the Lease are in excess of $470,000.

11. On or about March 20, 2017, Defendant Ansari (“Guarantor”) executed and 

delivered to Landlord a Guaranty (“Guaranty”) that “absolutely and unconditionally guarantee[s] 

to Landlord” the obligations of Tenant under the Lease, including the “full and prompt payment 

to Landlord of all rent, additional rent, and interest, that may become due or payable by Tenant . . 

. under the Lease.” A true and correct copy of the Guaranty is attached as Exhibit “2” hereto.

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

13. Tenant, however, has breached the Lease by failing to pay Rent and other charges 

when due on April 1 and May 1, 2020. Tenant has further advised that its non-payment of Rent 

will continue, because of the circumstances related to COVID-19. The Guarantor has also failed 

to pay.

Case 1:20-cv-22096-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 5 of 11
6

14. The Landlord recognizes the challenges posed by COVID-19, including on its own 

business. Under the express terms and provisions of the Lease, however, the Tenant is obligated 

to pay Rent and that obligation is not excused. 

15. While the Lease does contain a force majeure provision in Article 34, the provision 

does not apply to these circumstances. The provision also expressly states that it does not “apply 

to Tenant’s obligations to pay Rent.” Accordingly, since the provision is not applicable, and the 

Tenant’s failure to pay rent is not excused, there is no contractual basis for the Tenant to avoid its 

obligation to pay Rent. 

16. On or about April 20, 2020 and on May 8, 2020, Plaintiff served Defendants with 

written notices, copies of which are attached as Composite Exhibit “3” hereto, advising that Tenant

was in breach of the Lease based on its failure to pay Rent when due, demanding that Rent be paid 

in full and that the security deposit under the Lease be restored, and expressly reserving all of the 

Landlord’s rights and remedies. Defendants, as set forth above, failed and refused to pay.

17. Landlord has declared and hereby reasserts the defaults and declares the full amount 

of the Rents and charges for the remaining term of the Lease to now be due, in excess of $470,000.

18. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been fulfilled, satisfied, 

waived or excused.

19. This action does not waive the right of Landlord, which is expressly reserved, to 

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

20. Pursuant to the Lease, including Article 26, and the Guaranty, Landlord is entitled 

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

21. Landlord has retained the law firm of Coffey Burlington, P.L. and is obligated to 

pay the firm a reasonable fee.

Case 1:20-cv-22096-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 6 of 11
7

COUNT I

ACTION FOR PAST DUE RENTS

(Defendant Pizza Buffet)

22. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained above as if fully set forth 

herein, and further states as follows:

23. This is an action for damages arising out of Tenant’s breach of the Lease.

24. Plaintiff and Tenant entered into the Lease as alleged above.

25. Tenant failed to pay, when due, certain rents and other charges pursuant to the 

Lease, and is therefore in default of the Lease.

26. Plaintiff made a demand upon the Tenant for payment of the amounts due, but 

despite the demand, Tenant failed to pay. 

27. As a direct and proximate result of Tenant’s breach, Plaintiff has suffered damage.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Pizza Buffet for the pastdue amounts under the Lease, as well as for additional Rent and other charges that may continue 

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

COUNT II

ACTION FOR ACCELERATED RENTS

(Defendant Pizza Buffet)

28. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained above as if fully set forth 

herein, and further states as follows:

29. This is an action for damages arising out of Tenant’s breach of the Lease.

30. Plaintiff and Tenant entered into the Lease as alleged above.

31. Tenant failed to pay, when due, certain rents and other charges pursuant to the 

Lease, and is therefore in default of the Lease.

Case 1:20-cv-22096-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 7 of 11
8

32. Plaintiff made a demand upon the Tenant for payment of the amounts due, but 

despite the demand, Tenant failed to pay the amounts. 

33. Tenant, moreover, has advised that its non-payment of Rent will continue because 

of the circumstances related to COVID-19, which is an anticipatory repudiation and breach of its 

payment obligations under the Lease. 

34. Pursuant to Article 26 and applicable Florida law, based on the Tenant’s default 

and repudiation of its obligations under the Lease, the Landlord is entitled to accelerate the 

Tenant’s obligation to pay the balance of future Rents and other charges for the full remaining 

term of the Lease. Landlord has declared and hereby reasserts the defaults and declares the full 

amount of the Rents and other charges for the remaining term of the Lease to now be due.1

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Pizza Buffet for the full 

amount of future Rents and charges under the Lease, plus interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such 

further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III

ACTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Defendant Pizza Buffet)

35. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained above as if fully set forth 

herein, and further states as follows:

36. Tenant has failed and refused to pay Rents pursuant to the Lease, based on the force 

majeure provision in Article 34.

1 Landlord expressly reserves and in no way waives its rights to terminate the Lease or 

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

pursued in this action.

Case 1:20-cv-22096-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 8 of 11
9

37. Tenant, moreover, has advised that its non-payment of Rent will continue because 

of the circumstances related to COVID-19, which is an anticipatory repudiation and breach of its 

payment obligations under the Lease. 

38. Plaintiff contends that the force majeure provision does not apply to these 

circumstances. The provision also expressly states that it does not “apply to Tenant’s obligations 

to pay Rent.” Accordingly, since the provision is not applicable, and the Tenant’s failure to pay 

rent is not excused, there is no contractual basis for the Tenant to avoid its obligation to pay rent. 

39. There is a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests, of 

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

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

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

insecurity, and controversy giving rise to the proceeding.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court issue a judgment declaring (a) that the 

force majeure provision under the Lease does not excuse Tenant’s obligation to pay Rent and other 

amounts; (b) that Tenant’s failure and refusal to pay Rent based on the force majeure provision is 

not warranted, and constitutes a breach of the Lease; (c) that Tenant is obligated to pay Rent and 

other amounts due, to be determined by the Court; and (e) awarding Plaintiff interest, costs, and 

attorneys’ fees (pursuant to Article 26 of the Lease), along with such other and further relief as 

may be permitted. 

Case 1:20-cv-22096-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 9 of 11
10

COUNT IV

ACTION ON THE GUARANTY

(Defendant Ansari)

41. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained above as if fully set forth 

herein, and further states as follows:

42. The Guarantor executed and delivered the Guaranty to Landlord.

43. Pursuant to the Guaranty, the Guarantor “absolutely and unconditionally 

guarantee[s] to Landlord” the obligations of Tenant under the Lease, including the “full and prompt 

payment to Landlord of all rent, additional rent, and interest, that may become due or payable by 

Tenant . . . under the Lease.” 

44. As alleged above, Tenant has breached and failed to make payments under the 

Lease. 

45. Tenant, moreover, has advised that its non-payment of Rent will continue because 

of the circumstances related to COVID-19, which is an anticipatory repudiation and breach of its 

payment obligations under the Lease. 

46. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s demand for payment and notice to the Guarantor, the 

Guarantor has also failed to pay or cause to be paid the amounts due. Accordingly, the Guarantor 

is in breach of the Guaranty.

47. The payment obligations under the Lease, for which Guarantor is obligated, include 

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

of the Lease, which are in excess of $470,000. 

Case 1:20-cv-22096-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 10 of 11
11

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Ansari for damages, 

including past due Rents and amounts under the Lease, and the balance of future Rents and other 

charges for the full remaining term of the Lease, plus interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such 

further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Kevin C. Kaplan

Kevin C. Kaplan, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 933848

kkaplan@coffeyburlington.com

lperez@coffeyburlington.com 

service@coffeyburlington.com

COFFEY BURLINGTON, P.L.

2601 South Bayshore Drive, Penthouse One

Miami, Florida 33133

Telephone: (305) 858-2900

Facsimile: (305) 858-5261

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-22096-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/20/2020 Page 11 of 11