IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS,
STATE OF FLORIDA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 08-CACE- 49280

JUDGE WILLIAM HAURY
v.

OUTREACH HOUSING, L.L.C., UNITED

HOME FRONT, LLC, BLAIR L. WRIGHT,
and BRYAN BERRY,
Defendants.
______________________________________/

DEFENDANTS’ VERIFIED AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AS TO REMAINING CONSUMERS WHO HAVE NOT SUFFERED ANY ACTUAL
DAMAGES & WHO NEVER PAID OUTREACH HOUSING FOR ANY SERVICES

The Defendants, OUTREACH HOUSING, LLC (hereinafter “OUTREACH”), and

BLAIR L. WRIGHT (hereinafter “Mr. Wright”)(collectively, the “Defendants”), by and

through undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Rule 1.540, of the Florida Rules of Civil

Procedure, hereby respectfully request this Honorable Court enter an order granting summary

judgment as the undisputed bank records unequivocally show that the remaining consumers

out of 108 consumers named by the State in this action never paid Outreach Housing, as

Outreach Housing transferred all payments to the consumer’s independent legal counsel at the

request of the consumer, and in support thereof state as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. On October 13, 2008, the Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection

Division (hereinafter “OAG”) filed this action. After multiple amendments to its complaint,

on June 9, 2009, the OAG was left with a one count FDUTPA violation pled pending against

1
Defendant, OUTREACH HOUSING, LLC.

2. Specifically, the OAG alleges that Outreach Housing’s deceptive trade practices,

caused, actual damages to consumers as set forth in section 501.207(1)(c). In order to verify

the State’s allegations, the parties have subpoenaed Global Client Solutions special purpose

accounts for all of the 108 consumers that submitted consumer statements admitted pursuant

to Fla. Stat. §501.207(7) in the State’s case.

3. The Defendants filed two previous Motions for Summary Judgment as to consumers

who failed to pay Outreach Housing resulting in these consumers receipt of free services,

and/or consumers who settled their individual claims through a settlement agreement with

Outreach Housing.

4. This summary judgment motion applies to the remaining consumers who filed a written

complaint that the Fourth District Court of Appeal deemed legally sufficient under Section

501.207(7), Florida Statutes. None of the remaining consumers ever paid Outreach Housing

any money for services rendered, as all of the sums paid by these consumers were subsequently

wired to the consumer’s third-party law firm to remit payment for services rendered. See

Exhibit A attached.

5. Specifically, the following sums were paid to Affirmative Defense Group for

consumers represented by attorneys including Gustavo Alarcon, Esq., Frank Ingrassia, Esq.,

and Ian Jagendorf, Esq., totaling at a minimum $255,972.25 that Outreach Housing, LLC

received and then wire transferred direct to the Law Firm. See Exhibit A-1 attached.

6. Outreach Housing, LLC, also wire transferred sums direct from Outreach Housing to

the Real Estate Law Group, ran by Kirsten Franklin, Esq., including representing attorneys

Danielle Leo, Esq., Gustavo Alarcon, Esq. among others, totaling $85,138.50 See Exhibit A-

2
2 attached.

7. Moreover, Outreach Housing, LLC, used its consumer payments and wired more funds

direct to Manno & Dinnerstein, P.A. totaling at least $31,324.00. See Exhibit A-3 attached.

More wires continued to Adam Skolnik, Esq., and the Ticktin Law Group. These sums are in

addition to the funds paid directly from the client’s Global Client Solution accounts paid to the

Law Firms. See Exhibit A-2 attached (RELG received $116,112.50 including GCS transfers).

8. Indeed, upon a thorough review of the bank records, it is easy to understand why Blair

Wright lost hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money trying to keep Outreach

Housing, LLC, open for nearly a year. Indeed, the Defendant paid 43 employees of Outreach

Housing, LLC, to provide free services to hundreds of consumers. Defendant Wright lost his

life savings providing free litigation support and trial consulting services to hundreds of

consumers. The State has maliciously pursued Wright and Outreach Housing, LLC, seeking

the return of money that was all paid to third-party law firms.

II. THE UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE OF CONSUMER PAYMENTS & PAYMENT TO

THE CONSUMERS THIRD-PARTY LAW FIRMS

9. As set forth in the attached chart with supporting bank statements, all consumers out of

the total 108 permitted to be named in this action by the State and the additional consumers

who testified live at the February 28, 2014 damage hearing, never paid Outreach Housing for

its services rendered. Indeed, every penny Outreach Housing received was transferred to third-

party law firms at the request of these consumers. See Exhibit A attached.

10. Indeed, Outreach Housing provided free litigation and trial consulting services to these

consumers’ attorneys. All sums paid to Outreach Housing were then wired to the consumers’

attorneys at their respective third-party law firms. Outreach Housing never received any

payment (after deducting transfers to the third-party law firms) for services rendered to any

3
consumers that give rise to this lawsuit. Indeed, all services were provided free of charge to

the consumers who are named in this action.

11. In the event any of the consumers that have been named by the State in this lawsuit

wish to seek a refund for sums paid, they must contact the attorneys and third-party law firms

that are the sole recipients of the consumers’ funds. Outreach Housing was never paid for any

services rendered for these consumers (and numerous other consumers).

12. Thus, as a matter of law, these consumers suffered no actual damages as a result of

Outreach Housing, LLC, because the consumers named in this action never paid Outreach

Housing, LLC. All monies paid by these consumers to Outreach Housing were immediately

transferred to the consumers’ independent legal counsel of their choosing. Thus, the

undisputed bank records show the following consumers suffered no actual damages as a result

of the free services rendered to these consumers by Outreach Housing:

REMAINING CONSUMERS WHO NEVER PAID OUTREACH HOUSING

Client Name Net Transferred Transferred Transferred TOTAL TO

Payment to to RELG to ADG to Firm OUTREACH
OH
Agathe $2,348.00 $1,174.00 $1,174.00 $0 $0.00
$1988.33
Alfonso $1,988.33 $0 $0 (Manno) $0.00
Augustin $1,911.05 $0 $1,911.05 $0 $0.00
Bell $1,027.97 $0 $1,027.97 $0 $0.00
Bethel $1,370.31 $875.82 $494.49 $0 $0.00
Bradham $1,260.33 $1,260.33 $0 $0 $0.00
$1359.00
Bradley $1,359.00 $0 $0 (Manno) $0.00
Brewer $1,477.69 $0 $1,477.69 $0 $0.00
Brice $744.86 $0 $744.86 $0 $0.00
Burke $1,960.85 $1,960.85 $0 $0 $0.00
Frison $1,656.16 $0 $1,656.16 $0 $0.00
Gilbert-Smyke $2,650.00 $0 $2,650.00 $0 $0.00
Hall, M $3,689.27 $0 $3,689.27 $0 $0.00
$2099.30
Honsell $5,412.81 $0 $3,313.51 (Manno) $0.00

4
 $1145.34
Howard $1,145.34 $0 $0 (Stermer) $0.00
Jeudy $2,668.27 $2,668.27 $0 $0 $0.00
Jimenez, N $3,480.28 $0 $3,480.28 $0 $0.00
Johnson, V $2,488.62 $0 $2,488.62 $0 $0.00
Joseph/Auguste $6,087.27 $6,087.27 $0 $0 $0.00
King-Elston $2,367.74 $0 $2,367.74 $0 $0.00
Lucas, G $2,455.09 $0 $2,455.09 $0 $0.00
Mason, C $5,577.19 $0 $5,577.19 $0 $0.00
McCray $523.19 $523.19 $0 $0 $0.00
McDonald $2,878.94 $0 $2,878.94 $0 $0.00
McKay $2,152.39 $0 $2,152.39 $0 $0.00
Miller, A $3,534.93 $3,534.93 $0 $0 $0.00
Mozard, K $5,591.03 $5,591.03 $0 $0 $0.00
Nelson, C $2,707.00 $2,707.00 $0 $0 $0.00
O’Brien, S & J $1,292.19 $1,292.19 $0 $0 $0.00
Oge, S $914.39 $914.39 $0 $0 $0.00
Osne, J $4,608.36 $0 $4,608.36 $0 $0.00
Perez, E $1,583.28 $0 $1,583.28 $0 $0.00
Piard, M $1,738.18 $1,738.18 $0 $0 $0.00
Powell, W & H $4,190.75 $0 $4,190.75 $0 $0.00
Pusey, J $1,825.54 $1,825.54 $0 $0 $0.00
Reina, M $765.36 $0 $765.36 $0 $0.00
Robinson, C $3,488.78 $3,488.78 $0 $0 $0.00
Robinson, D $3,363.68 $3,363.68 $0 $0 $0.00
Rodriguez, L $2,210.00 $0 $2,210.00 $0 $0.00
Rucker, J $1,111.32 $1,111.32 $0 $0 $0.00
Russell, N $4,598.05 $4,598.05 $0 $0 $0.00
Ryan, L $1,115.32 $1,115.32 $0 $0 $0.00
Salazar, R&M $1,562.62 $1,562.52 $0 $0 $0.10
Salazar, N $724.38 $724.38 $0 $0 $0.00
Symonette $5,233.76 $0 $5,233.76 $0 $0.00
Tamayo $5,796.17 $0 $5,796.17 $0 $0.00
Tanelus, Y $4,603.25 $0 $4,603.25 $0 $0.00
Taylor, M $3,497.70 $0 $3,497.70 $0 $0.00
Tencza $699.87 $699.87 $0 $0 $0.00
Thomas, J $3,216.40 $0 $3,216.40 $0 $0.00
Tobon, A $3,514.87 $0 $3,514.87 $0 $0.00
Trevol, Y $2,740.70 $0 $2,740.70 $0 $0.00
Wicklef, J $892.79 $892.79 $0 $0 $0.00
Vallejo/Lanzano $1,555.34 $0 $1,555.34 $0 $0.00
Vasquez $1,608.34 $0 $1,608.34 $0 $0.00
Velasquez $4,251.00 $0 $4,251.00 $0 $0.00
Wallace/Johnson $5,549.62 $0 $5,549.62 $0 $0.00
Wilford, C&D $2,649.29 $2,649.29 $0 $0 $0.00
Wooden $935.16 $935.16 $0 $0 $0.00
Wright, V $1,918.37 $1,918.37 $0 $0 $0.00
5
 $6591.00
(Manno)
$1145.34
Total(s) $156,268.74 $55,213.13 $94,631.45 (Stermer) $0

13. This Chart is supported by financial records showing wire transfers to these

consumers’ attorneys in Exhibit A. The GCS bank records showing the amounts paid by these

consumers are being filed in the trial court record. All payments transferred to the third-party

law firms were done so at the consumers request and direct to Outreach Housing. Regardless

of the fact these consumers never paid Outreach Housing for its services, the State was

previously awarded monetary damages for these consumers who were provided free services.

As a matter of law, the undisputed bank records and evidence show that the remaining

consumers suffered no actual damages as a result of Outreach Housing, LLC, since Outreach

Housing merely provided free services.

14. All funds paid by the consumers were ultimately transferred by Outreach

Housing, LLC, to their representing lawyers at their respective third-party law firms. In the

event these consumers are claiming they did not receive legal services from their independent

attorneys—then, such claims must be made against the respective attorneys and third-party

law firms who were paid to provide said services. See Exhibit A attached. Outreach Housing,

LLC, has no control over third-party law firms and their respective attorneys.

III. MEMORANDUM OF LAW

A. Standard on a motion for summary judgment under Florida law.

15. "[T]he burden is upon the party moving for summary judgment to show conclusively

the complete absence of any genuine issue of material fact." Albelo v. S. Bell, 682 So. 2d 1126,

1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). "A summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are

6
so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law." Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666,

668 (Fla. 1985) (citing Shaffran v. Holness, 93 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 1957); see also Jaffer v. Chase

Home Fin., LLC, 155 So. 3d 1199, 1201 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

16. To ensure the efficient administration of justice and for reasons of judicial economy,

“judgment sought must be rendered immediately if the pleadings and summary judgment

evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving

party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” See Fla. R. Civ. P. §1.510.

17. In the present matter, the bank statements produced by Global Client Solutions and

Bank of America unequivocally show that the remaining consumers in this case paid no money

to Outreach Housing. Indeed, all services were rendered free of charge for these consumers.

All sums paid to Outreach Housing were transferred to the consumer’s representing attorney.

Thus, any refunds from these sums should be sought from the law firm that received the funds

and not Outreach Housing.

18. As a matter of law, these consumers cannot claim to have suffered any actual damages

as a result of Outreach Housing because they all received free services from Outreach Housing.

Thus, they cannot advance a claim under FDUTPA in this action by claiming Outreach

Housing caused them to lose any money because none of these consumers paid any money to

Outreach Housing. These undisputed facts render all of the remaining consumer FDUTPA

claims appropriate for summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

B. Actual damages are an essential element of a FDUTPA claim under Florida law.

19. Thus, as a matter of law, these consumers have not suffered any actual damages caused

by Outreach Housing or any of the Defendants and thus, cannot serve as a claimant to assert a

FDUTPA violation under Florida law. In order to assert a claim under the Florida Deceptive

7
and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) a

deceptive or unfair trade practice, (2) causation, and (3) actual damages. State v. Beach Blvd.

Automotive, Inc. 139 So. 3d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). “Actual damages are an essential

element of a FDUTPA claim.” Outreach Housing, LLC v. The Office of the Attorney General,

221 So. 3d 691, 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). See Fla. Stat. §501.207(1)(c)(“An action on behalf

of one or more consumers or governmental entities for actual damages caused by an act or

practice in violation of [FDUTPA].”).

20. Florida courts have routinely held that actual damages are an essential element of any

FDUTPA action brought by a consumer, or on behalf of a consumer. See Rollins, Inc. v. Butler,

951 So.2d 860, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)(“A consumer claim for damages under FDUTPA has

three elements: (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages.”)

(citing Chicken Unlimited, Inc. v. Bockover, 374 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (Actual

damages are a requirement of any FDUTPA action.); Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v.

Laesser, 718 So.2d 276, 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Macias v. HBC of Fla., Inc., 694 So.88, 90

(Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

21. FDUTPA expressly predicates monetary damage awards on consumer loss. Off Lease

Only, Inc. V. LeJeune Auto Wholesale, Inc., 187 So. 3d 868, 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)

(affirming dismissal of FDUTPA claim where the consumer could only show the loss of

consequential damages because FDUTPA does not provide for special or consequential

damages); Presidential Leasing, Inc. V. Krout, 896 So.2d 938, 942 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)(the

obvious purpose of FDUTPA is to make consumers whole for losses caused by fraudulent

consumer practices).

22. In State v. Beach Blvd. Automotive, Inc., 139 So.3d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) the OAG

8
brought a FDUTPA action against an automotive company on behalf of private citizens. The

First District Court of Appeals interpreted Fla. Stat. 501.207 to specifically require the OAG

plead actual damages under Fla. Stat. §501.207(1)(c) when seeking any monetary relief.

Because the State failed to do so, dismissal of the OAG’s FDUTPA claim “was appropriate as

to this count because Appellant failed to sufficiently plead how the alleged violation caused

actual damages to consumers. In order to assert a claim for damages under FDUTPA, a plaintiff

must establish: (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice, (2) causation, and (3) actual damages.”

(citing Baker v. Baptist Hosp., Inc., 115 So.3d 1123, 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

23. The First District Court of Appeals in Beach Blvd. Automotive, Inc., adjudicated this

very same issue and held that the Attorney General “may bring an action under FDUTPA for

declaratory judgment, for an injunction, or for actual damages on behalf of consumers.” Id. at

393. The First District Court of Appeal forced the Attorney General to amend its complaint,

mandating it could only seek monetary awards in counts where it could plead and prevail on a

viable FDUTPA claim asserting all three essential elements.

24. Thus, the Attorney General is well-aware it is not permitted to seek monetary remedies

for consumers who have not suffered any actual damages:

In Baker, we held that the class representative lacked standing to represent the
class in its FDUTPA claim for damages against the appellant because he did not
suffer any actual damages as a result of the imposition or payment of the lien at
issue. Id. at 1205.; see also Shibata v. Lim, 133 F. Supp.2d 1311, 1317 (M.D.
Fla. 2000)(noting that to state a cause of action under FDUTPA, the consumer
must allege sufficient facts to show that the consumer has been actually
aggrieved by the unfair or deceptive act committed by the seller); First City
Mortg. Corp. v. Barton, 988 So.2d 82, 86 (explaining that a plaintiff in a
FDUTPA action may recover “only ‘actual damages’ incurred ‘as a
consequence of a violation of the statute.’”).

Id. at 393.

9
 25. There is a significant body of Florida case law that is in accord with the Fourth District

Court of Appeal’s opinion in this case, that the OAG must prove causation and actual damages

when bringing an action on behalf of private consumers seeking monetary remedies. Macias

v. HBC of Florida, Inc., 694 So.2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(dismissing action for legal and

equitable relief because “the consumer must also plead and prove that he or she was aggrieved

by the unfair and deceptive act.”); Himes v. Brown & Co. Secs. Corp., 518 So.2d 937, 938

(Fla. 3d DCA 1987)(finding no recovery under FDUTPA for deceptive advertising where

plaintiff sustained no out-of-pocket losses); Dorestin v. Hollywood Imports, Inc., 45 So.3d 819

(Fla. 4th DCA 2010)(“Proof of actual damages is necessary to sustain a Florida Deceptive and

Unfair Trade Practices Act claim, and the recovery of other damages, such as consequential

damages, is not allowed.”)(relying on Rollins, Inc. v. Heller, 454 So.2d 580, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA

1984)); see also Fort Lauderdale Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Corgnati, 715 So.2d 311, 312 (Fla.

4th DCA 1998)(FDUTPA “entitles a consumer to recover damages attributable to the

diminished value of the goods or services received, but does not authorize recovery of

consequential damages to other property attributable to the consumer's use of such goods or

services. Evidence as to the amount of damages cannot be based on speculation or conjecture,

but must be proven with certainty”).

26. The plain language of the FDUTPA expressly prohibits claims for other unspecified

claims of “harm,” including personal injuries. Mantz v. TRS Recovery Servs., 2011 US LEXIS

129332 (S.D. Fla. 2011); Taviere v. Precision Motor Cars, Inc., No. 8:09-cv-467-T-TBM,

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12493, 2010 WL 557347, at * 5 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (dismissing claim

under FDUTPA because plaintiff alleged damages relating to stress, anxiety and depression

and FDUTPA bars claims for personal injuries); Jones v. TT of Longwood, Inc., No. 6:06-cv-

10
651-Orl-19DAB, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57365, 2007 WL 2298020, at * 7 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

(dismissing claim under FDUTPA because "[s]ubjective feelings of disappointment are

insufficient to form a basis for actual damages under the statute"); T.W.M. v. American Medical

Sys., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (dismissing claim under FDUTPA where

plaintiff alleged pain, suffering and loss of earnings because FDUTPA "explicitly states that it

does not apply to '[a] claim for personal injury or death or a claim for damage to property other

than the property that is the subject of the consumer transaction").

27. The Third District Court of Appeal held that actual damages are the appropriate

recovery under FDUTPA, “because the act is intended to protect a consumer from unfair or

deceptive acts or practices which diminish the value or worth of the goods or services

purchased by the consumer.” Rodriguez v. Recovery Performance & Marine, LLC, 38 So.3d

178, 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)(emphasis added). Thus, in many FDUTPA violations, the

consumer suffers diminished value and not a complete loss of value. In the present case, none

of the consumers at issue in this action set forth above have suffered any actual damages at all

resulting from Outreach Housing—because they never paid Outreach Housing.

28. These consumers may have had viable claims against the third-party law firms and their

chosen attorneys who did receive all sums paid by the consumers in connection with Outreach

Housing. However, Outreach Housing, LLC, is not the proper party in that regard, since it

merely provided free legal services to these consumers.

29. “In short, plaintiffs must marshal evidence to prove the gap in value between what was

promised and what was delivered,” and no such evidence exists for the remaining consumers

set forth above as they never paid Outreach Housing, and/or profited from enrollment in the

Outreach Housing program. Democratic Republic of Congo v. Air Capital Group, LLC, 614

11
Fed. Appx. 460, 472 (11th Cir. 2015). With the undisputed financial records showing no actual

damages were suffered by any consumer at issue in this lawsuit, summary judgment on these

claims for actual damages or restitution in favor of the Defendants, is appropriate.

WHEREFORE, the Defendants, BLAIR L. WRIGHT and OUTREACH HOUSING,

LLC, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order granting summary

judgment in favor of the Defendants on claims asserted by any consumers set forth above as

none of these consumers remitted any payment to Outreach Housing that was not immediately

transferred to a third-party law firm, and order any further relief deemed just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Robyn Lynn Sztyndor, Esq.

Attorney for Defendants
401 East Las Olas Blvd. Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Email: rls409@nyu.edu
Tel. No.: (786) 395-1824
By: __/s/ Robyn Lynn Sztyndor_____
Robyn Lynn Sztyndor, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 0089253

12
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 14th day of NOVEMBER, 2018, that the foregoing

document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the

attached Service List in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic

Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties

who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.

Robyn Lynn Sztyndor, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant
RLS LAW, P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Email: rls409@nyu.edu
Tel. No.: (786) 395-1824

By: __/s/ Robyn Lynn Sztyndor_____

Robyn Lynn Sztyndor, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 0089253
SERVICE LIST

Crane Johnstone, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant Wright
Email: cranejohnstone@ gmail.com
Tel. No.: (954) 254-0218

Michelle Pardoll, Esq.

Ronnie Adili, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Email: Ronnie.Adili@myfloridalegal.com
Michelle.Pardoll@myfloridalegal.com

Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff
Email: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com

13
 



(;+,%,7$
2XWUHDFK:LUH7UDQVIHUVWR/DZ)LUP
$IILUPDWLYH'HIHQVH*URXS


263%2$
263%2$
263%2$
263%2$
263%2$
263%2$
 



(;+,%,7$
2XWUHDFK:LUH7UDQVIHUVWR/DZ)LUP
5HDO(VWDWH/DZ*URXS


 (;+,%,7$
2XWUHDFK :LUH 7UDQVIHUVWR /DZ)LUP
0DQQR 'LQQHUVWHLQ3$