IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

Transcription

1 Filing # Electronically Filed 07/17/ :43:43 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. AMERICAN CHILDREN S CANCER ASSOCIATION, a New Jersey Corporation registered to solicit charitable contributions in Florida f/k/a Children s Cancer Society, Inc., SHAUN HEUSEN a/k/a Sharif Shaun Hussein a/k/a Shaun Heussen, an individual; JOSEPH WAY, an individual, and PETER KELLY, an individual. Defendants. / COMPLAINT Plaintiff, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, STATE OF FLORIDA (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff or the Attorney General ), hereby sues defendants, AMERICAN CHILDREN S CANCER ASSOCIATION f/k/a Children s Cancer Society, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as ACCA ), a New Jersey Corporation, registered to solicit charitable contributions in Florida; SHAUN HEUSEN, a/k/a Sharif Shaun Hussein, a/k/a Shaun Heussen; JOSEPH WAY; and PETER KELLY ( hereinafter collectively referred to as THE DEFENDANTS ), and alleges as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for injunctive relief, damages, attorneys fees, penalties and any other statutory relief available, pursuant to Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter referred to as FDUTPA ), Chapter 50l, Part II, Florida Statutes.

2 2. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of FDUTPA and Fla. Stat. 3. The statutory violations alleged herein occurred in or affected more than one judicial circuit in the State of Florida. Venue is proper in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit as the statutory violations, committed by THE DEFENDANTS as alleged herein, occurred in Palm Beach County, Florida. Defendant ACCA also maintained a virtual office in Palm Beach County for the purpose of communicating with consumers in Palm Beach County, Florida and elsewhere. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kelly also resides in Palm Beach County, Florida. THE PLAINTIFF 4. Plaintiff is an enforcing authority of FDUTPA as defined in Chapter 50l, Part II, Florida Statutes, and is authorized to seek damages, as well as declarative, injunctive and other statutory relief pursuant to this part. 5. Plaintiff has conducted an investigation, and the head of the enforcing authority, Attorney General Pam Bondi, has determined that an enforcement action serves the public interest, as required by Section (2), Fla. Stat. A copy of said determination is attached and incorporated herein as Plaintiff s Exhibit A. THE DEFENDANTS 6. Defendant ACCA is a nonprofit corporation registered in New Jersey and a taxexempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Defendant ACCA claims that its mission is to [p]rovide alternative cancer treatment options and provide financial aid to families that have a child with cancer. According to ACCA s 2012 tax return, the most recent available, the organization collected $116,781 in revenue in 2011, it expended approximately $5,446 on program expenses (i.e., grants to individuals), and spent the balance of its funds to pay 2

3 for salaries, marketing and operating expenses. At all material times hereto, Defendant ACCA constituted an organization as defined within Section (1)(b) of the Florida Statutes and a charitable organization as defined within Section (1) of the Florida Statutes. 7. On or about October 20, 2005, Defendant ACCA entered into a Consent Order with the New Jersey Attorney General which enjoined Defendant ACCA from violating New Jersey s Charitable Registration and Investigation Act, New Jersey s Consumer Fraud Act, and from engaging in certain specified activities relating to its solicitation of charitable contributions ( the New Jersey Injunction ). 8. On or about July 24, 2013, Defendant ACCA submitted an application to become licensed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (hereinafter referred to as FDACS ) as a charitable organization eligible to solicit charitable contributions in Florida. Defendant ACCA failed to properly disclose the New Jersey Injunction, as required on the licensing application it filed with FDACS. 9. Defendant ACCA purportedly operated from an address at 109 Brass Castle Road Washington, New Jersey However, at all material times hereto, Defendant ACCA also maintained a virtual office in Palm Beach County, located at 1200 Federal Highway, Suite 200 Boca Raton, Florida ( the Virtual Office ). THE DEFENDANTS used the Virtual Office in the execution of a fundraising scheme called the Florida Dream Home Raffle (hereinafter referred to as the Dream Home Raffle ). Among other things, THE DEFENDANTS directed consumers to mail in their Dream Home Raffle entry forms and payments to Defendant ACCA s Virtual Office. Defendant ACCA, at all material times hereto, was the purported recipient of proceed generated by the Dream Home Raffle. 3

4 10. Defendant SHAUN HEUSEN, a/k/a Sharif Shaun Hussein and a/k/a Shaun Heussen (hereinafter referred to as HEUSEN ), upon information and belief, is an adult individual, residing in Union County, New Jersey, is not in the military and is otherwise sui juris. 11. On or about October 20, 2005, Defendant HEUSEN, individually and in his capacity as an officer of ACCA, entered into a Consent Order in connection with the New Jersey Injunction, which enjoined Defendant HEUSEN from violating New Jersey s Charitable Registration and Investigation Act, New Jersey s Consumer Fraud Act, and from engaging in certain specified activities relating to its solicitation of charitable contributions (including that he cease using contributions made to ACCA to pay for expenses personally incurred). 12. Defendant HEUSEN, at all material times hereto, was Defendant ACCA s President according to ACCA s registration documents with both the New Jersey Attorney General and FDACS. Defendant HEUSEN was responsible for, among other things, the custody and final distribution of proceeds from the Dream Home Raffle. Defendant HEUSEN was also the registrant of one of the web domains ACCA used to advertise the Dream Home Raffle. Defendant HEUSEN, directly and indirectly, was also responsible for promoting the Dream Home Raffle through a radio show that aired in South Florida as well as a televised news program that originally aired in South Florida and was posted on the Internet. 13. Defendant JOSEPH WAY (hereinafter referred to as WAY ), upon information and belief, is an adult individual, residing in Hunterdon, New Jersey, is not in the military and is otherwise sui juris. 14. On or about October 20, 2005, Defendant WAY, individually and in his capacity as an officer of ACCA, entered into a Consent Order in connection with the New Jersey Injunction, which enjoined Defendant WAY from violating New Jersey s Charitable Registration and 4

5 Investigation Act, New Jersey s Consumer Fraud Act, and from engaging in certain specified activities relating to its solicitation of charitable contributions (including that he cease using contributions made to ACCA to pay for expenses personally incurred). 15. Defendant WAY, at all material times hereto, was Defendant ACCA s Vice President. Defendant WAY, along with Defendant HEUSEN, was also responsible for the custody and final distribution of proceeds from the Dream Home Raffle. Among other things, Defendant WAY also signed and submitted ACCA s Charitable Organization Registration Application to FDACS, he opened the Virtual Office used in the operation of the Dream Home Raffle, and he is listed as the registrant, administrator and technician of one of the ACCA web domains that THE DEFENDANTS used to advertise the Dream Home Raffle. 16. Defendant PETER KELLY (hereinafter referred to as KELLY ), upon information and belief, is an adult individual, residing in Palm Beach County, Florida, is not in the military and is otherwise sui juris. 17. Defendant KELLY, at all material times hereto, was an affiliate of Defendant ACCA and acted as its agent. Defendant KELLY is licensed as a real estate agent in the State of Florida. Among other things, Defendant KELLY participated in locating the home that was touted as being offered in the Dream Home Raffle; he appeared as a ACCA spokesperson to promote the Dream Home Raffle on a television news program and a radio show; and he communicated Dream Home Raffle information to the public over the Internet as an administrator of the Florida Dream Home Raffle by the American Children s Cancer Association Facebook account. 18. THE DEFENDANTS solicited, advertised, offered, provided and distributed Dream Home Raffle tickets, donations and prizes, things of value within the definition of (8), Fla. Stat., at all times material hereto. 5

6 19. THE DEFENDANTS engaged in trade or commerce within the definition of (8), Fla. Stat., at all times material hereto. 20. THE DEFENDANTS solicited consumers within the definition of (7), Fla. Stat., at all times material hereto. 21. THE DEFENDANTS, at all material times hereto, possessed actual and/or constructive knowledge of the unfair and/or deceptive acts and practices complained of in this Complaint, they participated directly or indirectly, through affiliates, agents, owners, employees, or other representatives in the unfair and/or deceptive acts and practices as set forth herein, they controlled said acts and practices and/or had the authority to control them. THE DREAM HOME RAFFLE 22. By at least, June 2013, THE DEFENDANTS began collaborating to organize and form the Dream Home Raffle, as a purported fundraising project for defendant ACCA. THE DEFENDANTS plan regarding the Dream Home Raffle was to promote a raffle (i.e., a drawing by chance) offering a luxury, waterfront home in South Florida as a means of inducing consumers to purchase tickets costing eighty dollars ($80) each. As THE DEFENDANTS well knew, they did not own, nor did they have any binding legal rights to such a luxury home, and accordingly had no realistic ability to award such a raffle prize. 23. Pursuant to THE DEFENDANTS fundraising scheme, on or about June 25, 2013, Defendant WAY opened the Virtual Office on behalf of Defendant ACCA, for the purpose of receiving communications from consumers regarding the Dream Home Raffle (including, but not limited to receiving raffle entry forms and monies for the purchase of raffle tickets). 24. In furtherance of THE DEFENDANTS fundraising scheme, on or about July 24, 2013, Defendant WAY submitted a false and misleading application to FDACS on behalf of 6

7 Defendant ACCA to become licensed as a charitable organization eligible to solicit charitable contributions in Florida. Specifically, Defendant WAY falsely represented on the application that neither he, nor Defendants ACCA or HEUSEN had ever previously been involved in any enforcement actions relating to their charitable solicitation activities. In truth and in fact, on or about October 20, 2005, Defendants ACCA, HEUSEN and WAY, individually and in their capacity as officers of ACCA, had previously entered into a Consent Order with the New Jersey Attorney General, enjoining them from violating New Jersey s Charitable Registration and Investigation Act and New Jersey s Consumer Fraud Act, as well as prohibiting certain other activities relating to their solicitation of charitable contributions. 25. As a further part of THE DEFENDANTS plan regarding the organization and execution of the Dream Home Raffle, Defendant KELLY began attempting to locate a luxury home that could be advertised as the raffle s grand prize. On or about August 4, 2013, Defendant KELLY contacted a real estate agent located in South Florida, whom Defendant KELLY personally knew, regarding the Dream Home Raffle. In turn, the real estate agent shared this information with her client, who had previously listed for sale his luxury, waterfront home located in Lighthouse Point, Florida ( the Lighthouse Point Home ). 26. Subsequently, THE DEFENDANTS provided the owner of the Lighthouse Point Home with a Raffle Permission Agreement, which purportedly authorized Defendant ACCA to advertise that home in connection with the Dream Home Raffle. Under the terms of this agreement, the owner did not donate his Lighthouse Point Home to Defendant ACCA, nor did he otherwise grant any ownership rights to the property to THE DEFENDANTS. In fact, the homeowner was not under any obligation to THE DEFENDANTS whatsoever, in connection with the Dream Home Raffle. 7

8 27. As a further part of their fundraising scheme, THE DEFENDANTS planned to tout the Dream Home Raffle using various advertising methods, including newspapers, radio, television and Internet advertising. 28. Beginning on an unknown date, but at least by on or about October, 16, 2013, THE DEFENDANTS began soliciting the public to purchase tickets for the Dream Home Raffle, at a cost of eighty dollars ($80) per ticket. Tickets for the Dream Home Raffle were purportedly available for purchase by consumers until March 31, 2014, and the Grand Prize drawing was to purportedly occur on April 15, At all material times hereto, the Dream Home Raffle constituted a drawing by chance, drawing or raffle, as defined within Section (1)(a) of the Florida Statutes. At all material times hereto, THE DEFENDANTS promotion and marketing of the Dream Home Raffle constituted solicitation as defined within Section (20) of the Florida Statutes, and generated contributions as defined within Section (5) of the Florida Statutes. 30. Throughout the course of the Dream Home Raffle program, THE DEFENDANTS indicated repeatedly that consumers who purchased raffle tickets would be entered into a drawing for the Grand Prize consisting of either a Florida Dream Home valued at $2,100,000 or a lump sum payment of $1,600,000. THE DEFENDANTS also deceptively claimed, that every Dream Home Raffle ticket purchaser was a winner, and they would receive a 3 day-2 night vacation to one of ten different locations in the United States. THE DEFENDANTS further claimed that entrants would have the opportunity to win numerous other valuable prizes from related drawings, including those denoted as, the Early Bird, 50th ticket, 100th ticket, 150th ticket and Refer-a-Friend drawings. 8

9 31. Consumers were deceptively lead to believe that, as entrants in the Dream Home Raffle, they had an actual opportunity to win the luxury, waterfront home THE DEFENDNANTS were touting. To reinforce this false and misleading impression, THE DEFENDANTS repeatedly publicized the alleged $2.1 million dollar home as being the Dream Home Raffle s Grand Prize, and they prominently featured images of the luxurious Lighthouse Point Home throughout their advertisements on ACCA s website, including the images shown below: 32. In truth and in fact, THE DEFENDANTS had no intention of awarding any such Dream Home Grand Prize unless a minimum of approximately 30,000 to 37,500 tickets were sold at 9

10 a cost of $80 per ticket, which would enable them to purchase the Lighthouse Point Home outright from the owner. THE DEFENDANTS failed to conspicuously disclose these facts to consumers of the Dream Home Raffle in the raffle s advertisements, order forms and solicitations. Instead, THE DEFENDANTS buried these details within five-pages of dense, small-font text accessible through a small link at the bottom of the Dream Home Raffle s webpage. 33. As a part of the plan to promote the sale of the Dream Home Raffle tickets, in or about December 2013, Defendant KELLY appeared on a live television news program, which aired in South Florida and was subsequently posted on the Internet. During that interview, images of the Lighthouse Point Home were again displayed to consumers as the Grand Prize of the Dream Home Raffle. Defendant KELLY described the home as being a luxurious 6 bedroom, 6 bathroom home located in Lighthouse Point, Florida on the intercoastal waterway, with full ocean access. Defendant KELLY falsely represented during the interview that the Lighthouse Point Home had been donated to the Charity (Defendant ACCA) as a raffle prize. When asked about the donor s identity, Defendant KELLY indicated the home was donated by a nice businessman whose identity they were keeping anonymous. In truth and in fact, as THE DEFENDANTS well knew, the Lighthouse Point Home had not been donated to Defendant ACCA for use as a prize in the Dream Home Raffle. 34. During his televised interview, Defendant KELLY also directly solicited the viewing public to purchase tickets for the raffle at a cost of eighty dollars ($80) each. When asked if a minimum number of tickets had to be sold in order to award the Grand Prize, Defendant KELLY minimized that possibility, by falsely claiming the Dream Home Raffle ticket sales were going great. In truth and in fact, as THE DEFENDANTS well knew, less than 300 tickets had been sold 10

11 at that time (out of the approximately 30,000 to 37,500 tickets needed by THE DEFENDANTS to actually complete the Grand Prize drawing). 35. Defendants HEUSEN and KELLY also appeared together on a South Florida radio talk show program in or about December THE DEFENDANTS used this opportunity to promote Defendant ACCA and the Dream Home Raffle ticket sales. 36. Upon information and belief, THE DEFENDANTS were aware that Florida law (Chapter , Fla. Stat.) prohibited the sale of raffle tickets by a charitable organization. As a result, they buried a disclaimer within a link to the Dream Home Raffle s website which indicated that: Eligible Ticket Purchasers may purchase the $80.00 suggested donation (no purchase necessary) Raffle tickets online at or make a ticket reservation by calling tollfree However, notwithstanding this disclaimer, at the time an eligible ticket was purchased, the consumer was required to provide their name, address, , phone number, credit card number, credit card security code and expiration date. Eligible Ticket Purchasers could also purchase tickets by mailing the filled in ticket entry form to ACCA s Virtual Office location, but all entries were required to include payment by check, money order, credit card or PayPal. 37. THE DEFENDANTS failed to conspicuously disclose on their Dream Home Raffle entry order forms, tickets, advertisements and other printed materials that the eighty dollar ($80) ticket price was actually only a suggested donation and that no purchase was necessary to enter the raffle. Instead, all of THE DEFENDANTS conspicuous disclosures indicated that consumers were required to purchase a raffle ticket, at a cost of eighty dollars ($80) each, in order to enter the Dream Home Raffle. Along with using the terms purchase or purchaser more than 45 times in the Dream Home Raffle s rules and regulations, THE DEFENDANTS made various 11

12 affirmative representations in their advertisements, printed materials and solicitations regarding the Dream Home Raffle tickets, including, but not limited to, the following: a. all entries must include payment by check, money order, credit card or PayPal. b. Defendant ACCA reserves the right to reject any entry form that it deems was submitted without good funds. c. $80 per ticket and raffle tickets cost $80 each d. ALL SALES ARE FINAL NO REFUNDS e. Additional (early bird) drawings to be held after every 100th ticket is sold f. Up to 30,000 tickets may be sold and individuals may purchase tickets g. Tickets are selling! Thanks everyone. It is for a great cause indeed! Buy a ticket today and buy another one as a gift! As indicated above, despite selling only a tiny fraction (less than one percent) of the number of tickets required to award the Dream Home Raffle s grand prize (i.e., the Lighthouse Point Home), Defendant KELLY, nevertheless, proclaimed that the raffle was going great during his television interview in about mid-december On or about April 24, 2014, the Dream Home Raffle was purportedly completed without ever having awarded the Grand Prize. Nevertheless, Defendant KELLY falsely represented on the Dream Home Raffle s Facebook page that the Dream Home Raffle had been successfully completed. 39. THE DEFENDANTS also failed to provide consumers the date, time and place where the winner would be chosen for the Grand Prize and other drawings promoted as part of the Dream Home Raffle. Moreover, upon information and belief, THE DEFENDANTS also cancelled, failed to hold or extended the date for holding the drawings relating to the Dream Home Raffle. By on or about May 2, 2014, Defendant ACCA had issued a total of only $3,000 in cash prizes. On or about May 7, 2014, after receiving an investigative subpoena from the Plaintiff for ACCA's records 12

13 relating to the Dream Home Raffle, Defendant ACCA began issuing additional cash prizes (totaling approximately $11,755), including an award of $8,905 to the purported Grand Prize winner. COUNT I DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES CHAPTER 501, PART II FLORIDA STATUTES 40. Plaintiff adopts, incorporates herein and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 39 as if fully set forth hereinafter. 41. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Chapter 501, Part II, Fla. Stat. ( the Act or FDUTPA ) provides that unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful. 42. The provisions of the Act are to be construed liberally to promote the protection of the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. Section , Fla. Stat. 43. Section (3) of the Act defines a violation as any violation of this act or the rules adopted under this act and may be based upon, among other things, [a]ny law, statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance which proscribes unfair methods of competition, or unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices. 44. THE DEFENDANTS have violated, and/or will continue to violate, the FDUTPA, by among other things, using deceptive and unfair practices in the marketing and sale of Dream Home Raffle tickets, as more particularly set forth in paragraphs 22 through 39, above. 13

14 45. These above-described acts and practices of THE DEFENDANTS have injured and will likely continue to injure and prejudice the public and consumers in the State of Florida. 46. Unless THE DEFENDANTS are permanently enjoined from engaging further in the acts and practices complained of herein, the continued activities of THE DEFENDANTS will result in irreparable injury to the public and consumers in the State of Florida for which there is no adequate remedy at law. COUNT II VIOLATION OF THE GAMBLING ACT, CHAPTER , FLA. STAT. (CONSTITUTING A PER SE FDUTPA VIOLATION) 47. Plaintiff adopts, incorporates herein and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 39 as if fully set forth hereinafter. 48. Section (1), Fla. Stat., establishes that unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful. 49. Section (3)(c), Fla. Stat., establishes that a violation of any law, statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance which proscribes unfair methods of competition, or unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices is a violation of the provisions of Chapter 501, Part II of the Florida Statutes and is subject to the penalties and remedies provided for such violations. 50. Section (6), Fla. Stat., proscribes that any violation of Section , Fla. Stat., is a deceptive and unfair trade practice. Therefore, any violation of , Fla. Stat., constitutes a per se violation of FDUTPA, and is subject to the penalties and remedies provided for such violation. 51. Section (3), Fla. Stat., provides in pertinent that: All brochures, advertisements, notices, tickets, or entry blanks used in connection with a drawing by chance shall 14

15 conspicuously disclose: (a) The rules governing the conduct and operation of the drawing. (d) The date, hour, and place where the winner will be chosen and the prizes will be awarded, unless the brochures, advertisements, notices, tickets, or entry blanks are not offered to the public more than 3 days prior to the drawing. (e) That no purchase or contribution is necessary. 52. THE DEFENDANTS violated Section (3), Fla. Stat., by failing to conspicuously disclose on all of ACCA s advertisements, tickets, entry forms and other materials used in connection with the Dream Home Raffle, a drawing by chance, all of the information required in Section (3) (a), (d) and (e), as more particularly described in paragraphs 22 through 39, above. 53. Section (4), Fla. Stat., provides in pertinent part, that it is unlawful for any organization that. promotes, operates, or conducts a drawing by chance: (b) To require an entry fee, donation, substantial consideration, payment, proof of purchase, or contribution as a condition of entering the drawing or of being selected to win a prize. ; (c) To condition the drawing on a minimum number of tickets having been disbursed to contributors or on a minimum amount of contributions having been received; (f) To fail to award all prizes offered; (g) To print, publish, or circulate literature or advertising material used in connection with the drawing which is false, deceptive, or misleading; (h) To cancel a drawing; or (i) To condition the acquisition or giveaway of any prize upon the receipt of voluntary donations or contributions. 54. As more particularly described in paragraphs 22 through 39, above, THE DEFENDANTS violated Section (4), Fla. Stat., by, among other things: requiring a donation and/or purchase of a raffle ticket to enter the Dream Home Raffle; conditioning the drawing and/or the acquisition or giveaway of prizes on a minimum number of tickets having been disbursed to contributors or on a minimum amount of contributions having been received; failing to 15

16 award all prizes offered; printing publishing, and circulating literature or advertising material in connection with the Dream Home Raffle which was false, deceptive, or misleading; and/or canceling one or more of the scheduled drawings relating to the Dream Home Raffle. 55. These above-described acts and practices of THE DEFENDANTS have injured and will likely continue to injure and prejudice the public and consumers in the State of Florida. 56. Unless THE DEFENDANTS are permanently enjoined from engaging further in the acts and practices complained of herein, the continued activities of THE DEFENDANTS will result in irreparable injury to the public and to consumers in the State of Florida for which there is no adequate remedy at law. COUNT III VIOLATION OF SOLICITATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS ACT, CHAPTER , FLA. STAT. (CONSTITUTING A PER SE FDUTPA VIOLATION) 57. Plaintiff adopts, incorporates herein and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 39 as if fully set forth hereinafter. 58. Section (1), Fla. Stat., establishes that unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful. 59. Section (3)(c), Fla. Stat., establishes that a violation of any law, statute, rule, regulation, or ordinance which proscribes unfair methods of competition, or unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices is a violation of the provisions of Chapter 501, Part II of the Florida Statutes and is subject to the penalties and remedies provided for such violations. 60. Section , Fla. Stat., proscribes that a violation of any provisions of Sections , Fla. Stat., is an unfair or deceptive act or practice or unfair method of 16

17 competition in violation of FDUTPA and is subject to the penalties and remedies provided for such violations. 61. Section , Fla Stat., provides in pertinent part, that [i]t is unlawful for any person in connection with the planning, conduct, or execution of any solicitation or charitable or sponsor sales promotion to: (1) Operate in violation of, or fail to comply with, the requirements of Sections (2) Knowingly submit false, misleading, or inaccurate information in a document that is filed with the department [FDACS], provided to the public, or offered in response to a request or investigation by the department [FDACS], the Department of Legal Affairs, or the state attorney. (13) Employ in any solicitation any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud or to obtain a contribution by means of any deception, false pretense, misrepresentation, or false promise. 62. Defendants ACCA, HEUSEN and WAY violated Sections (1) and (2), Fla. Stat., by knowingly submitting false and inaccurate information to FDACS in ACCA s application to be licensed as a charitable organization eligible to solicit charitable contributions. As set forth above, Defendants ACCA, HEUSEN and WAY falsely represented that they had never previously been involved in any enforcement actions relating to their charitable solicitation activities, when in truth and in fact, as they well knew, Defendants ACCA, HEUSEN and WAY, individually and in their capacity as officers of ACCA, had previously entered into a Consent Order with the New Jersey Attorney General on about October 20, 2005, which resulted in the New Jersey Injunction. 63. Each of THE DEFENDANTS also violated Sections (1) and (13), Fla. Stat., in connection with their solicitations for the Dream Home Raffle by, among other things, making material misrepresentation and omissions regarding the true nature, terms, status, timing and success of the raffle, as well as concerning THE DEFENDANTS overall inability to deliver a 17

18 dream home grand prize, and by obtaining contributions by means of deception, false pretense, misrepresentation, or false promises, as more particularly described in paragraphs 22 through 39, above. 64. These above-described acts and practices of THE DEFENDANTS have injured and will likely continue to injure and prejudice the public and consumers in the State of Florida. 65. Unless THE DEFENDANTS are permanently enjoined from engaging further in the acts and practices complained of herein, the continued activities of THE DEFENDANTS will result in irreparable injury to the public and to consumers in the State of Florida for which there is no adequate remedy at law. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, respectfully requests that this Court: A. GRANT permanent injunctions against THE DEFENDANTS, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with the Defendants who receive actual notice of this injunction, prohibiting and enjoining such persons from doing the following acts: 1. Violating the provisions of Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes; 2. Violating Sections (3), (4) and (6), Florida Statues; 3. Violating Sections and , Florida Statutes; and 4. Engaging in any business activity or operation involving the solicitation of contributions through any drawing, raffle or drawing by chance. B. AWARD full restitution to all consumers who are shown to have been injured, pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes. 18

19 C. ASSESS civil penalties in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) as prescribed by Section , Fla. Stat., or Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) for victimized senior citizens or handicapped persons as prescribed by Section , Fla. Stat., for each act or practice found to be in violation of Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes. D. AWARD attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Section , Fla. Stat., or as otherwise authorized by law. E. AWARD such equitable or other relief as is just and appropriate pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes. F. GRANT such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper. Dated this 17 day of July, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, PAMELA JO BONDI Attorney General of the State of Florida _/s/ Howard S. Dargan (for) By: Kristen Pesicek Assistant Attorney General Florida Bar No Office of the Attorney General Consumer Protection Division 110 Southeast 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL Primary: Secondary: Telephone: Facsimile: Howard S. Dargan Assistant Attorney General Fla. Bar No.: Office of the Attorney General Consumer Protection Division 1515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL Primary: Secondary: Telephone: Facsimile:

20 EXHIBIT A