UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 CASE NO. 

BAR INVEST MANAGEMENT 

SERVICES, LLC., 

a Florida limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

LEONARDO ZAMORA, 

Defendant. 

/ 

COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff, Bar Invest Management Services, LLC. (“Plaintiff”), hereby sues Defendant, 

Leonardo Zamora (“Defendant”), and alleges as follows: 

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 

1. This is an action for violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 

U.S.C. 1030(g)), breach of contract, and violation of the Florida Computer Abuse and Data 

Recovery Act (Fla. Stat. § 668.801, et seq.). 

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the 

action raises a claim under the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030(g) 

(“CFAA”). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they arise out of the same operative facts as the federal claim. 

3. Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized and existing pursuant to the laws 

of the State of Florida. 

4. Defendant is a resident of Broward County, Florida. 

Case 0:22-cv-61390-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 1 of 7
2 

5. Personal jurisdiction is proper in Florida and in this District because Defendant is 

a citizen of and resides in Broward County, Florida. Additionally, personal jurisdiction over 

Defendant is proper pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Defendant 

breached his contract and engaged in the wrongful acts described below in Broward County, 

Florida. 

6. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant 

resides in this District and the events giving rise to the claims occurred and continue to occur in 

this District. 

7. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned law firm and has agreed to pay it a reasonable 

fee. 

8. All conditions to filing this action have been satisfied or waived. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

9. Plaintiff is a property management company that manages various rental property 

complexes in South Florida. 

10. On December 4, 2020, Plaintiff hired Defendant to serve as an Assistant Property 

Manager for a property known as Waterview Apartments. 

11. On February 4, 2021, Defendant was transferred to work as an Assistant Property 

Manager at a different complex known as The Landings at Pembroke Lakes. 

12. In connection with his employment, Defendant was provided an Employee 

Handbook, which he signed and agreed to be bound by. Because the Employee Handbook is 

confidential, it is not being attached as an exhibit hereto but will be provided to Defendant upon 

the entry of a confidentiality order and will be filed with the Court when needed under seal. 

Case 0:22-cv-61390-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 2 of 7
3 

13. Among other things, by signing the Employee Handbook, Defendant agreed to 

maintain Plaintiff’s confidential information confidential, including things such as planned 

research and development, business plans, price lists, data and information regarding services, 

information concerning the business and affairs of the company, and studies. 

14. Moreover, Plaintiff also agreed not to transmit or disclose confidential information 

without authorization. 

15. Defendant’s employment with Plaintiff was terminated on June 21, 2022. 

16. Even prior to June 21, 2022, however, Defendant was aware that his employment 

was in jeopardy given the periodic reviews of his performance by his supervisor. 

17. On June 12, 2022, Defendant emailed from his company email account to his 

personal email account approximately 50 separate emails containing Plaintiff’s confidential 

information, in direct violation of the confidentiality provisions of the Employee Handbook. The 

emails contained items of non-public Company information, such as internal communications 

between Plaintiff’s employees (including communications relating to pricing and other matters 

concerning the strategic operation of Plaintiff’s business), privileged communications between 

Plaintiff and its lawyers regarding evictions and rental related matters, and internal market surveys 

concerning rent pricing. 

18. Defendant’s transmission of those items from his company email to his personal 

email is a breach of the confidentiality provisions of the Employee Handbook, and thus the terms 

of his employment with Plaintiff. 

19. Additionally, Plaintiff specifically prohibits the possession of firearms inside of 

company buildings or while performing company-related duties. 

Case 0:22-cv-61390-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 3 of 7
4 

20. Nonetheless, on January 26, 2022, Defendant transmitted from his company email 

address to his personal email address three pictures of a firearm. A copy of the three pictures are 

attached hereto as Composite Exhibit A. 

21. Defendant apparently thought that he would be able to destroy evidence of the 

above-referenced breaches by attempting to delete, immediately after he was terminated on June 

21, 2022 but before the company could shut off his email access, all of his work-related emails. 

Nonetheless, the emails remained on Plaintiff’s server. 

22. On June 23, 2022, Plaintiff, through undersigned counsel, wrote Defendant to 

advise of the foregoing breaches (minus the firearm-related breaches), and demanded that 

Defendant immediately delete the transmitted emails and allow Plaintiff an opportunity (through 

IT professionals) to verify same. A copy of the demand letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

23. Shortly after sending Defendant the demand letter by email, Defendant responded 

by denying the transmissions and ultimately refused to comply with Plaintiff’s demand to delete 

the emails. 

COUNT I 

VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT 

24. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 

25. Defendant used Plaintiff’s computer and computer system in connection with his 

employment by Plaintiff. 

26. Plaintiff’s computer and computer system are “protected computers” within the 

meaning of the CFAA, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. 

27. Defendant knowingly exceeded his authority to access these protected computers 

and devices and obtained confidential and trade secret information from the protected computers. 

28. Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the CFAA. 

Case 0:22-cv-61390-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 4 of 7
5 

29. Plaintiff suffered losses of at least $5,000, including the costs of this action and 

attorneys’ fees. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests a judgment awarding it its damages, in 

addition to a temporary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from any dissemination of 

the transmitted emails or any other confidential information of Plaintiff, as well as an injunction 

requiring Defendant to delete all transmitted emails and allow Defendant (or a court-appointed 

designee at Defendant’s cost) to examine Defendant’s computer records to verify that the emails 

were (a) not further disseminated and (b) deleted, together with an award of attorneys’ fees and 

costs. 

COUNT II 

PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

30. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 

31. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into an agreement not to disclose to 

any third parties Plaintiff’s business strategies, financial planning, financial results, contracts, 

employee salary and staffing information, personnel information, and other confidential 

information, unless explicitly authorized by the Company or until that information is publicly 

disseminated by the Company.. 

32. Defendant breached the contract by transmitting the emails as mentioned above. 

33. Prior to his termination, Defendant also accessed Plaintiff’s protected computers, 

and accessed, obtained, and transmitted data from those computers, thereby clearing exceeding his 

authority under Company policy and the law. 

34. Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, harmed as a result of Defendant’s breach 

of the confidentiality provisions in the Employee Handbook and his violations of the CFAA and 

CADRA, and said harm is irreparable. 

Case 0:22-cv-61390-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 5 of 7
6 

35. Plaintiff has a clear legal right to an injunction requiring Defendant to delete the 

illegally transmitted emails. 

36. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. 

37. There will be no public harm by granting injunctive relief. Indeed, the public has 

an interest in having contractual obligations enforced, and enforcement of the Federal and Florida 

legislatures’ respective pronouncements and codification regarding the access and divulgement of 

information obtained via unauthorized access is in the public’s best interest. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests a temporary and permanent injunction 

enjoining Defendant from any dissemination of the transmitted emails or any other confidential 

information of Plaintiff, as well as an injunction requiring Defendant to delete all transmitted 

emails and allow Plaintiff (or a court-appointed designee at Defendant’s cost) to examine 

Defendant’s computer(s) to verify that the emails were (a) not further disseminated and (b) deleted, 

together with an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 

COUNT III 

VIOLATION OF COMPUTER ABUSE AND DATA RECOVERY ACT 

38. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 23 above. 

39. While Defendant was employed by the Plaintiff he used Plaintiff’s computer and 

computer systems. 

40. Plaintiff’s computer and computer systems are a “protected computer” under 

section 668.802(6) of the Florida Statutes. 

41. Defendant’s transmission of information from Plaintiff’s computer constituted 

unauthorized use of the computer. 

42. Defendant obtained information from a protected computer without authorization 

and caused Plaintiff harm. 

Case 0:22-cv-61390-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 6 of 7
7 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests a judgment awarding it its damages, in 

addition to a temporary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from any dissemination of 

the transmitted emails or any other confidential information of Plaintiff, as well as an injunction 

requiring Defendant to delete all transmitted emails and allow Defendant (or a court-appointed 

designee at Defendant’s cost) to examine Defendant’s computer records to verify that the emails 

were (a) not further disseminated and (b) deleted, together with an award of attorneys’ fees and 

costs. 

Dated: This 26 day of July, 2022. 

Respectfully submitted, 

GRAYROBINSON, P.A. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue 

Suite 3200 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: (305) 416-6880 

Facsimile: (305) 416-6887 

Juan C. Martinez 

Florida Bar No. 9024 

juan.martinez@gray-robinson.com 

edelweiss.cianella@gray-robinson.com 

#47974827 v1 

Case 0:22-cv-61390-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/26/2022 Page 7 of 7