[System]
You are a lawyer with 10 years of experience. Based on the complaint, create up to 20 questions for the defendant.

The questions should follow the format and style of this example response to a car accident complaint:
1. All photographs, diagrams, or other printed or written material describing or attempting to describe the scene of the accident alleged in the Complaint, or any person described in the Complaint.
2. Documentation substantiating health insurance coverage available to Plaintiff on the date of the accident sued upon.
3. Any cellular phones or other mobile communication system telephone bills, invoices, statements, itemized accounts, or other data compilation for the equipment owned or used by Plaintiffs for the months relevant to the incident.
4. Any and all films, diagnostic tests, MRIs, X-rays, storage devices, digital images, intra-operative photographs, and/or data compilations from which information can be obtained.
5. If a claim is made for lost wages and/or loss of earning capacity in the future, provide specific documentation like Federal Income Tax Returns and W-2 Forms.

Be specific, detailed and relevant to the complaint's allegations. Avoid generic requests for "all documents" or "all evidence". Each question should request specific items, time periods, or information directly related to the complaint's claims.

[User] IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA PATRICK MICHAEL MOORE AND BRIANNA RENELLE YEBOAH-HEMANS; ERIC GUEVARA AND JOHANNA GUEVARA; SHANE FITZGERALD B. THOMPSON AND KARINA THOMPSON; SILVIU TARAN AND TONI BIANCA TARAN; ANDREI MATA QUINTAN AND ANA PAULA FERREIRA QUINTAN; MARCELO CARRERA AND MARIUXI CARRERA; SHEILA MARIE FORTSON; KARINA DELGADO AND JOHNNY VOLMY; PABLO ELORRIAGA AND MARICEL COLON-SANTIAGO; SARA LOGSDON AND WESLEY LOGSDON; JASON MATTSON; EDNA NOEL AND AUGUSTIN COLIN; DANE RINGLER AND HUI YEE NGOH; LOI TRAN AND BINI TRAN; and SREENIVASULU POLAGGARI, Plaintiffs, v. MINTO PBLH, LLC, Defendant. _______________________________/ **AMENDED COMPLAINT** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans, Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara, Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson, Silviu Taran and Toni ----- Bianca Taran, Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan, Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera, Sheila Marie Fortson, Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy, Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago, Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon, Jason Mattson, Edna Noel and Augustin Colin, Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh, and Loi Tran and Bini Tran, file this Complaint against Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, and allege as follows: **INTRODUCTION** This action arises from Defendant’s breach of contracts to sell new homes to Plaintiffs. Defendant breached the respective contracts by failing to build and sell to Plaintiffs homes with the specified square footage under air (a/k/a Total Living Area or TLA) required by such contracts. Defendant knew, and at worst should have known, prior to entering such contracts, that the homes it was constructing and would sell to Plaintiffs contained meaningfully less TLA then Defendant advertised and marketed to Plaintiffs to induce them to enter contracts to buy homes, and then included in the terms of such contracts. Defendant materially breached the contracts, which included each home’s purported TLA, by failing to build and sell to Plaintiffs homes that complied with their respective contracts. **JURISDICTION AND VENUE** This Court has jurisdiction over this dispute because this complaint seeks damages in excess of $50, 000. 00 dollars, exclusive of interest and attorneys’ fees. Venue is proper in Palm County, Florida, because the cause of action arose in Palm Beach County, Florida. **PARTIES** Plaintiff Patrick Michael Moore is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. 2 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiff Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Eric Guevara is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Johanna Guevara is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Karina Thompson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Silviu Taran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Toni Biana Taran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Andrei Mata Quintan is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Marcelo Carrera is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Mariuxi Carrera is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age 3 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Karina Delgado is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Johnny Volmy is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Pablo Elorriaga is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Maricel Colon-Santiago is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sara Logsdon is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Wesley Logsdon is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Jason Mattson is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Edna Noel is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Augustin Colin is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Dane Ringler is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Hui Yee Ngoh is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. 4 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiff Loi Tran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Bini Tran is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff Sreenivasulu Polaggari is a resident of Palm Beach County, is over the age of eighteen, and is otherwise sui juris. Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, is a Florida Limited Liability Company licensed to and conducting business in the State of Florida, including but not limited to Palm Beach County, and is otherwise sui juris. **GENERAL ALLEGATIONS** Minto PBLH, LLC is part of the Minto Group, which represents itself as “a fully integrated real estate company offering new homes and condos, apartment rentals, furnished suites, commercial spaces, property and investment management. ”[1] Minto Group claims to have “expertise in home building, construction, property and investment management” and advertises that it has “built over 95, 800 homes, manage 14, 600 rental units and carry 2. 4 million square feet of commercial space. ”[2] Minto promotes itself “[a]s one of North America’s leading builders with more than 30, 000 homes built in southern USA including more than 30, 000 homes in the southern USA. ”[3] Minto claims to be a company that does the right thing for its customers, stating in the “Our Values” section of its website that: 1 [https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Company-Leadership~767. html](https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Company-Leadership~767. html) 2 _Id. _ 3 _Id. _ 5 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Being courageous demands acting with integrity and responsibility. When we make a mistake or see something wrong, we do our best to fix it. It’s why we have products you can trust and people you know you can depend on. https://www. minto. com/about-minto/Our-Values~1098. html Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, is an affiliated company of Minto Holdings, Inc. The Minto Group established Minto PBLH to act as the developer and seller of new homes in a community known as Westlake, which is located in the City of Westlake, Florida. Defendant Minto, as a developer and seller of new homes, marketed, advertised, and sold various model homes in Westlake, including but not limited to models known as the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Defendant Minto advertised and marketed the Laurel as a home with 3, 344 TLA, and included the model’s floor plan and TLA specifications in the contract it required Plaintiffs to sign to purchase the home: Excerpt from Laurel contract documents, attached hereto as Exhibits F and J. In fact, the Laurel has only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto advertised and marketed the Laurel Grand as a home with 3, 580 6 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- TLA, and include ed the model’s floor plan and TLA specifications in the contract it required Plaintiffs to sign to purchase the home: Excerpt from Laurel Grand contract documents, attached hereto as Exhibits G, H, and I. In fact, the Laurel Grand has only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Minto had a duty and obligation as a seller of homes to accurately measure and determine the square footage of the homes it sold, and to include the correct square footage in all advertisements, marketing materials and contracts Minto employed to sell such homes. Minto failed to accurately measure and determine the square footage of the homes it sold in Westlake, including the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Minto failed to include the correct TLA in all advertisements, marketing materials and contracts Minto employed to sell such homes. Moreover, in October 2020, Minto was advised in writing and by phone by a person who purchased a Laurel Grand and sought to refinance the home, that according to a licensed real estate appraiser the TLA of the Laurel Grand was meaningfully less than the square footage of TLA that Minto was using for marketing, advertising, and contractual purposes, and was 7 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- approximately 3, 300 square feet. Despite receiving such information, Minto did not change or correct any of its advertising or marketing materials or contracts. Minto should have, upon learning this information from the customer, corrected the errors in its marketing, advertising, and contract documents, and determined whether the square footage in all other Westlake models was correct. Minto failed to do so. Further, because Minto, as part of the Minto Group, had previously marketed, advertised, and sold homes similar to the Laurel and Laurel Grand, Minto is charged with the knowledge that it was misrepresenting, and breaching contracts for, the construction and sale of such homes by building homes that had meaningfully less TLA than Plaintiffs and other home buyers had contracted to purchase from Minto. Because the Laurel is not a new model for Minto. In fact, Minto marketed, advertised, and sold virtually identical model homes under different brand names in the city of Wellington, Florida, for many years prior to the time Minto marketed, advertised, and sold the Laurel to Plaintiffs. For example, Minto marketed, advertised, and sold a home in Wellington known as the Mirador that is virtually identical in layout and square footage to the Laurel and Laurel Grand. Minto marketed, advertised, and sold the Mirador through advertising, marketing materials, and contracts stating that the base model Mirador had 3, 061 square feet of Total Living Area, and 3, 303 square feet of Total Living Area in the six-bedroom configuration: 8 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- |F I E D C O P Y|Col2| |---|---| |T Laurel4|I Laurel Grand5| |N O T A C E R|| 4 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html) 5 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html) 9 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Not coincidentally, Minto now markets, advertises, and sells through contracts the Laurel model based on 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area (in comparison to the Mirador at 3, 061 square feet) and the Laurel Grand based on 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area (in comparison to the Mirador six-bedroom at 3, 302 square feet). The Total Living Area, and resulting price per square foot, is the corner stone by which all real estate is valued, by which seller’s price their properties, and by which homeowners decide whether to purchase and how much to pay. Minto’s contract documents confirm that Minto agrees. Minto’s Contract makes clear that Minto priced and sold homes based on the price per square foot: You reserve the right to establish prices for homes built by you in the Neighborhood and the Community. You may, in your sole discretion, increase or decrease the price or price per square foot for any home, lot, or option at any time, or offer incentives for the sale of lots and homes. Contract at p. 13, ¶19(q) (emphasis added). Further, Minto’s Disclosure Statement (which is also part of the Contract documents that Minto required Plaintiffs to sign) on the very first page states that: This Disclosure Statement explains certain terms which are applicable to the purchase of a home (individually a “Home” and collectively “Homes”) within the Neighborhood and the Community… Seller shall have the right, without notice to Purchaser, to make changes to the Neighborhood and/or the Community, including, but not limited to, Home sizes, number of Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, size, style and type of Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, features and materials in Homes being built in the Neighborhood and/or the Community, prices of Homes in the Neighborhood and/or the Community (whether more or less than currently published), price per square foot of Homes in the Neighborhood **and/or the Community (whether more or less than currently published)…** Disclosure at p. 1 (emphasis added). Minto continued by including in its Contract language that makes clear that unlike 10 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the square footage for the Total Living Area (which is commonly known as square footage under air), Minto was not guaranteeing or contracting for a specific number of square feet for garages: XI. VEHICLES, PARKING, AND GARAGES. B. Garage sizes and heights may vary from home to home and may not accommoall vehicles. It is not uncommon for floor plans to change during actual construction of the Home. Specific homesite conditions or local ordinances may determine the location of (i) safety bollards intended to protect plumbing or mechanical systems located inside the garage and/or (ii) the design of steps from the garage to the Home thereby affecting the usability of interior garage space available for parking vehicles. **Further, Purchaser** **acknowledges and agrees that stated floor plan dimensions and square** **footages are approximate and should never be relied upon as the actual as** **_built size of the garage; modifications to floor plan dimensions and square_** footages shown in sales materials may occur for many circumstances, without notice to or consent of Purchaser, including, but not limited to, inclusions of options and upgrades, actual field conditions and governmental requirements. Disclosure at p 15 (emphasis added). Moreover, Minto disclosed in its Contract documents that Minto could change the price per square foot in Homes sold to other purchasers: XIX. PRICES AND MARKET VALUES. Seller and any other builder in the Community and Neighborhood shall have the unilateral right to establish prices for the Homes they build in the Neighborhood and Community. Seller and any other builder in the Community and Neighborhood may, at their sole discretion, increase or decrease the price **or the price per square foot for any Home or option at any time, or offer** incentives for sales of Homes, all without notice to Purchaser. Disclosure at p. 22 (emphasis added). In late 2022, additional Minto homeowners discovered and alerted Minto to the fact that the Laurel and Laurel Grand contained less square footage of Total Living Area than Minto was representing in marketing and advertising materials and using in contracts for the sale of such homes. In response, Minto blamed the material mistake and contractual breach on a “typographical error”, and finally changed in marketing, advertising, and contract documents to reflect the correct 11 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- square footage of Total Living Area for the Laurel and Laurel Grand, which Minto now represents and includes in contract documents as follows: **Laurel[6]** **Laurel Grand[7]** https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/collections. html |Laurel6|Laurel Grand7| |---|---| ||I E D C O P Y| |O T A C E R|T I F| 6 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel~2217ht. html) 7 [https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html](https://www. minto. com/usa/florida/new-homes/Westlake/Laurel-Grand~2218ht. html) 12 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit A. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. A at 4. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. A at 88. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. A at 88. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans represents the square footage of the home to include and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 13 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit B. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Guevara and Johanna Guevara prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. B at 113. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. B at 211. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. B at 211. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Guevara and Johanna Guevara represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 14 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit C. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. C at 220. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. C at 290. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. C at 290. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 15 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Bianca Taran** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit D. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. D at 372. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. D at 360. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. D at 360. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 16 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit E. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. E at 442. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. E at 456. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. E at 456. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 17 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit K. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. K at 463. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. K at 480. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. K at 480. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 18 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit L. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson prior to the time she entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson prior to the time she entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. L at 551. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. L at 568. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. L at 568. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 19 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit M. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. M at 638. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. M at 655. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. M at 655. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 20 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago purchased a Laurel model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit N. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago identifies the home as the Laurel model. Exh. N at 723. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. N at 736. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. N at 736. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 344 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago contains 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. 21 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit O. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. O at 851. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. O at 865. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. O at 865. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 22 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiff Jason Mattson** Plaintiff Jason Mattson purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit P. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiff Jason Mattson prior to the time he entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiff Jason Mattson prior to the time he entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Jason Mattson identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. P at 900. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiff Jason Mattson to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. P at 914. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. P at 914. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiff Jason Mattson represents the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiff Jason Mattson contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 23 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin purchased a Sycamore Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit Q. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin identifies the home as the Sycamore Grand model. Exh. Q at 973. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. Q at 990. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. Q at 990. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 2, 586 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin contains 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. 24 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit R. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. R at 1005. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. R at 1017. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. R at 1017. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 25 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran purchased a Laurel Grand model home from Defendant Minto. Contract attached hereto as Exhibit S. The marketing and advertising materials that Defendant Minto provided to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. Defendant Minto’s sales personnel represented to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran prior to the time they entered the contract to purchase the home represented that the home included 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran identifies the home as the Laurel Grand model. Exh. S at 1084. As a condition of purchasing the home and signing the contract, Minto required Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran to initial a document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. S at 1097. Minto included in the contract the document that included the layout and square footage of the home. Exh. S at 1097. The contract by and between Defendant Minto and Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran represent the square footage of the home to include, and required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs a home that included, 3, 580 square feet of Total Living Area. In fact, the home that Defendant Minto constructed for and sold to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran contains 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 26 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit A. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans and 27 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit A. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 28 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT III -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the "Act"). The stated purpose of the Act is to "protect 29 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 30 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§501. 211(2) and 501. 2105, actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT IV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -5, and 31-65, above as if fully set forth herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either 31 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Patrick Michael Moore and Brianna Renelle Yeboah-Hemans** demand judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, 32 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT V - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit B. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 6-7, 31-57, and 66-73 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. 33 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit B. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 34 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the "Act"). The stated purpose of the Act is to "protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or 35 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 36 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT VIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 31 - 57, and 66 - 73, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 37 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto) contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 38 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT IX- BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit C. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT X - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 8-9, 31-57, and 74-81 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson and Defendant 39 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit C. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 40 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the "Act"). The stated purpose of the Act is to "protect 41 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 42 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 8 - 9, 31 - 57, and 74 - 81, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 43 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Shane Fitzgerald B. Thompson and Karina Thompson demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 44 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit D. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 10-11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit D. 45 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 46 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Biana Taran demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the "Act"). The stated purpose of the Act is to "protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 47 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to 48 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 10 - 11, 31 - 57, and 82 - 89, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 49 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Silviu Taran and Toni Biana Taran demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 50 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XVII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan [8]repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit E. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Shane Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 8 Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have attached hereto all pages from their contract with Defendant in their possession. A complete copy of the contract is in Defendant’s possession. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan allege that their contract is the same or similar to the contracts attached hereto as Exhibits A-D, including but not necessarily limited to the Disclosure Statement. 51 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XVIII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit E. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 52 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintain and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 53 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XIX -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the "Act"). The stated purpose of the Act is to "protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising 54 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XX - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 12 - 13, 31 - 57, and 90 - 97, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is 55 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F - J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the 56 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Andrei Mata Quintan and Ana Paula Ferreira Quintan demand** judgment in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXI - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit K. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court 57 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 14 - 15, 31-57, and 98 - 105 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit K. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 58 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 59 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXIII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the "Act"). The stated purpose of the Act is to "protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising 60 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXIV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 14 - 15, 31 - 57, and 98 - 105, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or 61 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. 62 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Marcelo Carrera and Mariuxi Carrera demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXV - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit L. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 63 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXVI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit L. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sheila Marie Fortson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. 64 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXVII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. 65 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the "Act"). The stated purpose of the Act is to "protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson is a consumer as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson havs been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that she paid for her home. 66 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- The damages suffered by Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in her favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXVIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 16, 31 - 57, and 106 - 113, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiff constitutes violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the 67 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiff. Plaintiff suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiff. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiff suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sheila Marie Fortson demands judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. 68 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXIX - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit M. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXX - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. 69 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit M. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. 70 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the "Act"). The stated purpose of the Act is to "protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or 71 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. 72 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 17 - 18, 31 - 57, and 114 - 121, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature 73 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Karina Delgado and Johnny Volmy demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 74 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXXIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit N. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit N. 75 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 344 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 072 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 76 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the "Act"). The stated purpose of the Act is to "protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 77 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited 78 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 19 - 20, 31 - 57, and 122 - 129, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 79 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Pablo Elorriaga and Maricel Colon-Santiago demand judgment** in their favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 80 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XXXVII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit O. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXVIII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit O. 81 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 82 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XXXIX -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the "Act"). The stated purpose of the Act is to "protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). 83 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their favor, and** an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual 84 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XL - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 21 - 22, 31 - 57, and 130 - 137, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including 85 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Sara Logsdon and Wesley Logsdon demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 86 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLI - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. P. Plaintiff Jason Mattson and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Jason Mattson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiff Jason Mattson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in their favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLII - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 23, 31 57, and 138 - 145 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiff Jason Mattson and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit P. 87 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiff Jason Mattson a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiff Jason Mattson had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. 88 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff Jason Mattson has suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLIII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the "Act"). The stated purpose of the Act is to "protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiff Jason Mattson is a consumer as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. 89 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiff Jason Mattson has been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that he paid for his home. The damages suffered by Plaintiff Jason Mattson were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award against** Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 90 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLIV - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiff Jason Mattson repeats the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 23, 31 - 57, and 138 - 145, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiff constitutes violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiff and other prospective homeowners and made available 91 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiff. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiff justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiff suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jason Mattson demands judgment in his favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLV - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit Q. The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and 92 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Augustin Colin a home with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLVI - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit Q. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin a home with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area. 93 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 2, 586 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 2, 485 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. 94 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLVII -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the "Act"). The stated purpose of the Act is to "protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " 95 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. 96 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **COUNT XLVIII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 24 - 25, 31 - 57, and 146 - 153, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available 97 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Edna Noel and Augustin Colin demand judgment in their favor, ** and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT XLIX - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. See Exhibit R. 98 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT L - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 -3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. See Exhibit R. Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains 99 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. 100 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LI -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the "Act"). The stated purpose of the Act is to "protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " 101 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LII - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 - 3, 26 - 27, 31 - 57, and 154 - 161, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home 102 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. 103 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Dane Ringler and Hui Yee Ngoh demand judgment in their** favor, and an award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LIII - BREACH OF CONTRACT** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57 and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran and Defendant Minto are parties to a contract. _See Exhibit S. _ The contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. 104 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, for breach of contract for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LIV - BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF** **GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169 above as if fully set forth herein. This Count for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is pled in the alternative to Plaintiffs’ Count for Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran and Defendant Minto are parties to a Contract. _See Exhibit S. _ Florida law recognizes and imposes in every contract an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Contract required Defendant Minto to build and sell to Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran a home with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. Minto breached this material provision of the Contract, as the Property contains only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran had a reasonable expectation that Minto would build the Property with a Total Living Area of 3, 580 square feet. 105 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to change the Property’s Total Living Area. Minto contends that paragraph 6(a) of the Contract provides Minto with the absolute discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to change the Total Living Area of the Property. Based on Minto’s interpretation of the Contract, paragraph 6(a) is ambiguous about the permissibility and scope of Minto’s right of discretion to build the Property with any amount of Total Living Area that Minto so chooses. Minto’s conduct in consciously and deliberately building the Property with only 3, 312 square feet of Total Living Area is frustrated the Contract’s purposes, disappointed Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations, and deprived Plaintiffs of the Contract’s benefits. Minto breached the Contract’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. If paragraph 6(a) is not ambiguous, Minto still breached the Contract and its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to build the Property with the contracted for amount of Total Living Area. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Minto’s breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** 106 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- award against Defendant Minto, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for all damages to which they are entitled under the law, including but not limited to compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to the contract, costs, and prejudgment interest, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LV -** **FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE** **PRACTICES ACT, FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 501. 201, ET SEQ. ** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. stat. §§501. 201, et seq. (the "Act"). The stated purpose of the Act is to "protect the consuming public. .. from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Fla. Stat. §501. 202(2). Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran are consumers as defined by Fla. Stat. §501. 203. Defendant is engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the Act. Fla. Stat. §501. 204(1) declares unlawful "[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. " Defendant has violated the Act by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices as described here which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers. Defendant engaged in a deceptive act and unfair practice that is likely to mislead consumers, offends established public policy, and that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, 107 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers, by selling homes with meaningfully less square footage of Total Living Area than Defendant represented in marketing and advertising materials, represented orally to prospective and actual customers, and included in contract documents. Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran have been aggrieved by Defendant's unfair and deceptive practices in that they paid for their home. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran were directly and proximately caused by the deceptive, misleading, and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described above. **WHEREFORE, Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an award** against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to actual damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and prejudgment interest against Defendant, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. **COUNT LVI - VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING STATUTE** Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran repeat the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 3, 28 - 29, 31 - 57, and 162 - 169, above as if fully restated herein. Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold, to Plaintiffs constitute violations of Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. §817. 41 (1). Florida’s prohibition on misleading advertising, as set forth in Florida Statute Chapter 817, provides that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading 108 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- advertisement. Such making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false pretenses. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 41(1). The Statute defines misleading advertising to “include[] he phrase “misleading advertising” includes any statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, which are known, or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been ascertained, to be untrue or misleading, and which are or were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of real or personal property, services of any nature whatever, professional or otherwise, or to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating to such property or services. ” Fla. Stat. §817. 40(5). (emphasis added). Defendant knew, or should have known, that its advertising materials, including but not necessarily limited to, layouts, floor plans and square footage information providing on physical documents provided to Plaintiffs and other prospective homeowners and made available on Defendant’s website (see, e. g. , Exhs. F-J hereto), contained untrue and false statements about the Total Living Area of the home Defendant advertised, marketed, and sold to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon Defendant’s false and misleading representations. Defendant’s representations about the Total Living Area of the home it advertised to Plaintiff were material to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about the home’s Total Living Area in deciding to purchase a home from Defendant. Plaintiffs justifiable relied on Defendant’s false and misleading statements about 109 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- the home’s Total Living Area in in agreeing to pay the price that Defendant demanded for the home. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s false and misleading advertising, Plaintiffs suffered damages. **WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Loi Tran and Bini Tran demand judgment in their favor, and an** award against Defendant Minto, pursuant to Florida’s False and Deceptive Advertising Statute, all damages to which it is entitled under the law, including but not limited to, pursuant to Fla. Stat. §817. 41(6), actual damages, attorneys’ fees costs, and for other such relief as this Court finds just, fair, and equitable under the circumstances. Respectfully Submitted, **WITES & ROGERS** Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 954-933-4400; 954-354-0205 (fax) By: /s/ Marc A. Wites___________ MARC A. WITES Fla. Bar No. 24783 [mwites@witeslaw. com](mailto:mwites@witeslaw. com) THOMAS B. ROGERS Florida Bar No. 54680 [trogers@witeslaw. com](mailto:trogers@witeslaw. com) 110 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 ----- **CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE** I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via email this 26[th] day of April, 2023, on: Attorneys for Defendant, Jessica Serell Erenbaum, Esq. , and **Michael D. Joblove, Esq. , Venable LLP, Miami Tower, Suite 4400, 100 Southeast Second Street, ** Miami, FL 33131, jerenbaum@venable. com; mjoblove@venable. com; _/s/ Marc A. Wites_ Marc A. Wites 111 Wites & Rogers 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point FL 33064 -----

[Assistant] IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA AG: Circuit Civil Central - AG (Civil) PATRICK MICHAEL MOORE AND BRIANNA RENELLE YEBOAH-HEMANS; ERIC GUEVARA AND JOHANNA GUEVARA; SHANE FITZGERALD B. THOMPSON AND KARINA THOMPSON; SILVIU TARAN AND TONI BIANCA TARAN; and ANDREI MATA QUINTAN AND ANA PAULA FERREIRA QUINTAN, MARCELO CARRERA AND MARIUXI CARRERA; SHEILA MARIE FORTSON; KARINA DELGADO AND JOHNNY VOLMY; PABLO ELORRIAGA AND MARICEL COLON-SANTIAGO; SARA LOGSDON AND WESLEY LOGSDON; JASON MATTSON; EDNA NOEL AND AUGUSTIN COLIN; DANE RINGLER AND HUI YEE NGOH; LOI TRAN AND BINI TRAN; and SREENIVASULU POLAGGARI, Plaintiffs, vs. MINTO PBLH, LLC, Defendant. / **DEFENDANT MINTO PBLH, LLC’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO PLAINTIFFS** **ERIC GUEVARA AND JOHANNA GUEVARA** Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC (“Minto”), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1. 350, hereby requests that Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara (“Plaintiffs”) produce the documents and materials specified below within thirty (30) days of service to the offices of Venable LLP, 100 Southeast 2nd Street, 44th Floor, Miami, Florida 33131, or at such other time and place, or in such other manner, as may be mutually agreed by the ----- Parties. **I. ** **INSTRUCTIONS:** Compliance with this Request is to be made in accordance with the following: If you assert that any document called for by this request is protected against disclosure as the attorney’s work product doctrine or by the attorney-client or any other privilege, you shall provide the following information with respect to such document: the name and capacity of the person or persons who prepared the documents; the name and capacity of all addresses or recipients of the original or copies thereof; the, if any, borne by the document; a brief description of its subject matter and physical size; the source of the factual information from which such document was prepared; and the nature of the privilege claimed. All documents produced pursuant hereto are to be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business and shall be organized and labeled (without permanently marking the item produced) so as to correspond with the categories of each numbered request hereof. When appropriate, the singular form of a word should be interpreted in the plural as may be necessary to bring within the scope hereof any documents which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope hereof. The words “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope hereof any documents which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope hereof. The word “relating to” includes referring to, responding to, relating to, connected with, regarding, discussing, analyzing, evidencing, showing, depicting, describing, reflecting, implying and constituting. Each request seeks the production of all documents in Plaintiffs’ possession, custody, or control which includes all documents, objects, or articles for which You (Plaintiffs are 2 ----- also referred to herein as “You” or “Your”), have the right to secure the original or a copy from another person. The fact that Your investigation is continuing or discovery is incomplete is not an excuse for failing to respond to each request as fully and completely as possible. Your responses should consist of information known to You and Your agents, attorneys, employees, and representatives. All documents shall be produced as they are kept in the ordinary course of business and shall be organized and labeled (without permanently marking the item produced) so as to correspond with the categories of each numbered request hereof. Each document request contemplates the production of a document in its entirety, without abbreviation, redaction, or expungement, including all drafts and document(s) referenced therein or attached thereto. All Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) shall be produced in its native form and without redaction of metadata. This includes electronic mail which should be produced in a. msg, .pst, .eml, or. nsf file format. If ESI is not accessible without software and/or tools necessary to make the information readable, then that software and/or tools shall be identified and provided. **II. ** **DEFINITIONS** “Documents” shall mean the original or copies of any tangible written, typed, printed or other form of recorded or graphic matter of every kind or description, however produced or reproduced, whether mechanically or electronically recorded, draft, final original, reproduction, signed or unsigned, regardless of whether approved, signed, sent, received, redrafted, or executed, and whether handwritten, typed, printed, photostated, duplicated, carbon or otherwise copied or produced in any other manner whatsoever. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, “documents” shall include documents evidencing correspondence, letters, telegrams, telexes, e 3 ----- mails, mailgrams, memoranda, including inter-office and intra-office memoranda, memoranda for files, memoranda of telephone or other conversations, including meetings, invoices, reports, receipts and statements of account, ledgers, notes or notations, notes or memorandum attached to or to be read with any document, booklets, books, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phone records, electronic tapes, discs or other recordings, computer programs, printouts, data cards, studies, analysis and other data compilations from which information can be obtained, along with all ESI (“ESI” shall mean any electronically stored information, including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, documents, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations; stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form) and other electronic data storage documents including but not limited to e-mails and any related attachments, electronic files or other data compilations which relate to the categories of documents as requested below. Copies of documents, which are not identical duplications of the originals or which contain additions to or deletions from the originals or copies of the originals if the originals are not available, shall be considered to be separate documents. “All documents” means every document or group of documents as above-defined in Your possession, custody or control, or are known to You or that can be located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts. “Communications” shall mean any oral or written statement, e-mail, correspondence, dialogue, colloquy, discussion or conversation and, also, means any transfer of thoughts or ideas between persons (as defined below) by means of documents and includes any transfer of data from one location to another by electronic or similar means, and shall include any private or public message or statement transmitted through any social network or media (e. g. , 4 ----- Facebook, Twitter, etc. ). The terms “support, ” “evidence, ” “evidencing, ” “relate to, ” “relating to, ” “related to, ” “referred to, ” “concern, ” “concerning, ” “pertaining to, ” “involving” and “regarding” shall mean anything which directly, or indirectly, concerns, consists of, pertains to, reflects, evidences, describes, sets forth, constitutes, contains, shows, underlies, supports, refers to in any manner, is or was used in the preparation of, appended to, legally, logically or factually connected with, proves, disproves, or tends to prove or disprove. The conjunctions “and” and “or” shall be interpreted in each instance as meaning “and/or” so as to encompass the broader of the two possible constructions, and shall not be interpreted disjunctively so as to exclude any information or documents otherwise within the scope of any Request. As used herein the singular shall include the plural, the plural shall include the singular, and the masculine, feminine, and neuter shall include each of the other genders. “Person” or “Persons” shall mean any natural person, individual, entity, proprietorship, partnership, corporation, association, organization, joint venture, business trust, or other business enterprise, governmental body or agency, legal or business entity, or group of natural persons, or other entity, whether sui juris or otherwise, and includes both the singular and plural. “Plaintiffs” refers to Plaintiffs Eric Guevara and Johanna Guevara, individually and/or collectively, and includes all employees, agents, representatives, attorneys, servants and other persons acting on their behalf. The term “any and all” means every document as above-defined known to You and every such document that can be located or discovered by reasonably diligent efforts. 5 ----- “Minto” refers to Defendant Minto PBLH, LLC, and includes its officers, agents, employees, principals, directors, managers, representatives, members, attorneys, and other person acting on its behalf. “Property” refers to the real property located at 5680 Macoon Way, Westlake FL 33470 in Palm Beach County. “Home” refers to the home located on the Property. “Complaint” refers to the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiffs in this action on or about April 26, 2023. The term “You” and/or “Your” means Plaintiffs (individually and/or collectively) and any person(s) purporting to act on Plaintiffs’ behalf. “Plaintiff Parties” means the plaintiffs named in the Complaint, individually and/or collectively. Unless specified otherwise, the relevant timeframe is January 1, 2019 to present. 6 ----- **DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED** All documents sent by You to Minto. All documents sent by Minto to You. All correspondence sent by You to Minto. All correspondence sent by Minto to You. All communications between You and Minto. All documents relating to communications between You and Minto. All communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties concerning the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding the damages sought in the Complaint. All documents relating to communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All documents relating to communications between You and any of the Plaintiff Parties regarding to the damages sought in the Complaint. All communications sent by You to any governmental agency that relate to the Home and/or the Property. All communications received by You from any governmental agency that relate to the Home and/or the Property. All documents relating to the damages You claim to have sustained as a result of Minto’s actions alleged in the Complaint. All documents that refer or relate to thethat You first learned that the total square footage/total living area of Your home was different from the amount set forth in the floor 7 ----- plan [You][ were] provided. All appraisals relating to the Property and/or the Home. All inspection reports relating to the Property and/or the Home. All documents that refer to or relate to the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. All contracts or agreements that relate to the measurement of the square footage and/or total living area of the Home. VENABLE LLP Attorneys for [Minto][ PBLH, ][ LLC] Miami Tower, Suite 4400 100 Southeast Second Street Miami, [Florida][ 33131] Telephone: (305) [349-2300] By: s/Jessica Serell ## Erenbaum_ Michael D. Joblove, Esq. Florida Bar No. 354147 Jessica Serell Erenbaum, Esq. Florida Bar No. 816000 ierenbaum@venable. com #### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was served via e-mail from eservice@myflcourtaccess. com upon [Marc][ A. ] Wites, mwites@witeslaw. com [and][ Thomas][ B. ] Rogers, trogers@, witeslaw. [com, ][ Wites][ Law] Firm, [4400][ North][ Federal] Highway, Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 this 11th day of May, 2023. s/Jessica Serell Erenbaum Attorney 8 -----