www.carlosvicaria.

com FOR DAMAGES

SLANDER LAWSUIT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMIDADE 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 : 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 asSOUTH 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. 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 againstPlaintiffs 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 statementsagainst 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 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 titled "South Bay Club Oversight". The URL created by Defendant was 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

Blog, Defendant registered the domain: w ww.SBCOversight.com. This 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.
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. 22. 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. On October 24, 2010, the same date as the third blog posting, Defendant

, 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". Plaintiff CATURLA'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 MiamiDade County misdemeanor in 2001 is entitled "CARLOS VICARIA- PEDOPHILE DOCUMENT." Defendant purposely 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. 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 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.

38. To further his campaign of harassment and intimidation, Defendant SUERETH sent an email containing 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, 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 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 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.

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.

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 18minute 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. 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, that were made

Jerry Babij, were untrue. The allegations

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. 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 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 untrue statements against Plaintiffs, through the setting association

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, a. b. c. d. e.
f.

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: 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 is a person who "engages in sexual activity with a person 12 years of

g.
1.

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"; J. k. 47. that Plaintiff VICARlA is a sexual offender living among children; that Plaintiff VICARlA is "interested in having sex with young children"; 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, coworkers, neighbors and the world through the SBCO web Blog, the Scribd webpage and emails to his employers, coworkers, 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. 1. 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"; J. k. 47. that Plaintiff VICARlA is a sexual offender living among children; that Plaintiff VICARlA is "interested in having sex with young children";

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, coworkers, neighbors and the world through the SBCO web Blog, the Scribd webpage and emails to his employers, coworkers, neighbors and professional colleagues. 49. 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 The above defamatory statements published by Defendant imputes upon Plaintiff

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. 5 1 .

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 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 form and that Defendant remove any and any other published