Filing # 57707415 E-Filed 06/13/2017 04:25:39 PM FEDERICO GARCIA and TYLER KING, v. Plaintiffs, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO.: MILPORT INVESTORS LTD. d/b/a PORTO DI ORO APARTMENTS and, SAVING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORP., and RICARDO MARTIN, Defendants. / COMPLAINT COME NOW the Plaintiffs, FEDERICO GARCIA and TYLER KING, by and through undersigned counsel, and sues the Defendants, MILPORT INVESTORS LTD. d/b/a PORTA DI ORO APARTMENTS, SAVING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORP., and RICARDO MARTIN, and for their cause of action, state the following: 1. This Court has original jurisdiction over the action as the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000. 2. The Plaintiff, FEDERICO GARCIA (GARCIA), is a resident of Miami Dade County, and qualified person who is Gay and otherwise sui juris. 3. The Plaintiff, FEDERICO GARCIA (GARCIA), is a resident of Miami-Dade county and is qualified person who is Gay and otherwise sui juris. 4. The Defendant, MILPORT INVESTORS d/b/a PORTA DI ORO APARTMENTS (PORTA DI ORO), is a Florida Limited Partnership, licensed and doing business in Miami-Dade
Garcia and King v. Porto Di Oro Complaint Page 2 of 8 County, Florida. 5. PORTA DI ORO owns the apartment complex on 479 NE 30 th Street, Miami, Florida, (hereinafter referred to as Apartment Complex ) where plaintiffs resided. 6. SAVING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORP. (SAVING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT) is a Florida Corporation, licensed and doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. 7. SAVING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT is the management company and authorized agent for PORTA DI ORO. 8. The Defendant, RICARDO MARTIN (MARTIN), is a resident of Miami-Dade County and is sui juris. 9. MARTIN is a property manager employed by SAVING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, and has been the property manager at PORTO DI ORO since October 11, 2006. 10. MARTIN is an authorized representative of SAVING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT and PORTA DI ORO, and his acts are attributable to SAVING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT and PORTA DI ORO. All defendants are responsible for each others actions, and are collectively referred to as Defendants. 11. The appropriate venue for this action is in Miami-Dade County, Florida, the location where the cause of action occurred. 12. GARCIA has lived in the Apartment Complex since 2011 without issue, and recalled friendly relations with the staff of SAVING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT and MARTIN. 13. GARCIA and MARTIN were friendly, and often talked about sports and other current events.
Garcia and King v. Porto Di Oro Complaint Page 3 of 8 14. On February 2015, GARCIA began noticing a change in how he was being treated after his partner, KING, moved into his apartment at the Apartment Complex 15. GARCIA and KING received dirty looks and unfriendly treatment after they were seen holding hands openly in the apartment complex. 16. KING was not permitted to pick up the mail for the apartment he was sharing with GARCIA, despite Defendants s knowledge that he was a resident of the Apartment Complex. 17. Sometime in April 2015, shortly after having KING move in to the Apartment Complex, GARCIA received a notice stating he was not permitted his dog pursuant to his lease agreement. 18. Following KING moving into the Apartment Complex, GARCIA received a notice from Defendants that his dog was not permitted in the apartment. 19. GARCIA had owned his dog his 2011, and moved into the Apartment Complex with his dog and his ownership of his dog was known and open to MARTIN and the staff of SAVING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. 20. In 2011, GARCIA had received a noise complaint regarding his dog, which only resulted in a warning from Defendants, with no demand of relocating his dog pursuant to the no pet rules. 21. Currently, at least seven other tenants are permitted to own dogs at the Apartment Complex, and such animals are not service or emotional support animals as permitted by the Fair Housing Act. relationship. 22. None of the other, similarly situated, tenants, are in an open male, same-sex, 23. Facing the threat of eviction and the loss of their home, GARCIA and KING
complied with the request and sent the dog to live in a relative s house. Garcia and King v. Porto Di Oro Complaint Page 4 of 8 24. On July 17, 2015 Plaintiffs went to the leasing office to speak with MARTIN in order to renew their lease, with the possibility of negotiating the return of their dog. 25. MARTIN denied Plaintiffs the opportunity to voice their concerns regarding the other tenants and their pets, stating that the other pets were exempt. When the plaintiffs began pointing out that the other pets did not qualify as service animals, MARTIN pulled out a gun from his waistband, placing it on the table in front of the plaintiffs, and told them that their dog was not allowed in the building again. 26. MARTIN then handed the plaintiffs a notice to vacate, stating that if the form was not completed by July 25 th, Defendants would withhold their security deposit. 27. Plaintiffs were forced to move out of their apartment, expend resources to search for a new apartment and relocate their possessions. 28. By requiring Plainiffs to dispose of their pet and denying them the opportunity to renew their lease, the Defendants have subjected GARCIA and KING to discriminatory terms and conditions,, refused to rent, and denied housing, in a discriminatory manner based GARCIA and KING s sexual orientation. 29. The actions of the Defendants were in deliberate disregard of the protected rights of GARCIA and KING. 30. As a result of the Defendants actions described above, Plaintiffs, suffered and continues to suffer irreparable loss and injury including but not limited to actual damages, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress, and deprivation of their right to equal housing opportunities regardless of sexual orientation.
Garcia and King v. Porto Di Oro Complaint Page 5 of 8 31. On or about August 8, 2015, Plaintiff GARCIA filed a claim for sexual orientation discrimination in housing with the Miami-Dade Equal Opportunity Board under Chapter 11A-12 of the Miami-Dade County Code. 32. On or about March 9, 2017, after completing an exhaustive investigation, the Director of the Miami-Dade Equal Opportunity Board issued a Determination finding that Defendants discriminated against plaintiffs in their attempts to retain housing based upon their sexual orientation. See exhibit A attached hereto. 33. GARCIA and KING have complied with all necessary conditions precedent to the bringing of this action. 34. The Plaintiff has retained the services of Disability Independence Group and has agreed to pay them a reasonable fee for their services. COUNT I SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMNATION - MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CODE. 35. Plaintiffs realleges and reavers paragraphs one through 34 as if alleged herein. 36. Plainitffs were both qualified to live in the Apartment Complex. 37. Purusant to Chapter 11A-12, Plaintiffs were members of a protected category due to their sexual orientation. 38. The foregoing conduct of the Defendants in discriminating in the terms and conditions of a rental, and then to otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to Plainiffs because of their sexual orientation is discriminatory and unlawful. 39. The Defendants had knowledge of Plaintiffs sexual orientation, and the decision to discriminate in the terms and conditions of the tenancy was following learning of Mr. GARCIA s sexual orientation.
Garcia and King v. Porto Di Oro Complaint Page 6 of 8 40. Such decision to terminate, and then to refuse to renew Plaintiffs tenancy by the Defendants was motivated by a discriminatory purpose and in total disregard of the Plaintiff s rights under the Miami-Dade County Code. 41. Further, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant s discrimination, Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable loss and injury including, but not limited to actual damages, humiliation, emotional distress, and deprivation of the right to equal housing opportunities regardless of sexual orientation. These losses are either permanent or continuing and Plaintiff will suffer these losses in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, FEDERICO GARCIA and TYLER KING, demands judgment against the Defendants MILPORT INVESTORS LTD. d/b/a PORTO DI ORO APARTMENTS, and SAVING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORP., and RICARDO MARTIN, to enjoin Defendants from discriminating against Plaintiffs herein, and preventing discrimination to persons in the future as follows: a. That the Court declare that the actions of the Defendants violated Miami-Dade County Code by discriminating against persons based on Sexual Orientation; b. That the Court enjoin Defendants from discrimination against Plaintiffs or any other individuals because of their Sexual Orientation; c. An award of appropriate compensatory and punitive damages to Plaintiffs against Defendants to ccompensate them for her actual damages and for the humiliation, embarrassment and emotional distress caused by the Defendants discriminatory actions; d. Award reasonable costs and attorneys fees; and
e. Award any and all other relief that may be necessary and appropriate. Garcia and King v. Porto Di Oro Complaint Page 7 of 8 COUNT II - DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES 42. Plaintiff realleges and reavers paragraphs one through 34 as if alleged herein. 43. Plaintiff, GARCIA, was and has been a qualified tenant since 2011, and prior to having his partner, plaintiff KING, move in, experienced a pleasant environment from SAVING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. 44. Defendants s actions are a clear violation of Fla. Stat. 501.204 (1), 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. 45. Defendants engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices, as defined by Fla. Stat. 501.204, by brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner to dissuade and deny plaintiffs the ability to renew their lease. 46. Defendants actions also constituted deceptive and unfair trade practices by limiting the terms and conditions in their unit and denying Plaintiffs tenancy based on their sexual orientation. 47. Such actions are not only illegitimate, but it is also unlawful and intolerable in modern society, and a clear violation of public policy. 48. As a result of the defendants s actions, plaintiffs suffered actual damages, including, but not limited to monetary damages, humiliation, mental anguish, emotional distress, embarrassment, shame, worry and frustration. These losses are either permanent or continuing and Plaintiffs will suffer these losses in the future. 49. As the intentional acts of Defendants in denying the plaintiffs s ability to renew their lease violated Fla. Stat 501.201, Plaintiffs are entitled to relief. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, FEDERICO GARCIA and TYLER KING, demands judgment
Garcia and King v. Porto Di Oro Complaint Page 8 of 8 against the Defendants MILPORT INVESTORS LTD. d/b/a PORTO DI ORO APARTMENTS, and SAVING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORP., and RICARDO MARTIN, for compensatory damages, and appropriate injunctive relief. A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED FOR ALL ISSUES TRIABLE BY A JURY Respectfully Submitted this 13 th day of June, 2017. BY: s/ Matthew W. Dietz MATTHEW W. DIETZ, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 0084905 Disability Independence Group, Inc. 2990 Southwest 35 th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Phone (305) 669-2822 Facsimile (305) 442-4181 mdietz@justdigit.org lgoodman@justdigit.org aa@justdigit.org
EXHIBIT A