Third Amended Complaint For Damages (Jury Trial Demanded)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No: 10-60547
CA 24 CARLOS VICARIA, an individual; and MARCELO CATURLA, an individual; Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY SUERETH, an individual doing business as SOUTH BAY CLUB OVERSIGHT and who is also known as Larry Beacon, Jeff Swanson, James Baker, Susan Brenner and Barbara Haskings; and SOUTH BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. Defendants. /
THE ORIGINAL
ft'llED ON:
MAY 2 9 2012
lN THE OFFICE OF CIRCUIT COURT DACE CO., FL.
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
Plaintiffs,
CARLOS
VICARlA,
("VICARlA") and
MARCELO
CATURLA
("CATURLA"), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby bring this action against Defendant TIMOTHY SUERETH, who is doing business as SOUTH BAY CLUB OVERSIGHT, ("SBCO") and who is also known by the following aliases: Larry Beacon, Jeff Swanson, James Baker, Susan Brenner and Barbara Haskings and Defendant SOUTH BAY CLUB
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ("SOUTH BAY") and state the following:

INTRODUCTION
1.
Defendant SUERETH harbors an apparent resentment against Plaintiffs because
of differences in opinion with respect to the governance of the South Bay Club Condominium.
Vicaria v. Suereth, eta/.
Third Amended Complaint
With intent to cause irreparable harm, Defendant TIMOTHY SUERETH has launched a campaign of harassment through publishing an online "blog" and sending emails containing outrageous and defamatory statements against Plaintiffs VICARIA and CATURLA. The statements published by Defendant are shocking and outrageous including but not limited to statements that Plaintiff VICARlA was convicted of a felony for sexual battery on a child, that he is a sexual predator and pedophile. Defendant also makes outrageous and defamatory statements about CATURLA stating that he is a convicted criminal guilty of sex crimes and implies that he is also a pedophile. These shocking statements are false and have been fabricated by Defendant SUERETH against Plaintiffs. Despite knowing that the statements are false, Defendant emailed the defamatory statements to Plaintiff VICARIA's place of employment in order to cause him harm. Defendant SUERETH has orchestrated his harm by using a series of pseudonyms. Lastly, Defendant has posted and mischaracterized documents on various internet websites, tagging the documents with Plaintiffs' names along with the terms "sexual predator" and "pedophile" in order to cast Plaintiffs further his defamation. Further, Defendant posted copies of the defamatory statements along with pictures of the Plaintiffs in the neighborhood where Plaintiffs live in order to further harass them. The admitted goal of Defendant's harassment is to drive Plaintiffs from their building and wrongfully deprive them of their home. 2. Defendant SOUTH BAY is the association governing the South Bay Club
property and has a duty to protect its residents from harassment. At the time that Defendant SUERETH published the defamatory statements against Plaintiffs, Defendant SOUTH BAY knew that the statements were not true. Defendant SOUTH BAY was negligent in its failure to act to protect Plaintiffs and allowed a hostile environment within the building to thrive against
Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/.

Plaintiffs. Defendant SOUTH BAY's negligence in failing to protect Plaintiffs acted to legitimize the defamatory statements made by SUERETH. 3. Plaintiffs seek damages against Defendant SUERETH for Libel Per Se,
Defamation by Implication and for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Plaintiff VICARlA seeks damages against Defendant for Defamation by Implication. Both Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against Defendant SUERETH's continued harmful actions. Both Plaintiffs seek damages against Defendant SOUTH BAY for Negligence and Defamation by Implication.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.
This is an action in damages in excess of the court's minimal jurisdictional
amount of$15,000.00. 5. Venue is proper in Miami-Dade County, Florida as Defendant SUERETH resides
in this venue, Defendant SOUTH BAY operates solely in this venue and a substantial part ofthe
events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in Miami-Dade County.
THE PARTIES TO THIS ACTION
6.
Plaintiff VICARIA is an individual and a resident of Miami-Dade County.
Plaintiff is a former board member for the South Bay Club Condominium Association, Inc. (the "Association"). 7. Plaintiff, CATURLA, is an individual and a resident of Miami-Dade County.
Plaintiff CATURLA is a resident owner of a condominium unit at the South Bay Club Condominium Building. 8. Defendant SUERETH conducts business as SBCO, an unincorporated
organization located in Miami-Dade County Florida. Defendant's SBCO purports to be an adhoc committee formed by current or former members of the Association to provide "information'

to owners of condominium units at the South Bay Club Condominium on 800 West Ave, Miami Beach, FL ("Condominium Building"). Defendant SUERETH owns and operates a blog entitled "South Bay Club Oversight". 9. Knowing that his actions were libelous, Defendant SUERETH hid behind a series
of fictitious names including but not limited to James Baker ("Baker"), Larry Beacon ("Beacon") and Jeff Swanson ("Swanson"). Under these fake names, Defendant purported to be separate owners of condominium units at the Condominium Building and concerned citizens. There are no unit owners at the Condominium Building identified by these names. 9. Defendant SUERETH hid behind a series of additional fictitious names when
harassing and threatening Plaintiff VICARlA at his place of employment. The fake names used by SUERETH included but are not limited to Susan Brenner ("Brenner") and Barbara Haskings ("Haskings"). Using these fake names, Defendant purported to be "concerned citizens" threatening VICARIA's employer so that he would be terminated. 10. Defendant SOUTH BAY is the condominium association governing the South
Bay Club Condominium Building where Plaintiffs reside. At all times material, the Defendant SOUTH BAY was controlled by two successive boards: the 2010 Board of Directors and the 2011 Board of Directors. The 2010 Board of Directors included Dianne Thome, the spouse of Defendant SUERETH.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12.
Plaintiff VICARIA served on the Board of Directors for the Association from
January 2009 through December 2009. 13. Plaintiffs VICARIA and CATURLA both ran for a position on the Board of
Directors during the December 2009 elections and were not elected. 14. During PlaintiffVICARIA's tenure on the Association Board in 2009, he and his
partner CATURLA, for whatever reason, became the target of Defendant's contempt. 15. At some point between November and December of2009, Defendant SUERETH
created a blog through the Google owned free blog creation and hosting service: Blogspot.com. The public blog created by Defendant was titled "South Bay Club Oversight". The URL
Defendant created for the blog was http://SBCOversight.blogspot.com ("SBCO Blog"). Defendant specifically chose the term "SBCOversight" as part of the URL. 16. In preparation for the creation of the creation of the South Bay Club Oversight ww.SBCOversight.com. This
Blog, Defendant registered the domain: w
domain was purchased on November 5, 2009 through DomainsbyProxy.com to mask Defendant's identity. 17. As of the date of this Second Amended Complaint, the SBCO Blog has a total of
four posted entries. 18. The first entry is dated December 2, 2009 and is in essence a heavily opinionated
diatribe regarding certain candidates for the 2009 Association Board, including Plaintiff CATURLA. 19. The second entry is dated January 19, 2010 and is another sprawling narrative
criticizing members of the 2009 Association Board, which included Plaintiff VICARIA. Plaintiffs are also directly named and criticized in this second entry. Further, this entry articulates
Vicario v. Suereth, et al.

support for the current 2010 Association Board on which Defendant SUERETH's wife served as a director. 20. The third entry to the SBCO Blog is dated October 24, 2010 and is entitled
"South Bay Club Predator Alert". This October 24, 2010 entry contains a picture of both Plaintiffs with the statement "SBC Sexual Predator Alert" under the photo. The photograph of Plaintiffs is a screen capture from a video shot by Defendant SUERETH. This Blog entry goes on to state that Plaintiff VICARlA is a "convicted sexual predator"; that Plaintiff "pled guilty to sexual battery on a male, minor child"; and that VICARlA is "not registered as a sexual offender
in FL, as mandated by law". Defendant SUERETH states that "Carlos Vicaria was convicted of
Lewd & Lascivious Battery and Indecent Exposure in 2001- A FELONY in Florida." 21. The entcy also affrrmatively states that Plaintiff is "leering at them [children] from
the pool deck, and from his balcony." The entry is designated as having been written or submitted by Defendant SUERETH's alias Swanson. The statements made in this entry about Plaintiff VICARlA are all entirely untrue and have been fabricated by Defendant with the sole purpose of causing harm to Plaintiff. A copy of the SBCO Blog containing the referenced blog entries is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 22. On October 24, 2010, the same date as the third blog posting, Defendant
uploaded and thereby published, three documents for public view in order to impart credibility to the false statements in the October 24, 2010 SBCO Blog. The documents were published on the website www.Scribd.com ("Scribd Documents"). Links to the Scribd Documents were attached to the October 24, 2010 SBCO Blog post.
Vicaria v. Suereth, eta/. Third Amended Complaint
23.
The first Scribd Document is nothing more than a reposting of the October 24,
2010 SBCO Blog post and is entitled "SBC Sexual Predator Alert". The tag 1 for the Scribd entry created by Defendant refers to this document as "SEXUAL OFFENDER ALERT- CARLOS VICARIA". PlaintiffCATURLA's name is also tagged with this document. As of the date ofthe frrst Complaint, this document had been viewed 197 times. As of the date of this Amended Complaint, this document has been viewed 314 times. 24. The next two Scribd Documents are printouts of old Miami-Dade county
misdemeanor infractions by Plaintiff VICARIA in 2001 and 1988 respectively. It is critical to note that neither infraction involves any sexual conduct with a minor nor are they a verification of any of the statements made in the SBCO Blog. It is apparent that Defendant posted Plaintiff VICAR1A's prior misdemeanor infractions to mislead and implicate that the statements in Defendant's SBCO Blog are verified. 25. A fourth Scribd document was posted on December 9, 2010. This document is a
copy of a letter that Defendant SUERETH sent to VICARIA's employer threatening to publicly demonstrate unless VICARlA is terminated. Defendant SUERETH sent this letter to VICARlA's employer under the fake name BRENNER. A composite of all of the Scribd Documents is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 26. One of the Scribd Documents involving a Miami-Dade County misdemeanor in Defendant purposely
2001 is entitled "CARLOS VICARIA- PEDOPHILE DOCUMENT."
mischaracterized the Document in order to mislead and deceive the reader and to imply that Plaintiff is a pedophile. Plaintiff CATURLA's name is also tagged with this document with the intent to imply that CATURLA is a pedophile.
In online computer systems terminology, a tag is a nonhierarchical keyword or term assigned to a piece of information (such as an Internet bookmark, digital image, or computer file). This kind of metadata helps describe an

27.
The purpose of tagging Plaintiffs' names with the Scribd Documents as well as
the tenns "sexual predator" and "pedophile" is for identification as well as search engine optimization purposes. In fact when doing an online Google search of Plaintiffs' names, the Scribd Documents are in the top 5 results for both Plaintiffs. A copy of the search engine results is attached as composite Exhibit C. 28. Within weeks of the initial October 24,2010 posting, the text of the original entry
was edited by Defendant to add additional false statements, including:
LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATIERY - A person who: (a) Engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; or (b) Encourages, forces, or entices any person less than 16 years of age to engage in sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, prostitution, or any other act involving sexual activity.
The additional statement furthers the falsehood that Plaintiff VICARIA engaged in sexual activity with a person under 16 or engaged in sadomasochistic abuse, bestiality or prostitution. Again, Defendant knew that these salacious statements published about Plaintiff VICARlA were entirely false and were published to cause severe emotional harm and damage to his reputation. A copy of the amended October 24,2010 blog entry is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 29. The additions to October 24, 2010 blog entry also included a statement
identifying PlaintiffVICARIA's employer and stated that as part of his job, PlaintiffVICARIA provides tours for school children at his place of employment. With this statement, Defendants
item and allows it to be found again by browsing or searching. Tags are generally chosen informally and personally by the item's creator or by its viewer, depending on the system. (See Wikipedia Definition for Tags).
Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/. Third Amended Complaint
seek to have the reader to conclude that a sexual predator has access to schoolchildren as part of his employment. 30. A written comment was also added to the October 24, 2010 entry affirmatively
stating that Plaintiff CATURLA "also has a sex crime offense, in another state." Defendant SUERETH authored the comment under the name Baker and further asserts that both Plaintiffs are "interested in having sex with young children." 31. Defendant SUERETH knew that the published statements made about both
Plaintiffs were entirely false. Defendant orchestrated the SBCO Blog and published the statements with the intent to cause Plaintiffs severe emotional distress and to defame Plaintiffs reputation in the building. 32. Defendants list Plaintiffs by name, provide a photograph and publish their home
address while inciting a call to action to Condominium Building residents and the general public welcoming them to act out against Plaintiffs. 33. Shortly after the email from October 24, 2010 email and blog from Defendant
SUERETH, Defendant SOUTH BAY sought the opinion of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement ("FDLE") as to whether PlaintiffVICARIA was a Sexual Predator or a convicted felon. 34. On October 26, 2010, Defendant SOUTH BAY received a written opinion from
the FDLE that PlaintiffVICARIA was not a felon and was "convicted of municipal codes only" and was not a sexual predator nor a sexual offender subject to public registry. As such, two days after Defendant SUERETH began the proliferation of the defamatory statements against Plaintiff and begin his campaign of harassment, Defendant SOUTH BAY was aware that the statements were false and did nothing.
35.
Apparently undeterred from the truth, on October 27,2010, Defendant SUERETH
emailed Defendant SOUTH BAY in response to the FDLE report, even though Defendant SUERETH wasn't a member of the South Bay board of directors and should not have been privy to Defendant SOUTH BAY's investigation. In his October 27, 2010 email, SUERETH ignores the FDLE report and affirmatively states that Plaintiff is guilty of Florida Statutes 800.04 Lewd and Lascivious battery of a child. Defendant SUERETH complains to Defendant SOUTH BAY that Plaintiff must be removed. 36. On October 27, 2010, Belkis Puns, a director of Defendant SOUTH BAY,
responded to Defendant SUERETH's email on behalf of Defendant SOUTH BAY. In that correspondence, Defendant SOUTH BAY states that Plaintiff"Vicaria is damaging the quality of living in our building." Defendant SOUTH BAY discusses getting rid of Plaintiff Vicaria. Defendant SOUTH BAY tells Defendant SUERETH that it has asked the SOUTH BAY attorney to "take the strongest measures possible to keep our children safe" from Plaintiff. 37. Within days of posting the false statements on the SBCO Blog and Scribd,
Defendants began a more targeted campaign of harassment against Plaintiff VICARIA. In particular, Defendant drafted an email containing the false and salacious statements regarding PlaintiffVICARIA and sent the email to Plaintiffs supervisor at work as well as his professional colleagues. The email linked to the SBCO Blog and the Scribd Documents. The purpose of the email was to pressure VICARIA's employer into terminating him on false circumstances and unfounded accusations. 38. To further his campaign of harassment and intimidation, Defendant SUERETH
sent an email containing the contents of the SBCO Blog to all residents and owners in the Condominium Building. The email contained links to the actual SBCO Blog and Scribd
10
Documents. The purpose of the email to the residents and owners was to damage Plaintiffs' reputation as well as harass and intimidate Plaintiffs in their own home. 39. On November 25, 2010 (Thanksgiving Day), Defendant canvassed Plaintiffs'
neighborhood with a "Sexual Predator Alert" flyer. This flyer identifies Plaintiffs as boyfriends and identifies PlaintiffVICARIA as a Sexual Predator. The flyer included SUERETH's photo of Plaintiffs and instructed the reader (in caps) to "CALL THE POLICE" if Plaintiff is seen. This Sexual Predator Alert flyer was posted on telephone poles and retail establishments within a 5block radius of Plaintiffs' home. The purpose of the flyer was to harass and intimidate Plaintiffs. Further, the flyer wrongly portrayed Plaintiff VICARlA as a sexual predator. Lastly the flyer in its design implicated that Plaintiff was a wanted fugitive requiring immediate police action if seen. A copy of the Sexual Predator Alert Flyer is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 40. On November 29, 2010 Defendant SOUTH BAY, through Belkis Puns, emailed
the building manager Judy Storck about the Flyers. Defendant SOUTH BAY states that the flyers are "hurting our property values as few individuals will want to rent or purchase in the building if a pedifile [sic] lives in it". In this correspondence Defendant SOUTH BAY recognizes the "additional damage being done to Caturla and Vicaria in the dissemination of information." 41. On December 4, 2010, Defendant created another sprawling entry for the SBCO
Blog. Included in this entry, Defendant posted an 18-minute video of himself ranting about the South Bay Club. Under his fake blog posting name, Defendant commended himself as a "fearless resident" for posting his own video. Further, in this blog post Defendant again attacks Plaintiff VICARIA referring to him a "sex offender" that "snuck" into the building and gives tours at work to kids. A copy of the December 4, 2010 entry is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
11
42.
On December 11, 2010, Defendant sent Plaintiff VICARIA an email under the
fake name HASKINOS. Defendant pretended to be a co-worker of Plaintiff with the intent of harassing and further causing fear to Plaintiff. A copy of the email is attached as Exhibit G. 43. Defendant SUERETH uses free @gmail.com, @hotmail.com and @yahoo.com
email accounts for all of his fake identities. 44. Defendant SUERETH is aware of the damage that accusing someone of being a
felon, sexual predator or pedophile has in our society. Such accusations can immediately cause the accused to be demonized and ostracized. Defendant's statements in the SBCO Blog, Scribd Documents and emails go well beyond mere accusations. Defendant makes affirmative statements of fact about Plaintiffs. The powerful nature of the subject matter is precisely why Defendant chose to fabricate and publish these statements about Plaintiffs. Defendant SUERETH sought maximum damage and effect. 45. Defendant SOUTH BAY definitively knew within two days of the initial
statements by SUERETH that the statements were not true. Defendant SOUTH BAY did nothing to correct the statements or protect Plaintiffs from the continuing harassment by SUERETH. 46. Defendant SOUTH BAY did however as a board, send out a written statement to
all residents that allegations against another resident, Jerry Babij, were untrue. The allegations that were made against Babij were circulating in conjunction with the untrue accusations made against Plaintiffs. 47. Further, rather than dispel the untrue allegations against the Plaintiffs like with
Babij, Defendant SOUTH BAY leveraged the allegations as an opportunity to further harass Plaintiffs in threatening to kick them out of the building.
12

48.
In December 2010, Defendant SOUTH BAY noticed a special meeting of the
board to discuss removing felons and sexual predators from the building, specifically meaning Plaintiffs VICARIA and CATURLA.
49.
Members of Defendant SOUTH BAY's board of directors, including Dianne
Thorne who was married to Defendant SUERETH, used their position on the board to legitimize Defendant SUERETH's untrue statements against Plaintiffs, through the setting association meetings to discuss removal of Plaintiffs and through making official statements to deny allegations against other residents and not Plaintiffs.
COUNT 1: PLAINTIFF VICARlA's LIBEL PER SE CLAIM AGAINST ALL DEFENDANT SUERETH
Plaintiff VICARIA re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein and further states: 46. Beginning October 24, 2010, continuing through the date of this lawsuit,
Defendant published numerous false statements about Plaintiff VICARlA on the SBCO Blog, Sribd.com, the Sexual Predator Alert Flyer and through email, including, but not limited to the following statements: a. b. c. d. e.
f.
that Plaintiff VICARlA is a Pedophile; that Plaintiff VICARlA "was convicted Lewd and Lascivious Battery"; that Plaintiff VICARlA "is a convicted sexual predator"; that Plaintiff VICARlA was convicted of a felony in Florida; that Plaintiff VICARlA is mandated by law to register as a sexual offender in Florida; that Plaintiff VICARlA is leering at children from the pool deck; that Plaintiff VICARlA is leering at children from his balcony;
g.
13
h.
that Plaintiff VICARlA "plead guilty to sexual battery on a minor, male child"; that Plaintiff VICARlA is a person who "engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; or engages, forces or entices any person less than 16 years of age to engage in sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, prostitution or any other act involving sexual activity"; that Plaintiff VICARlA is a sexual offender living among children; that Plaintiff VICARlA is "interested in having sex with young children";
1.
J. k. 47.
Defendant knew that all of the above statements regarding Plaintiff VICARlA
were absolutely false. 48. Defendant published the above untrue statements to Plaintiff VICARIA's
employer, co-workers, neighbors and the world through the SBCO web Blog, the Scribd webpage and emails to his employers, co-workers, neighbors and professional colleagues. 49. The above defamatory statements published by Defendant imputes upon Plaintiff
VICARIA conduct, characteristics and a history that is completely untrue. Defendant's statements are libel per seas he has falsely stated that PlaintiffVICARIA is convicted felon. 50. Furthermore, when considered alone and without innuendo, the above defamatory
statements published by Defendant subjects Plaintiff VICARIA to ridicule, distrust, hatred, contempt and disgrace with the intent to injure, harass and cause great harm to Plaintiff VICARlA. 51. Defendant's above defamatory statements are not the subject of any privileged
communication. At the time of the publication of the defamatory statements, Plaintiff VICARlA was no longer a member of the Condominium Association Board and had not been in that position for almost one year. As such, Plaintiff VICARlA was a private citizen and not a public figure in any way.
14
Vicaria v. Suereth, et al. Third Amended Complaint
52.
Defendant intended to injure, harass and cause Plaintiff VICARlA serious harm
through the above defamatory statements, including but not limited to termination from his employment. 53. PlaintifiVICARIA has been injured by Defendant's defamatory and outrageously
untrue statements. 54. Plaintiff VICARIA continues to be injured by the continued publication of
Defendants' defamatory statements. WHEREFORE PlaintiffVICARIA demands that: 1) Defendant is enjoined from further publication of the above or any similar defamatory statements through the SBCO Blog, Scribd, flyers, emails or any other published form and that Defendant remove any and all such statements. Plaintiff further requests an award of reasonable attorneys fees' and costs for securing this injunction; and 2) a judgment of damages be entered against Defendant for any and all damages including but not limited to punitive and exemplary damages and costs, prejudgment and post judgment interest as allowable by law, and any other remedies or damages available at law to Plaintiff which has not been specifically mentioned here.
COUNT II: PLAINTIFF CATURLA LIBEL PER SE CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT SUERETH
Plaintiff CATURLA re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein and further states: 55. Beginning October 24, 2010, continuing through the date of this lawsuit,
Defendants published numerous false statements about Plaintiff CATURLA on the SBCO Blog,
15
Sribd.com, Sexual Predator Alert Flyer and through email, including, but not limited to the following statements: a. b. c. d. e. that Plaintiff CATURLA is a Pedophile; that Plaintiff CATURLA "has a sex crime offense in another state"; that Plaintiff CATURLA "is a sexual predator"; that Plaintiff CATURLA is a sexual offender living among children; that Plaintiff CATURLA is mandated by law to register as a sexual offender in Florida; that Plaintiff CATURLA is a sexual offender living among children; that Plaintiff CATURLA is "interested in having sex with young children";
f. k.
56.
Defendant knew that all of the above statements regarding Plaintiff CATURLA
were absolutely false. 57. Defendant published the above untrue statements to Plaintiff CATURLA's
neighbors and the world through the SBCO web Blog, the Scribd webpage and emails to his neighbors. 58. The above defamatory statements published by Defendant imputes upon Plaintiff
CATURLA conduct, characteristics and a history that is completely untrue. 59. Furthermore, when considered alone and without innuendo, the above defamatory
statements published by Defendant subjects Plaintiff CATURLA to ridicule, distrust, hatred, contempt and disgrace with the intent to injure, harass and cause great harm to Plaintiff CATURLA. 60. Defendant's above defamatory statements are not the subject of any privileged
communication. At the time of the publication of the defamatory statements, Plaintiff
16

CATURLA was not a member of the Condominium Association Board. As such, Plaintiff CATURLA was a private citizen and not a public figure in any way. 61. Defendant intended to injure, harass and cause Plaintiff CATURLA serious harm
through the above defamatory statements, including but not limited to harassment in his building of residence. 62. Plaintiff CATURLA has been injured by Defendant's defamatory and
outrageously untrue statements.
Defendants statements are libel per se as Defendant falsely
states that Plaintiff CATURLA was convicted of a crime. 63. Plaintiff CATURLA continues to be injured by the continued publication of
Defendant's defamatory statements. WHEREFORE PlaintiffCATURLA demands that: 1) Defendant is enjoined from further publication of the above or any similar defamatory statements through the SBCO Blog, Scribd, flyers, emails or any other published form as well as the removal of any such statements currently posted. Plaintiff further requests an award of reasonable attorneys fees' and costs for securing this injunction; and 2) a judgment of damages be entered against Defendant SUERETH for any and all damages including but not limited to punitive and exemplary damages, costs, prejudgment and post judgment interest as allowable by law, and any other remedies or damages available at law to Plaintiff which has not been specifically mentioned here.
17

COUNT Ill: PLAINTIFF VICARIA'S DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT SUERETH
Defendant published numerous statements about Plaintiff VICARIA on the SBCO Blog, Sribd.com, Sexual Predator Alert Flyer and through emails, including, but not limited to the following statements: a. b. c. d. e. that Plaintiff VICARlA is a Pedophile; that Plaintiff VICARlA "was convicted Lewd and Lascivious Battery"; that Plaintiff VICARlA "is a convicted sexual predator''; that Plaintiff VICARlA was convicted of a felony in Florida; that Plaintiff VICARlA is mandated by law to register as a sexual offender in Florida; that Plaintiff VICARlA is leering at children from the pool deck; that Plaintiff VICARlA is leering at children from his balcony; that Plaintiff VICARlA "plead guilty to sexual battery on a minor, male child"; that Plaintiff VICARlA is a person who "engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; or engages, forces or entices any person less than 16 years of age to engage in sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, prostitution or any other act involving sexual activity"; that Plaintiff VICARlA is a sexual offender living among children; that Plaintiff VICARlA is "interested in having sex with young children";
f.
g. h.
1.
J.
k.
18
Vicaria v. Suereth, eta/. Third Amended Complaint
65.
Defendant's SBCO Blog, Scribd Documents, flyers and emails all state or
otherwise characterize or imply that Plaintiff VICARlA is a pedophile, felon, fugitive and sexual predator. 66. Defendant published a photograph of both Plaintiffs on the SBCO Blog with the
title SBC Sexual Predator Alert to implicate that the individuals in the photographs, the Plaintiffs, are sexual predators. 67. Defendant falsely and intentionally titled the Scribd Documents as "Carlos
Vicaria - Pedophile Document" in order to further the fabrication about Plaintiff. 68. Defendant states that Plaintiff was convicted of lewd and lascivious battery then
goes on to provide a definition of:
LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY - A person who: (a) Engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; or (b) Encourages, forces, or entices any person less than 16 years of age to engage in sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, prostitution, or any other act involving sexual activity.
The purpose of the published definition was to imply that Plaintiff VICARIA has committed such acts. 69. Defendant implies through his juxtaposition of facts that Plaintiff VICARlA is a
pedophile and dangerous and therefore must be removed from the Condominium Building. Defendant provides contact information for the Condominium Building in order to have residents call to take action against Plaintiff.
19

70.
Defendant implies through the juxtaposition of facts on the Sexual Predator Alert
Flyer that Plaintiff VICARIA is a fugitive and that anyone who sees Plaintiff should call the police. 71. Defendant knew the juxtaposition of the statements and implications regarding
PlaintiffVICARIA would cause the public to conclude that PlaintiffVICARIA was a pedophile, a felon, a fugitive and dangerous. 72. By publishing the juxtaposition of statements, Defendant has defamed Plaintiff
VICARIA by implication. 73. Defendant intended to defame Plaintiff to exact revenge and cause irreparable
harm to PlaintiffVICARIA's reputation and employment.

74. Plaintiff VICARIA has been injured by the defamatory implications that
Defendant SUERETH has made. 75. Plaintiff VICARIA continues to be injured by the defamatory implications that
Defendant has cast him in. WHEREFORE Plaintiff VICARlA demands that: 1) Defendant is enjoined from further publication of the above or any similar statements and implications and that any currently posted statements containing such implications are removed. Plaintiff further requests an award of reasonable attorneys fees' and costs for securing this injunction; and 2) a judgment of damages be entered against Defendant for any and all damages including but not limited to punitive and exemplary damages, costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest as allowable by law, and any other remedies or damages available at law to Plaintiff which has not been specifically mentioned here.
20

COUNT IV: PLAINTIFF CATURLA 's DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT SUERETH
Plaintiff CATURLA re-alleges paragraphs I through 49 as if fully set forth herein and further states: 76. Beginning October 24, 2010, continuing through the date of this lawsuit,
Defendant published numerous statements about Plaintiff CATURLA on the SBCO Blog, Sribd.com, Sexual Predator Alert Flyer and through emails, including, but not limited to the following actions: a. placing Plaintiff CATURLA's name and picture under the title "Sexual Predator Alert" and with the term pedophile on the blog; stating anonymously that Plaintiff CATURLA "has a sex crime offense in another state"; stating that Plaintiff CATURLA is "interested in having sex with young children"; placing Plaintiff CATURLA's picture on a Sexual Predator Alert Flyer; tagging Plaintiff CATURLA's name on Scribd with the term pedophile and sexual predator; and instructing the public on the Sexual Predator Alert Flyer to call the police if he is seen;
b.
c. d. e.
e. 77.
Defendant's SBCO Blog, Scribd Documents, flyers and emails all work together
to imply that Plaintiff CATURLA is a pedophile and sexual predator with a conviction in another state and is dangerous. 78. Defendant published a photograph of both Plaintiffs on the SBCO Blog with the
title SBC Sexual Predator Alert to falsely imply that the individuals in the photographs, the Plaintiffs, are sexual predators.
21

79.
Defendant falsely and intentionally tagged Plaintiff CATURLA's name on the
Scribd Document "Carlos Vicaria - Pedophile Document" in order to further cause the reader to conclude that Plaintiff CATURLA is a pedophile. 80. Defendant implies through the Sexual Predator Alert flyer that Plaintiff
CATURLA is dangerous and therefore must be removed from the Condominium Building. Defendants provide contact information for the Condominium Building in order to have residents call to take action against Plaintiff based on false statements. 81. Defendant knew the above juxtaposition and placement of facts and statements
would imply that the conduct referenced about CATURLA was factual. 82. By publishing the above implications, Defendant has defamed Plaintiff
CATURLA by implication. 83. Defendant intended to portray Plaintiff CATURLA in manner that would cause a
reader to conclude that Plaintiff CATURLA was a sexual predator, pedophile and dangerous in order to exact revenge and cause damage to Plaintiff CATURLA's reputation and employment. 84. Plaintiff CATURLA has been injured by the implications that he is a convicted
criminal, sexual predator and pedophile. 85. Plaintiff CATURLA continues to be injured by the implications that he is a
convicted criminal, sexual predator and pedophile. WHEREFORE Plaintiff CATURLA demands that: 1) Defendant is enjoined from further publication of the above or any similar statements and implications and that any currently posted statements containing such implications are removed. Plaintiff further requests an award of reasonable attorneys fees' and costs for securing this injunction; and
22
2)
a judgment of damages be entered against Defendant for any and all damages including but not limited to punitive and exemplary damages, costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest as allowable by law, and any other remedies or damages available at law to Plaintiff which has not been specifically mentioned here.
COUNTV: PLAINTIFF VICARIA'S INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIM
Defendant published numerous shocking and outrageous statements about PlaintiffVICARIA on the SBCO Blog, Sexual Predator Alert Flyer, Scribd.com and through email, including, but not limited to the following statements: a. b. c. d. e. that Plaintiff VICARlA is a Pedophile; that Plaintiff VICARlA "was convicted Lewd and Lascivious Battery"; that Plaintiff VICARlA "is a convicted sexual predator"; that PlaintiffVICARIA was convicted of a felony in Florida; that Plaintiff VICARlA is mandated by law to register as a sexual offender in Florida; that Plaintiff VICARlA is leering at children from the pool deck; that Plaintiff VICARlA is leering at children from his balcony; that Plaintiff VICARlA "plead guilty to sexual battery on a minor, male child"; that Plaintiff VICARlA is a person who "engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; or engages, forces or entices any person less than 16 years of age to engage in
23
f.
g. h.
1.
sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, prostitution or any other act involving sexual activity";
j.
k. 87.
that Plaintiff VICARlA is a sexual offender living among children; that Plaintiff VICARlA is "interested in having sex with young children";
Defendant intended, through the publication of the above untrue statements, to
cause emotional distress and harm to Plaintiff VICARlA. Defendant emailed the untrue and fabricated statements to Plaintiff VICARlA's place of employment to further cause him severe emotional distress. 88. Defendant's conduct in publishing the untrue statements was shocking,
outrageous and intolerable in a civilized community. 89. Defendant's conduct in publishing the untrue statements caused severe emotional
distress to Plaintiff VICARlA. WHEREFORE Plaintiff VICARlA demands that: 1) Defendant is enjoined from further publication of the above or any similar outrageous statements as well as remove any current statements. Plaintiff further requests an award of reasonable attorney's fees' and costs for securing this injunction; and 2) a judgment of damages be entered against Defendant for any and all damages including but not limited to emotional damages, punitive and exemplary damages, costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest as allowable by law, and any other remedies or damages available at law to Plaintiff which has not been specifically mentioned here.
24

COUNT VI: PLAINTIFF CATURLA 's INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CLAIM
Plaintiff CATURLA re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein and further states: 90. Beginning October 24, 2010, continuing through the date of this lawsuit,
Defendant published numerous shocking and outrageous statements about Plaintiff CATURLA on the SBCO Blog, Sexual Predator Alert Flyer, Scribd.com and through email, including, but not limited to the following statements: a. b. c. d. e. f. k. that Plaintiff CATURLA is a Pedophile; that Plaintiff CATURLA "has a sex crime offense in another state"; that Plaintiff CATURLA "is a sexual predator"; that Plaintiff CATURLA is a sexual offender living among children; that Plaintiff CATURLA is mandated by law to register as a sexual offender in Florida; that Plaintiff CATURLA is a sexual offender living among children; that PlaintiffCATURLA is "interested in having sex with young children";
91.
Defendant intended, through the publication of the above untrue statements, to
cause emotional distress and harm to Plaintiff CATURLA. 92. Defendant's conduct in publishing the untrue statements was shocking,
outrageous and intolerable in a civilized community. 93. Defendant's conduct in publishing the untrue statements caused severe emotional
distress to Plaintiff CATURLA. WHEREFORE Plaintiff CATURLA demands that:
25
1)
Defendant be enjoined from further publication of the above or any similar outrageous statements and remove any currently published statements. Plaintiff further requests an award of reasonable attorneys fees' and costs for securing this injunction; and
2)
a judgment of damages be entered against Defendant for any and all damages including but not limited to emotional damages, punitive and exemplary damages, costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest as allowable by law, and any other remedies or damages available at law to Plaintiff which has not been specifically mentioned here.
COUNT VII: PLAINTIFF VICARlA'S NEGLIGENCE CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT SOUTH BAY
Plaintiff VICARIA re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein and further states: 94. Defendant SOUTH BAY undertook the effort of determining the truth of
Defendant SUERETII's statements in his emails and SBCO Blog. 95. On October 26, 2010, Defendant SOUTH BAY was informed by the FDLE that
the statements made about VICARlA were not true and that he was not a felon, sexual predator or a pedophile. 96. Subsequent to October 26,2010, Defendant SOUTH BAY released a statement to
residents regarding allegations made against another resident, Jerry Babij. Defendant SOUTH BAY's statement from the Board about Babij affrrmatively stated that the allegations made against resident Babij were false and untrue.
26
97.
In undertaking a duty to make a statement about the falsehood of allegations
against resident Babij, Defendant SOUTH BAY club owed Plaintiffs the same duty to make a statement regarding the false and untrue statements made against Plaintiffs. 98. Defendant SOUTH BAY's failure to make such a statement regarding the
falsehood of the statements against Plaintiffs gave legitimacy to such false statements. 99. As such, Defendant SOUTH BAY owed a duty to PlaintiffVICARIA to disclose
to the residents in the building that the FDLE concluded that Plaintiff was not a felon, sexual predator or a pedophile. 100. Defendant SOUTH BAY breached its duty to Plaintiff VICARlA by failing to
make the FDLE fmdings public and reveal the falsity ofSUERETH's allegations. 101. In fact, Defendant SOUTH BAY only shared the FDLE findings with Defendant
SUERETH who was not a member of the board of directors, but was married to a member of the board, Dianne Thome. I 02. Defendant SOUTH BAY not only failed to act on its duty to disclose the
information about Plaintiff VICARlA, Defendant used the false information to further its own agenda to harass and intimidate Plaintiff VICARlA. 103. Despite knowing the falsity of Defendant SUERETH's statements, Defendant
SOUTH BAY used the statements in order to justify its own attempt to remove VICARlA from the building. I 04. Defendant SOUTH BAY as the governing authority for the South Bay Club
Building, further owed duty to protect VICARlA from harassment in the building or to not participate or legitimize such harassment. I 05. Defendant SOUTH BAY breached its duty to protect Plaintiff VICARlA from
harassment in the building or to not participate or legitimize such harassment by failing to

27
Vicario v. Suereth, et a/.

disclose that the statements made against him were false, by failing to make a statement regarding Plaintiff VICARIA that the allegations were false and by setting an association meeting in December 2010 to discuss screening and removing felons and sexual predators from the building, specifically Plaintiffs. 106. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant SOUTH BAY breaching its duties
to VICARIA, PlaintiffVICARIA endured continuous harassment and intimidation beginning on October 24, 2010 and continuing to date. 107. The continued harassment of Plaintiff VICARlA at the South Bay Club building
includes but is not limited to the posting of the Sexual Predator Alert flyers in the building in November 2010, a month after Defendant SOUTH BAY received the FDLE report. 108. Even after the dissemination of the Sexual Predator Alert flyers in the building in
November of 2010, Defendant SOUTH BAY refused to disclose the exonerating facts in the FDLE report to residents in the building. 109. In its own words, Defendant SOUTH BAY was well aware that "additional
damage [was] being done to Caturla and Vicaria in the dissemination of information" yet Defendant SOUTH BAY failed to act. 110. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant SOUTH BAY's breach of its
duties, Plaintiff VICARlA suffered damages and continues to suffer damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff VICARlA demands a judgment of damages be entered against Defendant for any and all damages including but not limited to compensatory damages, damages for pain and suffering, costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest as allowable by law, and any other remedies or damages available at law to Plaintiff which has not been specifically mentioned here.
28

COUNT VIII: PLAINTIFF CATURLA 'S NEGLIGENCE CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT SOUTH BAY
Plaintiff VICARIA re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 49 as if fully set forth herein and further states: Ill. Defendant SOUTH BAY undertook the effort of determining the truth of
Defendant SUERETH's statements in his emails and SBCO Blog. 112. On October 26, 2010, Defendant SOUTH BAY was informed by the FDLE that
the statements made about VICARlA were not true and that he was not a felon, sexual predator or a pedophile. 113. Defendant SOUTH BAY had received no FDLE report on Plaintiff CATURLA
and as such had no factual basis to believe that Plaintiff was ever a felon, sexual predator or a pedophile. 114. Subsequent to October 26, 2010, Defendant SOUTH BAY released a statement to
residents regarding allegations made against another resident, Jerry Babij. Defendant SOUTH BAY's statement from the Board about Babij affirmatively stated that allegations made against resident Babij were false and untrue. 115. In undertaking a duty to make a statement about the falsehood of allegations
against resident Babij, Defendant SOUTH BAY club owed Plaintiffs the same duty to make a statement regarding the false and untrue statements made against Plaintiffs. 116. Defendant SOUTH BAY's failure to make such a statement regarding the
falsehood of the statements against Plaintiffs gave legitimacy to such false statements. 117. As such, Defendant SOUTH BAY owed a duty to Plaintiff CATURLA to disclose
to the residents in the building that there was no basis for the statement that Plaintiff was a felon, sexual predator or a pedophile.
29
118.
Defendant SOUTH BAY as the governing authority for the South Bay Club
Building, further owed duty to protect CATURLA from harassment in the building or to not participate or legitimize such harassment. 119. Defendant SOUTH BAY breached its duty to protect Plaintiff CATURLA from
harassment in the building or to not participate or legitimize such harassment by failing to disclose that the statements made against him were false, by failing to make a statement regarding Plaintiff VICARIA that the allegations were false and by setting an association meeting in December 2010 to discuss screening and removing felons and sexual predators from the building, specifically Plaintiffs. 120. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant SOUTH BAY breaching its duties
to CATURLA, Plaintiff CATURLA endured continuous harassment and intimidation beginning on October 24,2010 and continuing to date. 121. The continued harassment ofPlaintiffCATURLA at the South Bay Club building
includes but is not limited to the posting of the Sexual Predator Alert flyers in the building in November 2010, a month after Defendant SOUTH BAY received the FDLE report. 122. Even after the dissemination of the Sexual Predator Alert flyers in the building in
November of 2010, Defendant SOUTH BAY refused to disclose the to residents in the building that there was no basis for such allegations. 123. In its own words, Defendant SOUTH BAY was well aware that "additional
damage [was] being done to Caturla and Vicaria in the dissemination of information" yet Defendant SOUTH BAY failed to act. 124. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant SOUTH BAY's breach of its
duties, Plaintiff CATURLA suffered damages and continues to suffer damages.
30
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff CATURLA demands a judgment of damages be entered against Defendant for any and all damages including but not limited to compensatory damages, damages for pain and suffering, costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest as allowable by law, and any other remedies or damages available at law to Plaintiff which has not been specifically mentioned here.
COUNT IX: PLAINTIFF VICARIA'S DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT SOUTH BAY
Defendant SUERETH published numerous statements about Plaintiff VICARlA on the SBCO Blog, Sribd.com, Sexual Predator Alert Flyer and through emails, including, but not limited to the following statements: a. b. c. d. e. that Plaintiff VICARlA is a Pedophile; that PlaintifiVICARIA "was convicted Lewd and Lascivious Battery"; that Plaintiff VICARlA "is a convicted sexual predator"; that PlaintifiVICARIA was convicted of a felony in Florida; that Plaintiff VICARlA is mandated by law to register as a sexual offender in Florida; that Plaintiff VICARlA is leering at children from the pool deck; that Plaintiff VICARlA is leering at children from his balcony; that Plaintiff VICARIA "plead guilty to sexual battery on a minor, male child"; that Plaintiff VICARlA is a person who "engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; or engages, forces or entices any person less than 16 years of age to engage in
f. g. h.
1.
31
Vicaria v. Suereth, eta/.

sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, prostitution or any other act involving sexual activity"; J. k. 126. that PlaintiffVICARIA is a sexual offender living among children; that Plaintiff VICARlA is "interested in having sex with young children";
As of October 26,2010, Defendant SOUTH BAY knew that the statements made
by Defendant SUERETH were untrue and false. 127. Subsequent to October 26, 2010, Defendant SOUTH BAY released a statement to
residents regarding allegations made against another resident, Jerry Babij. Defendant SOUTH BAY's statement from the Board about Babij affirmatively stated that the allegations made against resident Babij were false and untrue. 128. Defendant SOUTH BAY's failure to make reveal the falsehood of Defendant
SUERETH's statements against Plaintiff VICARlA gave legitimacy to such false statements and defamed Plaintiff by implication. 129. As such, Defendant SOUTH BAY's silence regarding PlaintiffVICARIA allowed
for residents to conclude that the defamatory statements were true and Plaintiff was in fact a felon, sexual predator or a pedophile. 130. Further, Defendant SOUTH BAY worked in conjunction with Defendant
SUERETH, who was married to board member Dianne Thome, to proliferate the defamatory statements and imply that Plaintiff was in fact a felon, sexual predator or a pedophile. 131. Defendant SOUTH BAY further defamed Plaintiff VICARIA by implication
through failing to disclose that the statements made against him were false, by failing to make a statement that the allegations were false and by setting an association meeting in December 2010 to discuss screening and removing felons and sexual predators from the building, specifically targeting Plaintiffs.
32
Vicaria v. Suereth, et al.

132.
Plaintiff VICARIA has been injured by the defamatory implications that
Defendant SOUTH BAY has made through its actions and inactions. 133. Plaintiff VICARIA continues to be injured by the defamatory implications that
Defendant SOUTH BAY has cast him in. WHEREFORE Plaintiff VICARlA demands that: 1) Defendant is enjoined from further publication of the above or any similar statements and implications and that any currently posted statements containing such implications are removed. Plaintiff further requests an award of reasonable attorneys fees' and costs for securing this injunction; and 2) a judgment of damages be entered against Defendant for any and all damages including but not limited to punitive and exemplary damages, costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest as allowable by law, and any other remedies or damages available at law to Plaintiff which has not been specifically mentioned here.
COUNT X: PLAINTIFF CATURLA'S DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT SOUTH BAY
Plaintiff CATURLA re-alleges paragraphs I through 49 as if fully set forth herein and further states: 134. Beginning October 24, 2010, continuing through the date of this lawsuit,
Defendant SUERETH published numerous statements about Plaintiff CATURLA on the SBCO Blog, Sribd.com, Sexual Predator Alert Flyer and through emails, including, but not limited to the following statements: a. placing Plaintiff CATURLA's name and picture under the title "Sexual Predator Alert" and with the term pedophile on the blog;
33
Vicaria v. Suereth, et al.

b.
stating anonymously that Plaintiff CATURLA "has a sex crime offense in another state"; stating that Plaintiff CATURLA is "interested in having sex with young children"; placing Plaintiff CATURLA's picture on a Sexual Predator Alert Flyer; tagging Plaintiff CATURLA's name on Scribd with the term pedophile and sexual predator; and instructing the public on the Sexual Predator Alert Flyer to call the police if he is seen;
c.
d. e.
e.
135.
As of October 26,2010, Defendant SOUTH BAY knew that the statements made
by Defendant SUERETH were untrue and false. 136. Subsequent to October 26, 2010, Defendant SOUTH BAY released a statement to
residents regarding allegations made against another resident, Jerry Babij. Defendant SOUTH BAY's statement from the Board about Babij affrrmatively stated that the allegations made against resident Babij were false and untrue. 137. Defendant SOUTH BAY's failure to make reveal the falsehood of Defendant
SUERETH's statements against Plaintiff CATURLA gave legitimacy to such false statements and defamed Plaintiff by implication. 138. As such, Defendant SOUTH BAY's silence regarding Plaintiff CATURLA
allowed for residents to conclude that the defamatory statements were true and Plaintiff was in fact a felon, sexual predator or a pedophile. 139. Further, Defendant SOUTH BAY worked in conjunction with Defendant
SUERETH, who was married to board member Dianne Thome, to proliferate the defamatory statements and imply that Plaintiff was in fact a felon, sexual predator or a pedophile. 140. Defendant SOUTH BAY further defamed Plaintiff CATURLA by implication
through failing to disclose that the statements made against him were false, by failing to make a
34
statement that the allegations were false and by setting an association meeting in December 2010 to discuss screening and removing felons and sexual predators from the building, specifically targeting Plaintiffs.
141.
Plaintiff CATURLA has been injured by the defamatory implications that
Defendant SOUTH BAY has made through its actions and inactions.
142.
Plaintiff CATURLA continues to be injured by the defamatory implications that
Defendant SOUTH BAY has cast him in. WHEREFORE PlaintiffCATURLA demands that: 1) Defendant is enjoined from further publication of the above or any similar statements and implications and that any currently posted statements containing such implications are removed. Plaintiff further requests an award of reasonable attorneys fees' and costs for securing this injunction; and 2) a judgment of damages be entered against Defendant for any and all damages including but not limited to punitive and exemplary damages, costs, pre-judgment and post judgment interest as allowable by law, and any other remedies or damages available at law to Plaintiff which has not been specifically mentioned here.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 122. so triable. Plaintiffs VICARIA and CATURLA hereby demand a trial by jury on all counts
35
Vicario v. Suereth, et a/.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ON THIS 29m DAY OF MAY 2012 BY:
By:
STEVEN ROBERT KOZLOWSKI

Fla. Bar No. 0087890
KOZLOWSKI LAW FIRM
A Professional Association Attorneys for Plaintiffs 777 Brickell Ave., Suite 800 Miami, Florida 33131 Tel: (305) 673-8988 Fax: (305) 673-8668 Email- Steven@KLFPA.com
36
_,
--. (
.J
1 __ 1
r-r ' J
I 'I s. -:_ _ I
r)
I J f ; _., -j 1
(..)
I - ..- I - J .J
.l =( Jr ' ' r J
Sunday,October 24, 2010
South Bay Club Predator
South Bay Club

South Bay Club Oversight
_.-
--- -
Wow! Ijust received this. Please forward.
- SBC Sexual Predator Alert South Bay Club residents BEWARE. Carlos Vicaria (PH43) is a Convicted Sexual Predator - and he is living within our building, without having ever been registered - or screened! Carlos Vicaria was convicted of Lewd & Lascivious Battery and Indecent Exposure in 2001 - A FELONY in Florida (and Theft I Larceny, in 1988). He plead guilty to Sexual Battery on a Male, Minor Child and entered a Sex Offenders Rehabilitation Program. He has not registered as a Sexual Offender in Fl, as mandated by law.
EXHIBIT
C)
A
...J ...J
<
He is living in the apartment of his longterm, live-in boyfriend, Marcelo Caturla.

I demand that the South Bay Club management make sure that he is registered, as appropriate by law, and inquire with the city managers office and police department to see if he is allowed to live in the City of Miami Beach, especially, the South Bay Club.
I have nieces, nephews and grandchildren

that visit me here and I don't feel comfortable knowing that he is leering at them from the pool deck, and from his balcony. My understanding is that sexual offenders are only allowed to live under the Julia Tuttle Bridge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Caus eway_sex_offender_colony Why is he living within OUR Home? We shouldn't have to worry about what he's going to do next. I call for the eviction of Carlos Vicaria from the South Bay Club Immediately! Please contact the management office (or City of Miami Beach) to declare your support for his removal and demand that some action is taken - and forward this email to other SBC residents you know, for the welfare of our community. Jeff Swanson South Bay Club Resident SBC Office Phone: 305-672-3548 SBC E-Mail: .6o_a_rd.@S_QUthbayclub._<;_Q_m
http;Lf_www.scribd.co_mf..docL100 19415/Carlos -2. .bttp_;.//ww. scr1b.cL.c . m/ btm.:Llw..w.w..! s_c.ri bd_!.c..o.rnJ_d_o..c/40Q_L9.2l.SL.S.ex.u.aJ

:_Qff_eD_d.er::t\Jert
Posted by Scuth Bay Club Oversight at ,H:31 Af! 0 C9fT!ments
Tuesday,January 19, 2010
South Bay Club update

Fellow South Bay Club owners, This is an update of what has been going on at the South Bay Club since last month. A lot has been uncovered by the new board. Iwill explain some of what has occurred. There is much more to add but Iwill save those details for future blogs postings. To start: Our manager Norman and our "facility manager" Richard have been let go. These two individuals are either completely incompetent or criminally culpable for some of the atrocities that have occurred recently at the SBC. Richard: Richard should have been fired last year by the previous board. He was caught breaking in to a resident's apartment (with the key that was left in the office by the owner for emergencies) and cooking himself a meal in their kitchen- without permission. He should have been fired immediately, but he was saved from termination from his friends on the board - most notably Mark Saradno. (PH-04 and PH-08) who hired Richard and brought him into the South Bay Club - I believe to perpetrate a scam against the residents of the SBC that would have cost us millions in a massive special assessment that does not appear to be needed to nearly the extent that these individuals where telling us (stay tuned for those details). Richard said that he was hired to get bids and find contractors for work that needs to be done around our building. Doesn't that seem strange that we hire a guy to get bids for us? He was not capable of completing the simplest of handyman tasks, in house. You will all be outraged when Idetail for you the level of incompetence (or fraud). Richard has been obstructing the new board and working to prevent them from making progress. There is too much to detail in one blog entry so Iwill itemize some of the alarming things that are being uncovered, in a future blog. Richard could not produce bids for most of the recent work done at the SBC, nor ANY work for the current 40-year re-certification needs. The few bids he could provide were all from contractors that he recommended "from previous working relationships". Never from an "outsider". Most work had only the one bid, or none at all. He could not provide the board with three current bids for ANYTHING. The new board has asked for these bids and the status on projects since they were elected last Month. Many of these items have still not been provided. FYI: Richard was put "in place" at the South Bay Club by Mark Saracino. More details to follow. Norman was also found to be grossly incompetent. Ibelieve he is either the dumbest person in America or a crook. It has to be one
Oversight Lett r: The "Oversight Slog I Letter" was intended to inform owners at the South Bay Club about some of the alarming things certain board members and their co-conspirators have been up to, in an attempt to have extensive construction work pertorrned on the roof, penthouse apartments, and pool deck, among other areas. The necessity of these projects in questionable, and at the very least, an independent assessment of what work is really needed at the SBC and when it is needed, is warranted. Our previous engineer recommended, at a recent SBC board meeting, that we need NO additional construction work at this time, but the 38M are intent on this new construction regardless of the consequences. Already, there have been board members trying to pass 1-bid construction contracts to their friends - this can be verified through the recording of a board meeting from several months ago. The 38M board members (Carlos Vicaria, Mark Saracino, Greg Johnson}, have conspired to keep the pool deck closed until they can pass this massive special assessment and begin work on their project to redevelop the South Bay Club. The reality is that any multi-million dollar special assessment imposed on building residents at this time will cause catastrophic devastation to the South Bay Club owners and put extreme pressure on an association that cannot even close our 40-year recertification permit from over 3 years ago. How can these same individuals be trusted with such a huge construction project? Any redevelopment of the South Bay Club should be done with the participation of anyone who owns a unit at the SBC who wishes to participate, not just a few individuals who are trying to force this on us before their term on the board ends. These individuals (3BM} were not voted into office, but merely injected themselves into vacant board positions so that they could control our finances, impose assessments, and renovate their apartments at the expense of the rest of the association. At the very least, there should be some oversight over which penthouse apartments get fixed and to what extent they get foced. Develop a Plan First: Doesn't it make sense to create a design committee, develop a plan, hire an engineer, find a suitable contractor, bid the project, pass a special assessment. submit plans to the city for permitting and THEN dose the pool and do the work? This is a two-year project, but yet, the 3BM tried to keep the pool and deck closed the entire time - and hit us with a huge special assessment right now, at a time when so many residents are struggling- it's just wrong, there was absolutely no reason for it except as a way to force another project on the residents by a few individuals, as they push their own agenda at everyone's expense. They have no real plan but they are still moving forward with the special assessment. We can all thank a group of concerned owners for uncovering what was going on and fighting to re-open the pool and hold-off another special assessment until we have had a chance to get an impartial evaluation of what work is really needed at the South Bay Club and when it is needed. Poor leadership: The current board has paid for 3 separate engineering reports from
separate engineering companies unl
.ey were able to get a report that
induded the roof, penthouse apartments and other areas they wish to renovate. The 38M then directed our building attorney (Robert Blanch) to lobby the city to include these items in the 40-year re-certification, which we have been trying to finalize for the last three years. It's unconscionable that they would put pressure on the City of Miami Beach to mandate more construction work to be included within the scope of the 40-year recertification. Why not just get the work done outside of the 40-year certification if it needs to be done? The 3BM had intended on replacing all of the penthouse apartment windows with new impact resistant windows at the expense of the entire association. They tried to get it included in the 40-year re-certification to "lock it in, in the event that they were not elected to next years board of directors. A group of owners actually blocked their attempt, which resulted in our buildings attorney (Robert Blanch), needing to write an opinion letter regarding his opinion on if the windows were the responsibility of the entire association or the penthouse owners themselves. The opinion letter stated that the windows were the responsibility of the individual unit owners - but ask yourself; why was the opinion letter needed, if the board had not intended on replacing the windows at the expense of ALL of the SBC owners? We will post the opinion letter to the oversight blog soon, or you can ask for a copy from the management office. In addition, their plan is to re-claim the area on the pool deck that is currently being used as backyards to several ground level apartments. The owners of these apartments will fight this with all the resources they have. This will take years to litigate. Ask the office - this is the plan of these three individuals (38M). The 38M and management have decided to cover the planters, by the interior lobby fence, with wood and Astroturt. This is very unsightly and reminiscent of a trailer park. The management was asked by many SBC owners to place dirt in the planters and a low ground cover of plants until anything was decided about replacing the entire pool deck. We were told by the management office that any new potential construction of the deck would not include these planters, that were just fixed and poured with new concrete. There is absolutely no reason not to fill those planters with vegetation. It would have cost much less to get a truckload of dirt and some plants than to pay for the work crew for a week as they framed and covered the planters with plywood and green carpet. They also tried to kill all of the plants in the other planters (read the blog). http://sbcoversight.blogspot.com/ The management and 38M blocked every attempt by a group of owners to re-open the pool. The owners were told that the pool was out of code and could not be reopened until we redesigned and installed a new pool and new pool deck. The owners had to call the city and health department themselves to find out what was really needed to open the pool and they were told the pool & deck could be opened. The SBC management was instructed by the 3BM to keep the pool closed - they never asked the city to open the pool or how to open it. The owners found pool contractors and obtained the required 3 bids and then presented them to the office and then still had to fight with
management to open the pool declo.. Why do we pay our manager $70,000 a year to fight us on these issues and to never have any answers or solutions only hindrances and roadblocks. Our management office also needs a to be a little more courteous to our residents. The 38M and management also refused to reinstall the old fence that was removed for the planter refurbishing (in an attempt to keep the pool deck closed). The owners had to again find contractors, get bids and then prove to the management office (Norman) that we could still use our existing fence. We were previously told by the board and management that we needed to replace the entire fence in order to re-open the pool deck. This is another of the many lies that have been perpetrated against the SBC owners - these will be documented soon but the office has audio recording of the board meetings - I encourage all owners to get involved and do their own research. Every owner would be enraged if they knew all the details of the current construction fiasco we are involved in. The construction companies know they are dealing with an unsophisticated and intellectually challenged group of individuals who are approving all of the change orders (38M). This is the reason we have seen the bloated construction costs continue to soar out of control and we continue to live in this construction mess with no plan of attack or end in sight. It is also important to note the our manager (Nonnan) has been told by the 3BM to not focus on updating the board meeting minutes, and that "it was not a priority". This is why the owners are finding it impossible to figure out what is going on. Any minutes that have been created in the past have been poorly written and absent of much of the content of the meetings where is the transpa ency? Pass this around to anyone you know who is an owner at the South Bay Club or e-mail sbcoversight@gmail.corn if you wish to be placed on the distribution list and receive updates on what is happening and how we intend on improving the quality of life at the South Bay Club.
Posted by South Bay Club Oversight at Links to this post
l?..;_ i.fM .-<;.QDJ.!!lent.
Wednesday,December 2,2009
SBC Board Elections

Dear Fellow Neighbors: Its election time again at the South Bay Club and everyone is wondering who to vote for. It is important to know some facts before you cast your vote. The following information is provided for your enlightenment by concerned SBC owners. There are a few current board members who are reapplying for a position on the 2010 board who have been engaged in deceptive and underhanded schemes to keep the pool, the pool deck and other amenities we pay to use closed while quietly trying to figure a way to pass another massive special assessment for renovation work that was not required by the City as part of the 40 year certification. These individuals have already begun on a project to impose a S3.000.000 + soecial assessment for various renovation oroiects.
will strip off the entire top levd of the pool and deck, redo the
planters, lighting, and fencing for an undisclosed length of time. [Estimate is approximately two years]. They have no plan, no clear idea of what is really necessary, nor any good reason to impose this upon our Association members at this time. These 3 board members, who we will refer to as the 'Three Blind Mice' (3BM), include: Carlos Vicaria. #15 on the ballot, (resides in PH 43), Mark Saracino. #13 on the ballot, (owns PH04 & PH08), and Greg Johnson. #6 on the ballot. (owns 9XX) and are all reapplying for a seat on the 2010 board. In addition to these 3 candidates,Michael J. Chianese. # 4 on the ballot. who also owns an apartment on the PH level,and Marcelo caturla. #3 on the ballot who owns PH 43 where Carlos Vicaria lives - both on the PH level. All these individuals are clearly intending to pass a hefty special assessment in 2010 that with the inclusion of penthouse level windows, benefits them immensely.
one of which is to replace al
nthouse
A vote for any of the above mentioned candidates [ballot #'s 3,4,6,13,and 15] will ensure a $3 million+ Special Assessment in 2010.
Recently, while hiding the fact that the pool could have been reopened back in July, the 3 blind mice [Carlos, Mark and Greg] attempted to pass a motion to assign a $10,000 pool & pool deck design job to "a friend" of another current board member without first obtaining the required 3 bid minimum. This information is on record in our association's meeting minutes. We only have the pool deck open today because a group of residents took it upon themselves to investigate the board's actions and intervene. What was discovered is disturbing. It is interesting to note that none of the 3 blind mice board members were voted into office; they merely occupied a vacant board position as they became available throughout the year. Clearly, their actions and intentions are not to help this building as a whole,but more to fulfill their own agendas. The fact is that an additional major construction project is not necessary to complete our 40 year certification. This is according to multiple engineering reports,the 40 year certification engineer's report filed with the city, as well as two separate engineer's verbal recommendations given at recent association meetings. Even so, the 3BM have attempted to circumvent our bi-law's strict procedures to pass special assessments by deceiving SBC association members and not disclosing the fact that the pool and deck construction phase was complete thereby allowing us to commence working towards reopening. This information was purposely kept a secret. These amenities remained shut down for close to three months longer than necessary while they decided how to force this through - their answer;force the city to include it within the scope of the 40 year certification - and that is exactly what has happened. The 2009 board sought additional engineering reports, one from Pistorini, to address towers, roof and PH level windows. (Yes, only one level's windows). When they were put on notice by a group of residents who spoke to engineers, the city, and to the contractors, they found out what the 3 blind mice were hiding. Caught red-handed being deceitful, they then proceeded to lobby the city to force Pistorini's engineering report to be included within the scope of 40 year certification requirements. As mentioned, this report included replacing all penthouse windows [with new impact glass] at every Association member's expense, even though our Association Bi-laws clearlv state that windows rmaintenance and
repiacementi'
are the-soie 're-s{h .sibiiity 'of the unit owner.
-- - ..
How anyone who sits on the Board not know our bi-laws is questionable at best; clearly those who have PH units stand to benefit at everyone's expense. Two board members, Carlos and Mark, own a total of 3 units on the PH level. They are largely the culprits behind forcing the inclusion of the Pistorini engineering report to be completed as part of the 40 year certification requirements. Undoubtedly, their action suggests a 'self-serving'' tactic that strongly must be questioned. They further commissioned our Attorney, Robert Blanch, at an additional expense to our Association, to present the report to the city at a scheduled review in front of the Grand Master.
Both engineers had stated that we can wait at least 2-5 years before needing to address any additionalmajor renovations to the pool deck area and roof.
This is not the time to commit our association and the many owners to a multi-million dollar special assessment for renovations that are not structural and that are contrary to the recommendations of our engineers. Adding such a huge assessment. and in this economy. will further devalue and strain the ongoing viability of the South Bay Club. These individuals intended on passing the special assessment before the year ended. Several residents have blocked their attempt, through the election, but if the same board members are elected, they will surely pass the motion as soon as they have the chance. SBC needs new board members in place who can finally get the 40year certification permits closed and move us forward with a well designed and thought-out, long-term plan that imposes the minimum impact on SBC residents while providing the maximum benefits and in a timely manner. We need to address all of the issues we know the building has, but in a prudent, well planned-out, and timely manner that allows residents to plan and save for any impending special assessment. The 3BM members had intended on keeping the pool deck closed until the entire new renovation projects were designed, engineered, bid-out to contractors, funded, permitted, and constructed - this is an enormous project that will take years to complete. from start to finish. The 38M are either too ignorant to understand this or too overzealous to be trusted as your fiduciary. The 3BM were working with management to ensure the new renovation projects, along with a multi-million dollar assessment, get passed. They ordered our building manager to stop watering the front and deck planters so all of the plants would die, aiding their efforts in keeping our amenities shut down.Several owners badgered the manager until they relented and began watering the plants again. In another attempts to keep the pool and deck closed, the 3BM instructed management not to move forward with opening and continuously presented a host of roadblocks; all of which were a non-issue.Thanks to several owners' persistence, we are now able to once again enjoy this amenity for the holidays. THIS IS SOLELY DUE TO THE RESILIENCE OF OWNERS and in direct conflict with the 38M and management. It is outrageous that these 3 deceitful board members, Carlos, Mark and Greg, would decide among themselves to keep our amenities shut-down indefinitely, while requesting the city to impose additional construction work, as specified in the Pistorini engineer's report, as part of completing our 40-year recertification.
The individuals tvho are resoonsible for these oroblems
(an.d many more) and wh" are ru n ning for theb oar ds are:
----- ------
Carlos Vicaria. (PH43) - Ballot # 15 Marcelo Caturia (PH43- Partner of Carlos)- Ballot #3 Mark Saracino (PH04) & (PH08) - Ballot # 13 Greg Johnson (gth floor)- Ballot# 6 Michael J. Chianese (PH)- Ballot# 4 BE CAREFUL VOTING FOR THE THESE CANDIDATES
A vote for any of these individuals is a vote for a $3 million+ Soecial Assessment in 2010. This will happen immediately and with very little forethought.
Your Neighbors & Concerned SBC Residents

Posted by South Bay Club Oversight at 2:26 PM. 10 comments !-inks .tQJ _gg_!?1
Subscribe to: Pos.t?_(P..tom)
:>uthbaydub on Scribd
11/17/10 11:29 AM
Carlos Vicaria - Theft I Larceny Doc11:rnent

Uploaded by: southbayclub - Carlos Vicaria, Marcelo Caturla
Reads: 168 Uploaded:

10/24/2010
Readcast 10 I 24/2010 southbayclub published this
Carlos Vicaria - Pedophile Document

Uploaded by: southbayclub - Marcelo Caturla, Carlos Vicaria Reads: 261
Uploaded:
10/24/2010
Readcast
10/24/2010 southbayclub published this
!J
http://www.scribd.com/southbaycbb
EXHIBIT
"-'"'v-. --"'
uvv n:
11/12/10 4:43PM
Web
Images Videos .M.sQ News Shooping Gmail more v
Web History 1 Search settings I Sign in
carlos vicaria
About 95,800 results (0.18 seconds)
Search
Advanced search
instant is aff "'
Everything ... More

Hialeah,FL 'Y Change location
United States of America. Plaintiff-appellant v. Carlos C ...

On the other hand, if you find that Carlos C. Vicaria knew of the illegal nature of the business proposition at the time he gave the $10000.00 and $5000.00 cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/12/195/528122/ - Cached
United States of America. Plaintiff-appellant. v. Carlos C ...

Justia US Court of Appeals Cases and Opinions- 963 F.2d 1412- United cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/963/1412/243643/- Cached
_:Show more results from justia.com
'Y
Show search tools
Sexual Offender Alert - Carlos Vicaria

Carlos Vicaria was convicted of Lewd & Lascivious Battery and Indecent Exposure in 2001 - A FELONY in Florida (and Theft I Larceny, in 1988). www .scribd.com/doc/.../Sexual-Offender-Alert-Carlos-Vicaria - Cached
Carlos Vicaria - Theft I Larceny Document

Carlos Vicaria- Theft I Larceny Document. lcon_archives_35x35. Scribd www.scribd.com/Carlos-Vicaria-Theft-Larceny.../d/40019907 - Cached _\Show more results from scribd.corn
Carlos A. Vicaria 1 Facebook

Friends: Juan Pablo Peralta, Urias Osorio Maitinez, Johanny A. Cano, Orahcir Aifcnso Carlos A. Vicaria is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Carlos A. Vicaria and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and www.facebook.com/carlos.vicaria - Cached
Vicaria 1 Facebook
Paco Vicaria Add as Friend Send a Message Sofia Vicaria Add as
www.facebook.com/familyNicaria/1 - Cached Juan Carlos Vicaria Sunza 1 Facebook

Friends: Nelson Fermin Juan Carlos Vicaria Sunza is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Juan www.facebook.com/people/Juan-Carlos-Vicaria.../100000832638595 - Cached _; Show more results from facebook.com
Jorge Carlos Vicaria Bustillo en Bolivar. Colombia - Sonico Colombia

- [ Translate this page ] Este es el perfil publico de Jorge Carlos Vicaria Bustillo (Bolivar, Colombia) en Sonico. Jorge Carlos Vicaria Bustillo tiene 17 amigos en Sonico. co-es.sonico.com/u/.../Jorge-Carlos-Vicaria-Bustillo- Colombia- Cached
Carlos vicaria (Carlos vicaria Gatan} 1 MySpace

Myspace profile for Carlos vicaria Gatan. Find friends, share photos, keep in touch with classmates, and meet new people on Myspace. www.myspace.com/487951920 - Cached
12 F.3d 195- UNITED STATES of America. Plaintiff-Appellant. v ...

On the other hand, if you find that Carlos C. Vicaria knew of the illegal nature of the business proposition at the time he gave the $10000.00 and $5000.00 . www.case-law.us/12%20F.3d%20195- Cached
-' .
--EX-H.IB IT --.. c
<
Page 1of2
http://www.google.com/search?hl""'en&source=hp&biw=l262&bih=596...i=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CKTxw7LTdTKOWGJuqgASfwej5BgAAAKoEBU_QHM:iH
11/ J.L/lV ..:<tO t'M
Web Videos
News Shopping Gmail more "if
Web History
1 Search
settings l SigojD.
11
ffiarcelo caturla"
Search
Advanced search
Instant is off T
About 92 results (0.18 seconds)
Everything
Books More
Hialeah,FL Change location
Marcelo Caturla@ Mylife.com

Find Marcelo Caturla @ MyUfe.com. Use our new people search engine to find everyone including Marcelo Caturla all in one place. \WIW.mylife.com/people-search/marcelo-caturla Cached
Last Names Rangina From Catuogno. Olympia To Caturra. Ana @ Mylife.com

Caturia Judy Caturia-Kennedy Fabio Caturichi Edgardo Caturla Eduardo www. mylife.com/people- search/13-24234/ Cached Show more results from mylife.com
Show search toots
Alejandro Garcia Caturla: a Cuban composer in the twentieth century Google Books Result
Charles W. White Charles W. White He dedicated lngratitud to his cousin Martica, daughter of his uncle Marcelo Caturla in Havana.Caturla wrote the words to this song, a rather sentimental books.google.com/books?isbn=0810843811...
Sexual Offender Alert- Carlos Vicaria

He is living in the apartment of his long-term, live-in boyfriend, Marcelo Caturla. carlos vicaria, marcelo caturla, carlos vicaria . www .scribd.com/doc/.../Sexual-Offender-Alert-Carlos-Vicaria Cached
Carlos Vicaria - Theft I Larceny Document

www.scribd.com/Carlos-Vicaria-Theft-Larceny.../d/40019907
Show more results from scribd.com Description: Carlos Vicaria, Marcelo Caturla. Show More. Description: Carlos Cached
Find Hot People In Miami Beach FL

Click here to find out what makes Marcelo Caturla hot? 404312, 407029,406246,401069. How hot is Marcelo Caturla this second? www.hot-people.info/MiamiBeach_FL_Isaura-Castro_Jim-Cavanaugh_736. html Cached
Civil report. Jan. 1st to May 20th. 1902- Google Books Result
Cuba. Military Governor. Leonard Wood, 1899-1902 This, then, is all that Ihave the honor to present. Respectfully, MARCELO CATURLA. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE AND INSTRUCTION OF books.google.com/books?id=bYFOAAAAMAA.J...
Miami Residence - Page 129 : AT&T Real Yellow Pages - Miami-Dade ...
Marcelo CATURLA. 800 WEST AV MIAMI BEACH. Miami , FL (305)695-2733. Marcelo CATURLA. 3746 NW 81ST ST MIAMI Fl. Miami, FL. (305)693-9088. Mario CATUTO www.realpageslive.com/guide/FUMiami-Dade_County/.../129.asp
CondoReports.com -Coral Way Mansions- Miami. FL - Miami Condo ...

Coral Way Mansions - Miami, FL - Miami Condo Report, Ownership Roll. www.condoreports.com/.../coral-way-mansions_miami_condo_ownership_ 11504 Cached

Oct 24, 2010 In addition to these 3 candidates, Michael J. Chianese,# 4 on the ballot, who also owns an apartment on the PH level, and Marcelo Caturla, sbcoversight.blogspot.com/ Cached
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw==1262&bih=S96&q=%22rnarcelo+caturla%22&aq=f&aql=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
Page 1of 2
Sunday, October 24, 2010
South Bay Club Predator Alert
South Bay Club

YJ!=W J)W CO.!J1_pJ IS
,.. rigfy
.:_ .Z:
isun l o nderor ' ul .'6ffense, as define'd in section 21280 th:1._\ici i:Dade
..rtl_P.OI_park,when a. chd
., un u the sexual offender or sexual
is.it\e 'pa nt gua.rdion of chil.d pte's_e.nt in
. tor
ihe p(trk.
Wow! Ijust received this. Please forward.
- SBC Sexual Predator Alert -
EXHIBIT
South Bay Club resh .1ts BEWARE. Carlos Vicaria (PH43) is a Convicted Sexual Predator - and he is living within our building, without having ever been registered - or screened!
Carlos Vicaria was convicted of Lewd & Lascivious Battery and Indecent Exposure in 2001 - A FELONY in Florida (and Theft I Larceny, in 1988). He plead guilty to Sexual Battery on a Male,Minor Child and entered a Sex Offenders Rehabilitation Program. He has not registered as a Sexual Offender in FL, as mandated by law. He is living in the apartment of his longterm, live-in boyfriend, Marcelo Caturla. I demand that the South Bay Club management make sure that he is registered, as appropriate by law, and inquire with the city managers office and police department to see if he is allowed to live in the City of Miami Beach, especially, the South Bay Club. I have nieces, nephews and grandchildren that visit me here and I don't feel comfortable knowing that he is leering at them from the pool deck, and from his balcony. My understanding is that sexual offenders are only allowed to live under the Julia Tuttle Bridge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Tuttle_Caus eway_sex_offender_colony Why is he living within OUR Home? We shouldn't have to worry about what he's going to do next. I call for the eviction of Carlos Vicaria from the South Bay Club Immediately! Please contact the management office (or City of Miami Beach) to declare your support for his removal and demand that some action is taken - and forward this email to other SBC residents you know, for the welfare of our community.
Jeff Swanson South Bay Club Resident SBC Office Phone: 305-672-3548 SBC E-Mail: _B..Qard_@_s_outbb_ay Lub.co_rn
httllJlwww._. scrmcL_co roj_d QC}.4_Q_QJ_94.l5LCarlo.s_

-2._
http;Jjw_w.w.. s.cr11Ld .c.om1C.a_r1QS:.1Ldl illLl.99.0 7_ http://www. scr:J b.cL..c.omLd oc/_400.19 21SLSexu a I -Offender_:...8
LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS BATTERY - A person who: (a) Engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age; or (b) Encourages, forces, or entices any person less than 16 years of age to engage in sadomasochistic abuse, sexual bestiality, prostitution, or any other act involving sexual activity.
From the WPLG, ABC 10 web-site (his employer).

6. WPLG..TV is proud to offer tours of our studios to schools and civic organizations.Tours are given by Mayte Padron and Carlos Vicaria_ The tour groups are given an overview of the Local10 daily news operation, visit the studio, production areas, newsroom, news set, weather center, and editing areas. Groups have the opportunity to watch the live, locally produced news broadcast and all tours are followed by a Question and Answer session.
Posted by South Bay Club Oversight at
ll;_l.t. 1:1
1 comments:
James Baker said .. This really creeps me out. Iwon't live in a building that allows sexual offenders to live amongst children. I have seen these two perverts at the pool every weekend and many times during the week. It now makes me very uncomfortable to know that they seem to be interested in having sex with young children -THAT IS SICK.
Please evict both of them. Iunderstand that NEITHER of them have been screened to live in the building. Ialso understand that the live-in boyfriend, i\1arcelo Catur!a, ALSO has a sex crime offense, in another state. We need to get to the bottom
of this. This is outrageous. Ihatl to pay a fee and go through a background check and screening - why do the sex offenders get a free pass? Please evict Carios Vicaria and Marcelo Caturia (PH43)
NO SEX OFFENDERS AT THE SOUTH BAY CLUB
Q t9.P...
Post a Comment
Comment as:
Select profile... :
.
..
-:
,.
: Post Comment> :
Links to this post
---'-
Subscribe to: Post Commenta.JAtoml
southbaydub on Scribd
11/17110 11:29 AM
Sexual Offender Alert - Carlos Vicaria

Uploaded by: southbayclub - Carlos Vicaria, Marcelo Caturla Reads: 210 Uploaded: 10/24/2010
Readcast 10/24/2010
southbayclub publisbed this southbayclub(more info)
.r Like
(j Be the first of your friends to like this.
Stats
ReadingPublishing Total Reads
643
Uploads
., Followers
http://WWW.s':ribd .com/ southbayclu b
Page 4 of 6
SEXUA"P l R B-D ATOR ALERT .

.:. > .
:_ . - . . . _... - .
..
. . ..- ...
u
, .. .. ..
EJ1lAM t(1BEAc H.,. ELO, R I D A

.. .
-. :-
!-
.. _ _. ._ ........., _._;
...
. ...-.- . . . .... - . _
'
..
Carlos Vicaria
Is a known Sexual Offender. He has lived at the South Bay Club for many years and has never been screened or approved to live in the building, neither has his live-in boyfriend, Marcello Caturla.
PENTHOUSE-43
\IVatch Your Children!

Demand the Screening of Carlos Vicaria
IF YOU SEE THIS MAN NEAR A PUBLIC SCHOOL,
CALl THE POLICE!

IF YOU SEE THIS MAN IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD,
CAll THE POLICE!

IF YOU SEE THIS MAN NEAR YOUR FAMIL-..Y.---
CALL THE POLICE!
EXHIBIT
South Bay Club Oversight: SBC Video from Concerned
!r. Construction and Assessment Update
1/ 18/ 1112:18 PM
SBC Video from Concerned Owner. Construction and Assessment Update
,.. South Bay Club
Special Thanks go out to the resident who's video is posted above. I hope more people begin to speak-out. Send your comments or video to southbayclub@gmail.com and I will post it to this blog. Please embed this video to your own blog or website (embed link included within video), or forward a link to this blog to other SBC owners who would like to understand some of the events that have driven us into this mess, and the people who seem to be involved in undermining the building. I would like to change the tone of this blog and write about the more positive things that are being done around the building, the progress that has been made and plans for the future - but that can wait for another time. First, I must address the video that has been circulating the building, by a fearless resident (posted above). Iwant to commend this owner for having the courage of putting a real name on his message to the community. Everyone else uses a fake name, either to make earonious and slanderous statements such as Carlos Vicaria, who uses the "Larry Beacon-2" account, and other residents who mask their identities to protect -=: (!l
http://sbcoversig ht.blogspot.com/2010/ 12 /sbc-vidco-from-concerned -owner.html
EXHIBIT
Page 1 of 6
!;;
.-= ..:
.er.Construction and Assessment Update
1/18/1112:18 PM
themselves from retribution. This portrayal of events that have occurred in recent years is absolutely 100/o correct. I have actually written about most of these things myself in the past (see old blog postings). The people who have been the most actively involved with imposing this $8,000,000 special assessment, and who have caused us to be stuck in a new multi-million dollar construction project are below: Mark Saracino is the one who started this whole catastrophe. He encouraged his friends and co-conspirators on the penthouse level, and elsewhere in the building, to be part of his scam to bilk the SBC out of special assessment work and kickbacks, for projects that they would demand needed to be included within the scope of the 40-year recertification - while collecting free impact resistant windows for themselves and the rest of the penthouse owners. He either convinced them to be part of his scam or they just believed his spin on how we should re-develop the SBC. Mark inherited his property from his father. He is a shoe salesman and has no sophistication in construction or much of anything else. He does not live in the building, although he keeps his boat at our boat dock illegally by stating that his girlfriend lives in the apartment with him. Mark lives in Coconut Grove with his boyfriend - many people around the building know this to be a fact. A board member from last years board of directors was dating the "tenant" that mark claimed was his girtfriend. This is just one of many frauds and scams Mr. Saracino had perpetrated against the SBC. He also refuses to pay the required $500 tenant fee and he is in violation of having a boat at our boat dock while not residing at our property. We have 33 residents who are currently on the waiting list for a boat slip and some individuals are flaunting our condo rules for their own selfish endeavors. Mark Saracino has been pushing vigorously for new penthouse windows and expensive,unneeded building repairs. Mark hired our previous building maintenance manager who happened to also be his boat captain. They conspired together to steal from the SBC. Richard said that he was not hired to fix anything but only to get bids from other contractors. All of those "other" contractors seemed to be his friends or people he had relationships with. They never got the required 3 bid minimums that are required by our condo docs. Richard also was found breaking into residents' apartments with the keys that residents left in the office, and using their kitchens to cook meals while they were away, and who knows what else - Mark Saracino, Carlos Vicaria and Eileen Frasier were all friends of his and refused to fire him. Imight go into all of the sabotage that they were responsible for, but that will keep dragging the tone of this post down - and Iwould really like to lighten it up, soon.
Carlos Vicaria was the board president last year. He put himself
on the board when there was an opening - he was never voted onto the board by our association members, and he is actually
http:// sbcoversight.blogspot.com/2010/12/ sbc-vldeo-from-concerned-owner.html Page 2 of6
South BayCfub Oversight:SBC Video from Concemec
1er. Construction and Assessment Update
1/18/1112:18 PM
not even legally allowed to live in our building. He has been the attack dog and front man for Mark Saracino, along with his live-in boyfriend Marcelo Caturla (who is a flight attendant with AA). You will notice these names from an ealier posting about his arrests for theft and multiple sex crimes. Mr. Vicaria was arrested in 2001 for Lewd and lascivious battery and indecent exposure. There are many lurid rumors about what he did but the fact remains that he was arrested for these sex crimes, he paid a fine for committing these crimes, he entered a plea bargain with the state to allow him to reduce his felony charge to a lesser charge, which at that time, allowed him to not be required to be registered in the sexual offenders database. The laws have since been tightened and he would currently only be allowed to live under the Julia Tuttle Bridge if he committed those same crimes today, but because of his legal and illegal maneuvering, we are stuck with him misdirecting our finances and who knows what else he is doing behind closed doors -while perched above our pool deck. Additionally, and as part of his punishment, Carlos was required to go through a Sexual Offenders Rehabilitation Program. He then snuck into our building, knowing that he was surpassing the legal requirements at the SBC that all residents pay a fee, and get a criminal background check done - primarily so we don't have pedophiles living amongst us. I hope the community takes this matter as seriously as it is. Mr. Vicaria works at ABC channel 1.0 news and he is responsible for giving tours of the studio to elementary age school children and other groups of kids. Hello people - this is a sex offender! Carlos Vicaria has been pushing vigorously for his new penthouse windows and expensive,unneeded building repairs - he lives in PH-43. LoriRand likes to think of herself as a real estate aficionado, but the sad reality is that she had absolutely no idea what she was doing when she leveraged the purchase of a few properties, at the very hight of the real estate bubble. She paid the highest per sq. ft. price ever paid at the SBC, and only got a street view. Her apartment was dated and needed a lot of repairs, including the repair of her improperly installed windows (now she wants new, free windows from your pocket). Her value has dropped by about 70/o of what she paid for it. She has bankrupted the few other properties she has invested in with her friends in homestead as well as help bankrupt those who invested with her. Ask her to show her credit report and proof of her real estate prowess- she is a verifiable liar and cheat. This can be proven if she wants to debate the issue. Lori Rand has been pushing vigorously for her new penthouse windows and expensive, unneeded building repairs - she lives in PH-34..
http://sbcoversight.blogspot.com/2010/12/sbc-video-from-concerned-owner.html Page 3 of6
South Bay Club Oversight SBC Video from Concerned'
r.
1118/1112:18 PM
Christine Florez also seems to be a front person for Mark Saracino. She's not too bright and has probably been fooled into believing the lies these penthouse group members have given her about the so-called "needed" building repairs. I don't think she is as corrupt as the others - just uneducated and uninformed about anything practical. She has been one of the loudest obstacles in getting any of the current boards projects complete (including replanting the "green carpet" planter area, that she tried to stop). She is one of the reasons that the streaming web meetings are needed, so everyone can see how these people disrupt the meetings while trying to keep the building under constant construction, and more and more assessments. She has been the main person who has been lobbying around the building to stop the improvements and webcasts. This feature costs almost nothing to implement- we just need a few inexpensive upgrades to our wifi network so we have a more powerful free internet connection around the lobby and pool deck (and to some lucky apartment owners who are in range for the free wifi). Why would she be such a vocal opponent of something that is obviously so beneficial to the community - so the "groupr' can keep everyone in the dark - like they did last year when they told the manager to NOT produce the meting minutes that the owners were clamoring for during the assessments. Christine Florez has been pushing vigorously for new penthouse windows and expensive, unneeded building repairs - her apartment is not known, but she lives with her mother- and she also has a criminal background of arrests, such as assault - what a nice group of people these are. She now claims to be a nchanged" person. Robert Macky has been getting dean in Miami for the last several years, while trying to sober-up from a severe addiction to cocaine and other drugs. He is living in his parents apartment with no job and few prospects for future employment. He is a young kid who applied for the board position as a joke, and was surprised when he actually got enough votes to win - no surprise, his mother-in-law is Liz from the front desk. She lobbied very hard for him to get the required votes. Many of you owners have been contacted by her regarding her push for her son-in laws friends to re-acquire board positions that they were removed from last year. Mr. Macky resigned from the board this year after it had been proven that he was stealing supplies from our building and using them on other illegal construction handyman jobs he was doing around the beach and within our building. Liz played interference while he was ransacking all of our storage rooms. He was the only person in the entire building, at one point, who had the key to every lock. It is also widely known that Mr. Mackey is in a sham marriage so he can acquire his green card and citizenship, through an illegal marriage. He is currently being investigated in Florida and New York for submitting fraudulent marriage documents and there is
http://slxoversight.blogspot.com/2010/12/ sbc-video-from-concerned-owner.html Page 4 of6
Sout:h Bay Club Oversight SBC Video from Concerne('
ter.Construction and Assessment Update
1118/1112:18 PM
also a current criminal investigation against him for New York Welfare fraud, where he was illegally collecting unemployment and other government subsidized hand-outs for indigent and needy New Yorkers. Mr. Mackey used his mother-in-law as a tool to help him steal from the SBC and also "get even" with co-workers who she had issues with. Ask any of our staff about the harassment they received from Robert Mackey and Liz, when they were in control. He has now been circulating fraudulent infonnation around the building in blue folders that he is sneaking under peoples doors in the middle of the night - to try to manipulate the elections- again. Robert- you have stolen enough from the SBC and caused too much havoc in our building. Please just go away. This is your motley crue of board "has-beens" and "wan-a-bees . Hopefully the new 2011 board remains on task and does not get sidetracked by these few greedy, stupid and corrupt people. There are other co-conspirators but they have mainly gone away - or are laying in wait. Iwill expose the impediments any of these people cause our communities progress, going forward. Regards
..
.:...
6:08 Afvt
% 0
comments:
" Post a Comment
http:/1sbcoverslght.b,ogspot.coml2010/121sbc-video-from-concerned-owner.html
PageS of6
r.
1{18(11 12:18 PM
Comment
as:
Select profile... Preview ..
..Post Comment
Links to this post
Older Post
http:// sbcoverslg ht.blogs pot.com /2010/12 I sbc-video-f rom-concerned-owner.html
Page 6 of 6
From: Barbara Haskings <news1Omylife88 !ail.com> Subject:co-worker To: vicat43@bellsouth.net Date:Saturday, December 11, 2010, 9:23 PM
Mr. Vicario,
I have just been forwarded the following email from one of our co-workers. How dare you try to wiggle your way into the family at WPLG? We are decent people and do not involve ourselves in the same sort or demented lifestyle. as you and your boyfriend,in South Beach. I am sickened that you have been allowed to be alone,in private, with these school groups and boys. You are the worst kind of sleaze. There is a special place in hell waiting for you.
You are not welcome here. Go find a job on South Beach where your type of creature is less distained.
I am speaking for many others who feel embarrassed to say anything,but who feel the same as I
do. We will be watching you.
Mrs. Haskings
From:Susan Brenner <sbrenner9219@yahoo.com> Date:December 9, 2010 4:50:12 PM EST To: undisclosed recipients: ; . Subject:WPLG Children's Tour Guide - Arrest Record
ABC- WPLG lONews
EXHIBIT

Third Amended Complaint For Damages (Jury Trial Demanded)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Third Amended Complaint For Damages (Jury Trial Demanded)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No: 10-60547

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ("SOUTH BAY") and state the following:

Defendant SUERETH harbors an apparent resentment against Plaintiffs because

Vicaria v. Suereth, eta/.

Third Amended Complaint

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/.

This is an action in damages in excess of the court's minimal jurisdictional

Plaintiff VICARIA is an individual and a resident of Miami-Dade County.

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/.

Blog, Defendant registered the domain: w

Vicario v. Suereth, et al.

Vicaria v. Suereth, eta/. Third Amended Complaint

2001 is entitled "CARLOS VICARIA- PEDOPHILE DOCUMENT."

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/.

was edited by Defendant to add additional false statements, including:

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/. Third Amended Complaint

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/. Third Amended Complaint

Apparently undeterred from the truth, on October 27,2010, Defendant SUERETH

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/. Third Amended Complaint

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/. Third Amended Complaint

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/.

In December 2010, Defendant SOUTH BAY noticed a special meeting of the

Members of Defendant SOUTH BAY's board of directors, including Dianne

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/. Third Amended Complaint

Vicaria v. Suereth, et al. Third Amended Complaint

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/.

Third Amended Complaint

communication. At the time of the publication of the defamatory statements, Plaintiff

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/.

outrageously untrue statements.

Defendants statements are libel per se as Defendant falsely

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/.

Vicaria v. Suereth, eta/. Third Amended Complaint

goes on to provide a definition of:

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/.

harm to PlaintiffVICARIA's reputation and employment.

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/.

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/.

Defendant falsely and intentionally tagged Plaintiff CATURLA's name on the

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/. Third Amended Complaint

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/. Third Amended Complaint

Defendant intended, through the publication of the above untrue statements, to

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/. Third Amended Complaint

Defendant intended, through the publication of the above untrue statements, to

distress to Plaintiff CATURLA. WHEREFORE Plaintiff CATURLA demands that:

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/. Third Amended Complaint

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/. Third Amended Complaint

In undertaking a duty to make a statement about the falsehood of allegations

harassment in the building or to not participate or legitimize such harassment by failing to

Vicario v. Suereth, et a/.

Vicaria v. Suereth, et al. Third Amended Complaint

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/. Third Amended Complaint

duties, Plaintiff CATURLA suffered damages and continues to suffer damages.

Vicaria v. Suereth, et al. Third Amended Complaint

Vicaria v. Suereth, eta/.

Vicaria v. Suereth, et al.

Plaintiff VICARIA has been injured by the defamatory implications that

Vicaria v. Suereth, et al.

Vicaria v. Suereth, et a/. Third Amended Complaint

Plaintiff CATURLA has been injured by the defamatory implications that

Plaintiff CATURLA continues to be injured by the defamatory implications that

Vicario v. Suereth, et a/.