IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA 

CIVIL DIVISION 

RONALD RUBIN,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

R. PAUL MITCHELL,

Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

CASE NO. 2019 CA 002535

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

Ronald Rubin sues R. Paul Mitchell, and alleges: 

Overview 

1. Florida’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Jimmy Patronis and his

inner circle, including lobbyist Paul Mitchell, constitute an “enterprise” designed 

to consolidate their political power and advance their financial interests. The 

enterprise applies a “Pay to Play – or Else” system of blackmail and intimidation 

to extract illegal campaign contributions, install loyalist patrons and eliminate 

“outsiders” who might expose their unlawful activities. When state employees 

refuse to fall in line, Patronis uses his official press office and other media vectors 

to extort their resignations with defamatory allegations or fires them outright so 

they can be replaced with obedient foot soldiers. 

2. In early 2019, Plaintiff Ronald Rubin, an outsider to Patronis’

political machine, was appointed Commissioner of the Florida Office of Financial 

Regulation (OFR). Prior to this appointment and unbeknownst to Rubin, 

Patronis’ enterprise had extracted a $1 million campaign-contribution pledge 

Filing # 101202022 E-Filed 01/06/2020 06:01:49 PM

EXHIBIT B

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 31
2

from Rubin’s 84-year-old father. However, Rubin’s father broke his promise and 

Rubin refused to fill official state positions with known enterprise members. 

3. Consequently, the enterprise blackmailed Rubin, threatening to 

publicly accuse him of sexual harassment if he did not immediately resign. 

Indeed, in 2018, Patronis had forced the resignation of Rubin’s predecessor 

using similar tactics. Rubin, unlike his predecessor, denied the false allegations 

and refused to quit. 

4. Patronis then published a “complaint” against Rubin that his staff 

had carefully orchestrated, falsely calling it a “sexual harassment complaint.” 

Next, he suspended Rubin without lawful authority (a defect the Attorney 

General promptly pointed out and which Patronis ignored) and solicited 

additional complaints against Rubin. Finally, Patronis conducted a sham, preordained “investigation” of Rubin.

5. Patronis hid his involvement in the investigation from the Governor, 

the other Cabinet members and the public. He ultimately reported that Rubin 

had violated “policies prohibiting sexual harassment” – but he concealed the 

purportedly victimized employee’s testimony showing that Rubin had 

never sexually harassed her. As a result of Patronis’ knowingly false 

accusation, Rubin was vilified by the media, publicly humiliated, and fired by 

the Cabinet. To intimidate Rubin from pursuing whistleblower claims or other 

civil relief, Patronis publicly declared that Rubin and his lawyers should be 

criminally prosecuted and sanctioned. 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 31
3

6. Consequently, Rubin sues here under Florida law for defamation, 

tortious interference and civil relief from the enterprise’s criminal acts. 

Parties

7. Plaintiff Rubin is an individual residing in the District of Columbia. 

He is a lawyer with decades of federal public service including at the Securities 

and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the 

House of Representatives’ Financial Services Committee. He served as OFR 

Commissioner from February 26, 2019 to July 25, 2019. 

a. OFR regulates Florida’s banking, finance and securities 

industries. 

b. OFR is a sub-agency of the Department of Financial Services 

(DFS), which is part of Florida’s Executive Branch. CFO 

Patronis is the chief executive of DFS.

c. Also within DFS is the Financial Services Commission (FSC), 

whose members are the Governor and the “Florida Cabinet,” 

namely, CFO Patronis, Attorney General Ashley Moody and 

Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried. 

d. The FSC has the power to appoint and remove the OFR 

Commissioner by a majority vote consisting of at least three 

affirmative votes, with both the Governor and the CFO on the 

prevailing side.

8. Defendant Mitchell is a citizen of Florida. He is a registered Florida 

executive and legislative lobbyist at The Southern Group f/k/a Southern 

Strategy Group, a lobbying firm with offices throughout the state. Mitchell’s 

company boasts “unparalleled access to local and state government.” For over a 

decade, Mitchell’s customers have included insurance companies, including

Managed Care of North America, Inc. d/b/a MCNA Dental Plans, operated by

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 31
4

Jeffrey Feingold, DDS. From 2016 to date, Mr. Feingold’s companies have paid

over $815,000 in putative “lobbying fees” to Mitchell and his firm. In 2017 and 

2018, Mitchell and his family “donated” $10,000 to Patronis’ election campaign, 

and Mr. Feingold and his family “donated” $6,000.

Jurisdiction and Venue

9. This is a civil action for damages in excess of $15,000.00.

10. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendant resides in this 

Circuit and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims 

occurred in this Circuit.

Rubin’s Appointment as OFR Commissioner

11. In June 2018, OFR Commissioner Drew Breakspear announced his 

resignation after Patronis, through his press office, accused Breakspear of 

“complete lack of ability to do the basic things he needs to do as a commissioner”

with respect to a sexual-harassment allegation (which was ultimately disproven). 

During that episode, Breakspear’s Deputy Commissioner Pamela Epting publicly 

disobeyed a Patronis order and Patronis moved to fire and replace her with a 

Patronis loyalist. According to public records, Patronis’ effort to remove 

Breakspear came after Breakspear had clashed “with scorned companies and 

high-profile securities traders who lobbied Patronis after disagreements with 

Breakspear’s office.” 

12. Shortly thereafter, Rubin applied for the OFR Commissioner 

position that Breakspear had vacated. An outsider to the Tallahassee political 

establishment, Rubin sought assistance in navigating the application process, 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 of 31
5 

and ultimately was introduced to lobbyist Mitchell through insurance magnate 

Feingold. In August 2018, Mitchell sent Rubin a text in which he revealed that 

he purposefully violated the Sunshine Law (“creating a public record”) in his 

dealings with Patronis: 

13. In exchange for Feingold’s “assistance” in ensuring Rubin’s 

appointment, Feingold solicited a $1 million contribution from Rubin’s father. 

Rubin advised Feingold that he would not seek the post if Feingold continued to 

link the job to a financial reward. Although Feingold told Rubin he would desist, 

Feingold later – without Rubin’s knowledge – told Rubin’s father, “I’m going to 

get your son the job but understand, you will owe me.”

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 5 of 31
6 

14. In February 2019, after Patronis nominated Rubin for the position, 

the Governor and Cabinet – acting as the FSC – voted to install Rubin as OFR 

Commissioner.

Rubin’s Refusal to “Play Ball” 

15. Immediately after Rubin’s appointment, Mitchell texted Rubin 

instructing him to thank Feingold – who was not a State employee – for Rubin’s 

appointment and suggested that Rubin’s father contribute money. Shortly after, 

Feingold personally renewed his request that Rubin’s father satisfy his pledge to 

“contribute” $1 million. 

16. A week after Rubin’s appointment, Patronis – acting through 

Mitchell and DFS Chief of Staff Ryan West – asked Rubin to fire OFR’s General 

Counsel and replace him with Kimberly Grippa, a paralegal-studies teacher at 

Daytona (Beach) State College, whose ex-husband Anthony (“Tony”) Grippa is 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 6 of 31
7

Mitchell’s college friend. In 2017 and 2018, Mr. Grippa “donated” $6,000 to 

Patronis’ election campaign.

17. In March 2019, Rubin interviewed Ms. Grippa and concluded that 

she was unqualified for the position and that he did not want to hire her. (When 

Rubin shared his thoughts with Mitchell later that evening, Mitchell yelled at 

Rubin, “What the hell is wrong with you? Her qualifications are irrelevant! You 

were just supposed to hire her!”)

18. Just two days earlier, Rubin’s father had texted Feingold refusing 

Feingold’s quid pro quo demand for campaign contributions.

19. Rubin and his father’s refusal to “play ball” rendered Rubin persona 

non grata to the enterprise.

Retaliation Against Rubin

Rubin is set up.

20. Within a week, Mitchell set in motion a plan to remove Rubin from 

office. He instructed Rubin to interview Abigail Vail for the position of OFR 

Deputy Commissioner (to be renamed Chief of Staff), insisting that no one else 

be present for the interview. Mitchell’s asserted reason was that Vail would be 

replacing long-time Deputy Commissioner Pamela Epting, who, as Mitchell 

texted, Rubin “would be essentially firing” (and who, as noted in paragraph 11

above, had publicly crossed Patronis). Rubin texted, “This is making me 

uncomfortable,” but did as Mitchell requested:

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 7 of 31
8 

21. The interview was friendly, lasting three hours, during which Vail

asked Rubin a litany of questions about his personal life. Later that day, Mitchell 

texted Rubin, reporting that Vail had told him the interview “went great! 

���������������.” 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 8 of 31
9 

22. As discussed below, at the enterprise’s direction, Vail would shortly 

change her account of that interview 180 degrees. 

23. Unaware that he was being set up in retaliation for his refusal to 

“play ball,” Rubin hired Vail and she began working on April 22. 

Rubin’s “awkward” lunch. 

24. On April 29, Rubin took an employee (herein, “EE”) to lunch for a 

belated “[Employee Appreciation] Day” celebration. As part of their “small talk” 

over lunch, Rubin talked about his family and asked EE about hers. On the way 

to and from lunch, at Rubin’s request – but not his insistence – they stopped by 

to check on contractors who Rubin had hired to paint and refinish a nearby 

unfurnished condominium. On the stop after lunch, Rubin told EE to wait by 

the elevator while he checked on the condo. 

25. On April 30, West and Vail told Rubin that EE felt awkward working 

for Rubin, based on the lunch. They did not tell Rubin that, prior to the lunch, 

EE had asked Vail to be reassigned because EE was having difficulty completing 

her assigned job responsibilities. On May 2, Vail and West reassigned EE to a 

different job, reporting directly to Vail. In her new position, EE worked four floors 

away and had no further interaction with Rubin. Throughout the next week, the 

OFR Resource Management Administrator repeatedly told Rubin that EE was 

fine and doing well in her new role. 

Rubin is blackmailed to resign or face public humiliation. 

26. On May 2, Mitchell – who was not a State employee – told Rubin that 

both Vail and EE had complained about Rubin and that EE would be filing a 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 9 of 31
10

sexual harassment complaint if Rubin did not immediately resign. Mitchell 

then emailed to Rubin a draft resignation letter he had prepared, reciting fake 

reasons for Rubin’s resignation. 

Knowing he had not sexually harassed anyone, Rubin refused to sign the false 

letter and refused to resign. 

27. Upon learning at the close of business on May 2 that Mitchell had 

insisted that Rubin resign, and later during lunch on May 6, West echoed 

Mitchell by insisting that Rubin resign. When Rubin repeated that he had no 

intention of resigning, West responded, “So you don’t care if sexual harassment 

allegations against you are made public? Okay.” 

28. On May 3 and then again on May 6, assisting the enterprise, Vail

pressured Rubin to resign to avoid a sexual harassment complaint. Vail 

disclosed that Mitchell and Patronis were very close and that Mitchell almost 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 10 of 31
11

certainly was speaking for Patronis. Rubin told Vail that he hadn’t sexually 

harassed EE and refused to be blackmailed into resigning. 

The blackmail intensifies. 

29. On May 6, Mitchell texted Rubin: “This isn’t a debate you can win or 

lose – it’s just the simple reality of where things are”: 

30. On May 8, Mitchell texted Rubin again: “Started to call your dad to 

check with him – thought about it and hit pause as I wasn’t sure you had shared 

all that’s going on with him .... Once the process starts, there’s nothing anyone 

can do to stop or reverse it.” Rubin pled, “Please do not contact my father.” 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 11 of 31
12

31. Mitchell continued to pressure Rubin on May 9, texting, “It’s time 

for you to pick up the phone and call your dad – or I will. It is unfair for your 

parents, who are such lovely people, to find out after the news has broken.[1] I 

tried warning you, but you refused to listen. You have brought this on yourself.”

1 “[I]n government and journalism people don’t say ‘Do it my way or I’ll blow you 

up.’ Their language and approach are more rounded. They imitate 1930s 

gangster movies in which the suave mobster tells the saloon keeper from whom 

he’s demanding protection, ‘Nice place you have here, shame if anything 

happened to it.’” Peggy Noonan, Opinion, Impeachment Is Getting Real, WALL ST.

J. (Oct. 31, 2019, 6:37 PM), https://www.wsj.com/articles/impeachment-isgetting-real-11572561439.

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 12 of 31
13

May 10: The enterprise follows through on its blackmail.

32. Around 10:00 a.m. on Friday, May 10, Vail told Rubin that EE would 

be filing a sexual harassment complaint and that Patronis would promptly 

publish it, but that that wouldn’t happen if Rubin resigned. Again, he refused 

to do so. 

33. Later that day, and despite that EE’s requested reassignment had 

resolved any concerns she may have had, Vail convinced EE to reduce to writing

a complaint about the “awkward” lunch 12 days earlier, so that the complaint 

“was in [her] own words telling [her] story when we send it over to DFS.”

34. That afternoon, true to the extortionate threats by Mitchell, Vail, and 

West, EE wrote up a complaint and gave it to the OFR Resource Management 

Administrator, who forwarded it to Vail at 3:52 p.m. 

35. At 4:00 p.m., DFS General Counsel Peter Penrod emailed that Rubin 

should be suspended based on “the nature of the allegations against [him].” Less 

than an hour later, West directed Vail to email EE’s complaint to Patronis. 

Shortly after, Rubin was suspended. Later that same day Penrod reversed 

Rubin’s earlier refusal to hire Kimberly Grippa and offered her a deputy counsel 

position, reporting directly to Penrod (who reports directly to Patronis). 

36. At approximately 8:00 that evening, Patronis issued a press release 

and published EE’s complaint on the internet without EE’s knowledge or

permission. Patronis labeled the complaint “sexual harassment,” despite that 

it did not allege any facts constituting sexual harassment under Florida law, 

federal law or DFS’s internal policies. Later, EE retained a lawyer who asked 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 13 of 31
14

Florida Attorney General Moody to investigate Patronis for this criminal violation 

of Florida’s Sunshine Law that destroyed her privacy. But Patronis’ benefactor 

Jeffrey Feingold had recently contributed $30,000 to the Attorney General’s 

election campaign -- and Moody officially declined to investigate. 

The Sham “Investigation” and Rubin’s Resulting Termination 

Patronis oversees a sham “investigation.” 

37. To control the outcome of the investigation but hide his hand in it, 

Patronis orchestrated a plan for “my Office of Inspector General” to conduct the 

investigation but to make it look to the Cabinet and the public that the 

investigation was being handled by a different department. 

38. Thus, just after noon on Tuesday, May 14, OFR IG Bradley Perry

emailed Patronis’ own IG that “this review would be most appropriately handled 

in conjunction with” DFS and that he wanted to discuss the “next steps.” 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 14 of 31
15

39. Patronis’ OIG Chief Investigator Mike Shoaf immediately emailed 

back that his boss’ agency would be “happy to assist.” 

40. With remarkable alacrity, just two hours after OFR IG Perry’s email 

suggesting coordination, DFS staff began interviewing EE under oath. Over the 

next two months, DFS OIG investigator Shoaf interviewed 9 additional witnesses. 

The only interview that Perry conducted alone was the interview of Rubin, 

on July12.2 This was a ruse that the enterprise apparently foisted on OFR IG 

Perry to hide that Patronis – not an independent IG – was running the 

investigation. 

41. All told, Patronis’ self-serving emergency investigation of a nonsexual-harassment complaint about a single “awkward” luncheon subjected 11 

state employees to over 24 hours of formal interviews totaling over 870 pages of 

transcribed testimony. It was a Machiavellian diversion of valuable Florida 

resources designed to serve Patronis’ personal political and financial aspirations.

2 Perry also conducted one witness interview but Shoaf monitored the entire 

conversation by phone. 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 15 of 31
16

Knowing that no “sexual harassment” had occurred,

Patronis hid the truth from the Governor, the Cabinet and the public.

42. When Patronis’ OIG interviewed EE on May 14, she testified 

unequivocally that Rubin had never touched her or sent her any 

inappropriate communications and that his behavior was merely “eccentric.” 

43. Indeed, immediately after the lunch EE told her co-worker, “I don’t 

think I was in any danger or anything, going to his apartment or being around 

him ... he never said anything ... that made me feel that way. And plus, I think 

he’s gay anyway. So I don’t think he wants me.” As EE explained, “[H]e thinks 

we’re friends [but] I don’t want to be friends with a 56-year-old man.” 

44. The day after EE’s interview, the co-worker reported EE’s statements 

to Patronis’ IG and also told the IG that she never heard Rubin say or do anything 

inappropriate and was “shocked” and “surprised” that EE’s lunch with Rubin 

was being characterized as sexual harassment. Importantly, this co-worker also 

testified that, in the period leading up to the lunch, EE was “having trouble” 

performing the main functions of her job, to the point that she actually cried 

about it in the office. In furtherance of his unlawful scheme, Patronis and the 

enterprise hid the truth about EE’s complaint from the Governor, the Cabinet 

and the public.

Patronis tries to gin-up more complaints.

45. Despite that EE had testified that Rubin had not sexually harassed 

her, Patronis’ office issued another press release after her interview, stating, 

“Following ... Patronis’ call for an immediate investigation into ... Rubin, two 

additional complaints have been received.” Patronis also “encourage[d] all 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 16 of 31
17

individuals with any information relevant to this investigation conducted by the 

Department of Financial Services Office of the Inspector General to please come 

forward.” 

46. Once again, these two new “complaints” had nothing to do with 

sexual harassment:

a. The first was an inside job, a May 13 email from a lawyer to 

Ryan West stating that Rubin had been rude (not sexually 

harassing) during her job interview. Patronis redacted the 

sender’s name to hide from the Governor, Cabinet and public 

that she was Kimberly Grippa – Mitchell’s close friend, whom

Rubin had refused to hire but to whom, just three days earlier, 

Patronis’ lawyer had offered virtually the same job.

b. The second (also an email) reported that Rubin had made a 

“potentially unprofessional” comment during a welcome 

speech to a regional OFR office. The sender, however, was 

honest and careful to point out that the comment appeared to 

be “a mistake that was made with good intentions” by Rubin,

who “seemed nervous” giving the speech. 

47. To assist Patronis’ sham “investigation,” early the next morning, 

OFR Communications Director Jamie Mongiovi forwarded Patronis’ press release 

to all OFR division heads, asking them to “share [it] with [their] teams.”

Patronis’ false and misleading “preliminary report.”

48. Just a week after Patronis had published EE’s complaint on the 

internet, Patronis’ IG issued a “preliminary report” to the Governor and Cabinet 

members. (At this point, no one had even informed Rubin that this report 

included new complaints against him, much less given him a chance to respond.) 

The “report” omitted any reference to the unequivocal exculpatory testimony 

discussed above. One of the interviews the report did cite was OFR Chief of Staff 

Vail (whom Rubin had recently hired on Mitchell’s recommendation). Vail 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 17 of 31
18

concocted an utterly false narrative about her job interview with Rubin, evidently 

forgetting that she had texted Mitchell immediately after the interview that it 

“went great! ���������������.”

Coordinating for the enterprise, Mitchell and Feingold

Ratchet up the blackmail by calling Rubin’s father.

49. On May 22, Mitchell called Rubin’s elderly father, boasting about

confidential information, including the Governor and Cabinet’s future decision:

a. The Governor and Cabinet had already decided to fire Rubin 

at their next meeting because they lacked “confidence in his 

ability to run the agency” and Rubin would be publicly 

humiliated.

b. There were “several different incidents,” only some of which 

had been reported, and that Mitchell did not believe there was 

a single one that Rubin could not live through but that, 

because there were “so many” allegations that had been 

“offered up, some of which have been fully investigated and 

some of which haven’t,” Rubin was “not going to live through 

this.”

c. Rubin could avoid all of this if he quietly resigned.

50. That same day, Feingold also called Rubin’s father and unleashed a 

furious, epithet-ridden rant, claiming that he was responsible for Rubin’s 

appointment, complaining that Rubin had not called to thank him, and 

admitting that Rubin’s father had refused to make a quid pro quo campaign 

contribution. 

a. Among other things, Feingold told Rubin’s father:

i. “I helped recommend your son to get the best job in the 

country and he f---ed it up.” 

ii. “I knew about it right away. It came to me.”

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 18 of 31
19

iii. “I’m sorry I ever met you to get me into this b---s---, and 

you will go to your f---ing grave, you and your wife,

knowing that your son is a sexual predator and screwed 

everybody who helped him.”

iv. “When I called you for a campaign contribution for a 

couple senators, ... you didn’t even have the courtesy to 

call me. I made a phone call to you and you didn’t 

return the call.”

v. “[Y]ou are going to donate this money to the 

Smithsonian? Wait until they find out that the donor’s 

son is a sexual predator.” 

b. At one point in the discussion, Feingold’s wife interjected, 

linking Mitchell and Patronis in the scheme and claiming that 

the Feingold family was paying for the Cabinet’s upcoming trip 

to Israel:

i. [Mrs. Feingold:] “You should not have put my husband 

in an awkward position and Paul Mitchell in a very 

awkward position. 

ii. [Mr. Feingold:] “And Jimmy Patronis and the Governor.”

iii. [Mrs. Feingold:] “It embarrasses us. We are going to be 

with them this weekend in Israel. We are taking them 

to Israel and it’s an embarrassment.” 

Rubin tries to defend himself and the enterprise strikes back.

51. On May 28, Rubin sent IG Perry a written statement refuting the 

putative “complaints” that Patronis had published on the internet. In response, 

Patronis issued another press release, demanding Rubin’s immediate resignation 

and stating that Patronis would remove Rubin himself without a Cabinet vote if 

he could. 

52. In June, Rubin filed this lawsuit, exposing the enterprise, its 

members, and its scheme. 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 19 of 31
20

53. In retaliation, Patronis escalated with two more press releases, 

containing blatantly false statements: 

a. The first demanded Rubin’s immediate termination and falsely 

stated, “Rubin and his associates have publicly disparaged 

victims.”

b. The second falsely stated that “Rubin released the cell phone 

numbers and social media accounts of complainants.”

Patronis engineers a 3-1 vote to fire Rubin based on false evidence.

54. The OFR IG interviewed Rubin on Friday July 12. The next business 

day, the IG released a four-page “executive summary” report finding that, 

although Rubin had not committed any act amounting to sexual 

harassment under Florida or federal law, he purportedly had “violated 

agency policy prohibiting sexual harassment and discrimination.”3 The report 

did not include any of the interview transcripts, which would have revealed to 

the Cabinet and the public that Rubin had not even violated agency policy.

55. On July 25, the Governor and Cabinet considered Patronis’ motion 

to terminate Rubin. Rubin’s attorney was granted five minutes to respond to the 

report. Patronis grandstanded with a prepared speech accusing Rubin, without 

any conceivable factual basis, of “predatory behavior” and having “cross[ed] the 

limits of ... human decency.” Cabinet member Nikki Fried walked out of the 

3 According to the report, “The OIG did not substantiate that the Commissioner 

submitted a person to an unwelcome sexual advance, a request for sexual favor, 

or physical conduct of a sexual nature to: impose a term or condition of 

employment; make an employment decision; unreasonably interfere with an 

individual’s work performance; or make a decision affecting a person or entity 

regulated by or doing business with the agency.” This is the very definition of 

“sexual harassment” under both the law and DFS policy.

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 20 of 31
21

Chamber. Based on the “executive summary,” the remaining three FSC 

members (the Governor, Patronis and the Attorney General with Fried 

abstaining) voted to fire Rubin.

56. Just three months earlier, Patronis siphoned $250,000 from state 

hurricane-relief funds to defend and settle a federal sex-discrimination lawsuit 

against him personally, along with a parallel agency grievance. That litigation 

was filed by Christine Taul, another scrupulously ethical employee whom

Patronis had fired. Taul alleged, as Rubin does here, that Patronis ran his 

agency like a frat house, promoting his college buddies and firing his enemies, 

regardless of qualifications. And, just as with Rubin, the enterprise retaliated 

by publicly smearing Taul, including Twitter posts falsely touting written 

complaints about her “management deficiency” and negative evaluations -- none

of which existed in any agency personnel files, ever.

The Enterprise Conceals the Evidence and Tries to

Intimidate Rubin and His Lawyers from Prosecuting this Lawsuit

57. In July 2019, Rubin officially filed for whistleblower protection for 

exposing the enterprise’s corruption. He then submitted lawful Sunshine Law 

requests to OFR and DFS seeking relevant text messages, emails and records of 

phone calls among the enterprise members. In response, the enterprise 

leveraged its access to lawyers and the media, coordinating attacks on Rubin 

and his lawyers on multiple fronts.

58. To begin with, DFS and OFR completely stonewalled Rubin’s 

Sunshine Law requests. Rubin complained to this Court, which promptly

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 21 of 31
22

ordered both agencies to “show cause” why they should not be ordered to 

produce the requested records. 

59. Two weeks after Rubin’s evidence requests, one of the enterprise 

members hired a lawyer to threaten Rubin’s counsel with personal retaliation for 

refusing to back down: 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 22 of 31
23

60. A week after that, Patronis and his lawyer Penrod publicly called for

Rubin and his lawyers to be criminally prosecuted. Penrod then publicly 

threatened to sanction Rubin’s lawyers for complaining about DFS’ refusal to 

produce the evidence he had requested. 

61. With Rubin and his lawyers still refusing to back down, Tony Grippa

-- who has never been a client of Rubin’s -- filed a Florida Bar complaint against 

Rubin. The Florida Bar immediately recognized Mr. Grippa’s stunt as an 

improper attempt to derail Rubin’s lawsuit and dismissed the complaint: 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 23 of 31
24

62. The day after Mr. Grippa filed his Bar complaint, Kimberly Grippa 

(who recently testified that she is “actually friends with” ex-husband Tony) filed 

an EEOC complaint against Rubin. For the very first time, Ms. Grippa claimed 

that Rubin had sexually harassed, discriminated and retaliated against her 

during the March 2019 job interview. Without citing any evidence, Ms. Grippa 

claimed that she “has since been denied job opportunities” but concealed the 

dispositive fact that in June 2019, DFS had indeed offered her the job of 

Deputy General Counsel, which she turned down: 

For maximum intimidation, Ms. Grippa’s lawyers sent her EEOC complaint

directly to Rubin’s personal email address, on New Year’s Day. 

63. To date, DFS and OFR have not produced a single communication 

between Mitchell and any Florida official about this matter. Likewise, defendant 

Mitchell has yet even to respond to a single discovery request or produce a single 

record of his communications with the enterprise and its members. 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 24 of 31
25

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT 1

FLORIDA CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES ACT

FLORIDA STATUTES § 772.103(3)

64. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 63 above.

65. The following individuals, among others known and unknown, 

associated in fact and constituted an “enterprise” for the purpose of carrying 

out a pattern of criminal activity for their own benefit, aimed at Rubin, other 

individuals, and the citizens of the State of Florida: 

a. Florida CFO Jimmy Patronis; 

b. DFS Chief of Staff Ryan West; 

c. DFS General Counsel Peter Penrod, Esq.;

d. OFR Chief of Staff Abigail Vail, Esq.; 

e. OFR Director of Communications Jamie C. Mongiovi;

f. Florida lawyer Kimberly Grippa, Esq.;

g. Patronis patron/insurance magnate Jeffrey Feingold; and 

h. Florida lobbyist R. Paul Mitchell.

66. The “pattern of criminal activity” occurred between 2016 and the 

present and included incidents of criminal activity listed in Florida Statutes 

§§ 772.102(1)(a) & (b) as described above. 

67. Each of the members of the enterprise was employed by or was 

associated with the enterprise and did conduct or participate directly or 

indirectly in the enterprise through a pattern of criminal activity that by its 

nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition. 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 25 of 31
26

68. Specifically, as described above, Mitchell and the members of the 

enterprise did commit, attempt to commit, conspire to commit and solicit 

another person to commit the following crimes enumerated in Florida Statutes

§ 772.102(1)(a): 

§ 836.05 Extortion

§ 838.015 Bribery

§ 838.012 Corruption by threat against public servant/family

§ 914.22 Obstruction of justice.

69. The threat of repetition is shown by the acts described above, 

including that the enterprise members have lavishly funded Patronis’ political 

machine, which is still running; Mitchell’s “lobbying” services traded promises 

for jobs filled by loyalists; and the enterprise used the same unlawful methods 

against multiple victims, including staffer Taul, a Deputy Commissioner two 

Commissioners.

70. The enterprise’s wrongful conduct caused economic and noneconomic damages to Rubin and others. Rubin’s damages include without 

limitation, damage to his professional and personal reputation, loss of his job, 

and his inability to find suitable employment since.

71. Rubin is entitled to recover treble damages and the fees and costs of 

prosecuting this lawsuit under Florida Statutes § 772.104(1)

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rubin seeks judgment against Defendant Mitchell 

for compensatory damages, treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, 

attorney’s fees, costs, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just 

and appropriate.

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 26 of 31
27

COUNT 2

DEFAMATION PER SE

72. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 63 above.

73. Shortly after Rubin released his May 28 statement refuting the 

public allegations, Mitchell emailed a false statement to a reporter for Politico, 

which Politico published on its website on May 29, asserting that Rubin’s account 

was “largely fictional” and that, “in a state government career that spanned mere 

weeks, [Rubin] managed to rack up a series of sexual harassment complaints.” 

74. Mitchell also emailed the same false statement to a reporter for the 

Miami Herald, which that newspaper published on May 31.

75. On June 25, Mitchell emailed the identical statement to a reporter 

for the Daily Business Review, which statement that newspaper distributed in 

print and online.

76. Mitchell’s statements were widely published and not privileged in 

any manner.

77. Mitchell made his statements with reckless disregard of their truth 

or falsity and/or with actual malice.

78. In truth, as Mitchell then well knew, Rubin’s account of Mitchell’s 

conduct was not fictional; rather it was true and corroborated by emails, texts, 

and other witnesses, and Rubin had not been charged with “a series of sexual 

harassment complaints.” 

79. Mitchell’s statements were defamatory per se because they (a) 

tended to subject Rubin to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt or disgrace; (b) 

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 27 of 31
28

tended to injure Rubin in his trade or profession; and (c) imputed to Rubin 

conduct, characteristics or a condition incompatible with the proper exercise of 

his lawful business, trade, profession, or office.

80. Mitchell’s statements forever falsely tainted and permanently 

damaged Rubin in the public perception.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rubin seeks judgment against Defendant Mitchell 

for compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and such 

other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.

COUNT 3

DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION

81. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 72 through 80 above.

82. Mitchell defamed Rubin by knowingly, intentionally, willfully, 

recklessly, or negligently publishing statements about Rubin that he knew or 

should have known to be false or misleading.

83. Even if any of Mitchell’s statements were true, they were published 

in such a way as to create a false impression of Rubin in the public perception.

84. Even if any of Mitchell’s statements were true, they were published 

in such a way as to mislead the public in its perception of Rubin.

85. Mitchell’s statements were widely published and not privileged in 

any manner.

86. Mitchell’s statements forever falsely tainted and permanently 

damaged Rubin in the public perception.

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 28 of 31
29

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rubin seeks judgment against Defendant Mitchell 

for compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and such 

other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.

COUNT 4

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE

87. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 63 above.

88. Mitchell had knowledge of Rubin’s employment relationship with 

OFR.

89. Mitchell improperly, intentionally, and unjustifiably interfered in 

Rubin’s employment relationship by having an improper reason for interfering, 

as well as utilizing improper methods.

90. Mitchell persisted in his actions despite the knowledge that his 

conduct would result in damage to Rubin, or at least was highly likely to damage 

Rubin.

91. Mitchell’s interference with Rubin’s employment relationship, 

whether acting alone or in concert with others, induced the FSC to terminate 

Rubin’s employment as OFR Commissioner. 

92. Mitchell’s actions in inducing the termination of Rubin’s 

employment relationship caused damage to Rubin.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rubin seeks judgment against Defendant Mitchell 

for compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and such 

other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 29 of 31
30

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Rubin demands a trial by jury as a matter of right on all matters 

so triable.

TEIN MALONE PLLC

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF RUBIN

3059 Grand Avenue

Coconut Grove, Florida 33133

(305) 442-1101

BY: /s/

Michael R. Tein

Florida Bar No. 993522

T. Omar Malone

Florida Bar No. 697796

Gaye L. Huxoll

Florida Bar No. 149497

tein@teinmalone.com

service@teinmalone.com

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 30 of 31
31

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing document was served on January 6, 2020 via 

the Court’s e-filing portal, which will serve a copy on the following counsel of 

record:

Thomas L. Hunker, Esq.

thomas.hunker@csklegal.com

Barry A. Postman, Esq.

barry.postman@csklegal.com

Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.

600 N. Pine Island Road

Suite 500

Plantation, Florida 33324

Counsel for Defendant

/s/Michael Tein

Case 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF Document 4-2 Filed 09/25/20 Page 31 of 31