1

6801253v.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: ______________________________

MON ETHOS PRO CONSULTING, LLC, a

Massachusetts limited liability company; and

DAVID WHITAKER, an individual;

Plaintiffs,

vs.

PLANE TRAVEL, LLC, a Florida limited

liability company; L AND P AIR LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company; LESLIE D.

GORDEN, an individual;

Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs Mon Ethos Pro Consulting, LLC and David Whitaker, by and through their

undersigned counsel, sue Defendants Plane Travel, LLC, L and P Air LLC, and Leslie D. Gorden,

and allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This lawsuit arises from a charter flight performed by Defendants on June 4, 2020,

and paid for by Plaintiff David Whitaker of Plaintiff Mon Ethos Pro Consulting, LLC.

2. Prior to booking the flight, Mr. Whitaker talked with his broker about booking a

direct flight from St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, to New Hampshire. Mr. Whitaker originally

planned to have five passengers and three dogs in his party but reduced his group to three

passengers and three dogs, in order to reduce weight and improve the chances of a direct flight to

his destination. Mr. Whitaker was told no other flights were available other than the flight offered

by Defendants. The flight was booked for Plaintiffs Mon Ethos Pro Consulting, LLC, and its

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 1 of 19
2

6801253v.1

owner, David Whitaker, to transport Mr. Whitaker non-stop from the U.S. Virgin Islands (“USVI”)

direct to New Hampshire for a time-sensitive business meeting on behalf of Mon Ethos, all of

which was communicated to Defendants prior to departure (the “Flight”).

3. Defendant Leslie D. Gorden was the captain of the Flight. The aircraft is owned

by Defendant L and P Air LLC, an entity that on information and belief is owned by Defendant

Gorden. The Flight was offered by the Part 135 charter certificate holder Plane Travel, LLC.

4. Defendants falsely promised Mr. Whitaker that he would arrive in New Hampshire

on time by flying direct from Saint Thomas, USVI, to New Hampshire without making any stops.

Mr. Whitaker had already reduced the total weight of his party by leaving two passengers behind

in the USVI in order to make a direct flight possible.

5. Mr. Whitaker informed Defendants that if they caused the aircraft to depart from

USVI without first clearing customs, he would consider it an act of kidnapping.

6. Instead of going directly to New Hampshire as promised, the Flight departed

directly to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, against Mr. Whitaker’s instructions and without his approval,

holding him hostage in his own-chartered aircraft. Because the airplane’s internet was not

working, Mr. Whitaker could not communicate with anyone on the ground to intervene and assist

with the Flight or notify the other participants in the business meeting of his delayed arrival.

7. Contrary to many promises and assurances to Mr. Whitaker, the aircraft crew failed

to clear customs before departure from Saint Thomas, requiring Mr. Whitaker to deplane in Florida

where he and his party waited for hours and were questioned at length by authorities. During this

delay on the ground, the aircraft crew removed Mr. Whitaker’s expensive medical sleep device

from the airplane and lost it, leaving it behind in Florida.

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 2 of 19
3

6801253v.1

8. Adding more insult to injury, the aircraft’s climate system was in disrepair, sending

the cabin temperature soaring to nearly 100 degrees Fahrenheit, which Mr. Whitaker, his party,

and his dogs were forced to endure for hours. Defendants failed to provide sufficient water to cope

with the extreme heat creating further stress.

9. Many of the promised in-flight amenities were not provided, leaving Mr. Whitaker

unable to contact anyone on the ground to alert them to the delays caused by Defendants and

preventing him from rescheduling the business meeting.

10. When the Flight finally touched down in New Hampshire, close to midnight and

hours behind schedule, Mr. Whitaker had missed the business meeting, and Mon Ethos lost an

anticipated multi-million dollar contract with a National Basketball Association star.

11. This lawsuit seeks to recoup Plaintiffs’ losses and hold Defendants accountable for

their false statements, broken promises, negligent operation, and interference with Mon Ethos’

business.

PARTIES

12. Plaintiff Mon Ethos Pro Consulting, LLC, is a Massachusetts limited liability

company with its principal place of business in Massachusetts. Mon Ethos combines executive

level talent management with cutting-edge business development tools to help athletes, artists, and

executives generate greater revenue and interest in their content and services.

13. Plaintiff David Whitaker is an individual domiciled in Massachusetts who is Mon

Ethos’ founder, president, and owner.

14. On information and belief, Defendant Plane Travel, LLC, is a Florida limited

liability company with its principal place of business in Pompano Beach, Florida. Plane Travel,

LLC holds itself out to the public as an operator of private jet charters as well as commercial and

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 3 of 19
4

6801253v.1

cargo aviation services. Plane Travel, LLC conducts business internationally and throughout the

United States, including in this district.

15. On information and belief, Defendant L and P Air LLC is a Delaware limited

liability company with its principal place of business in Missouri. L and P Air LLC holds itself

out to the public as a provider of private jet and commercial aviation services. L and P Air LLC

conducts business internationally and throughout the United States, including in this district.

16. On information and belief, L and P Air LLC is the owner of N479DR, a 1993

Beechjet 400A twin-turbine aircraft which is offered to Plane Travel, LLC’s charter jet customers

in interstate commerce. Photos of the aircraft with the N479DR registration number visible appear

on Plane Travel, LLC’s website, including as of the date of the filing of this Complaint.

17. On information and belief, L and P Air LLC and Plane Travel, LLC have a

contractual relationship concerning the use of N479DR by Plane Travel, LLC’s charter jet

customers.

18. L and P Air LLC also provides the services of its member-manager, Leslie D.

Gorden, as captain and pilot-in-command of N479DR.

19. On information and belief, Plane Travel, LLC, and L and P Air LLC share

operational control of all revenue flights utilizing N479DR in the service of Plane Travel, LLC’s

charter jet customers.

20. On information and belief, Defendant Leslie D. Gorden is an individual domiciled

in Missouri. Mr. Gorden is an experienced, ATP-rated pilot with thirteen type ratings, including

the Beechjet 400A. According to publicly available FAA records, Mr. Gorden also holds a flight

instructor certificate and an airframe-and-powerplant certificate. On information and belief, Mr.

Gorden is exceedingly familiar with the capabilities and limitations of the Beechjet 400A,

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 4 of 19
5

6801253v.1

including its range and performance. Indeed, Mr. Gorden is required by law to have and maintain

a high degree of familiarity with any type of aircraft he is entrusted to safely and legally operate

as pilot-in-command.

21. Mr. Gorden personally and on behalf of Defendants, as L and P Air’s owner and as

Plane Travel’s chief pilot, made false and misleading statements and promises to Plaintiffs and

was in direct control as pilot-in-command of the conduct of the flight.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1332(a) because there is diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000.00. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

23. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (3) because

Plane Travel, LLC is a Pompano Beach-based company that formed a contract with Plaintiffs for

the performance of a charter flight from the U.S. Virgin Islands to New Hampshire, because L and

P Air regularly conduct business in this district via the operation of N479DR from Fort Lauderdale,

because Defendants caused the aircraft to make a stop in this district in the course of the flight,

and because Defendant Gorden regularly transacts business in this district as chief pilot of Plane

Travel, LLC.

FACTS

24. In late May and early June, Mr. Whitaker sought transportation from Saint Thomas,

U.S. Virgin Islands, to New Hampshire for five passengers and three dogs. The same passengers

and dogs have flown with him previously on flights procured for him through the same broker,

and their information for the purposes of customs clearance was available to Defendants.

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 5 of 19
6

6801253v.1

25. Mr. Whitaker and Mon Ethos were offered the use of N479DR, a 1993 Beechjet

400A provided by Defendant Plane Travel, LLC, owned by Defendant L and P Air LLC, and flown

by Defendant Leslie D. Gorden, who also on information and belief serves as Plane Travel, LLC’s

Chief Pilot.

26. There are numerous variants and derivatives of Beechjet 400A aircraft, with

different performance characteristics, carrying capacity, and range. Plaintiffs relied on

Defendants’ expertise to accurately convey information about the performance of N479DR.

27. Mr. Whitaker and Mon Ethos accepted the offer of N479DR on Wednesday, June

3, 2020, and completed payment before the Flight on Thursday, June 4, 2020. Mr. Whitaker, in

order to facilitate a direct flight between Saint Thomas and New Hampshire with no intermediary

stops, revised his plans to include three passengers (two fewer than originally planned).

28. Defendants confirmed to Plaintiffs multiple times that a direct flight to New

Hampshire could be accomplished with N479DR.

29. Plaintiffs informed Defendants that one of the purposes for the flight was to travel

for business on behalf of Mon Ethos, and that an important Zoom conference call was scheduled

to take place in one of the arrival airport’s conference rooms shortly after arrival. The Zoom

conference call concerned a potential business deal with the agent of a prominent NBA player

which Mon Ethos reasonably believed would result in at least $2,000,000 in income. Defendants

assured Plaintiffs this timing was not a problem. Plaintiffs relied on Defendants’ experience and

expertise in assuring Plaintiffs that this timeline could be followed.

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 6 of 19
7

6801253v.1

I. Arrival at the Departure Airport

30. Mr. Whitaker and his party arrived at the airport in Saint Thomas on June 4 at

approximately 3:15 P.M. AST. They were introduced to the Captain, Defendant Gordon, and the

first officer, whose name is unknown.

31. One of the flight crew informed Mr. Whitaker’s party that he had failed to pay his

phone bill and could not make any calls to customs, his company, the FAA, weather briefers, or

anyone else. He blamed his wife for the claimed oversight. Mr. Whitaker was surprised that a

professional pilot could overlook making sure he had a working telephone prior to attempting an

international flight.

32. The flight crew also claimed there was a problem with one of the passengers’

identification, even though all identifying information was already made available to Defendants

in advance and the passenger had previously flown with Mr. Whitaker via the same broker who

procured the Flight from Defendants.

33. Mr. Whitaker provided this passenger’s birth certificate, learner’s permit, and credit

card as additional verification as requested by Defendant Gorden and the flight crew.

34. Shortly after arriving at the airport, Mr. Whitaker confirmed the timeline with the

flight crew, who assured him that their estimated time of arrival in New Hampshire was between

8:00 and 8:30 P.M., local time. Mr. Whitaker reminded the flight crew, including Defendant

Gorden, that the flight needed to be made non-stop in order to arrive on time for his Zoom-call

business meeting at 9:15 P.M. to 9:30 P.M., when he anticipated closing a deal on behalf of Mon

Ethos for $2,000,000, with the business manager of a prominent NBA athlete.

35. Defendants failed to inform Mr. Whitaker if they believed this timeline was not

possible, which would have given him time to reschedule the important business meeting. Instead

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 7 of 19
8

6801253v.1

they assured him the timeline would be followed and the Flight would arrive on time in order to

get Mr. Whitaker to pay for the errant flight.

36. Defendants likewise assured Mr. Whitaker that he and his party would be cleared

through customs prior to departure in order to convince him to travel on their aircraft.

37. Because Defendant Gorden is Defendant Plane Travel, LLC’s Chief Pilot, his

statements are directly attributable to Plane Travel, LLC, itself.

II. The Captain Threatens to Take Off Without Clearance

38. Mr. Whitaker then began to receive conflicting information from the flight crew

regarding their customs clearance. The co-pilot intentionally represented to Mr. Whitaker that text

messages on his phone were confirmation of clearance from customs. When Mr. Whitaker

reviewed these text messages, he immediately recognized that the texts were not clearance from

customs and in fact had nothing to do with customs at all. In fact, the flight crew had

misrepresented the context of the texts in order to deceive Mr. Whitaker.

39. Defendant Gorden told Mr. Whitaker that, regardless of customs clearance, he

intended to make a “command decision” to take off anyway, risking fines, penalties, or worse. Mr.

Whitaker strongly warned the captain that taking off without clearing customs would be considered

by Mr. Whitaker to be an act of kidnapping. Defendant Gorden took off anyway knowing he was

headed to Florida and not New Hampshire.

40. The flight crew repeatedly assured Mr. Whitaker that they had received clearance

from customs to depart. Mr. Whitaker relied on their qualifications and experience in giving his

agreement that they could depart. The flight crew also claimed that the plane would land in

Florida, but only to take on additional fuel, contrary to their assurances that the Flight could

proceed direct to its final destination.

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 8 of 19
9

6801253v.1

41. However, Mr. Whitaker later learned that the plane had not been cleared through

customs and instead would be landing at Fort Lauderdale Executive to go through customs – and

not merely to take on fuel. Mr. Whitaker was shocked at an ostensibly professional flight crew’s

deception, poor judgment, and lack of professionalism. At one point, one of the pilots remarked

that he thought they were in the United Kingdom and had to be told by a baggage handler that they

were in fact on U.S. Virgin Islands soil. At another point, Mr. Whitaker had to loan his phone to

one of the pilots to make a call.

42. The flight crew later lied that they could not complete customs in Saint Thomas

because the customs office was closed, yet Mr. Whitaker had witnessed the office open with

employees working inside while on the ground before departure.

III. The Flight Departs for Florida, Not Direct to New Hampshire as Promised

43. At or about 4:46 P.M., and without having cleared customs, the Flight departed

Saint Thomas Virgin Islands.

44. The original and all flight plans filed by the flight crew, including Defendant

Gorden, always indicated a destination of Fort Lauderdale, not New Hampshire. Both pilots knew

at all times they would not be flying direct to New Hampshire but actively misled Mr. Whitaker

to believe otherwise.

45. On information and belief, N479DR is a model of Beechjet 400A that is not capable

of flying direct to New Hampshire from Saint Thomas under normal circumstances, a fact known

to the flight crew, including Defendant Gorden, but not known to Mr. Whitaker.

46. At or about 7:31 P.M., the aircraft touched down in Fort Lauderdale. Mr.

Whitaker and his entire party were instructed to deplane along with all of their luggage, dogs, and

a medical sleeping device valued at $5,000. The group did not have the proper paperwork on hand

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 9 of 19
10

6801253v.1

for the dogs, since Mr. Whitaker had been assured of a pre-cleared, direct flight to New Hampshire.

One passenger was playing with Play-Doh to calm anxiety, and the customs officials harassed

them as though the Play-Doh was explosive, bomb-making material. Customs officials similarly

harassed the entire party and threatened to quarantine the dogs. None of this would have happened

had Defendants’ statements been accurate, that the party had cleared customs and that the plane

was headed directly to New Hampshire.

47. Mr. Whitaker was put in touch with the customs office chief via telephone. The

customs chief informed him that the flight crew had been wrong to depart Saint Thomas without

clearance and should have obtained pre-clearance instead. Mr. Whitaker, who had provided all

necessary information to clear customs to Defendants in advance, also learned that the Saint

Thomas customs office is open until 4:00 P.M., which left enough time to obtain clearance prior

to departure, despite Defendants’ claims to the contrary.

IV. Plaintiffs Lose a Multi-Million Dollar Contract Due to Defendants’ Deception

48. Mon Ethos’ scheduled meeting with the NBA player’s business manager came and

went while the Flight was airborne. Mr. Whitaker missed this meeting as a direct result of

Defendants’ delays, misrepresentations, and negligence, causing a loss to Mon Ethos of at least

$2,000,000.

49. At or about 11:28 P.M., more than two hours after the scheduled time of the

meeting, and more than three hours after the time Defendants promised, the aircraft finally landed

in New Hampshire. A flight that Defendants claimed would take only four and a half hours instead

took more than eight and a half hours. Mon Ethos’ staff, who had been arranged to pick up the

traveling party, had to wait at the airport for hours, causing Mon Ethos to incur additional wages,

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 10 of 19
11

6801253v.1

and due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the staff members could not find hotel rooms and instead had

to drive back home to Boston, arriving well after 1:00 A.M.

50. Mr. Whitaker and his party also discovered that the flight crew had failed to replace

the medical sleeping device after removing it from the aircraft in Florida, causing a serious health

issue and economic loss to its owner.

V. Substandard Condition of the Aircraft

51. N479DR itself was far below the typical standards of charter aircraft Mr. Whitaker

is used to in his business travels.

52. There was no temperature control on the aircraft. Defendants claimed the

temperature would decrease after takeoff but instead the cabin only got warmer, especially from a

massive heat radiating from the floor. The floor was so hot that all three dogs refused to sit on it.

Despite having received standard sedatives before the flight, all three dogs were displaying

symptoms of overheating and extreme anxiety.

53. At 9:03 P.M., Mr. Whitaker used an app on his phone to measure ambient air

temperature, which measured a reading of 98.2 degrees inside the cabin.

54. There were only three small bottles of water on the aircraft, which were grossly

inadequate for three people in 98+ degree heat.

55. Mr. Whitaker’s party discovered that one of the seat belts could not be securely

latched.

56. Defendants promised that wireless internet would be available upon reaching

cruising altitude, but the internet service never worked, preventing Mr. Whitaker from

rescheduling his meeting while airborne.

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 11 of 19
12

6801253v.1

57. In addition, Plaintiffs noticed multiple fit-and-finish issues with the aircraft,

including a section behind the lavatory that was completely loose and detached from the wall and

could potentially cause injury if thrown into motion by turbulence or a hard landing.

VI. Defendants Try to Cover Their Tracks and Refuse Responsibility

58. After the flight, Defendants attempted to mislead the broker that procured the flight

on Plaintiffs’ behalf. Defendants falsely informed the broker that the Flight was cleared by

customs at 3:41 P.M., authorized by Defendants’ dispatch to depart at 4:30 P.M., and just 25

minutes later was advised to divert to Fort Lauderdale for customs clearance.

59. In reality, on information and belief, and at the time known only to Defendants, the

flight departed Saint Thomas bound for Fort Lauderdale from the very beginning; it was never

“diverted.” The claimed timeline also makes no sense: if the plane was actually pre-cleared by

customs as claimed at 3:41 P.M., there would be no need to divert for customs clearance in Florida

less than a hour later.

60. Plaintiffs attempted to resolve this matter with Defendants prior to commencing a

lawsuit. Plaintiffs sent correspondence dated June 10 and requested a response by June 12. Since

June 4, Defendants have never responded to Plaintiffs’ correspondence regarding the Flight at any

time.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Misrepresentation

61. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Complaint as though fully set

forth herein.

62. Defendants stated that the Flight would be pre-cleared through customs, and that

the Flight could proceed to New Hampshire nonstop, arriving at the agreed-upon time of 8:00 to

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 12 of 19
13

6801253v.1

8:30 P.M. Defendants also stated that the Flight would arrive in time for a prescheduled business

meeting between 9:15 P.M. and 9:30 P.M.

63. These were material facts and the essence of Plaintiffs’ reason for traveling.

64. Defendants knew or should have known these statements were false when made.

65. Defendants intended to induce Plaintiffs to rely on their statements to accept the

Flight, to allow the Flight to depart, and to pay Defendants for the Flight.

66. Plaintiffs have suffered injury in the form of general damages, lost profits and

revenue, unnecessary wages paid to employees, and other damages to be proved at trial.

Defendants’ actions were outrageous and reckless, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary

damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Fraud

67. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Complaint as though fully set

forth herein.

68. Defendants stated that the Flight would be pre-cleared through customs, and that

the Flight could proceed to New Hampshire nonstop, arriving at the agreed-upon time of 8:00 to

8:30 P.M. Defendants also stated that the Flight would arrive in time for a prescheduled business

meeting between 9:15 P.M. and 9:30 P.M.

69. These were material facts and the essence of Plaintiffs’ reason for traveling.

70. Defendants knew these statements were false when made.

71. Defendants intended to induce Plaintiffs to rely on their statements to accept the

Flight, to allow the Flight to depart, and to pay Defendants for the Flight.

72. Plaintiffs reasonably relied to their detriment on the statements by Defendants.

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 13 of 19
14

6801253v.1

73. Plaintiffs have suffered injury in the form of general damages, lost profits and

revenue, unnecessary wages paid to employees, and other damages to be proved at trial.

Defendants’ actions were outrageous and reckless, so as to justify an award of punitive and

exemplary damages.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Conversion

74. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Complaint as though fully set

forth herein.

75. Plaintiffs possessed a specific, readily ascertainable amount of money paid for the

Flight. This amount is known to Plaintiffs and capable of proof.

76. Plaintiffs enjoy the immediate right to possess the money due to Defendants failing

to deliver on the Flight they promised in exchange for that money.

77. Plaintiffs demanded return of their money, and Defendants, by ignoring Plaintiffs’

demand, have refused to return the money.

78. Plaintiffs are entitled to a return of their money. Additionally, Defendants’ actions

were outrageous and done knowingly, so as to justify an award of punitive and exemplary

damages.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Contract

79. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Complaint as though fully set

forth herein.

80. A contract existed between Plaintiffs and Defendants to perform a flight direct from

Saint Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, to New Hampshire, for the disclosed purpose of arriving in

time for a business meeting at 9:15 to 9:30 P.M. Defendants agreed and represented repeatedly

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 14 of 19
15

6801253v.1

that the flight would be direct, pre-cleared through customs, and would arrive between 8:00 P.M.

and 8:30 P.M. local time.

81. Defendants failed to deliver on the contract, as they instead flew Plaintiffs to

Florida, and then to New Hampshire, arriving more than three hours later than agreed, failed to

pre-clear customs, and further failed to inform Plaintiffs of any anticipated breach.

82. Plaintiffs did all they were required to do under the contract, or were excused from

performing.

83. As a consequential result, Plaintiffs have lost the moneys paid under the contract,

lost an anticipated $2,000,000 contract that was substantially like to have been closed at the

business meeting, and incurred additional incidental expenses to be proved at trial that include, but

are not limited to, additional wages paid to staff who were required to remain at the airport until

its final arrival.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

84. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Complaint as though fully set

forth herein.

85. Under Florida law, every contract includes an implied covenant of good faith and

fair dealing in order to protect the parties’ reasonable expectations. Good faith means honesty in

the conduct of contractual relations. The covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implicated

whenever a given question is not answered in the contract terms, or when one party has the power

to use its discretion without defined standards.

86. A contract existed between Plaintiffs and Defendants to perform a flight direct from

Saint Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, to New Hampshire, for the disclosed purpose of arriving in

time for a business meeting at 9:15 to 9:30 P.M. Defendants agreed and represented repeatedly

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 15 of 19
16

6801253v.1

that the flight would be direct, pre-cleared through customs, and would arrive between 8:00 P.M.

and 8:30 P.M. local time.

87. Plaintiffs did all or substantially all they were required to do under the contract, or

they were excused from having to do these things.

88. All conditions required for Defendants’ performance had occurred.

89. Defendants’ actions as pleaded herein unfairly interfered with Plaintiffs’ receipt of

the contract’s benefits.

90. Defendants’ conduct did not comport with Plaintiffs’ reasonable contractual

expectations.

91. Plaintiffs have been harmed as alleged herein.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

False Imprisonment

92. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Complaint as though fully set

forth herein.

93. Plaintiff Mr. Whitaker informed Defendants that he would consider taking off

without customs pre-clearance to be an act of kidnapping.

94. Defendants told Mr. Whitaker that the flight had been cleared by customs, which

was false.

95. Defendants took off on the Flight with Mr. Whitaker aboard, unlawfully depriving

him of his liberty, against his will, without authority.

96. Defendants’ acts were unreasonable and unwarranted under the circumstances.

Defendants’ actions were outrageous and reckless, so as to justify an award of punitive and

exemplary damages.

97. Mr. Whitaker is entitled to damages to be proven at trial.

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 16 of 19
17

6801253v.1

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

98. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Complaint as though fully set

forth herein.

99. Defendants acted intentionally or recklessly, knowing that emotional distress was

the likely result, especially after being told that taking off without preclearance through customs

and without Plaintiffs’ permission would be considered an act of kidnapping.

100. Defendants’ conduct was outrageous, beyond the bounds of decency, and is

regarded as utterly intolerable in a civilized society.

101. Mr. Whitaker suffered emotional distress.

102. The emotional distress Mr. Whitaker suffered was severe.

103. Plaintiff is entitled to damages to be proven at trial, including punitive damages

based on the outrageousness and recklessness of Defendants’ conduct.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Tortious Interference with Business Relationship

104. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Complaint as though fully set

forth herein.

105. A business relationship existed between Plaintiffs and a readily identifiable NBA

player and his business manager.

106. Plaintiffs timely informed Defendants of this relationship.

107. Defendants were aware of this relationship.

108. Defendants intentionally, and without justification, interfered with this relationship

by, inter alia, falsely representing to Plaintiffs that the Flight would arrive in New Hampshire on

time for the meeting between the two parties of the business relationship and repeatedly assuring

Plaintiffs that the Flight would be made direct from Saint Thomas to New Hampshire.

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 17 of 19
18

6801253v.1

109. As a result, Plaintiffs suffered at least $2,000,000 in damages, the precise amount

to be proven at trial. Additionally, Defendants’ actions were outrageous and reckless, so as to

justify an award of punitive and exemplary damages.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Unjust Enrichment

110. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 60 of this Complaint as though fully set

forth herein.

111. Plaintiffs conferred a benefit on Defendants in the form of moneys paid for the

performance of the Flight.

112. Defendants voluntarily accepted and retained the benefit.

113. Due to Defendants’ conduct in making false representations, failing to perform as

promised, and misleading Plaintiffs as to their ability to perform as promised, it would be

inequitable for Defendants to retain the benefit without paying its full value back to Plaintiffs.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant them the relief requested

as follows:

A. An award of damages to compensate Plaintiffs for all non-monetary and

compensatory harm, including compensation for lost business, return of all moneys paid for the

Flight, emotional distress and suffering, and all other damages proven at trial;

B. An award of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined at trial,

sufficient to deter Defendants from engaging in similar and continued illegal and/or wrongful

conduct;

C. All other such and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 18 of 19
19

6801253v.1

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury in this action.

DATED: June 25, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH &

PROPHETE LLP

By: /s/Angelique Groza Lyons

ANGELIQUE GROZA LYONS

Florida Bar No.: 118801

GREGG M. MORAN

Florida Bar No.: 1011060

100 N. Tampa St., Suite 3350

Tampa, FL 33602

Phone: (813) 223-7166

Email: alyons@constangy.com

Email: gmoran@constangy.com

BUCHALTER,

A Professional Corporation

TRACY A. WARREN*

ZACHARY L. SPEAR*

JASON E. GOLDSTEIN

655 West Broadway, Suite 1625

San Diego, CA 92101

Telephone: 619.219.5335

Email: twarren@buchalter.com

Email: jgoldstein@buchalter.com

Bar No.: 526991

* PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION

FORTHCOMING

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Mon Ethos Pro

Consulting, LLC, and David Whitaker

Case 0:20-cv-61243-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/25/2020 Page 19 of 19