IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION
CASE NO:

CONSTANTINE SCURTIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
6th AVENUE BUILDINGS, LTD,
a Florida for Profit Limited Partnership,
455 BUILDING LTD., a Florida for
Profit Limited Partnership, 750 BAYFRONT LTD.,
a Florida for Profit Limited Partnership,
500 NE 24TH STREET, LTD., a Florida for Profit
Limited Partnership, 2328 NE 6 AVE., LTD.,
a Florida for Profit Limited Partnership,
and ALEXANDER E. RODRIGUEZ, individually
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, CONSTANTINE SCURTIS, by and through his undersigned counsel, files this
complaint against and sues 6th AVENUE BUILDINGS, LTD, a Florida for Profit Limited
Partnership; 455 BUILDING LTD., a Florida for Profit Limited Partnership, 750 BAYFRONT
LTD., a Florida for Profit Limited Partnership, 500 NE 24TH STREET, LTD., a Florida for Profit
Limited Partnership, 2328 NE 6 AVE., LTD., a Florida for Profit Limited Partnership,
ALEXANDER E. RODRIGUEZ, for good cause states:
JURISDICTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES
LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT J. DUFFY

and

CASE NO:
1.

This is an action for damages exceeding the jurisdictional limits of this Court, to

wit: $15,000, exclusive of interest and court costs.

2.

CONSTANTINE SCURTIS, (hereinafter SCURTIS) is a resident of Miami-

Dade County, Florida.

3.

6TH AVENUE BUILDINGS, LTD, is a Florida Limited Partnership with its

principal place of business in Miami Dade County, at 107 Sarto Avenue, Coral Gables,
Florida 33134 (hereinafter 6TH AVENUE BUILDINGS, LTD).
4.

455 BUILDING LTD., is a Florida Limited Partnership with its principal place of

business in Miami Dade County, at 107 Sarto Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134
(hereinafter 455 BUILDING, LTD)
5.

750 BAYFRONT, LTD., is a Florida Limited Partnership with its principal place

of business in Miami Dade County, at 107 Sarto Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134
(hereinafter 750 BAYFRONT LTD).
6.

500 NE 24TH STREET, LTD is a Florida Limited Partnership with its principal

place of business in Miami Dade County, at 107 Sarto Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida
33134 (hereinafter 500 NE 24TH STREET, LTD).
7. 2328 NE 6th Ave., LTD. is a Florida Limited Partnership with its principal place of
business in Miami Dade County, at 107 Sarto Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134
(hereinafter 2328 NE 6th Ave., LTD.).
8.

ALEXANDER E. RODRIGUEZ, (hereinafter RODRIGUEZ) is a resident of

Miami Dade County, Florida.

!2

LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT J. DUFFY

CASE NO:
9.

Jurisdiction is proper in the State Florida and in Miami-Dade County, Florida for

the following reasons:

a.

The Defendants operated, conducted, engaged in, and carried on business

in Dade County, Florida;

b.

The Defendants all contracted with the Plaintiff to provided services in

Miami-Dade County, Florida; and

c.

The Defendants breached a contract in Miami-Dade County, Florida by

failing to perform acts required by the subject contract to be performed in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

10.

Venue is proper in Miami-Dade County, Florida for the above reasons and

because this cause of action accrued or otherwise arose in Miami-Dade County, Florida
and the subject contracts were to be performed by the parties in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
11.

All conditions precedent to the bringing of this action have been performed, have

occurred, or have been waived.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
12.

Sometime prior to March 18, 2003, SCURTIS and RODRIGUEZ agreed to enter

into a business relationship for the purpose of acquiring real estate.

13.

On or about March 18, 2003 SCURTIS, filed Articles of Incorporation for

ACREI, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business
at 107 Sarto Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134. (Exhibit 1 Attached) SCURTIS was
the sole owner and officer of ACRE, L.L.C., and remains so to this day.
!3

LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT J. DUFFY

CASE NO:
14.

Sometime after March 18, 2003, SCURTIS went about acquiring adjoining and/

or neighboring properties in the Edgewater neighborhood of Miami, Florida.

15.

Each property that was purchased was done so pursuant to a Limited Partnership

Agreement (Exhibit 2 Attached) which accomplished the following:

a.

Established ACREI, LLC., as the General Partner;

b.

Established RODRIGUEZ as a Limited Partner;

c.

Established SCURTIS as a Limited Partner;

d.

Established RODRIGUEZ would make a capital contribution roughly

equivalent to the purchase price of the property being acquired;

e.

RODRIGUEZ would be entitled to 94.9905% of net profits;

f.

SCURTIS would be entitled to 4.995% of net profits; and

g.

ACREI, LLC. (who SCURTIS was sole manager and sole owner of)
would be entitled to .0100% of net profits.

COUNT I
BREACH OF CONTRACT
6TH AVE BUILDINGS, LTD.

16.

The Plaintiff readopts and re-alleges all prior paragraphs and further states:

17.

All obligations required of SCURTIS, pursuant to the contracts, have been

provided by to 6TH AVENUE BUILDINGS, LTD., as contracted for in the written

contract. (Please see exhibits 1 and 2).
!4

LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT J. DUFFY

CASE NO:
18.

Defendant, 6th AVENUE BUILDINGS, LTD., has breached the written contract

by selling the properties without authority, without notifying SCURTIS, and without
compensating SCURTIS. The list of properties whose sale breached the contract between
Plaintiff and 6th AVENUE BUILDINGS, LTD., are as follows:

19.

a.

2395 NE 6TH Avenue Miami, FL;

b.

2341 NE 6th Avenue, Miami, FL;

c.

2347 NE 6th Avenue, Miami, FL; and

d.

700 NE 24th Street, Miami, FL.

SCURTIS suffered damages as a result of the breach of contract.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, SCURTIS, sues Defendant 6TH AVENUE BUILDINGS, LTD.

for damages far in excess of Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars, plus Court costs and
demands trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right by jury.

COUNT II
BREACH OF CONTRACT
455 BUILDING, LTD.
20.

The Plaintiff readopts and re-alleges all prior paragraphs and further states:

21.

All obligations required of SCURTIS, pursuant to the contracts, have been

provided by to 455 BUILDING, LTD., as contracted for in the written contract. ( See
Exhibit 1 and 2 Attached.)

!5

LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT J. DUFFY

CASE NO:
22.

Defendant, 455 BUILDING, LTD., has breached the written contract by selling

the property without authority, without notifying SCURTIS, and without compensating
SCURTIS.
23.

SCURTIS suffered damages as a result of the breach of contact.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, SCURTIS, sues Defendant 455 BUILDING, LTD. for damages
far in excess of Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars, plus Court costs and demands trial by
jury of all issues so triable as of right by jury.

COUNT III
BREACH OF CONTRACT
750 BAYFRONT, LTD.
24.

The Plaintiff readopts and re-alleges all prior paragraphs and further states:

25.

All obligations required of SCURTIS, pursuant to the contracts, have been

provided by to 750 BAYFRONT, LTD., as contracted for in the written contract. (Exhibit
5 Attached)
26.

Defendant, 750 BAYFRONT, LTD., has breached the written contract by selling

the property without authority, without notifying SCURTIS, and without compensating
SCURTIS.
27.

The list of properties whose sale breached the contract between Plaintiff and 750

BAYFRONT, LTD., are as follows:

!6

LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT J. DUFFY

CASE NO:

28.

a.

750 NE 61 Street Miami, FL.

b.

700 NE 61 Street Miami, FL.

SCURITS suffered damages as a result of the breach of contract.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, SCURTIS, sues Defendant 750 BAYFRONT, LTD. for damages
far in excess of Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars, plus Court costs and demands trial by
jury of all issues so triable as of right by jury.

COUNT IV
BREACH OF CONTRACT
500 NE 24TH STREET, LTD
29.

The Plaintiff readopts and re-alleges all prior paragraphs and further states:

30.

All obligations required of SCURTIS, pursuant to the contracts, have been

provided by to 500 NE 24TH STREET, LTD., as contracted for in the written contract. (Exhibit 6
Attached)
31.

Defendant 500 NE 24TH STREET, LTD., has breached the written contract by

selling the properties without authority, without notifying SCURTIS, and without compensating
SCURTIS.
32.

The list of properties whose sale breached the contract between Plaintiff and 500

NE 24th Street, LTD., are as follows:

a.

2337 NE 4th Ave Miami, FL;

b.

2344 NE 6th Ave Miami, FL;

c.

2321 NE 5th Ave Miami, FL;

!7

LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT J. DUFFY

CASE NO:

33.

d.

2311 NE 6th Ave Miami, FL;

e.

2336 NE 6th Ave Miami, FL;

f.

2340 NE 5th Ave Miami, FL;

g.

2342 NE 5th Ave Miami, FL;

h.

2339 NE 4th Ave Miami, FL; and

i.

500 NE 24th Street Miami, FL.

SCURITS suffered damages as a result of the breach of contract.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, SCURTIS, sues Defendant 500 NE 24TH STREET, LTD. for
damages far in excess of Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars, plus Court costs and demands
trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right by jury.

COUNT V
2328 NE 6 AVE, LTD.
34.

The Plaintiff readopts and re-alleges all prior paragraphs and further states:

35.

All obligations required of SCURTIS, pursuant to the contracts, have been

provided by to 2328 NE 6 AVE., LTD., as contracted for in the written contract. (Exhibit
7 Attached)
36.

Defendant 2328 NE 6 AVE, LTD., has breached the written contract by selling

the property without authority, without notifying SCURTIS, and without compensating
SCURTIS.
37.

SCURTIS suffered damages as a result of the breach of contract.

!8

LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT J. DUFFY

CASE NO:
WHEREFORE Plaintiff, SCURTIS, sues Defendant 2328 NE 6TH AVE., LTD. for
damages far in excess of Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars, plus Court costs and demands
trial by jury of all issues so triable as of right by jury.

COUNT VI
BREACH OF CONTRACT
RODRIGUEZ
38.

The Plaintiff readopts and re-alleges all prior paragraphs and further states:

39.

All obligations required of SCURTIS, pursuant to the contracts, have been

provided by to RODRIGUEZ, as contracted for in the written contract. (Exhibit 3-6

Attached)
40.

Defendant, RODRIGUEZ, has breached the written contracts by selling the

properties without authority, without notifying SCURTIS, and without compensating

SCURTIS.
41.

SCURITS suffered damages as a result of the breach of contract.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, SCURTIS sues Defendant RODRIGUEZ for damages far in

excess of Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars, plus Court costs and demands trial by jury of
all issues so triable as of right by jury.

COUNT VII
IMPROER CONVEYANCE
ALL DEFENDANTS
!9

LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT J. DUFFY

CASE NO:
42.

The Plaintiff readopts and re-alleges all prior paragraphs and further states:

43.

At all times material hereto, Defendant RODRIGUEZ, and his agents knew of

the contractual relationship between RODRIGUEZ and SCURTIS, whereby SCURTIS

had the exclusive power to sell any real estate held by any of the Defendants listed in this
lawsuit.
44.

Notwithstanding such knowledge, RODRIGUEZ, and/or his agents sold the

properties in direct violation of the contract between RODRIGUEZ and SCURTIS and
failed to notify and compensate SCURITS.
45.

The properties that were sold in direct violation of the contract between

RODRIGUEZ and SCURITS are contemplated in Counts I through Count VI of this

complaint.
46.

SCURTIS suffered damages as a result of RODRIGUEZ and other

DEFENDANTS breach of the respective contracts.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, SCURTIS, sues ALL DFENDANTS for damages far in excess
of Fifteen Thousand ($15,000.00) Dollars, plus Court costs and demands trial by jury of all
issues so triable as of right by jury.

DAMAGES
47.

The Plaintiff readopts and re-alleges all prior paragraphs and further states:

48.

The Plaintiff has suffered damages as a proximate cause of the Defendants

breach which include but are not limited to:

!10

LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT J. DUFFY

CASE NO:
a.

The equivalent of 5% of net profits from the sale of all properties

contemplated by this complaint;

49.

b.

The loss of the right to sell the property in the future; and

c.

The loss of the right to develop the property in the future;

The breach of the respective contracts by the Defendants were the actual and

proximate cause of the damages suffered by SCURTIS.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff SCURITS respectfully requests and demands that this Court
declare, judge and order the following:
a.

DEFENDANTS are guilty of a breach of the written contracts;

b.

SCURTIS has been damaged in the amount of 5% of the profits from each

and every sale of the properties contemplated by this complaint, plus interest;
c.

SCURITS has been damaged by having the right to sell the properties in

the future or develop the properties in the future taken from him by Defendants
unauthorized sale;
d.

Each and every sale contemplated by this complaint shall be declared

void and each and every property contemplated by this complaint shall be
returned to ACREI, L.L.C., and each partnership that owned the remaining
interest in the property;
e.

Attorneys fees pursuant to the contract and court costs; and

f.

Any such other relief that this court may deem just and equitable.

Dated: December 17, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
!11

LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT J. DUFFY

CASE NO:

LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT DUFFY, P.A.

Attorney for Plaintiff
Suntrust Building
777 Brickell Avenue
Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 403-3700
Facsimile: (305) 749-8573
By: s/VINCENT DUFFY
VINCENT DUFFY
Florida Bar No. 82151
vince@duffylawoffices.com

!12

LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT J. DUFFY