.

This action was tried before the Court from December 9, 2019 through December 12, 2019.

The Plaintiff presented testimonial evidence through ten witnesses; including Antonio

Balestena, Jr., Mario Saavedra, Grisell Hernandez, Michael Saavedra, Ashley Simms, Joe

Orriols, Sandra Navarro-Garcia, Esq. (Defendant, Grisell Hernandez’s bankruptcy attorney)

Greta Reynolds (the Court Appointed Accountant), Lorenzo De Toro (Plaintiff’s computer

forensic expert) and Nathaniel McKenzie (Plaintiff’s valuation and damages expert). The

Defendants did not file a fact witness list, did not file an expert witness list, did not file an

exhibit list and did not file or raise any Affirmative Defenses in this matter or at trial. Based

upon the prior Summary Judgment Orders of this Court, the evidence presented at trial and the

argument and case law presented herein the Court finds the following:

Procedural History

This case was initiated by Plaintiff, Antonio Balestena, Jr. on November 19, 2015 against

Defendants, Michael Saavedra, Mario Jose Saavedra, Grisell Hernandez and Florida Powder

Coating Solutions, Corp. d/b/a Bullseye Powder Coating (hereinafter referred to as “Bullseye

Powder Coating”) concerning a shareholder dispute involving Bullseye Powder Coating. It is

undisputed that Plaintiff, Antonio Balestena, Jr. Defendants, Michael Saavedra, Mario Jose

Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez each own a twenty-five percent interest in Bullseye Powder

Coating. 

The Plaintiff has filed equitable claims for judicial dissolution of Bullseye Powder Coating

(Count I) pursuant to Fla. Stat. §607.1433 and Equitable Accounting (Count II) and legal claims

Filing # 102528156 E-Filed 01/30/2020 06:21:23 PM

Exhibit "D"

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 1 of 42
I.

for Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count III), Unlawful Distributions (Count IV), Fraudulent Transfer

(Count V), Civil Conspiracy (Count VI), Civil Rico (Count VII) and Breach of Joint Venture

Agreement (Count VIII) against Defendants. The Defendants did not file any Affirmative

Defenses to Plaintiff’s claims. On February 23, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment in

favor of Plaintiff as to Count I. On March 14, 2016, the Court ordered an Accounting of

Bullseye Powder Coating. On July 21, 2016, the Court also granted summary judgment in

favor of Plaintiff and against Bullseye Powder Coating in the amount of $102,165.00. On June

11, 2019, the Court also entered an Agreed Order granting partial summary judgment in favor

of Plaintiff against Defendant, Grisell Hernandez as to Count V (Fraudulent Transfer) as to

liability only and determined that the assets that were fraudulently transferred from Bullseye

Powder Coating to Grisell Hernandez and/or Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. during the

pendency of this lawsuit shall be considered Bullseye Powder Coating’s assets[2]. See also

Agreed Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant,

Grisell Hernandez dated June 11, 2019, paragraph 9.

Claims against Florida Powder Coating Solutions, Corp. d/b/a Bullseye Powder

Coating

 Plaintiff alleged claims against Bullseye Powder Coating for Judicial Dissolution (Count

I), Fraudulent Transfer (Count V) and Civil Conspiracy (Count VI). On July 21, 2016, the Court

entered an Order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Bullseye Powder

Coating in the amount of $102,165.00 as to Counts V (Fraudulent Transfer) and Count VI (Civil

Conspiracy). The Court hereby incorporates its Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment in

favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, Bullseye Powder Coating as if specifically set forth into

this Final Judgment. Plaintiff introduced evidence at trial in the form of a Final Judgment[3]

against Defendant, Grisell Hernandez in the case styled: Antonio Balestena Sr. v. Grisell

Hernandez, et. al; 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, Case No. CACE 1520347

(“Balestena Sr. case”) where the Honorable Barbara McCarthy made a finding of fact that that

the assets of Bullseye Powder Coating were fraudulently transferred to Bullseye Coating and

Blasting, Corp. and that Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. is the mere continuation of

Bullseye Powder Coating. The Court finds that Plaintiff has presented clear and convincing

evidence during the trial that the assets of Bullseye Powder Coating were fraudulently

transferred to Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. and that Bullseye Coating and Blasting,

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 2 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 2 of 42
II.

a.

Corp. is the mere continuation of Bullseye Powder Coating. 

Based on the evidence presented at trial and the prior Orders of this Court, the Court

hereby enters Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Antonio Balestena, Jr. and against

Defendant, Florida Powder Coating Solutions, Corp. d/b/a Bullseye Powder Coating and

Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. in the amount of $102,165.00 plus statutory

interest in the amount of four and seventy-eighths percent (4.78%)[4] per year from July

21, 2016 until paid for let garnishment and execution shall issue. The Court will next

address Count I (Judicial Dissolution) against Bullseye Powder Coating and the individual

Defendants further below.

Count I (Judicial Dissolution of Florida Powder Coating Solutions, Corp. d/b/a

Bullseye Powder Coating).

As grounds for Judicial Dissolution of Bullseye Powder Coating, Plaintiff alleged that

Defendants, Michael Saavedra, Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez were misplacing and

wasting Bullseye Powder Coating’s assets and were acting in a manner that was/is illegal and

fraudulent pursuant to pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 607.1430(3) and Fla. Stat. § 607.1430(4). See

Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 34-39. Plaintiff moved for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count I for

Judicial Dissolution of Bullseye Powder Coating on January 25, 2016. Defendants did not

oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendants did not file any

affirmative defenses to Count I for Judicial Dissolution.

On February 23, 2016, this Honorable Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment for Judicial Dissolution of Bullseye Powder Coating. The Order states that the

effective date of the Judicial Dissolution is April 1, 2016. See Order granting partial summary

judgment dated February 23, 2016, paragraph 3. The Court hereby incorporates its Order

dated February 23, 2016 as if specifically set forth in this Final Judgment.

Violation of Fla. Stat. § 607.1405(1)

and the Court’s Agreed Injunction Order dated April 18, 2016

Following the Judicial Dissolution of a corporation, Fla. Stat. § 607.1405(1) sets forth the

manner in which a corporation carries on any business after dissolution.

Specifically, Fla. Stat. § 607.1405(1) states, in pertinent part, as follows with respect to the

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 3 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 3 of 42
1.

effect of dissolution:

A corporation that has dissolved continues its corporate existence, but the

dissolved corporation may not carry on any business except that appropriate to

wind up and liquidate its business and affairs, including: (a) Collecting its assets; (b)

Disposing of its properties that will not be distributed in kind to its shareholders; (c)

Discharging or making provision for discharging its liabilities; (d) Making distributions of

its remaining assets among its shareholders according to their interests; and (e) Doing

every other act necessary to wind up and liquidate its business and affairs. (emphasis

added).

(Emphasis Added). 

Additionally, on April 18, 2016, this Honorable Court entered an Agreed Order granting

Plaintiff’s Verified Emergency Motion for Temporary Injunction prohibiting the use, selling,

encumbering, conveying, disposition and/or transfer of Bullseye Powder Coating's assets to

maintain the status quo until the Court conducted a Final Hearing to wind down the corporation

and distribute the remaining assets to the shareholders. See Agreed Order dated April 18,

2016.

During the trial, Plaintiff presented unrebutted testimony that Bullseye Powder Coating was

incorporated by Plaintiff and Defendant, Mario Saavedra on August 22, 2012. See Plaintiff’s

Exhibit “1” (Articles of Incorporation for Bullseye Powder Coating). The undisputed evidence at

trial established that Bullseye Powder Coating’s customers wrote checks that were made

payable to “Bullseye Powder Coating” or “Bullseye”. See Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibits “87”,

Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibit “88”. The undisputed testimony at trial established that Plaintiff

and Defendant, Mario Saavedra were the initially the only two shareholders in Bullseye

Powder Coating each owning a fifty percent interest in the company. On August 4, 2014,

Defendants, Grisell Hernandez and Michael Saavedra also became shareholders in Bullseye

Powder Coating making Plaintiff and the three individual defendants each owning a twenty-five

percent interest in the company. The testimony at trial established that Bullseye Powder

Coating maintained its offices at 2848 Stirling Road, Unit A, Hollywood, Florida until January 1,

2015. The undisputed evidence at trial also established that Defendant, Grisell Hernandez

incorporated another company with a similar name called Bullseye Powder Coat, Inc. on

December 26, 2013. Bullseye Powder Coat, Inc. also maintained its business offices at the

same location as Bullseye Powder Coating according to the Division of Corporation’s records.

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 4 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 4 of 42
See Plaintiff’s Exhibits 6 (Articles of Incorporation for Bullseye Powder Coat, Inc.).

Defendant, Grisell Hernandez testified that Bullseye Powder Coat, Inc. was not operational,

but Plaintiff presented evidence that Defendant, Grisell Hernandez had commingled the assets

of Bullseye Powder Coat, Inc. with Bullseye Powder Coating’s assets because she deposited

checks made payable to Bullseye Powder Coat, Inc. in Bullseye Powder Coating’s business

bank accounts. See Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibit 88 (Bates stamped Defendant 3731,

Defendant 4006, Defendant 4176) and Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibit 87 (bates stamped

WF001850, WF002526).

The testimony at trial showed that Bullseye Powder Coating moved its business offices to 2301

SW 57th Terrace, West Park, Florida on January 1, 2015. See Trial Transcript dated

December 9, 2019 (95:17-22). Plaintiff also presented testimony that Defendant, Grisell

Hernandez incorporated another company called Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. on

December 2, 2015. See Plaintiff’s Exhibits 19. Defendant, Grisell Hernandez testified that she

was the owner of Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. See Trial Transcript dated December

10, 2019 (235:21-4). Plaintiff also presented evidence that Defendant, Grisell Hernandez

opened bank business bank accounts for Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. on December

2, 2015 and February 9, 2016 during the pendency of this matter. See Plaintiff’s Exhibits 24,

25, 26 and 27. Plaintiff also presented evidence through a series of checks that showed that

Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. had the same business address and business phone

number as Bullseye Powder Coating. See Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibit “71” (Bates Stamped

WF/Balestena 000001, Bates Stamped WF/Balestena 000003, Bates Stamped WF/Balestena

000004, Bates Stamped WF/Balestena 000064, Bates Stamped WF/Balestena 000125, Bates

Stamped WF/Balestena 000149 and Bates Stamped WF/Balestena 000149).

Plaintiff also presented evidence that Bullseye Powder Coating did business as “Bullseye

Powder Coating” and that Bullseye Powder Coating’s customers would write checks made

payable to “Bullseye Powder Coating” or “Bullseye”. See e.g. Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibits

“87” (Bates Stamped WF001404-1411, 1413, 1416-1418, 1420-1422, 1424-1426, 1428-1430,

1432-1433, 1436-1438, 1441-1443, 1446, 1450, 1459, 1462, 1467-1468, 1471-1472, 1475,

1477, 1522, 1525, 1529, 1557, 1621-1622, 1646-1647, 1682-1683, 1729, 1755, 1802-1803,

1806-1808, 1827, 1851, 1864-1865, 1894-1995, 2528, 2531-2532, 2567, 2592-2593, 2641-

2643, 2676, 2717, 2720, 2755-2756, 2846-2848, 2957-2958, 2996, 2999, 3054-3056, 3114-

3115, 3166, 3169, 3172-3173, 3176-3177, 3221, 3222, 3241-3242 and 3278-3280 by way of

example).

Plaintiff presented evidence that Defendant, Grisell Hernandez would selectively deposit some

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 5 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 5 of 42
checks made payable to “Bullseye Powder Coating” and “Bullseye” into Bullseye Powder

Coating’s business bank accounts and sometimes deposit checks made payable to “Bullseye

Powder Coating” and “Bullseye” into Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp.’s business bank

accounts while both companies were operating at the same location of 2301 SW 57th Terrace,

West Park, Florida. See Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibits “87” See e.g. Plaintiff’s Composite

Exhibits “87” (Bates Stamped WF003114-3115, 3166, 3169, 3172-3173, 3176-3177, 3221,

3222, 3241-3242 and 3278-3280 by way of example); see also e.g. Plaintiff’s Composite

Exhibit “71” (Bates stamped WF/Balestena 001499-1501, WF/Balestena 1504, WF/Balestena

1506, WF/Balestena 1507, WF/Balestena 1510-1511, WF/Balestena 1516-1517,

WF/Balestena 1522-1523, WF/Balestena 1525, WF/Balestena 1527, WF/Balestena 1535,

WF/Balestena 1537, WF/Balestena 1539-154, WF/Balestena 1546, 1551, WF/Balestena 1555-

1557, WF/Balestena 1559-1561, WF/Balestena 1567, WF/Balestena 1569-1570,

WF/Balestena 1572-1574, WF/Balestena 1576-1577 and WF/Balestena 1579-1582 by way of

example). Plaintiff’s expert witness, Nathaniel McKenzie testified that it was a typical fraudulent

scheme to deposit checks made payable to the original corporation into a shell company just to

“milk” money out of the original corporation. See Trial Transcript dated December 12, 2019

(34:7-21).

Plaintiff also presented evidence that Defendant, Michael Saavedra owned and incorporated Fl

Electrostatic Paint Corp. on April 10, 2017, which also operated at the business address of

2301 SW 57th Terrace, West Park, Florida. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 75. Defendant, Michael

Saavedra admitted that Fl Electrostatic Paint Corp. did not have any bank accounts. See Trial

Transcript dated December 11, 2019 (93:2-4). Mr. Saavedra further testified that sometimes he

kept the money that was generated for Fl Electrostatic Paint Corp and sometimes he “put it

through Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp.” See Trial Transcript dated December 11, 2019

(93:2-18). Based on Mr. Saavedra’s testimony, the Court finds that Defendant, Michael

Saavedra commingled the revenue generated from Fl Electrostatic Paint Corp. with the

revenue generated by Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp.

The Court also finds that Plaintiff presented competent evidence at trial that Defendants

violated Fla. Stat. § 607.1405(1) and the Court’s Agreed Injunction Order dated April 18, 2016

because the Defendants continued to carry on the business operations of Bullseye Powder

Coating, which Defendants merged into Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. after the Court

effective date of the dissolution (April 1, 2016)[5] and after the Court entered its Agreed

Injunction Order dated April 18, 2016 prohibiting the continued use, sell, transfer or

encumbrance of Bullseye Powder Coating’s assets.

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 6 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 6 of 42
b. Spoliation of Evidence Impeding the Determination of the Fair Value of Bullseye

Powder Coating’s Shares.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals has made clear that the aggrieved party is entitled to an

adverse presumption instruction where the court found that the “the spoliator was duty-bound

to preserve the evidence.” See Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777, 781 (Fla. 4th DCA

2006). Additionally, even in the absence of a duty to preserve evidence, the aggrieved party is

entitled to an adverse inference as to his or her damages. See Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920

So. 2d 777, 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

During the Trial, Plaintiff presented unrebutted evidence that Bullseye Powder Coating had two

corporate computers (an HP Compaq and HP Pavilion) that contained Bullseye Powder

Coating’s electronic business records that included Quick book files, invoices, emails back and

forth with customers and everything related to the business. See Trial Transcript dated

December 9, 2019 (124: 13-15, 23-25; 125: 3-10). On May 25, 2016, the Court ordered that

Plaintiff take the deposition of Defendant, Grisell Hernandez at the business offices of Bullseye

Powder Coating in order to examine the business records during the deposition. See Court’s

Order dated May 25, 2016. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants had a duty to preserve

the business records of Bullseye Powder Coating. Plaintiff also presented unrebutted

testimony during the trial that Defendants refused to produce said computers during the Court

Ordered deposition of Defendant, Grisell Hernandez on April 13, 2016. Plaintiff also presented

unrebutted testimonial evidence that Plaintiff did not come into possession of said computers

until June 6, 2016. See Trial Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (131:2-23).

During the trial, Plaintiff testified that after he received Bullseye Powder Coating’s two

computers (HP Compaq and HP Pavilion) he provided them to Lorenzo De Toro for

examination. Id. During the trial Plaintiff called Lorenzo De Toro to testify as a forensic

computer expert and to explain what he discovered on Bullseye Powder Coating’s computers

after he received them from Plaintiff. The Court accepted Mr. De Toro as an expert to testify as

an expert computer forensics. See Trial Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (192: 10-14).

Plaintiff presented competent evidence through the expert testimony of Lorenzo De Toro

(Plaintiff’s computer forensic expert) where he explained that computer software was used to

wipe clean the electronic data on Bullseye Powder Coating’s HP Compaq. See e.g. Trial

Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (196:7-25; 197:1-25; 198:1-25; 199:1-15). Mr. De Toro

further testified that the computer was last shut down was April 5, 2016, which was eight days

before the deposition of Defendant, Grisell Hernandez, which occurred on April 13, 2016. See

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 7 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 7 of 42
c.

Trial Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (199:16-25; 200: 1-25). A portion of Ms. Hernandez’s

videotaped deposition (taken on April 13, 2016) was played during the trial where Ms.

Hernandez and her attorney at the time refused to produce discovery from the corporation’s

computers in violation of this Court’s Order dated March 10, 2016. See Trial Transcript dated

December 11, 2019 (26:1-25; 27:1-25; 28:1-25).

Mr. De Toro also testified that the wiping clean of the computer records could not be

considered an accident because you need special software to do it. See Trial Transcript dated

December 9, 2019 (199:7-15). Mr. De Toro also explained that he examined Bullseye Powder

Coating’s HP Pavilion computer and his investigation found that a computer application called

“eraser” was installed on the computer prior to April 5, 2016. See Trial Transcript dated

December 9, 2019 (202:5-25; 203:1-15). Mr. De Toro explained that the “eraser” program that

was used on the computer to wipe files from the computer. Id. Defendants did not proffer any

expert testimony or documentary evidence to rebut the testimony of Mr. De Toro. Based on the

evidence presented at trial, the Court finds Mr. De Toro’s testimony as credible and finds that

the Plaintiff has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the data contained on Bullseye

Powder Coating’s two computers (HP Compaq and HP Pavilion) were willfully wiped from the

computers. The Court also finds that Plaintiff has proved by clear and convincing evidence that

the Defendants were in possession of the computers at the time the data on the computers

were wiped from the computers and the Court concludes that the Defendants collectively

breached their duty to preserve the records on Bullseye Powder Coating’s computer and are

responsible for the willful removal of the data from said computers.

Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to an adverse inference with respect to

his or damages. See Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777, 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Valuation of Bullseye Powder Coating’s Shares.

On March 14, 2016, the Court appointed Greta Reynolds as the Court Appointed Accountant

to perform an accounting of Bullseye Powder Coating. See Order dated March 14, 2016.

During the Trial, Ms. Reynolds testified that she had to reconstruct the balance sheet for

Bullseye Powder Coating/Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. due to the fact that Defendants’

were uncooperative and did not provide all of the financial data requested. See Trial Transcript

dated December 12, 2019 (8:8-20). Ms. Reynolds also testified that Plaintiff cooperated with

her in providing information requested she requested to perform her duties. See Trial

Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (7:16-19). The Court Appointed Accountant testified that

she valued Bullseye Powder Coating/Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp.’s shares at

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 8 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 8 of 42
approximately 1.1 million. See Trial Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (8:21-24).

Plaintiff also hired Nathaniel McKenzie as an expert witness to determine the fair value of

Bullseye Powder Coating/Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. corporate assets. During the

trial, the Court accepted Nathaniel McKenzie as an expert witness to testify regarding forensic

accounting, fraud examination, and business valuation. See Trial Transcript dated December

12, 2019 (23:18-24). Mr. McKenzie testified that he reviewed the bank records, invoices, tax

returns for Bullseye Powder Coating and Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. that were

provided by Defendants to Plaintiff in discovery as well as the litigation files, deposition

transcripts and the Court Appointed Accountants’ Report. See Trial Transcript dated December

12, 2019 (25:1-25; 26:20-25; 27:1-25; 28:1-5). Mr. McKenzie also testified that he conducted

his own independent research on the background of the company and the powder coating

industry. See Trial Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (27:1-25; 28:1-5).

Mr. McKenzie testified that based upon the information he was provided and the independent

research he conducted, he valued Bullseye Powder Coating/Bullseye Coating and Blasting,

Corp.’s shares at $1,164,116. See Trial Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (40:4-16). In

reaching his conclusion of the fair valuation of the company, Mr. McKenzie testified that he

used the Discount Rate Method[6], Multiple Valuations Method[7] and Rule of Thumb Method

[8]and used a twenty percent weighted average between the three methods to come up with

his valuation for the company. See Trial Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (40:11-16). In

reaching his conclusion, Mr. McKenzie also testified that he took into consideration the growth

of the company from 2013 through 2017 and used a conservative growth rate of 3% for the

company as opposed to a 7.5% growth rate, which was the average growth rate for a powder

coating company in Broward County. See Trial Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (40:17-

25; 41:1-18).

Defendants did not rebut the testimony proffered by Plaintiff’s expert and did not call an expert

witness to contradict or impeach the expert testimony of Mr. McKenzie. The Court finds Mr.

McKenzie’s expert testimony credible and competent expert testimony to establish the fair

valuation for Bullseye Powder Coating/Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. See Lally Orange

Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Sandhu, 207 So.3d 981, 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)(“the court's

conclusion as to fair value must be “supported by competent, substantial evidence and

properly conformed to the requirements for determining fair value.”)(citations omitted).

Based on the trial testimony presented, the Court finds that both Ms. Reynolds and Mr.

McKenzie were impeded in their ability to provide a fair valuation for Bullseye Powder

Coating/Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. due to the spoliation of evidence described

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 9 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 9 of 42
above. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an adverse inference with respect

to the fair value of his shares. See Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777, 781 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2006).

As stated above, this Court has already determined that Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp.

is the mere continuation of Bullseye Powder Coating and as such the value of both companies

will be taken into account in establishing the fair value of Bullseye Powder Coating. 

Based on the evidence presented at trial, this Court values the shares of Bullseye Powder

Coating/Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. at $1,164,116 based upon the conclusion of

value reached by Plaintiff’s expert witness Nathaniel McKenzie and as he testified to at trial.

Consequently, the Court finds that Plaintiff, Antonio Balestena, Jr. is a twenty-five percent

owner and shareholder of Bullseye Powder Coating and determines that his shares are valued

at $291,029.00, which is one-fourth of the total fair value of Bullseye Powder Coating/Bullseye

Coating and Blasting, Corp. 

Due to the commingling of assets of various companies involving Bullseye Powder Coating,

Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp, Bullseye Powder Coat, Inc. and Fl Electrostatic Painting,

Corp. the Court finds that it is more appropriate for the Defendants to purchase Plaintiff’s

shares in lieu of dissolution. See Acoustic Innovations, Inc. v. Schafer, 976 So.2d 1139, 1146

(Fla. 4th DCA 2008)( “section 607.1434(4) authorizes the court to "[u]pon proof of good cause,

make any order or grant any equitable relief other than dissolution or liquidation as in its

discretion it may deem appropriate.”).

Therefore, the Court finds and determines that Plaintiff, Antonio Balestena Jr.’s ownership

interest in Bullseye Powder Coating shall be purchased by Defendants, Michael Saavedra,

Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez at the price of $291,029.00. Therefore, as to Count I,

the Court enters Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Antonio Balestena, Jr. and against

Defendants, Michael Saavedra, Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez in the amount of

$291,029.00 representing the value of Plaintiff’s shares. The Final Judgment amount of

$291,029.00 shall bear interest at 6.83% per annum and Defendants, Michael Saavedra,

Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez shall be jointly and severally liable for the Final

Judgment for let garnishment and execution shall issue.

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 10 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 10 of 42
III.

IV.

a.

Count II (Equitable Accounting)

On March 14, 2016, this Honorable Court Ordered an accounting of Bullseye Powder Coating

and appointed Reynolds & Granada, LLC as the accounting firm to perform an accounting of

Bullseye Powder Coating’s assets and liabilities. Therefore, the Court has already determined

that Plaintiff, Antonio Balestena, Jr. has a right to an Accounting. The Court ordered that each

shareholder pay twenty-five (25%) of the Court appointed accountant’s fee for her services.

The Defendants did not Answer the Amended Complaint and did not file any affirmative

defenses to this Count.

Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court has determined that the Defendants

willfully impeded Ms. Reynolds’ ability to conduct an accounting of Bullseye Powder Coating as

discussed above. Therefore, the Court orders that Defendants, Michael Saavedra, Mario

Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez reimburse Plaintiff for the costs he paid Ms. Reynolds for her

services as the Court Appointed Accountant. Plaintiff may file a motion within thirty (30) days

from the dates of this Final Judgment identifying the costs paid to Ms. Reynolds. The Court

reserves jurisdiction to award Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs expended for

this matter.

Count III (Breach of Fiduciary Duty).

In Count III of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserted a claim against Defendants, Michael

Saavedra, Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez for Breach of their Fiduciary Duty to Plaintiff

as a shareholder of Bullseye Powder Coating.

“The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are (1) the existence of a

duty, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) damages flowing from the breach.” Crusselle v. Mong, 59

So.3d 1178, 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (citations omitted). Moreover, “the directors of a private

corporation are considered by equity to be in a fiduciary relationship with the corporation and

its shareholders...” See Fox v. Professional Wrecker Operators of Florida, Inc., 801 So.2d 175,

180 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(citations omitted); See also Tillis v. United Stated Paris, Inc., 395

So.2d 618 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (Corporate Directors owe a fiduciary obligation to the

corporation and to the stockholders and must act in good faith and the best interests of the

corporation). The Defendants did not file any affirmative defenses to this Count in Amended

Complaint.

Fiduciary Relationship Existed between Plaintiff and the Individual Defendants.

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 11 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 11 of 42
b.

1.

 During the trial, Plaintiff presented clear and convincing evidence that Plaintiff, Antonio

Balestena, Jr., Michael Saavedra, Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez became twenty-five

percent shareholders and were appointed to the Board of Directors for Bullseye Powder

Coating on August 4, 2014. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “8” (Transfer of Stock Ownership and

Establishment of Board of Directors). This testimony was unrebutted at trial. Therefore, the

Court finds that a fiduciary relationship existed between Plaintiff, Antonio Balestena, Jr. and

Defendants, Michael Saavedra, Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez.

Defendants Breached their Fiduciary Obligation to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff presented clear and convincing evidence at trial that Defendants breached their

fiduciary obligations to Plaintiff by 1) commingling the assets of Bullseye Powder Coating with

other companies; 2) unlawfully removing Plaintiff as President of Bullseye Powder Coating; 3)

Unlawfully removing Plaintiff as a signer on Bullseye Powder Coating’s business bank

accounts; 4) Denying Plaintiff access to Bullseye Powder Coating’s equipment and electronic

data; and 5) Defendants’ conspiracy to create a fraudulent loan between Defendant, Grisell

Hernandez and Bullseye Powder Coating for the purpose of transferring Bullseye Powder

Coating’s assets to Defendant, Grisell Hernandez and/or Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp.

Specifically, the Court’s findings are based upon the following evidence that was presented

during the trial:

Defendants commingled the assets of Bullseye Powder Coating with other companies.

During the trial, Plaintiff presented unrebutted testimony that Bullseye Powder Coating was

incorporated by Plaintiff and Defendant, Mario Saavedra on August 22, 2012. See Plaintiff’s

Exhibit “1” (Articles of Incorporation for Bullseye Powder Coating). The undisputed evidence at

trial established that Bullseye Powder Coating’s customers wrote checks that were made

payable to “Bullseye Powder Coating” or “Bullseye”. See Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibits “87”,

Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibit “88”. The undisputed testimony at trial established that Plaintiff

and Defendant, Mario Saavedra were the initially the only two shareholders in Bullseye

Powder Coating each owning a fifty percent interest in the company. On August 4, 2014,

Defendants, Grisell Hernandez and Michael Saavedra also became shareholders in Bullseye

Powder Coating making Plaintiff and the three individual defendants each owning a twenty-five

percent interest in the company. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “8” (Transfer of Stock Ownership and

Establishment of Board of Directors). The testimony at trial established that Bullseye Powder

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 12 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 12 of 42
Coating maintained its offices at 2848 Stirling Road, Unit A, Hollywood, Florida until January 1,

2015. The undisputed evidence at trial also established that Defendant, Grisell Hernandez

incorporated another company with a similar name called Bullseye Powder Coat, Inc. on

December 26, 2013. Bullseye Powder Coat, Inc. also maintained its business offices at the

same location as Bullseye Powder Coating according to the Division of Corporation’s records.

See Plaintiff’s Exhibits 6 (Articles of Incorporation for Bullseye Powder Coat, Inc.).

Defendant, Grisell Hernandez testified that Bullseye Powder Coat, Inc. was not operational,

but Plaintiff presented evidence that Defendant, Grisell Hernandez had commingled the assets

of Bullseye Powder Coat, Inc. with Bullseye Powder Coating’s assets because she deposited

checks made payable to Bullseye Powder Coat, Inc. in Bullseye Powder Coating’s business

bank accounts. See Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibit 88 (Bates stamped Defendant 3731,

Defendant 4006, Defendant 4176) and Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibit 87 (bates stamped

WF001850, WF002526).

The testimony at trial showed that Bullseye Powder Coating moved its business offices to 2301

SW 57th Terrace, West Park, Florida on January 1, 2015. See Trial Transcript dated

December 9, 2019 (95:17-22). Plaintiff also presented testimony that Defendant, Grisell

Hernandez incorporated another company called Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. on

December 2, 2015. See Plaintiff’s Exhibits 19. Defendant, Grisell Hernandez testified that she

was the owner of Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. See Trial Transcript dated December

10, 2019 (235:21-4). Plaintiff also presented evidence that Defendant, Grisell Hernandez

opened bank business bank accounts for Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. on December

2, 2015 and February 9, 2016 during the pendency of this matter. See Plaintiff’s Exhibits 24,

25, 26 and 27. Plaintiff also presented evidence through a series of checks that showed that

Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. had the same business address and business phone

number as Bullseye Powder Coating. See Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibit “71” (Bates Stamped

WF/Balestena 000001, Bates Stamped WF/Balestena 000003, Bates Stamped WF/Balestena

000004, Bates Stamped WF/Balestena 000064, Bates Stamped WF/Balestena 000125, Bates

Stamped WF/Balestena 000149 and Bates Stamped WF/Balestena 000149).

Plaintiff also presented evidence that Bullseye Powder Coating did business as “Bullseye

Powder Coating” and that Bullseye Powder Coating’s customers would write checks made

payable to “Bullseye Powder Coating” or “Bullseye”. See e.g. Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibits

“87” (Bates Stamped WF001404-1411, 1413, 1416-1418, 1420-1422, 1424-1426, 1428-1430,

1432-1433, 1436-1438, 1441-1443, 1446, 1450, 1459, 1462, 1467-1468, 1471-1472, 1475,

1477, 1522, 1525, 1529, 1557, 1621-1622, 1646-1647, 1682-1683, 1729, 1755, 1802-1803,

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 13 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 13 of 42
1806-1808, 1827, 1851, 1864-1865, 1894-1995, 2528, 2531-2532, 2567, 2592-2593, 2641-

2643, 2676, 2717, 2720, 2755-2756, 2846-2848, 2957-2958, 2996, 2999, 3054-3056, 3114-

3115, 3166, 3169, 3172-3173, 3176-3177, 3221, 3222, 3241-3242 and 3278-3280 by way of

example).

Plaintiff presented evidence that Defendant, Grisell Hernandez would selectively deposit some

checks made payable to “Bullseye Powder Coating” and “Bullseye” into Bullseye Powder

Coating’s business bank accounts and sometimes deposit checks made payable to “Bullseye

Powder Coating” and “Bullseye” into Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp.’s business bank

accounts while both companies were operating at the same location of 2301 SW 57th Terrace,

West Park, Florida. See Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibits “87” See e.g. Plaintiff’s Composite

Exhibits “87” (Bates Stamped WF003114-3115, 3166, 3169, 3172-3173, 3176-3177, 3221,

3222, 3241-3242 and 3278-3280 by way of example); see also e.g. Plaintiff’s Composite

Exhibit “71” (Bates stamped WF/Balestena 001499-1501, WF/Balestena 1504, WF/Balestena

1506, WF/Balestena 1507, WF/Balestena 1510-1511, WF/Balestena 1516-1517,

WF/Balestena 1522-1523, WF/Balestena 1525, WF/Balestena 1527, WF/Balestena 1535,

WF/Balestena 1537, WF/Balestena 1539-154, WF/Balestena 1546, 1551, WF/Balestena 1555-

1557, WF/Balestena 1559-1561, WF/Balestena 1567, WF/Balestena 1569-1570,

WF/Balestena 1572-1574, WF/Balestena 1576-1577 and WF/Balestena 1579-1582 by way of

example). Further, Plaintiff’s expert witness, Nathaniel McKenzie testified that this was a

typical fraudulent scheme to “milk” money from the original corporation. See Trial Transcript

dated December 12, 2019 (34:7-21).

Plaintiff also presented evidence that Defendant, Michael Saavedra owned and incorporated Fl

Electrostatic Paint Corp. on April 10, 2017, which also operated at the business address of

2301 SW 57th Terrace, West Park, Florida. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 75. Defendant, Michael

Saavedra admitted that Fl Electrostatic Paint Corp. did not have any bank accounts. See Trial

Transcript dated December 11, 2019 (93:2-4). Mr. Saavedra further testified that sometimes he

kept the money that was generated for Fl Electrostatic Paint Corp and sometimes he “put it

through Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp.” See Trial Transcript dated December 11, 2019

(93:2-18). Based on Mr. Saavedra’s testimony, the Court finds that Defendant, Michael

Saavedra commingled the revenue generated from Fl Electrostatic Paint Corp. with the

revenue generated by Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp.

The Defendants did not produce any documentary evidence that the directors of Bullseye

Powder Coating had consented to and/or voted on having additional companies operate at

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 14 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 14 of 42
2.

3.

Bullseye Powder Coating’s business location. The Court finds that Plaintiff presented clear and

convincing evidence that Defendants, Grisell Hernandez and Michael Saavedra breached their

fiduciary obligations as directors of Bullseye Powder Coating to Plaintiff as a shareholder of

Bullseye Powder Coating by commingling revenue and assets amongst various businesses

operating at the same location as Bullseye Powder Coating.

Unlawful Removal of Plaintiff as President of Bullseye Powder Coating.

Plaintiff also presented testimony at trial that Defendants, Michael Saavedra, Mario Saavedra

and Grisell Hernandez held a meeting on October 27, 2015 without written notice to Plaintiff

and voted to remove Plaintiff as President of Bullseye Powder Coating. See Trial Transcript

dated December 9, 2019 (115:13-24). Defendants admitted in their testimony that the meeting

occurred, however the defendants did not produce any documentary evidence that written

notice was provided to Plaintiff prior to conducting said meeting. See Trial Transcript dated

December 11, 2019 (152:21-25). Based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that

Defendants conducted the meeting on October 27, 2015 in violation of Fla. Stat. § 607.0705

and consequently a violation of their fiduciary obligations to Plaintiff as a shareholder of

Bullseye Powder Coating.

Plaintiff also presented testimony that Defendant, Mario Saavedra removed Plaintiff, Antonio

Balestena, Jr. as President of Bullseye Powder Coating with the Florida Department of State

Division of Corporations without a valid corporate meeting as discussed above. See Plaintiff’s

Exhibit “12”; see also Trial Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (115:13-24). Fla. Stat. §

817.155 makes it unlawful to provide false information to the Florida Department of State.

Therefore, based upon the evidence provided at trial and the trial testimony of Defendant

Mario Saavedra himself indicating that he took this action, the Court also finds that Defendant,

Mario Saavedra breached his fiduciary obligation to Plaintiff by unlawfully removing him as

President by filing fraudulent documents with the Florida Department of State, Division of

Corporations.

Unlawful Removal of Plaintiff as a signer on Bullseye Powder Coating’s business bank

accounts.

Plaintiff also presented evidence that Bullseye Powder Coating maintained its business bank

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 15 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 15 of 42
4.

accounts at Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”). See Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibit “86”

(Bates Stamped WellsFargo00053-WellsFargo00064); see also Trial Transcript dated

December 9, 2019 (75:25; 76:1-6); Trial Transcript dated December 10, 2019 (78:15-16); Trial

Transcript dated December 10, 2019 (228:3-6). Plaintiff presented evidence that Plaintiff,

Antonio Balestena, Jr. and Defendants, Michael Saavedra, Mario Saavedra and Grisell

Hernandez were signers on Bullseye Powder Coating’s business bank accounts at Wells

Fargo. See Trial Transcript dated December 10, 2019 (78:23-5; 79:1); Trial Transcript dated

December 10, 2019 (228:7-10). During the trial Defendants, Mario Saavedra and Grisell

Hernandez admitted that they removed Plaintiff, Antonio Balestena, Jr. as a signer on Bullseye

Powder Coating’s business bank accounts at Wells Fargo. See Trial Transcript dated

December 10, 2019 (79:2-5); Trial Transcript dated December 10, 2019 (228:11-14). The

evidence at trial further shows that on November 5, 2015, Defendant, Mario Saavedra

provided false information to Wells Fargo that Plaintiff was no longer an owner of Bullseye

Powder Coating. See Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibit “86” (Bates Stamped WellsFargo00018,

WellsFargo00019). Defendant, Mario Saavedra also admitted that the information he provided

Wells Fargo on November 5, 2015 was incorrect. See Trial Transcript dated December 10,

2019 (81:4-16; 82:7-11). Defendant, Grisell Hernandez testified that she, Michael Saavedra

and Mario Saavedra came up with the idea to remove Plaintiff from the company’s business

bank accounts. See Trial Transcript dated December 10, 2019 (228:15-18). Therefore, the

Court also finds that Defendants, Grisell Hernandez, Mario Saavedra and Michael Saavedra

breached their fiduciary obligation to Plaintiff by providing false information to Wells Fargo

about Plaintiff’s ownership interest, which ultimately resulted in the removal of Plaintiff as a

signer on Bullseye Powder Coating’s business bank accounts.

Defendants conspiracy to create a fraudulent loan to transfer the assets of Bullseye

Powder Coating to Defendant, Grisell Hernandez and Bullseye Coating and Blasting,

Corp.

Plaintiff also presented evidence during the trial that on December 23, 2015, a Promissory

Note was executed by Michael Saavedra on behalf of Florida Powder Coating Solutions, Inc.

promising to repay Grisell Hernandez the total amount of $38,0000.00. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit

“29”. Plaintiff further presented evidence that on December 23, 2015, the Security Agreement

(the “Security Agreement”) was executed by Defendant, Grisell Hernandez in her individual

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 16 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 16 of 42
capacity and executed by Michael Saavedra in a corporate capacity. Id. Plaintiff presented

evidence that on January 10, 2016, Defendant, Grisell Hernandez wrote a letter addressed to

Florida Powder Coating Solutions, Inc. advising that the company was late on its first loan

payment to her. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “28”. Further, the evidence at trial showed that on

January 12, 2016, Defendant, Grisell Hernandez filed a fraudulent financing statement with the

Florida Secured Transactions Registry, which attached the Promissory Note between Florida

Powder Coating Solutions, Inc. and Grisell Hernandez. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “29”. The

evidence at trial also showed that on February 1, 2016, Defendant, Grisell Hernandez drafted

a Notice of Intent to Repossess addressed to Florida Powder Coating Solutions, Inc. See

Plaintiff’s Exhibit “31”. The evidence also showed that on February 2, 2016, Defendants,

Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra drafted a letter on behalf of Florida Powder Coating

Solutions, Inc. addressed to Defendant, Grisell Hernandez advising that Florida Powder

Coating Solutions, Inc. is voluntarily forfeiting Bullseye Powder Coating’s equipment placed on

collateral. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “33”. The evidence showed that the equipment was voluntarily

forfeited to Ms. Hernandez and has been used by Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. to

operate its business at 2301 SW 57th Terrace, West Park, Florida. See Trial Transcript dated

December 11, 2019 (24:14-20; 160:4-9).

Plaintiff introduced evidence at trial in the form of a Final Judgment against Defendant, Grisell

Hernandez in the case styled: Antonio Balestena Sr. v. Grisell Hernandez, et. al; 17th Judicial

Circuit, Broward County, Florida, Case No. CACE 1520347 (“Balestena Sr. case”) where the

Honorable Barbara McCarthy made a finding of fact that the purported loan from Defendant,

Grisell Hernandez to Bullseye Powder Coating was never funded. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “70”,

paragraph (3)(h). Judge McCarthy also made a finding that the loan was fraudulent and voided

the Financing Statement filed by Ms. Hernandez in the Florida Secured Transactions Registry. 

See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “70”, paragraphs 4-5. Additionally, this Court entered an Agreed Order

granting summary judgment dated June 11, 2019 in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant,

Grisell Hernandez based on issues previously decided in the Balestena Sr. case, which

included findings of fact that that purported loan from Defendant, Grisell Hernandez to Bullseye

Powder Coating was never funded, the loan was fraudulent and that the Financing Statement

filed by Ms. Hernandez in the Florida Secured Transactions Registry had been voided. See

Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment dated June 11, 2019. Based on

the evidence presented at trial and the prior Orders of this Court and the Court in the

Balestena Sr. Case, the Court finds that Defendants, Grisell Hernandez, Michael Saavedra

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 17 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 17 of 42
c.

V.

and Mario Saavedra breached their fiduciary obligations as directors of Bullseye Powder

Coating to Plaintiff as a shareholder of Bullseye Powder Coating by conspiring to create a

fraudulent loan to transfer the assets of Bullseye Powder Coating to Grisell Hernandez and/or

Bullseye Coating and Blasting Corp during the pendency of this litigation.

Plaintiff suffered damages flowing from Defendants’ Breaches of their Fiduciary

Obligations.

During the trial, the Court accepted Nathaniel McKenzie to testify regarding forensic

accounting, fraud examination and business valuation issues in this case. See Trial Transcript

dated December 12, 2019 (23:18-24). Mr. McKenzie testified that he reviewed the bank

records, invoices, tax returns for Bullseye Powder Coating and Bullseye Coating and Blasting,

Corp. that were provided by Defendants to Plaintiff in discovery as well as the litigation files,

deposition transcripts and the Court Appointed Accountants’ Report. See Trial Transcript dated

December 12, 2019 (25:1-25; 26:20-25; 27:1-25; 28:1-5). During Mr. McKenzie’s testimony he

testified that Plaintiff had suffered damages in the amount of $175,883.00 through 2017. See

Trial Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (43:2-20). In reaching his conclusion on Plaintiff’s

damages, Mr. McKenzie testified that he first calculated the amount of money that the

Defendants were taking out of the company as personal expenses (distributions) and put those

numbers back into the company. See Trial Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (42:7-22). Mr.

McKenzie then explained that Plaintiff was entitled to a twenty-five percent credit after you take

into account what the Defendants took out of the company as personal distributions. Id.

Defendants did not rebut the testimony proffered by Plaintiff’s expert and did not call an expert

witness to contradict or impeach the expert testimony of Mr. McKenzie. The Court finds that

Mr. McKenzie’s testimony was credible with respect to his analysis on how he determined

Plaintiff’s damages and that the documentary evidence provided by the Plaintiff during the trial

also supported his findings. Therefore, based on the testimony presented at trial, along with

the documentary evidence presented, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented competent

evidence that he has suffered damages flowing from the breaches of Defendants’ fiduciary

obligations. Since the damages for Counts III, IV, V, VI and VIII are the same, the Court will

enter one Final Judgment as to those Counts.

Count IV (Unlawful Distributions)

In Count IV of the Amended Complaint Plaintiff asserted claims against the individual

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 18 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 18 of 42
Defendants, Grisell Hernandez, Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra for Unlawful

Distributions pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 607.06401 (3). The Defendants did not file any affirmative

defenses to this Count IV for Unlawful Distributions. 

Fla. Stat. § 607.06401 (3) states, in pertinent part, as follows with respect to distributions to

shareholders:

(3) No distribution may be made if, after giving it effect: (a) The

corporation would not be able to pay its debts as they become due

in the usual course of the corporation’s activities and affairs; or (b)

The corporation’s total assets would be less than the sum of its

total liabilities plus (unless the articles of incorporation permit

otherwise) the amount that would be needed, if the corporation

were to be dissolved and wound up at the time of the distribution, to

satisfy the preferential rights upon dissolution and winding up of

shareholders whose preferential rights are superior to those

receiving the distribution.

As stated above, Plaintiff presented evidence that Defendants, Grisell Hernandez, Michael

Saavedra and Mario Saavedra conspired to cause the assets of Bullseye Powder Coating to

be transferred to Grisell Hernandez and/or Bullseye Coating and Blasting Corp. on February 2,

2016. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33. Plaintiff also presented evidence in the form a Final Judgment

in the case styled: Antonio Balestena Sr. v. Grisell Hernandez, et. al; 17th Judicial Circuit,

Broward County, Florida, Case No. CACE 1520347 (“Balestena Sr. case”) where the

Honorable Barbara McCarthy made findings of fact that Bullseye Powder Coating was

insolvent at the time of the transfer and that the fraudulent transfer caused Bullseye Powder

Coating to become insolvent. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “70”, paragraph 3(f). Defendant, Grisell

Hernandez did not appeal the Final Judgment in the Balestena Sr. case and satisfied the Final

Judgment. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 69 introduced into evidence at trial.

Further, Plaintiff’s expert witness Nathaniel McKenzie testified that Bullseye Powder Coating

and/or Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. paid personal expenses in the amount of

$276,089.00 for Defendant, Grisell Hernandez’s personal expenses from 2015 through 2018.

See Trial Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (55:8-15). Plaintiff’s expert witness Nathaniel

McKenzie also testified that Bullseye Powder Coating and/or Bullseye Coating and Blasting,

Corp. paid personal expenses in the amount of $37,633.00[9] for Defendant, Michael

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 19 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 19 of 42
Saavedra’s from 2015 through 2018. See Trial Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (55:16-

18). Plaintiff’s expert witness Nathaniel McKenzie also testified that Bullseye Powder Coating

and/or Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. paid personal expenses in the amount of

$40,125.00 for Defendant, Mario Saavedra’s from 2015 through 2018. See Trial Transcript

dated December 12, 2019 (55:19-20). In total, Mr. McKenzie testified that Bullseye Powder

Coating and/or Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. paid distributions to Defendants, Grisell

Hernandez, Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra in the amount of $353,847.00. See Trial

Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (55:21-25). Mr. McKenzie’s testimony was unrebutted at

trial.

Plaintiff also introduced evidence of bank statements showing that Bullseye Coating and

Blasting, Corp. paid for the Defendants’ personal expenses that were not related to the

business such as groceries, daycare, car payments, personal transfers, car insurance, fast

food, liquor, perfume, makeup and lingerie to name a few. See e.g. Plaintiff’s Composite

Exhibit “89” (Bates Stamped Confidential0057, Confidential0076, Confidential0077,

Confidential0078, Confidential0083, Confidential0084, Confidential0091, Confidential0106,

Confidential0176, Confidential0209); Plaintiff’s Exhibit “90” (Bates Stamped

BullseyeConfidential0018,

BullseyeConfidential0028,BullseyeConfidential0038,BullseyeConfidential0057,BullseyeConfide

ntial0247, BullseyeConfidential0261, BullseyeConfidential0274 BullseyeConfidential0279,

BullseyeConfidential0328, BullseyeConfidential0397). The personal expenses identified on the

bank statements introduced at trial were above and beyond what Plaintiff testified the

shareholders verbally agreed to which was the payments for their personal cell phone bill,

personal rent, electricity bill and internet bill. See Trial Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (93:

13-19). Again, Defendants did not provide any credible evidence to rebut Plaintiff’s testimony

at trial. Plaintiff also testified that he did not receive any payments, distributions or payments

for his personal expenses from Bullseye Powder Coating or Bullseye Coating and Blasting,

Corp. since November 2, 2015 when he was denied access to Bullseye Powder Coating’s

business facility. See Trial Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (155:24-25; 156:1-14).

 Plaintiff’s testimony was unrebutted at trial.

Based upon the evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented clear

and convincing evidence that the personal expenses paid by Bullseye Powder

Coating/Bullseye Coating and Blasting on behalf of o Defendants, Grisell Hernandez, Michael

Saavedra and Mario Saavedra were unlawful distributions as shareholders of Bullseye Powder

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 20 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 20 of 42
VI.

Coating in violation of Fla. Stat. § 607.06401(3) because the distributions were made at a time

when Bullseye Powder Coating was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the improper

distributions.

Count V (Fraudulent Transfer)

In Count V of the Amended Complaint Plaintiff asserted claims against individual Defendants,

Grisell Hernandez, Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra for Fraudulent Transfer pursuant to

Fla. Stat. § 726.105. Defendants, Grisell Hernandez, Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra

did not assert any affirmative defenses to Count V for Fraudulent Transfer.

As stated above, on June 11, 2019, this Honorable Court entered an Agreed[10] Order

granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count V (Fraudulent Transfers)

against Defendant, Grisell Hernandez as to liability. This Court incorporates its June 11, 2019

Agreed Order granting Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, Grisell

Hernandez as if specifically set forth herein. Therefore, the only remaining issues at trial were

Plaintiff’s damages[11] against Defendant, Grisell Hernandez for Fraudulent transfer and the

claim against Defendants, Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra for Fraudulent transfer.

Florida Courts have held that “[b]ecause of the difficulty of proving actual intent, past statutory

law, existing case law and the UFTA look to indicia of intent commonly known as ‘badges of

fraud.’” [1] See Amjad Munim, M.D., P.A. v. Azar, 648 So.2d 145, 152 (Fla. 4DCA 1994); see

also Fla. § 726.105(2). (a)The transfer or obligation was to an insider. (b) The debtor retained

possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer. (c) The transfer or

obligation was disclosed or concealed. (d) Before the transfer was made or obligation was

incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit. (e) The transfer was of

substantially all the debtor’s assets. (f) The debtor absconded. (g) The debtor removed or

concealed assets. (h) The value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably

equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred. (i) The

debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation

was incurred. (j) The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was

incurred. (k) The debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who

transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.

As stated above, Plaintiff presented unrebutted evidence that Defendants, Grisell Hernandez,

Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra conspired to cause the assets of Bullseye Powder

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 21 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 21 of 42
a.

b.

c.

Coating to be transferred to Bullseye Coating and Blasting Corp. on February 2, 2016. See

Plaintiff’s Exhibit “33”. With respect to the badges of fraud set forth in Fla. § 726.105(2) the

Court makes the following findings of fact concerning the Defendants based on the evidence

presented at trial:

Defendant, Grisell Hernandez was an Insider.

Plaintiff presented evidence at trial that Grisell Hernandez was an insider at the time of the

purported fraudulent loan from Grisell Hernandez to Bullseye Powder Coating for $38,000.00

because it was undisputed that Grisell Hernandez was a shareholder of both Bullseye Powder

Coating and Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. at the time of the transfer or obligation on

December 23, 2015. The Court also finds that Defendant, Michael Saavedra help facilitate the

purported fraudulent loan from Ms. Hernandez to Bullseye Powder Coating because the

evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Michael Saavedra executed the Security

Agreement and Promissory Note. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “29”.

Defendant, Grisell Hernandez and Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. retained

possession of property transferred.

Plaintiff presented unrebutted evidence at trial that Defendants, Michael Saavedra and Mario

Saavedra voluntarily forfeited the assets of Bullseye Powder Coating to Grisell Hernandez on

February 2, 2016. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “33”. Ms. Hernandez further testified that Bullseye

Powder Coating’s equipment remained at Bullseye Powder Coating’s business location of

2301 SW 57th Terrace, West Park, Florida after Defendants, Michael Saavedra and Mario

Saavedra voluntarily forfeited the assets of Bullseye Powder Coating. See Trial Transcript

dated December 11, 2019 (24:14-20; 160:4-9). Therefore, based on the evidence presented at

trial the Court finds that the debtor (in this case Grisell Hernandez as a twenty-five percent

owner of Bullseye Powder Coating) remained in possession of the assets after the transfer

because the equipment remained at Bullseye Powder Coating’s business facility and continued

to be utilized by Ms. Hernandez through her company Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp.

that was solely owned by her.

The Fraudulent Loan was concealed from Plaintiff.

Plaintiff presented unrebutted evidence at trial which showed that Plaintiff was not carbon

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 22 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 22 of 42
d.

e.

f.

copied on any of the correspondence between Grisell Hernandez and Bullseye Powder

Coating regarding the defaulting of the loan and the forfeiture of Bullseye Powder Coating’s

equipment. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 28, 31 and 33. Therefore, the Court finds that the purported

loan between Grisell Hernandez and Bullseye Powder Coating was concealed from Plaintiff.

Plaintiff sued Defendants prior to the execution of the fraudulent loan and transfer of

assets to Grisell Hernandez.

Plaintiff presented unrebutted evidence at trial that Bullseye Powder Coating and Grisell

Hernandez had been sued by Plaintiff on November 16, 2015 prior to the execution of the loan

between Grisell Hernandez and Bullseye Powder Coating on December 23, 2015 and

voluntary forfeiture of Bullseye Powder Coating’s assets by Defendants, Michael Saavedra and

Mario Saavedra to Defendant, Grisell Hernandez on February 2, 2016. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit

“33”.

The fraudulent transfer was for substantially all of Bullseye Powder Coating’s assets.

Plaintiff presented unrebutted evidence at trial that the voluntary forfeiture of Bullseye Powder

Coating’s assets by Defendants, Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra to Defendant, Grisell

Hernandez on February 2, 2016 was for substantially all of Bullseye Powder Coating’s assets.

See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “33”. Ms. Hernandez further testified that Bullseye Powder Coating’s

equipment remained at Bullseye Powder Coating’s business location of 2301 SW 57th

Terrace, West Park, Florida after Defendants, Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra

voluntarily forfeited the assets of Bullseye Powder Coating. See Trial Transcript dated

December 11, 2019 (24:14-20; 160:4-9).

Bullseye Powder Coating was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the

transfer or obligation.

Plaintiff presented unrebutted evidence at trial that Bullseye Powder Coating was insolvent or

became insolvent shortly after the transfer or obligation was incurred on December 23, 2015.

See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “70”, paragraph 3(f); Defendants also did not present any documentary

evidence showing that Bullseye Powder Coating was solvent at the time that the Promissory

Note and Security interest was executed.

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 23 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 23 of 42
g.

VII.

Defendant, Grisell Hernandez did not fund the purported loan to Bullseye Powder

Coatin

Plaintiff presented unrebutted evidence at trial that Defendant, Grisell Hernandez did not fund

the purported loan to Bullseye Powder Coating for $38,000.00 at the time that the promissory

note was executed on December 23, 2015. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “70”, paragraph 3(h).

Defendants did not present any documentary evidence showing that Grisell Hernandez funded

the purported $38,000.00 loan.

Based upon the evidence presented at trial, the prior Orders of this Court and in the case

styled: Antonio Balestena Sr. v. Grisell Hernandez, et. al; 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County,

Florida, Case No. CACE 1520347, the Court finds that Plaintiff has proven by clear and

convincing evidence that Defendants, Grisell Hernandez, Michael Saavedra and Mario

Saavedra conspired and took actions to fraudulently transfer the assets to from Bullseye

Powder Coating to Grisell Hernandez and/or Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. Therefore,

the Court also finds that Defendants, Grisell Hernandez, Michael Saavedra and Mario

Saavedra are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff pursuant to Fla. Stat. Fla. Stat. § 725.06.

The Court will address damages for this Count further below.

Count VI (Civil Conspiracy)

In Count VI of the Amended Complaint Plaintiff asserted claims against individual Defendants,

Grisell Hernandez, Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra for Civil Conspiracy. The

Defendants did not file any affirmative defenses to this Count.

In order to maintain a claim for Civil Conspiracy a Plaintiff must prove that Defendants

conspired amongst themselves for an illegal purpose that caused Plaintiff damages. See

Bivens Gardens Office Bldg. v. Barnett Banks of Fla., Inc., 140 F.3d 898, 912 (11th Cir.1998);

see also Segal v. Rhumbline Intern., Inc., 688 So.2d 397, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“A

conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons by concerted action to accomplish an

unlawful purpose or to accomplish some purpose by unlawful means.... Each act done in

pursuance of a conspiracy by one of several conspirators is an act for which each is jointly and

severally liable.”)

Based upon the unrebutted evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that Defendants

engaged in multiple conspiracies prior to this lawsuit and during the pendency of this matter. 

Specifically, the Court makes the following findings of fact after considering all of the evidence

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 24 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 24 of 42
A.

and testimony at trial:

The Conspiracy Amongst Defendants to Deny Plaintiff Access to Bullseye Powder

Coating’s Bank Accounts, Facility and Business Records.

As stated above, Plaintiff also presented testimony at trial that Defendants, Michael Saavedra,

Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez held a meeting on October 27, 2015 without written

notice and voted to remove Plaintiff as President of Bullseye Powder Coating. See Trial

Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (115:13-24). Defendants conceded that the meeting

occurred, but did not produce any evidence that written notice was provided to Plaintiff prior to

conducting said meeting. See Trial Transcript dated December 11, 2019 (152:21-25).

Plaintiff also presented testimony that Defendant, Mario Saavedra removed Plaintiff, Antonio

Balestena, Jr. as President of Bullseye Powder Coating on the Department of State website

sunbiz.org without a valid corporate meeting as discussed above. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “12”;

see also Trial Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (115:13-24). Fla. Stat. § 817.155 makes it

unlawful to provide false information to the Department of State. 

Plaintiff presented evidence that Plaintiff, Antonio Balestena, Jr. and Defendants, Michael

Saavedra, Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez were signers on Bullseye Powder Coating’s

business bank accounts at Wells Fargo. See Trial Transcript dated December 10, 2019 (78:23-

5; 79:1); Trial Transcript dated December 10, 2019 (228:7-10). During the trial Defendants,

Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez admitted that they removed Plaintiff, Antonio

Balestena, Jr. as a signer on Bullseye Powder Coating’s business bank accounts at Wells

Fargo. See Trial Transcript dated December 10, 2019 (79:2-5); Trial Transcript dated

December 10, 2019 (228:11-14). The evidence at trial further shows that on November 5,

2015, Defendant, Mario Saavedra provided false information to Wells Fargo that Plaintiff was

no longer an owner of Bullseye Powder Coating. See Plaintiff’s Composite Exhibit “86” (Bates

Stamped WellsFargo00018, WellsFargo00019). Defendant, Mario Saavedra also conceded

that the information provided Wells Fargo on November 5, 2015 was incorrect. See Trial

Transcript dated December 10, 2019 (81:4-16; 82:7-11). Defendant, Grisell Hernandez

testified that it was Michael Saavedra, Mario Saavedra and herself that came up with the idea

to remove Plaintiff from the company’s business bank accounts. See Trial Transcript dated

December 10, 2019 (228:15-18). Plaintiff also testified that Plaintiff and Defendants, Michael

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 25 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 25 of 42
B.

C.

Saavedra, Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez agreed that he would have joint access to

Bullseye Powder Coating’s assets, including, but not limited to Bullseye Powder Coating’s

equipment, facility and electronic data. See Trial Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (93:6-19).

This testimony was unrebutted at trial. Plaintiff testified at trial that they locked him out of the

facility on November 2, 2015 and denied him email access to Bullseye Powder Coating’s

computers on November 11, 2015. See Trial Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (110:2-10).

This testimony was also unrebutted at trial. Based upon the evidence presented at trial the

Court finds that Plaintiff has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants

conspired to remove him for Bullseye Powder Coating’s business bank accounts, deny him

access to Bullseye Powder Coating’s facility and access to Bullseye Powder Coating’s

business records.

The Court also finds that as a result of Defendants’ conspiracy to unlawfully remove Plaintiff

from Bullseye Powder Coating’s business bank accounts, Defendants were able to have

unfettered access to use Bullseye Powder Coating/Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp.’s

revenue to pay the Defendant’s personal expenses without Plaintiff’s knowledge and consent.

The Conspiracy Amongst Defendants to Fraudulently Transfer the Assets of Bullseye

Powder Coating to Grisell Hernandez and Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp.

As stated above in this Final Judgment, the Court has found that the Defendants conspired to

fraudulently transfer the assets of Bullseye Powder Coating to Grisell Hernandez and Bullseye

Coating and Blasting, Corp. Based upon the evidence presented and the prior Orders of this

Court, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has shown by clear and convincing evidence that

Defendants’ actions to create a fraudulent loan and thereafter voluntarily forfeit the assets of

Bullseye Powder Coating constitutes an agreement by and between Defendants to hinder,

delay and defraud Plaintiff from receiving his share of the profits and distributions as a

shareholder of Bullseye Powder Coating.

Plaintiff Suffered Damages as a result of the actions taken by Defendants in furtherance

of the Conspiracies.

Plaintiff testified that he did not receive any payments, distributions or payments for his

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 26 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 26 of 42
VIII.

1.

personal expenses from Bullseye Powder Coating or Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp.

since November 2, 2015 when he was denied email access to Bullseye Powder Coating’s

email account and Bullseye Powder Coating’s business facility. See Trial Transcript dated

December 9, 2019 (155:24-25; 156:1-14). Therefore, based upon the evidence presented at

trial, the Court finds that Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the Defendants’ conspiracies

discussed above and will address the amount of damages for Counts III, V, VI and VIII further

below.

Count VIII (Breach of Joint Venture)

In Count VIII of the Amended Complaint Plaintiff asserted claims against individual

Defendants, Grisell Hernandez, Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra for Breach of their

Joint Venture Agreement. The Defendants did not file any affirmative defenses to this Count.

In order to state a claim for Breach of Joint Venture Agreement, Plaintiff was required to prove

at trial that there was a (1) breach of contract between Plaintiff and Defendants; (2) Plaintiff

and Defendants had a community of interest in the performance of the common purpose; (3)

Plaintiff and Defendants had joint control or right of control; and (4) a there was a joint

proprietary interest in the subject matter; (4) Plaintiff had a right to share in the profits, and (5)

a duty to share in any losses that may be sustained. See Dev. Corp of Palm Beach v. WBC

Constr., Inc., 925 So.2d 1156, 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Breach of Verbal Agreement Between Plaintiff and Defendants.

During the trial Plaintiff testified that on August 4, 2014, Plaintiff and Defendants verbally

agreed that the shareholders of Bullseye Powder Coating would share in the profits and losses

of Bullseye Powder Coating, have equal salaries and that the corporation would pay for the

shareholders’ personal cell phone bill, personal rent, electricity bill and internet bill. See Trial

Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (93: 4-19). Plaintiff also testified that the Defendants

breached their verbal agreement because he stopped receiving his weekly salary, he did not

receive payments for his personal cell phone bill, personal rent, electricity bill, internet bill and

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 27 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 27 of 42
2.

3.

4.

was denied access to Bullseye Powder Coating’s business bank accounts, facility and records.

See Trial Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (155:24-25; 156:1-14). Defendants did not

present any credible evidence to rebut Plaintiff’s testimony.

Plaintiff and Defendants had a community of interest in the performance of the common

purpose.

During the trial Plaintiff presented evidence that Plaintiff and Defendants had a twenty-five

percent ownership interest in Bullseye Powder Coating that provided various industrial

services for the public. See Trial Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (81:8-22); see also Order

dated June 11, 2019, paragraph 6. Plaintiff’s evidence was not rebutted by the Defendants at

trial. Based upon the evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that Plaintiff and Defendants

had a community of interest Bullseye Powder Coating for the common purpose of providing

industrial services to the public.

Plaintiff and Defendants had joint control or right of control.

During the trial, Plaintiff testified that Plaintiff and Defendants had joint control of Bullseye

Powder Coating’s business bank accounts and joint access to Bullseye Powder Coating

equipment and business records. See Trial Transcript dated December 9, 2019 (93:6-19).

Plaintiff’s testimony was not rebutted by Defendants at trial. Based upon the evidence

presented at trial, the Court finds that Plaintiff and Defendants Plaintiff and Defendants had

joint control of Bullseye Powder Coating’s business bank accounts and joint access to Bullseye

Powder Coating equipment and business records.

Plaintiff had a right to share in the profits of Bullseye Powder Coating and had a duty to

share in any losses sustained by Bullseye Powder Coating.

As stated above, Plaintiff testified that Plaintiff and Defendants agreed to share in the profits

and losses sustained by Bullseye Powder Coating. See Trial Transcript dated December 9,

2019 (93:6-19). Plaintiff’s testimony was not rebutted by Defendants at trial. Based upon the

evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that Plaintiff had a right to share in the profits of

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 28 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 28 of 42
IX.

1.

Bullseye Powder Coating and had a duty to share in any losses sustained by Bullseye Powder

Coating.

Therefore, based upon all of the unrebutted evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that

Plaintiff has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants breached their joint

venture agreement with Plaintiff for all of the reasons set forth above. The Court will address

damages for this Count further below.

Count VII (Civil Rico)

In Count VII of the Amended Complaint Plaintiff asserted claims against individual Defendants,

Grisell Hernandez, Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra for violation of Florida’s Civil Rico

Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 895.01-895.06. The Defendants did not file any affirmative defenses to this

Count. 

The Florida RICO Act, “promulgated in 1977, is nearly identical to the federal RICO statute, 18

U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (1970), passed as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970.

Thus, Florida Courts also look to a wealth of material on the federal RICO statute for guidance

on this issue.” See Banderas v. Banco Cent. del Ecuador, 461 So.2d 265, 269 (Fla. 3rd DCA

1985). In order to obtain relief under Florida’s Civil Rico Act Plaintiff had to prove at trial that

Defendants were engaged in (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of

racketeering activity. See Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985).

 Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit has stated that an individual shareholder would have

RICO standing to assert a Civil Rico claim against his fellow shareholders who conspired “to

unlawfully wrest his shares of BCI stock from him” provided that the claim was not time barred.

See Bivens Gardens Office v. Barnett Banks of Florida, 140 F.3d 898, 907 (11th Cir.,1998). 

Federal Courts has held that a civil RICO cause of action begins to accrue as soon as the

plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, both the existence and source of his

injury and that the injury is part of a pattern. See Wilder v. Meyer, 779 F.Supp. 164

(S.D.Fla.1991). The Florida Supreme Court and other District Courts have held that six months

and thirteen months of continued pattern of fraudulent activity was sufficient to satisfy the

continuity requirement under the Florida Civil Rico Act. State v. Lucas, 600 So.2d 1093

(Fla.1992)(six months was sufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement for RICO); Banderas

v. Banco Cent. del Ecuador, 461 So.2d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(thirteen months was sufficient

to satisfy the continuity requirement of Florida RICO.)

Defendants Conspiracies to Defraud Plaintiff Constitute Conduct of an Enterprise.

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 29 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 29 of 42
2.

Fla. Stat. § 895.02 (5) defines an “enterprise” as any individual, sole proprietorship,

partnership, corporation, business trust, union chartered under the laws of this state, or other

legal entity, or any unchartered union, association, or group of individuals associated in fact

although not a legal entity; and it includes illicit as well as licit enterprises and governmental,

as well as other, entities.

As stated above, the Court has found and determined that Defendants conspired to unlawfully

remove Plaintiff as President, unlawfully remove Plaintiff from having access to Bullseye

Powder Coating’s business bank accounts and unlawfully conspired to fraudulently transfer the

assets of Bullseye Powder Coating to Grisell Hernandez and Bullseye Coating and Blasting,

Corp. The unrebutted evidence presented at trial showed that Defendants’ fraudulent activity

began on October 27, 2015 (the date Defendants conducted an unlawful meeting to remove

Plaintiff as President) and has been ongoing since Defendants have continued to operate

Bullseye Powder Coating/Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. and fraudulently transfer funds

from the business to pay for the Defendants’ personal expenses. See Trial Transcript dated

December 10, 2019 (18:2-3). Based on these findings and the unrebutted evidence presented

at trial, the Court also finds that Defendants, Michael Saavedra, Mario Saavedra and Grisell

Hernandez constitute an “enterprise” as defined by Fla. Stat. § 895.02 (5).

Additionally, the Court has determined that Plaintiff has standing under the Florida Rico Act

because Plaintiff was the sole shareholder that suffered from the fraudulent activity. See

Bivens Gardens Office v. Barnett Banks of Florida, 140 F.3d 898, 907 (11th Cir.,1998) (an

individual shareholder would have RICO standing to assert a Civil Rico claim against his fellow

shareholders who conspired “to unlawfully wrest his shares of BCI stock from him” provided

that the claim was not time barred.)

Defendants’ Fraudulent Activity and Violations of Chapter 817 Constitute a Pattern of

Racketeering Activity under the Florida Rico Act.

Fla. Stat. § 895.02 (7) defines “pattern of racketeering activity” as follows:

(7) “Pattern of racketeering activity” means engaging in at least two

incidents of racketeering conduct that have the same or similar

intents, results, accomplices, victims, or methods of commission or

that otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and

are not isolated incidents, provided at least one of such incidents

occurred after October 1, 1977, and that the last of such incidents

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 30 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 30 of 42
a.

occurred within 5 years after a prior incident of racketeering conduct.

Further, Fla. Stat. § 895.02 (8)(a) (34) states, in pertinent part, as follows with respect to

crimes considered to be “Racketeering” under Florida’s Civil Rico Act:

8) “Racketeering activity” means to commit, to attempt to

commit, to conspire to commit, or to solicit, coerce, or intimidate

another person to commit:

(a) Any crime that is chargeable by petition, indictment, or

information under the following provisions of the Florida

Statutes:

34. Chapter 817, relating to fraudulent practices, false pretenses,

fraud generally, credit card crimes, and patient brokering.

(Emphasis Added).

 Therefore, in order to be entitled to relief under Florida Civil Rico Act, Plaintiff also had

to prove at trial that Defendants multiple conspiracies to defraud him was a pattern of

“racketeering activity”. The Florida Civil Rico Act specifically states that any crime that violates

the provisions of Chapter 817 would constitute “racketeering activity” under the Act. Id.

In addition to the civil claims being asserted by Plaintiff and against Defendants in this matter,

Plaintiff also argued that Defendants committed crimes by violating Fla. Stat. § 817.54

(relating to obtaining of promissory note by false representation), Fla. Stat. § 817.562 (relating

to fraud involving security interest) and Fla. Stat. § 817.155 (relating to false statements made

within the Department of State).

Defendants violated Fl Stat. § 817.54 by conspiring to create a Fraudulent Promissory

note.

Fla. Stat. § 817.54 makes it unlawful to obtain a promissory note. The statute states as follows:

Any person who, with intent to defraud, obtains any mortgage,

mortgage note, promissory note or other instrument evidencing a

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 31 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 31 of 42
b.

debt from any person or obtains the signature of any person to any

mortgage, mortgage note, promissory note or other instrument

evidencing a debt by color or aid of fraudulent or false

representation or pretenses, or obtains the signature of any person

to a mortgage, mortgage note, promissory note, or other instrument

evidencing a debt, the false making whereof would be punishable as

forgery, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as

provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

 As stated above, Plaintiff introduced evidence at trial in the form of a Final Judgment

against Defendant, Grisell Hernandez in the Balestena Sr. case where the Honorable Barbara

McCarthy made findings of fact that purported loan from Defendant, Grisell Hernandez to

Bullseye Powder Coating was never funded, the loan was fraudulent and the Financing

Statement filed by Ms. Hernandez in the Florida Secured Transactions Registry was voided.

See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “70”, paragraphs 3-5. The Court has taken Judicial Notice of these

findings and determined that the findings made by Judge McCarthy were based upon

competent evidence that were also presented in this case at trial. Therefore, based on these

findings and the evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that Defendants have violated Fla.

Stat. § 817.54 by conspiring with each other to allow Defendant, Grisell Hernandez to obtain a

promissory note from Bullseye Powder Coating. As a result, the Court finds that Defendants’

violation of Fla. Stat. § 817.54 is “racketeering activity” under the Florida Civil Rico Act. See

Fla. Stat. § 895.02 (8)(a) (34).

Defendants violated Fla. Stat. § 817.562 by conspiring to create a Security Interest in

Bullseye Powder Coating’s Equipment.

Fla. Stat. § 817.562 makes it unlawful to commit fraud involving a security interest. The statute

states as follows:

 (1) As used in this section, the terms “proceeds,” “security agreement,”

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 32 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 32 of 42
“security interest,” and “secured party” shall be given the meanings

prescribed for them in chapter 679. (2) A person is guilty of fraud involving

a security interest when, having executed a security agreement creating a

security interest in personal property, including accounts receivable, which

security interest secures a monetary obligation owed to a secured party,

and: (a) Having under the security agreement both the right of sale or

other disposition of the property and the duty to account to the secured

party for the proceeds of disposition, he or she sells or otherwise disposes

of the property and wrongfully and willfully fails to account to the secured

party for the proceeds of disposition; or (b) Having under the security

agreement no right of sale or other disposition of the property, he or she

knowingly secretes, withholds, or disposes of such property in violation of

the security agreement. (3) Any person who knowingly violates this

section shall be punished as follows: (a) If the value of the property sold,

secreted, withheld, or disposed of or the proceeds from the sale or

disposition of the property is $300 or more, such person is guilty of a

felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s.

775.083, or s. 775.084. (b) If the value of the property sold, secreted,

withheld, or disposed of or the proceeds obtained from the sale or

disposition of the property is less than $300, such person is guilty of a

misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or

s. 775.083.

As stated above, Plaintiff introduced evidence at trial in the form of a Final Judgment against

Defendant, Grisell Hernandez in the Balestena Sr. case where the Honorable Barbara

McCarthy made findings of fact that purported loan from Defendant, Grisell Hernandez to

Bullseye Powder Coating was never funded, the loan was fraudulent and the Financing

Statement filed by Ms. Hernandez in the Florida Secured Transactions Registry was voided.

See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “70”, paragraphs 3-5. The Court has taken Judicial Notice of these

findings and determined that the findings made by Judge McCarthy were based upon

competent evidence that was also presented in this case at trial.

The evidence at trial also showed that on February 1, 2016, Defendant, Grisell Hernandez

drafted a Notice of Intent to Repossess addressed to Florida Powder Coating Solutions, Inc.

See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “31”. The evidence also showed that on February 2, 2016, Defendants,

Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra drafted a letter on behalf of Florida Powder Coating

Solutions, Inc. addressed to Defendant, Grisell Hernandez advising that Florida Powder

Coating Solutions, Inc. is voluntarily forfeiting Bullseye Powder Coating’s equipment placed on

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 33 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 33 of 42
c.

collateral. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “33”. The unrebutted evidence showed that the equipment was

voluntarily forfeited to Ms. Hernandez has been used by Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp.

to operate its business practices at 2301 SW 57th Terrace, West Park, Florida. See Trial

Transcript dated December 11, 2019 (24:14-20; 160:4-9); see also Plaintiff’s Exhibit “33”. The

Security Agreement and Promissory introduced into evidence stated that the value of the loan

was $38,000.00. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “29”.

Therefore, based on these findings and the unrebutted evidence presented at trial, the Court

finds that Defendants have violated Fla. Stat. § 817.562 by conspiring to enter into a fraudulent

promissory note and security agreement that created a security interest in virtually all of

Florida’s Powder equipment. The Court finds that the equipment that was voluntarily forfeited

to Defendant, Grisell Hernandez had a value of at least $38,000.00 based upon the amount of

the purported loan. Based on these findings, the Court determines that Defendants’ violation

of Fla. Stat. § 817.562 is “racketeering activity” under the Florida Civil Rico Act. See Fla. Stat.

§ 895.02 (8)(a) (34) because Defendants conspired to create a fraudulent security interest in

Bullseye Powder Coating’s equipment that was worth at least $38,000.00. Since the Court has

determined that loan was never funded and the equipment was worth at least $38,000.00 the

Court finds that the Defendants could be charged with a third-degree felony because the value

of the property exceeded $300.00. See Fla. Stat. § 817.562.

Defendants violated Fla. Stat. § 817.155 by conspiring to remove Plaintiff as President

and making False Statements to the Florida Department of State Division of Corporations

and perpetrating said fraud on Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

 Fla. Stat. § 817.155 states that it is unlawful for a person to make false statements to

the Department of State. Specifically, the statutes states as follows:

A person may not, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the

Department of State, knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal a

material fact, make any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or

representation, or make or use any false document, knowing the

same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.

A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony of the third

degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s.

775.084. The statute of limitations for prosecution of an act committed

in violation of this section is 5 years from the date the act was

committed.

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 34 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 34 of 42
As stated above, the Court has determined that Defendants conducted a corporate meeting on

October 27, 2015 in violation of Fla. Stat. § 607.0705 and subsequently removed Plaintiff as

President of Bullseye Powder Coating by filing false documentation with the Florida

Department of State, Division of Corporations, without Plaintiff’s knowledge and without a valid

corporate meeting as discussed above. Sunbiz.org specifically references Fla. Stat. § 817.155

and states that it is a third-degree felony by providing false information to the Florida

Department of State, Divisions of Corporations as evidenced on sunbiz.org.

Based on the unrebutted evidence presented at trial, the Court finds that the removal of

Plaintiff as President through the filing of false documentation to the Florida Department of

State, Division of Corporations, violates Fla. Stat. § 817.155 and is “racketeering activity”

under the Florida Civil Rico Act. See Fla. Stat. § 895.02 (8)(a) (34).

Final Judgment as to Counts III, V, VI and VIII

During the trial, Plaintiff’s counsel clarified that Plaintiff does not seek separate damages

against Defendants, Michael Saavedra, Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez for Counts III,

V, VI and VIII and that the damages sought by Plaintiff for these Counts against the individual

Defendants are the same. During the trial, the Court accepted Nathaniel McKenzie as an

expert witness to testify regarding forensic accounting, fraud examination and business

valuation. See Trial Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (23:18-24). Plaintiff’s expert,

Nathaniel McKenzie testified that Plaintiff should have received $175,883.00 for his owner’s

benefit from 2015 through 2018. See Trial Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (43:2-20).

Defendants did not rebut the testimony proffered by Plaintiff’s expert and did not call an expert

witness to contradict or impeach the expert testimony of Mr. McKenzie. Plaintiff also presented

expert testimony from Plaintiff’s forensic computer expert Lorenzo De Toro that Defendants

destroyed evidence, which the Court finds credible. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “50”. Therefore, the

Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an adverse inference with respect to Plaintiff’s damages.

See Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777, 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).

Based upon the testimony presented at trial, along with the documentary evidence supporting

same, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented competent evidence that he has suffered

damages in the amount of $175,883.00 for Counts III, V, VI and VIII. Therefore, the Court

hereby enters Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Antonio Balestena, Jr. and against

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 35 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 35 of 42
Defendants, Michael Saavedra, Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez the amount of

$175,883.00 as to Counts III, V, VI and VIII. The Final Judgment amount of $175,883.00

shall bear interest at 6.83%per annum and Defendants, Michael Saavedra, Mario

Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez shall be jointly and severally liable for the Final

Judgment for let garnishment and execution shall issue.

Final Judgment as to Counts IV and VII

As stated above, the Court has determined that Defendants violated Florida Civil Rico Act due

to their pattern of fraudulent and racketeering conduct as an enterprise in violation of Fla. Stat.

§§ 817.54, 817.562 and 817.155 that started on October 27, 2015 and has been ongoing

through the trial of this matter. Chapter 772, Florida Statutes[12] provides for civil remedies for

criminal activity. Specifically, Fla. Stat. § 772.103 states as follows:

772.103 Prohibited activities. It is unlawful for any person:

(1) Who has with criminal intent received any proceeds derived,

directly or indirectly, from a pattern of criminal activity or through

the collection of an unlawful debt to use or invest, whether directly

or indirectly, any part of such proceeds, or the proceeds derived

from the investment or use thereof, in the acquisition of any title to,

or any right, interest, or equity in, real property or in the

establishment or operation of any enterprise.

(2) Through a pattern of criminal activity or through the collection of

an unlawful debt, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any

interest in or control of any enterprise or real property.

(3) Employed by, or associated with, any enterprise to conduct or

participate, directly or indirectly, in such enterprise through a

pattern of criminal activity or the collection of an unlawful debt.

(4) To conspire or endeavor to violate any of the provisions of

subsection (1), subsection (2), or subsection (3).

Based on the evidence presented at trial and the findings set forth in this Final Judgment, this

Court has determined that Defendants violated Fla. Stat. § 772.103 entitling Plaintiff to relief

under Chapter 772, Florida Statutes.

 Fla. Stat. § 772.104 provides for treble damages for violations of Fla. Stat. § 772.103.

Specifically, the statute states as follows:

772.104 Civil cause of action.

(1) Any person who proves by clear and convincing evidence

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 36 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 36 of 42
that he or she has been injured by reason of any violation of

the provisions of s. 772.103 shall have a cause of action for

threefold the actual damages sustained and, in any such

action, is entitled to minimum damages in the amount of $200,

and reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and

appellate courts.

(2) As an alternative to recovery under subsection (1), any person

who proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has

been injured by reason of any violation of the provisions of s.

772.103 due to sex trafficking or human trafficking shall have a

cause of action for threefold the amount gained from the sex

trafficking or human trafficking and in any such action is entitled to

minimum damages in the amount of $200 and reasonable

attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts.

(3) In no event shall punitive damages be awarded under this

section. The defendant shall be entitled to recover reasonable

attorney’s fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts upon

a finding that the claimant raised a claim which was without

substantial fact or legal support. In awarding attorney’s fees and

costs under this section, the court shall not consider the ability of

the opposing party to pay such fees and costs. Nothing under this

section shall be interpreted as limiting any right to recover

attorney’s fees or costs provided under other provisions of law.

(Emphasis Added).

Plaintiff’s expert witness, Nathaniel McKenzie testified that Bullseye Powder Coating and/or

Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. paid personal expenses in the amount of $276,089.00 for

Defendant, Grisell Hernandez’s personal expenses from 2015 through 2018. See Trial

Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (55:8-15). Plaintiff’s expert witness Nathaniel McKenzie

also testified that Bullseye Powder Coating and/or Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. paid

personal expenses in the amount of $37,633.00 for Defendant, Michael Saavedra’s from 2015

through 2018. See Trial Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (55:16-18). Plaintiff’s expert

witness Nathaniel McKenzie also testified that Bullseye Powder Coating and/or Bullseye

Coating and Blasting, Corp. paid personal expenses in the amount of $40,125.00 for

Defendant, Mario Saavedra’s from 2015 through 2018. See Trial Transcript dated December

12, 2019 (55:19-20). In total, Mr. McKenzie testified that Bullseye Powder Coating and/or

Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. paid distributions to Defendants, Grisell Hernandez,

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 37 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 37 of 42
Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra in the amount of $353,847.00 and concluded that

Plaintiff should be entitled to twenty-five percent of the Defendants’ distributions (i.e. personal

expenses paid by the company) which equals $88,461.75. See Trial Transcript dated

December 12, 2019 (55:5-24). Defendants did not rebut the testimony proffered by Plaintiff’s

expert and did not call an expert witness to contradict or impeach the expert testimony of Mr.

McKenzie.

Based on the testimony presented at trial, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented clear and

convincing evidence that he has suffered damages in the amount of $88,461.75 for Counts IV

and Count VII. The Court also finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an adverse inference with respect

to his damages due to the Court’s finding that Defendants are responsible for the spoliation of

evidence in this case. See Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777, 781 (Fla. 4th DCA

2006).

Since the Court has determined that Defendants violated Fla. Stat. § 772.103, Plaintiff is

entitled to threefold the actual damages sustained for Count VII (Civil Rico, Chapter 772,

Florida Statutes) pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 772.104. Therefore, as to Count VII, the Court

enters Final Judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Antonio Balestena, Jr. and against

Defendants, Michael Saavedra, Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez in the amount of

$265,385.25[13]. The Final Judgment amount of $265,385.25 shall bear interest at 6.83%

per annum and Defendants, Michael Saavedra, Mario Saavedra and Grisell Hernandez

shall be jointly and severally liable for the Final Judgment as to Count VII for let

garnishment and execution shall issue. 

This Court reserves jurisdiction to award Plaintiff his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs,

which shall be determined at a subsequent hearing to directed to those issues. The Court’s

Agreed Injunction Order dated April 18, 2016 shall remain in place until the Final Judgment

against the Defendants has been satisfied. This Court reserves jurisdiction for further

proceedings to enforce the terms of this Final Judgment.

It is further ordered and adjudged that Defendants/Judgment Debtors, Grisell Hernandez,

Michael Saavedra and Mario Saavedra shall complete under oath a Florida Rule of Civil

Procedure Form 1.977 (Fact Information Sheet), including all required attachments, and serve

it on the judgment creditor’s attorney, or the judgment creditor if the judgment creditor is not

represented by an attorney, within 45 days from the date of this Final Judgment, unless the

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 38 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 38 of 42
final judgment is satisfied or post-judgment discovery is stayed. Defendants/Judgment Debtors

shall be in contempt of Court if they fail to serve the Fact Information Sheet on the

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor as required by this Final Judgment. The Court reserves Jurisdiction

to enter further orders that are proper to compel the Defendants/Judgment Debtor(s) to

complete form 1.977, including all required attachments, and serve it on the judgment

creditor’s attorney, or the judgment creditor if the judgment creditor is not represented by an

attorney.

The last known address of the Judgment-Creditor, Antonio Balestena, Jr., is c/o Sahr O.

Dumbar, Esq., The Dumbar Law Center, 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950, Miami, Florida 33131.

The last known address of the Judgment-Debtor, Florida Powder Coating Solutions, Corp.

d/b/a Bullseye Powder Coating is: 2301 SW 57th Terrace, West Park, Florida 33023.

The last known address of the Judgment-Debtor, Mario Saavedra is 2646 Sherman Street,

Hollywood, Florida 33020.

The last known address of the Judgment-Debtor, Grisell Hernandez is 2646 Sherman Street,

Hollywood, Florida 33020.

The last known address of the Judgment-Debtor, Michael Saavedra is 2301 SW 57th Terrace,

West Park, Florida 33023.

[1] Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Count I for Judicial Dissolution alleged

that Plaintiff and Defendants were twenty-five percent owners in Florida Powder. The Motion

was unopposed by Defendants.

[2] The evidence at trial also showed that on May 26, 2016, Grisell Hernandez filed for personal

bankruptcy under Bankruptcy Case No. 16-17566-BKC-LMI in the United States Bankruptcy

Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami. See Videotaped Deposition of Sandra

Navarro-Garcia, Esq. which was entered into evidence at trial. Ms. Hernandez did not notify

the Court of her bankruptcy when it was filed and identified Bullseye Powder Coating’s assets

as part of her assets on her bankruptcy petition. Id. On November 30, 2016, Chief United

States Bankruptcy Judge Laurel Isicoff entered an Order Granting Creditor, Antonio Balestena,

Jr.’s Motion for Retroactive Annulment of the Automatic Stay and for the Ratification of the

Florida State Court Orders in this case. Id. Ms. Hernandez’s bankruptcy was ultimately

dismissed on December 14, 2016. Id. On June 20, 2017, the Honorable Barbara McCarthy

entered a Final Judgment awarding attorneys’ fees and costs in the case styled: Antonio

Balestena, Sr. v. Grisell Hernandez, et. al, 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County Florida, Case

No. CACE15-20347 and made a finding that Ms. Hernandez’s bankruptcy petition was

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 39 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 39 of 42
fraudulent. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit “76”, paragraph 4(f). Based upon the evidence presented at

trial, this Court adopts Judge McCarthy’s finding that Ms. Hernandez’s bankruptcy petition was

fraudulent when it was filed during the pendency of this matter on May 26, 2016.

[3] A Final Judgment awarding attorneys’ fees and costs against Grisell Hernandez was also

entered in the Balestena Sr. case where the Honorable Barbara McCarthy made a finding of

fact that that the assets of Florida Powder were fraudulently transferred to Bullseye Coating

and Blasting, Corp. and that Bullseye Coating and Blasting, Corp. is the mere continuation of

Florida Powder. See Final Judgment Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs in the Balestena, Sr.

matter dated June 20, 2017 (introduced into evidence in this matter as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 76).

Grisell Hernandez did not appeal either Final Judgment in the Balestena Sr. case and satisfied

both Judgments. See Plaintiff’s Exhibits 69 and 77 introduced into evidence at trial.

[4] The statutory interest on Judgments in Florida was 4.78% on July 21, 2016 when the Court

entered the Order granting partial summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against

Defendant, Florida Powder Coating Solutions, Corp.

[5] See Order granting partial summary judgment dated February 23, 2016, paragraph 3.

[6] Mr. McKenzie testified as follows when explaining the Discount Rate Method:

The valuation standards are based on empirical data. So, we start out with risk-free rate of return, this is US

Treasury bill. These are considered risk-free, the government's owned default. And then we take into account a

market premium for the type of business that involved and we also consider a premium for small business. And

we take into account the industry. Also do separate analyses to see your industry. And based on my analysis that

industry was -- is growing, and when we come to capitalization rate. Q.· Okay. And what were your conclusions

after utilizing this method? A. My conclusion utilizing this method that the business was valued $1,164,116. Q.

Wait, look at it again. I think you have ·transposed a number. A.· ·Sorry, 1,154,567. See Trial Transcript dated

December 12, 2019 (38:4-21).

[7] Mr. McKenzie testified as follows when explaining the Multiple Valuations Method:

Q. Okay. And did you use another valuation method to get to your ultimate conclusion? Was it

called Multiples Valuation Method? A. Yeah. Those are just assessment valuation itsn't to

conclude. Q.· ·Is this your Multiples Valuation that you performed? A.· ·Yes, it is. Q.· ·Can you

walk us through your Multiples Valuation? A.· ·This is based on a divisor and a dated average

multiple where you take the different, the gross proceed. We take the price divide it by amount

at sales, you do price provided then you come to a conclusion, a composite number. Q.· ·And

what was your composite number valuation for Florida Powder Coating Solutions/Bullseye

Coating and Blasting?

A.· ·1,259,494. See Trial Transcript dated December 12, 2019 (38:22-25; 39:1-15).

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 40 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 40 of 42
[8] Mr. McKenzie testified as follows when explaining the Rule of Thumb Method:

 Okay. And lastly but not least did you use something that's typically called a Rule of Thumb Method? A.

Yes. Okay. And is this your Rule of Thumb Method? A.· Yes, it is. Talk to us about Rule of Thumb

Method. A. This method takes into account industry with the same ZIP code. So, we look at several

industries with the same ZIP code, same size, comparable, and we come up with a rule of thumb. This is

more what you would call intrinsic. This is not so much quantity.· This helps to make sure that the valuation

fall within a parameter and the business value is in the rule of thumb is 958,206. See Trial Transcript dated

December 12, 2019 (39:16-25; 40:1-3).

Q.

[9] The Trial Transcript contains a typographical error stating that Mr. McKenzie said

$77,633.00, but the actual number stated by Mr. McKenzie for Michael Saavedra’s

distributions was $37,633.00.

[10] Defendant, Grisell Hernandez did not file an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment and did not provide any Affidavits in Opposition to the Motion.

[11] Plaintiff’s counsel has conceded that Plaintiff’s damages with respect to Counts III, IV, V,

VI and VIII are the same. Therefore, the Court will address Plaintiff’s damages with respect to

these Counts at the same time.

[12] In 1986, the civil damages section of chapter 895 was moved to chapter 772, because of

problems resulting from the inclusion of a civil damages remedy in a criminal statute. See

Ziccardi v. Strother, 570 So.2d 1319, 1321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

[13] This amount was calculated by taking the actual amount of damages sustained by Plaintiff

for Counts IV and VII, which $88,461.75 and multiplying it by three.

DONE and ORDERED 01-30-2020.

CACE15020163 01-30-2020 5:13 PM

Hon. Carol-lisa Phillips

CIRCUIT JUDGE

Electronically Signed by Carol-lisa Phillips

Copies Furnished To:

Alberto M Cardet , E-mail : evictions@gmail.com

Alberto M Cardet , E-mail : alcardet@gmail.com

Alberto M Cardet , E-mail : ebbycmecf@gmail.com

Florida Powder Coatings Solutions Corp , Address : Michael Saavedra 2301 SW 57 Terr West

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 41 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 41 of 42
Park, FL 33023

Jay L Farrow , E-mail : meera@farrowlawfirm.com

Jay L Farrow , E-mail : service@farrowlawfirm.com

Jay L Farrow , E-mail : Jay@farrowlawfirm.com

Marcia Hansen , E-mail : mgh@thehansenlawfirm.com

Matthew E Mazur Jr , E-mail : info@mazur-law.com

Matthew E Mazur Jr , E-mail : mmazurjr@mazur-law.com

Matthew E Mazur Jr , E-mail : eservice@mazur-law.com

Michael Saavedra , Address : 2301 SW 57 TER West Park, FL 33023

Russell M Thompson , E-mail : rthompson@rmtlawfirm.com

Sahr Dumbar , E-mail : javughte@dumbarlaw.com

Sahr Dumbar , E-mail : Sahr@Dumbarlaw.com

CaseNo: CACE15020163

Page 42 of 42

Case 20-13438-SMG Doc 9-4 Filed 03/19/20 Page 42 of 42