UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KIMBERLY GRIPPA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 4:30-cv-457-MW/MAF

RONALD RUBIN, 

Defendant.

_____________________________/

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Defendant, Ronald Rubin, through his counsel, files his Answer and 

Affirmative Defenses to the Plaintiff’s, Kimberly Grippa, Amended Complaint. 

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a civil action seeking monetary damages, declaratory 

judgment, and legal, equitable, and injunctive relief against Defendant. This is an 

action brought under the common law of the State of Florida. 

ANSWER: Admitted that the foregoing is what the Plaintiff purports to seek 

in her amended complaint and that the action is brought under the common 

law of the state of Florida. 

2. This is an action involving claims which are, individually, in excess 

of $30,000.

ANSWER: Admitted for jurisdictional purposes. 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 03/24/21 Page 1 of 13
2

PARTIES

3. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, KIMBERLY GRIPPA, has 

been a resident of the state of Florida. She is thus sui juris.

ANSWER: Admitted. 

4. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant, RONALD RUBIN, 

individually, was a resident of the State of Florida. He is thus sui juris.

ANSWER: Denied.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

5. To the extent required, Plaintiff has complied with all conditions 

precedent.

ANSWER: Without knowledge, therefore denied. 

STATEMENT OF THE ULTIMATE FACTS

6. Plaintiff, KIMBERLY GRIPPA, is an attorney with over 22 years'

legal work experience. She has a model work history including: Legal Counsel

for a state college, Associate Attorney for a prominent law firm, Cabinet Aide

at the Florida Department of State, a Faculty member at FSU College of Law,

and other prominent positions.

ANSWER: Without knowledge, therefore denied. 

7. On March 21, 2019, GRIPPA interviewed with the Florida Office

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 03/24/21 Page 2 of 13
3

of Financial Regulation and the Department of Financial Services for the

position of General Counsel with Defendant, Commissioner RONALD RUBIN,

who is male.

ANSWER: Denied. The lunch has been referred to as an “interview,” but 

there was never a General Counsel job posted, the OFR General Counsel in 

March 2019 is still the General Counsel.

8. Throughout the interview, Defendant made numerous

discriminatory statements and inappropriate acts based on GRIPPA's gender.

ANSWER: Denied. 

9. GRIPPA reported this in an email to Chief of Staff Ryan West on

May 13, 2019.

ANSWER: Without knowledge, therefore denied. 

10. GRIPPA learned that numerous additional complaints had been

filed against Defendant by females who he treated similarly to her.

ANSWER: Denied. 

11. As a result, an internal investigation was conducted into Defendant's

behavior and determined that Defendant's conduct was sufficiently severe and

pervasive to find him guilty of official misconduct.

ANSWER: Admitted that an investigation was conducted. The outcome and 

findings of the investigation is denied. Moreover, the Defendant questions the 

legitimacy and intentions behind the investigation. The investigation was not 

internal, but for all intents and purposes was secretly directed by Jimmy 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 03/24/21 Page 3 of 13
4

Patronis’ investigator, Mike Shoaf.

12. The Governor's office was also involved in the review process of

Defendant's behavior and in conjunction with the Florida Cabinet, removed

Defendant from office.

ANSWER: Denied. The Governor’s Office reviewed the Investigation Report, 

not the Defendant’s behavior. Admitted that, based on the Investigation 

Report, the Defendant was removed from office. 

13. Defendant has also filed several lawsuits (including Case No. 2019

CA 002535) wherein GRIPPA is listed as a co-conspirator of the "enterprise"

that Rubin claims blackmailed, intimidated and extorted him and that she was

associated with "racketeering, political corruption, abuse of power, and misuse

of taxpayer money at the highest levels of DFS".

ANSWER: Denied that “several” lawsuits have been filed. The pleadings in 

the lawsuit speak for themselves and no response is required.

14. Defendant has not officially named GRIPPA as a party in the case

and as such she has no means of defending herself against the unsubstantiated,

impertinent, scandalous, and false accusations Defendant has cast upon her in

an attempt to swing the spotlight away from himself and his behavior.

ANSWER: Admitted that Grippa is not a defendant in Case No. 2019 CA

002535. The remainder is denied.

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 03/24/21 Page 4 of 13
5

15. Subsequent to the complaints by Plaintiff against Rubin referenced

in paragraph 9 above and on the day the lawsuit referenced above was filed,

Rubin, through counsel, sent emails to Governor Ron DeSantis and Chief

Inspector General Melinda Miguel, on June 21, 2019 in which he referenced

his "enterprise" and the lawsuit identified in paragraph 13 above, in which

Plaintiff was included as a named participant in this fictitious "enterprise." The

lawsuit that Rubin filed referenced above was included as a hyperlink to the

email to Miguel. In the emails to both DeSantis and Miguel on June 21, 2019,

Rubin detailed improper, unethical and seemingly unlawful conduct on the part

of Plaintiff. Thus, Rubin, through his counsel, has publicly and falsely

disparaged Plaintiff in his communication to Governor DeSantis and Miguel.

ANSWER: The e-mails cited speak for themselves. Denied as to the 

remainder and as to any allegation that differs from the content of the e-mails. 

16. Moreover, in a statement/letter that Rubin provided to state

investigators on May 30, 2019, presumably including without limitation the

Office of the Inspector General within the Department of Financial Services and

to other persons/entities including without limitation to FLAPOL, a publication

through floridapolitics.com, Rubin falsely stated that Plaintiff was not

"qualified to be the agency's enforcement director," that Plaintiff "had an air of

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 03/24/21 Page 5 of 13
6

entitlement and that [he] feared she would make [his] staff and other OFR

employees miserable." In his May 30, 2019 statement/letter, incorporated into

the FLAPOL article of statewide if not national circulation, Rubin further

falsely stated that Plaintiff had "not even pretended [their] lunch was a real

interview and that she was angry because [he] had treated it as a real

interview." These comments constitute defamation per se or per quad.

ANSWER: The document referenced speaks for itself. Denied to the extent 

the allegations differ from the referenced document. 

17. Media and press coverage of Defendant's accusations has led to a

character assassination of GRIPPA and her professional reputation. None of the

allegations against her are true, supported by evidence, and are nothing more

than a scandalous attempt to shift focus from Rubin's discriminatory and

scandalous behavior against women.

ANSWER: Denied. 

18. GRIPPA has since been denied job opportunities due to the

defamatory allegations against her by Defendant.

ANSWER: Denied. 

19. Defendant was aware or should have been aware that Plaintiff was

in the process of attempting to obtain employment and was entertaining multiple

interviews with numerous employers when he made the scandalous and false

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 03/24/21 Page 6 of 13
7

allegations against Plaintiff and knew or should have reasonably knew that

making such statements would hinder her chances of gaining such employment

and/or ruin her reputation in the community.

ANSWER: Denied. 

COUNT I

DEFAMATION

(Against Defendant RUBIN)

20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are re-alleged and are incorporated herein

by reference.

ANSWER: The answers to paragraphs one through nineteen are incorporated 

herein by reference. 

21. This count sets forth a claim against Defendant RUBIN for

defamation.

ANSWER: Denied. 

22. Defendant RUBIN, individually, or through counsel, published

and/or caused to be published or allowed to be published false statements about

Plaintiff to third parties as set forth above, in part.

ANSWER: Denied. 

23. These statements made by Defendant RUBIN were malicious and

intended to harm Plaintiff. Alternatively, Defendant RUBIN was negligent in

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 03/24/21 Page 7 of 13
8

publishing these statements, and/or published these statements with knowledge

that they were false and/or published these statements with reckless disregard as

to their falsity.

ANSWER: Denied. 

24. The statements referred to above directly and proximately caused

harm to Plaintiff's reputation in the community, subjected Plaintiff to distrust,

ridicule, contempt or disgrace and/ or tended to injure Plaintiff in Plaintiff's trade

or profession.

ANSWER: Denied. 

25. These statements have deterred others from associating with

Plaintiff and are actionable on their face. The communications made by

Defendant attributed conduct, characteristics, and/ or conditions upon Plaintiff

incompatible with the exercise of Plaintiff's lawful business, trade, profession

and office.

ANSWER: Denied. 

26. Alternatively, Defendant engaged in slander per quod and Plaintiff

is entitled to damages as a consequence thereof.

ANSWER: Denied. 

27. Defendant published these statements in bad faith.

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 03/24/21 Page 8 of 13
9

ANSWER: Denied. 

28. As a result of the falsity of the statements made by Defendant

RUBIN as set forth above and the publication thereof, Plaintiff has suffered

damages which include, without limitation, special and general damages.

Defendant engaged in slander per se which is actionable on its face and general

damages are presumed.

ANSWER: Denied. 

29. Alternatively, Defendant engaged in slander per quod and Plaintiff

is entitled to damages as a consequence thereof. The communications made by

Defendant RUBIN imputed conduct to Plaintiff which is incompatible with her

functioning as a member of her community and occupation. Few good, decent

or honorable people would want to have business relationships with a person or

have a person serve them in a personal or professional capacity with the qualities

attributed to Plaintiff by Defendant.

ANSWER: Denied. 

30. As a result of the defamatory statements, Plaintiff has suffered

extreme humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish, pain and suffering, 

inconvenience, lost capacity for enjoyment of life, loss of business and profits,

loss of reputation, good standing in the community and other tangible and

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 03/24/21 Page 9 of 13
10

intangible damages. These damages have occurred in the past, present and are

reasonably expected to continue into the future. Plaintiff is entitled to

equitable/injunctive relief and to punitive damages.

ANSWER: Denied. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

31. As his first affirmative defense, Ronald Rubin states that the 

complained of “defamatory” statements are true, and thus do not constitute 

actionable defamation. 

32. As his second affirmative defense, Ronald Rubin states that the 

complained of “defamatory” statements were merely statements of opinion, and 

thus do not constitute actionable defamation. 

33. As his third affirmative defense, Ronald Rubin states that the 

complained of “defamatory” statements were invited by the Plaintiff, and thus do 

not constitute actionable defamation. 

34. As his fourth affirmative defense, Ronald Rubin states that the 

complained of “defamatory” statements were made in the scope of his official 

duties and, therefore, enjoy an absolute privilege under Florida law. 

35. As his fifth affirmative defense, Ronald Rubin states that the 

complained of “defamatory” statements are protected by the litigation privilege 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 03/24/21 Page 10 of 13
11

and thus are not actionable. 

36. As his sixth affirmative defense, Ronald Rubin states that the 

complained of “defamatory” statements are protected by the qualified privilege 

doctrine and the conditional privilege (fair comment) doctrine. 

37. As his seventh affirmative defense, Ronald Rubin states that the 

complained of “defamatory” statements were made without malice and are, 

therefore, not actionable. 

38. As his eighth affirmative defense, Ronald Rubin states that the relief 

sought by the Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, attorney fees, is improper for 

a defamation claim under Florida law. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Ronald Rubin, demands judgment in his favor, for 

costs, and for such other relief as the Court deems just. 

Dated: March 24, 2021.

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 03/24/21 Page 11 of 13
12

Respectfully submitted,

Defendant, 

By counsel.

/s/ James L. Kauffman 

James L. Kauffman (Fla. Bar No. 12915)

BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP

1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW

Suite 540 

Washington, DC 20007 

Telephone: (202) 463-2101 

Facsimile: (202) 342-2103 

Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com

Secondary: vpierre@baileyglasser.com

Nicole L. Ballante (Fla. Bar No. 0125356)

BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP

360 Central Avenue, Suite 1500

St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Telephone: (727) 894-6745 

Facsimile: (727) 894-2649 

Email: nballante@baileyglasser.com

Counsel for Defendant

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 03/24/21 Page 12 of 13
13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 24, 2021, a copy of the foregoing document 

was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent be e-mail to all parties by 

operation of the Court’s electronic filing system as indicated on the Notice of 

Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF 

System. 

/s/ James L. Kauffman

James L. Kauffman 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 33 Filed 03/24/21 Page 13 of 13