1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION OF PARKER

PLAZA ESTATES, INC.

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 22-CV-61638

v.

PAVEL MOREFF AND SIMON SHERMAN,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant, Simon Sherman (“Sherman”), and Defendant, Pavel Moreff (“Moreff” and 

together with Sherman, "Defendants"), by and through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Local 

Rule 56.1(b) of the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida, hereby submit 

their Statement of Material Facts In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment 

1. Sherman, and Moreff, each are a member of units located in a building with an

address of 2030 South Ocean Drive, Hallandale, Florida 33009, which is managed, governed, and 

operated by Condominium Association of Parker Plaza Estates, Inc. (the “Association”), by and 

through its Board of Directors (the “Board”), pursuant to the Association’s governing documents, 

and Chapter 718 of the Florida Statutes (“Chapter 718”). See ¶3 of the Affidavit of Simon Sherman 

In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Sherman Affidavit”) and ¶3 of the Affidavit of 

Pavel Moreff In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Moreff Affidavit”).

2. On November 9, 2021, Sherman, and over a dozen members of the Association,

filed a Verified Derivative Complaint against the Association and several members of the Board, 

which is pending in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit In and For Broward County, Florida (Case 

No. CACE202061), thereby commencing a derivative lawsuit (the “Derivative Suit”) against the 

aforementioned defendants. See Sherman Affidavit at ¶4.

3. After the Plaintiffs in the “Derivative Suit filed an Amended Verified Complaint,

the Association filed a Motion to Stay Derivative Proceedings, pursuant to section 617.0401(2) of 

Case 0:22-cv-61638-WPD Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2023 Page 1 of 7
2

the Florida Statutes, so a purportedly independent committee appointed by members of the 

purportedly independent Board could conduct an alleged reasonable investigation to determine 

whether the Derivative Suit was in the best interests of the Association. Id. at ¶5.

4. On March 1, 2022, an Agreed Order on Defendant Association’s Motion to Stay 

Derivative Proceedings was entered because the purportedly independent committee had 

concluded its investigation. Id. at ¶6.

5. The purportedly independent committee appointed by the purportedly independent 

members of the Board issued a report that concluded that the maintenance of the Derivative Suit 

was not in the best interests of the Association. Id. at ¶7.

6. After the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Verified Complaint (the “Second 

Amended Complaint”) in which, inter alia, they alleged that the purportedly independent Board 

members were not independent, and the purportedly independent committee was not, in fact, 

independent, the Association filed a second Motion to Stay Derivative Proceedings so it could 

complete a second purportedly independent, alleged good faith investigation as to whether the 

Derivative Suit was in the best interests of the Association, and prepare, and provide, a report with 

respect to same. Id. at ¶8.

7. The gravamen of the Second Amended Complaint is that certain members of the 

Board used Association funds to complete repairs or renovations to their individual units, that the 

Board violated chapter 718 of the Florida Statutes by entering into contracts impermissibly 

spending hundreds of thousand of dollars of Association funds without obtaining bids and without 

approval of the Board at duly noticed meetings costing the Association, that the Board altered 

budgets to cover up their unlawful expenditures, and that the Association falsified voting and 

unlawfully obtained a loan. Id. at ¶9.

8. Attached to the Sherman Affidavit at Exhibit “A” is an email from Stephen Ruma 

(“Ruma”) the former Maintenance Director of the Association, to Sherman, dated June 10, 2022, 

in which Ruma confirms, inter alia, that the Board manipulated the results of its Annual Election, 

Case 0:22-cv-61638-WPD Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2023 Page 2 of 7
3

that certain Board members used Association funds to impermissibly perform repairs/renovations 

to their own units, and that a vendor of the Association complained to Ruma that a member of the 

Board, Jeffrey Leibowitz (“Leibowitz”), insisted that such vendor purchase insurance from an 

insurance company associated with Leibowitz. Id. at ¶10, and Exhibit “A” thereto.

9. On March 16, 2023, an Order of Defendant’s Motion to Stay Derivative Suit was 

entered pursuant to which a second purportedly independent committee could complete its 

investigation into whether the Derivative Suit was in the best interests of the Association. Id. at 

¶11.

10. Pursuant to the Order, the Association is required to file the purportedly independent 

committee’s report as to whether the Derivative Suit is in the best interests of the Association on 

April 14, 2023. Id. at ¶12.

11. In addition to the Derivative Suit, Board member Michael Fagan (“Fagan”), who 

Ruma confirms impermissibly used Association funds to repair/reconstruct his unit, filed a lawsuit 

against Sherman which is currently pending in the 17th Judicial Circuit In and For Broward County, 

Florida (Case No. CACE22-001294 Div:14) in which, despite evidence to the contrary, including 

the Ruma Email, Fagan sues Sherman for many of the same alleged defamatory statements alleged 

in this proceeding. Id. at ¶ 14.

12. After Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint filed by the 

Association, the Association filed its First Amended Complaint against Defendants [ECF 21] in 

which it asserts the following causes of action: (i) Count I False Designation of Origin (Lanham 

Act, 15 U.S.C § 1125(a)) (Against Sherman); (ii) Count II Infringement of Unregistered 

Trademarks (Lanham Act 15 U.S.C § 1125(a)) (Against Sherman); (iii) Count III Private Nuisance 

(Against Defendants); (iv) Count IV: Defamation – Libel (Against Defendants); (v) Count V: 

Defamation – Slander (Against Defendants); and (vi) Count VI: Trade Libel (Against Defendants).

Case 0:22-cv-61638-WPD Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2023 Page 3 of 7
4

13. Count I of the Complaint alleges that Sherman’s use of “the display name PARKER 

PLAZA . . . is identical to and confusing similar to the PARKER PLAZA trademark. Complaint 

at ¶59. 

14. The Association alleges that “Sherman’s unauthorized use of the PARKER PLAZA 

display name, in connection with, and to interfere with, the Association’s services in commerce to 

and with its members, falsely suggests that these services, or interference thereof, are provided by 

connected with, sponsored by, affiliated with, or related to the Association . . . and that Sherman’s 

unauthorized use of the PARKER PLAZA constitutes a false designation of origin in violation of 

15 U.S.C. ¶ 1125(a).” Id. at ¶61 – 62. 

15. In Count II of the Complaint, the Association alleges that Sherman’s use of “[t]he 

Association[‘s] prior trademark rights over the PARKER PLAZA Mark by virtue of its public use 

of the MARK in interstate commerce directed to potential members and through its services to 

members, including services through its website.” Id. at ¶66. 

16. The Association alleges that “Sherman’s use of the display name PARKER PLAZA 

in the emails from IGOR is identical to and confusingly similar to the Mark.” Id. at ¶68.

17. Parker Plaza Estates is a fictitious named registered with the Florida Secretary of 

state to a Florida LLC named Big Apple Srvs LLC. See ¶17 of the Sherman Affidavit and Exhibit 

“B” thereto. 

18. In Count III of the Complaint, the Association alleges that Defendants’ conduct 

constitutes a private nuisance in that that they purportedly “engaged and continue to engage, in a 

pattern of continuous, intentional disruptive and threatening actins against the Association, its 

BOD, and Association’s members including the continuous dissemination of false information 

about the BOD, and the wrongful solicitation and harassment of members, including threats of 

violence to members who disagree with Defendants.” Complaint at ¶76. 

19. In Count IV of the Complaint, the Association alleges that “Defendants published 

false defamatory written statements to third parties by disseminating lies and false information 

Case 0:22-cv-61638-WPD Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2023 Page 4 of 7
5

about Parker Plaza and its BOD via emails, pamphlet, and letter (See Exhibits “A” through “N”) . 

. ..” Complaint at ¶80. 

20. Exhibit “C, Composite Exhibit “E” at p. 6, and Composite Exhibit “I” at p. 2, of the

Complaint contain “DISCLAIMERS” which state that the emails are from a group of owners, who 

are not directly associated with the Board and is not representing the Association, and they are 

sharing their personal opinions regarding the subject of interest. 

21. For example, Exhibit “B” of the Complaint, states, in pertinent part:

Disclaimer: IGOR is a group of owners, which is not directly associated 

with the Board and is not representing the entire Association. Nevertheless

IGOR is very glad to share limited knowledge and personal opinion of its 

members regarding the subject of interest with the entire Board and with 

members of our Association. While IGOR opinion cannot be 100% accurate, 

IGOR believes that its achievements, while working on its projects, will help 

the Board and the ordinary members of our association to overcome current 

financial difficulties.

22. In Count V of the Complaint, the Association alleges that “Defendants published 

false defamatory oral statements about the Association and its BOD to third parties by orally 

disseminating lies and false information about Parker Plaza and its BOD including, but not limited 

to, oral accusations of mismanagement of funds, corruption, and non-performance of duties to the 

detriment of residents, to the Association's members as well as non-members such as banks, 

realtors, contractors, and tenants. Defendants engaged in an oral smear and disparage campaign 

against the Association and its BOD by sending numerous emails replete with misrepresentations 

to the members and non-members.” Complaint at ¶86. 

23. In Count VI of the Complaint, the Association alleges that “Defendants published 

false defamatory oral statements about the Association and its BOD to third parties by orally 

disseminating lies and false information about Parker Plaza and its BOD including, but not limited 

to, oral accusations of mismanagement of funds, corruption, and non-performance of duties to the 

detriment of residents, to the Association's members as well as non-members such as banks, 

realtors, contractors, and tenants. Defendants engaged in an oral smear and disparage campaign 

Case 0:22-cv-61638-WPD Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2023 Page 5 of 7
6

against the Association and its BOD by sending numerous emails replete with misrepresentations 

to the members and non-members.” Id. at ¶92. 

24. The Association does not allege special damages in Count VI of the Complaint.

25. On May 24, 2020, Sherman sent Matthew Maranges, Esq. (“Maranages”), an 

attorney for the Association, an email (the “May 24th Maranges Email”) in which Sherman notified 

him about eleven (11) possible irregularities occurring at the Association, and listed them therein. 

See Sherman Affidavit at ¶27 and Exhibit “C“ thereto.

26. The May 24th Maranges Email contained the following language:

Disclaimer: Please note, the list of possible irregularities presented in the above is 

based on my best knowledge and my personal opinion and do not pretend to be 

complete and/or 100% accurate.

Id. (emphasis not added). Id. at ¶29.

27. In the May 24th Maranges Email, Sherman told Maranges to feel free to contact him

so that I could provide additional data regarding “some of my personal statements opinion.” Id. 

(emphasis not added). Id. at ¶30.

28. On May 26, 2020, Maranges sent Sherman an email and thanked him and told him

he would pass this information onto the Board. Id. at ¶31.

29. On May 26, 2020, Sherman responded to Maranges and asked him to keep the email 

Sherman sent him private because it would trigger “additional acts of harassment, intimidation, 

mockeries, etc.” Id. at ¶32. 

30. Sherman advised Maranges that two (2) days prior, Fagan threatened to sue him and 

called Sherman “Jewish Troublemaker” and “Russian Cucaracha.” Id. at ¶33.

31. In a letter dated August 13, 2020, from Maranges, to Sherman (the “August 13th

Maranges Letter”), Maranges threatens to, among other things, sue Sherman for communicating

with members of the Association, and for making valid record requests. Id. at ¶ 33 and composite 

Exhibit “D” thereto.

Case 0:22-cv-61638-WPD Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2023 Page 6 of 7
7

32. Maranges called Sherman “little more than a recalcitrant, gadfly ‘condo

commando . . ..’” Id. at ¶39 (emphasis added).

33. On the bottom of page two (2) of the August 13th Maranges Letter, Maranges,

quoting Shakespeare, stated that Sherman’s “inartful communications to the Board and the

Association’s membership and non-members tend [sic] weave a ‘tale of sound and fury, signifying

nothing.’” Id. at ¶42. 

Dated: April 7, 2023. LUBLINER LAW PLLC

1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1200

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

Telephone: (561) 207-2018

Facsimile: (561) 584-7227

rich@lubliner-law.com

carolina@lubliner-law.com 

BY: /s/ Richard S. Lubliner

RICHARD S. LUBLINER, ESQ.

FBN: 0047741

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I/WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished 

by electronic mail and/or by US Mail on this April 7, 2023, to the individuals/entities listed on the 

attached Service List.

/s/

Richard S. Lubliner

SERVICE LIST

Luis S. Konski, Esq.

Daniel A. Milian, Esq.

Joseph Englander, Esq.

Ana E. Tovar, Esq.

Fowler White Burnett, P.A.

Brickell Arch, Fourteenth Floor

1395 Brickell Avenue

Miami, FL 33131 

lkonski@fowler-white.com

dmilian@fowler-white.com

jenglander@fowler-white.com

atovar@fowler-white.com

Case 0:22-cv-61638-WPD Document 36 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2023 Page 7 of 7