CARLOS VICARIA MARCELO CATURLA v. TIMOTHY SUERETH SOUTH BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. Case No: 10-60547 CA 24 CARLOS VICARIA, an individual; and MARCELO CATURLA, an individual Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY SUERETH , and individual doing business as SOUTH BAY CLUB OVERSIGHT and who is also nown as Larry Beacon , Jeff Swanson , James Ba er , Susan Brenner a nd Barbara Has ings ; 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 as SOUTH BAY CLUB OVERSIGHT, ("SBCO") and who is also nown by the following aliases: Larry Beacon, Jeff Swanson, James Ba er, Su san Brenner and Barbara Has ings and Defendant SOUTH BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCI ATION, INC., ("SOUTH BAY") and state the following: INTRODUCTION 1. Defendant SUERETH harbors an apparent resentment against Plaintiffs bec ause of differences in opinion with respect to the governance of the South Bay C lub Condominium. With intent to cause irreparable harm, Defendant TIMOTHY SUERETH has launched a campaign of harassment through publishing an online "blog" and sending emails co ntaining outrageous and defamatory statements against Plaintiffs VICARIA and CAT URLA. The statements published by Defendant are shoc ing and outrageous includin g 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. Defe ndant also ma es outrageous and defamatory statements about CATURLA stating that he is a convicted criminal guilty of sex crimes and implies that he is also a p edophile. These shoc ing statements are false and have been fabricated by Defend ant SUERETH against Plaintiffs. Despite nowing that the statements are false, D efendant emailed the defamatory statements to Plaintiff VICARIA's place of emplo yment 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 Pl aintiffs further his defamation. Further, Defendant posted copies of the defamat ory statements along with pictures of the Plaintiffs in the neighborhood where Plaintiffs live in order to further harass them. The admitted goal of Defe ndant's harassment is to drive Plaintiffs from their building and wrongfully deprive the m of their home. 2. Defendant SOUTH BAY is the association governing the South Bay Club pro perty and has a duty to protect its residents from harassment. At the time that Defendant SUERETH published the defamatory statements against Plaintiffs, Defend ant SOUTH BAY new that the statements were not true. Defendant SOUTH BAY was ne gligent in its failure to act to protect Plaintiffs and allowed a hostile enviro nment within the building to thrive against Plaintiffs. Defendant SOUTH BAY's negligence in failing to protect Plaintiffs ac ted to legitimize the defamatory statements made by SUERETH. 3. Plaintiffs see damages against Defendant SUERETH for Libel Per Se, Def amation by Implication and for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Pla intiff VICARlA see s damages against Defendant for Defamation by Implication. Bo th Plaintiffs see injunctive relief against Defendant SUERETH's continued harmf ul actions. Both Plaintiffs see damages against Defendant SOUTH BAY for Neglige nce and Defamation by Implication. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This is an action in damages in excess of the court's minimal jurisdict ional amount of$15,000.00. 5. Venue is proper in Miami-Dade County, Florida as Defendant SUERETH resi des in this venue, Defendant SOUTH BAY operates solely in this venue and a subst antial 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 Associati on, Inc. (the "Association"). 7. Plaintiff, CATURLA, is an individual and a resident of Miami-Dade Count y. 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 organizati on 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 Ba er ("Ba er"), L arry Beacon ("Beacon") and Jeff Swanson ("Swanson"). Under these fa e names, Def

endant purported to be separate owners of condominium units at the Condominium B uilding and concerned citizens. There are no unit owners at the Condominium Buil ding identified by these names. 9. Defendant SUERETH hid behind a series of additional fictitious names wh en harassing and threatening Plaintiff VICARlA at his place of employment. The f a e names used by SUERETH included but are not limited to Susan Brenner ("Brenne r") and Barbara Has ings ("Has ings"). Using these fa e names, Defendant purport ed 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 B ay 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

CARLOS VICARIA MARCELO CATURLA v. TIMOTHY SUERETH SOUTH BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. Case No: 10-60547 CA 24 CARLOS VICARIA, an individual; and MARCELO CATURLA, an individual Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY SUERETH , and individual doing business as SOUTH BAY CLUB OVERSIGHT and who is also nown as Larry Beacon , Jeff Swanson , James Ba er , Susan Brenner a nd Barbara Has ings ; 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 as SOUTH BAY CLUB OVERSIGHT, ("SBCO") and who is also nown by the following aliases: Larry Beacon, Jeff Swanson, James Ba er, Su san Brenner and Barbara Has ings and Defendant SOUTH BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCI ATION, INC., ("SOUTH BAY") and state the following: INTRODUCTION 1. Defendant SUERETH harbors an apparent resentment against Plaintiffs bec ause of differences in opinion with respect to the governance of the South Bay C lub Condominium. With intent to cause irreparable harm, Defendant TIMOTHY SUERETH has launched a campaign of harassment through publishing an online "blog" and sending emails co ntaining outrageous and defamatory statements against Plaintiffs VICARIA and CAT URLA. The statements published by Defendant are shoc ing and outrageous includin g 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. Defe ndant also ma es outrageous and defamatory statements about CATURLA stating that he is a convicted criminal guilty of sex crimes and implies that he is also a p edophile. These shoc ing statements are false and have been fabricated by Defend ant SUERETH against Plaintiffs. Despite nowing that the statements are false, D efendant emailed the defamatory statements to Plaintiff VICARIA's place of emplo yment 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 Pl aintiffs further his defamation. Further, Defendant posted copies of the defamat ory statements along with pictures of the Plaintiffs in the neighborhood where Plaintiffs live in order to further harass them. The admitted goal of Defe ndant's harassment is to drive Plaintiffs from their building and wrongfully deprive the m of their home. 2. Defendant SOUTH BAY is the association governing the South Bay Club pro perty and has a duty to protect its residents from harassment. At the time that Defendant SUERETH published the defamatory statements against Plaintiffs, Defend ant SOUTH BAY new that the statements were not true. Defendant SOUTH BAY was ne gligent in its failure to act to protect Plaintiffs and allowed a hostile enviro nment within the building to thrive against Plaintiffs. Defendant SOUTH BAY's negligence in failing to protect Plaintiffs ac ted to legitimize the defamatory statements made by SUERETH. 3. Plaintiffs see damages against Defendant SUERETH for Libel Per Se, Def amation by Implication and for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Pla intiff VICARlA see s damages against Defendant for Defamation by Implication. Bo th Plaintiffs see injunctive relief against Defendant SUERETH's continued harmf ul actions. Both Plaintiffs see damages against Defendant SOUTH BAY for Neglige nce and Defamation by Implication. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This is an action in damages in excess of the court's minimal jurisdict ional amount of$15,000.00.

5. Venue is proper in Miami-Dade County, Florida as Defendant SUERETH resi des in this venue, Defendant SOUTH BAY operates solely in this venue and a subst antial 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 Associati on, Inc. (the "Association"). 7. Plaintiff, CATURLA, is an individual and a resident of Miami-Dade Count y. 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 organizati on 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 Ba er ("Ba er"), L arry Beacon ("Beacon") and Jeff Swanson ("Swanson"). Under these fa e names, Def endant purported to be separate owners of condominium units at the Condominium B uilding and concerned citizens. There are no unit owners at the Condominium Buil ding identified by these names. 9. Defendant SUERETH hid behind a series of additional fictitious names wh en harassing and threatening Plaintiff VICARlA at his place of employment. The f a e names used by SUERETH included but are not limited to Susan Brenner ("Brenne r") and Barbara Has ings ("Has ings"). Using these fa e names, Defendant purport ed 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 B ay 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

CARLOS VICARIA MARCELO CATURLA v. TIMOTHY SUERETH

SOUTH BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. Case No: 10-60547 CA 24 CARLOS VICARIA, an individual; and MARCELO CATURLA, an individual Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY SUERETH , and individual doing business as SOUTH BAY CLUB OVERSIGHT and who is also nown as Larry Beacon , Jeff Swanson , James Ba er , Susan Brenner a nd Barbara Has ings ; 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 as SOUTH BAY CLUB OVERSIGHT, ("SBCO") and who is also nown by the following aliases: Larry Beacon, Jeff Swanson, James Ba er, Su san Brenner and Barbara Has ings and Defendant SOUTH BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCI ATION, INC., ("SOUTH BAY") and state the following: INTRODUCTION 1. Defendant SUERETH harbors an apparent resentment against Plaintiffs bec ause of differences in opinion with respect to the governance of the South Bay C lub Condominium. With intent to cause irreparable harm, Defendant TIMOTHY SUERETH has launched a campaign of harassment through publishing an online "blog" and sending emails co ntaining outrageous and defamatory statements against Plaintiffs VICARIA and CAT URLA. The statements published by Defendant are shoc ing and outrageous includin g 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. Defe ndant also ma es outrageous and defamatory statements about CATURLA stating that he is a convicted criminal guilty of sex crimes and implies that he is also a p edophile. These shoc ing statements are false and have been fabricated by Defend ant SUERETH against Plaintiffs. Despite nowing that the statements are false, D efendant emailed the defamatory statements to Plaintiff VICARIA's place of emplo yment 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 Pl aintiffs further his defamation. Further, Defendant posted copies of the defamat ory statements along with pictures of the Plaintiffs in the neighborhood where Plaintiffs live in order to further harass them. The admitted goal of Defe ndant's

harassment is to drive Plaintiffs from their building and wrongfully deprive the m of their home. 2. Defendant SOUTH BAY is the association governing the South Bay Club pro perty and has a duty to protect its residents from harassment. At the time that Defendant SUERETH published the defamatory statements against Plaintiffs, Defend ant SOUTH BAY new that the statements were not true. Defendant SOUTH BAY was ne gligent in its failure to act to protect Plaintiffs and allowed a hostile enviro nment within the building to thrive against Plaintiffs. Defendant SOUTH BAY's negligence in failing to protect Plaintiffs ac ted to legitimize the defamatory statements made by SUERETH. 3. Plaintiffs see damages against Defendant SUERETH for Libel Per Se, Def amation by Implication and for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Pla intiff VICARlA see s damages against Defendant for Defamation by Implication. Bo th Plaintiffs see injunctive relief against Defendant SUERETH's continued harmf ul actions. Both Plaintiffs see damages against Defendant SOUTH BAY for Neglige nce and Defamation by Implication. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This is an action in damages in excess of the court's minimal jurisdict ional amount of$15,000.00. 5. Venue is proper in Miami-Dade County, Florida as Defendant SUERETH resi des in this venue, Defendant SOUTH BAY operates solely in this venue and a subst antial 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 Associati on, Inc. (the "Association"). 7. Plaintiff, CATURLA, is an individual and a resident of Miami-Dade Count y. 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 organizati on 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 Ba er ("Ba er"), L arry Beacon ("Beacon") and Jeff Swanson ("Swanson"). Under these fa e names, Def endant purported to be separate owners of condominium units at the Condominium B uilding and concerned citizens. There are no unit owners at the Condominium Buil ding identified by these names. 9. Defendant SUERETH hid behind a series of additional fictitious names wh en harassing and threatening Plaintiff VICARlA at his place of employment. The f a e names used by SUERETH included but are not limited to Susan Brenner ("Brenne

r") and Barbara Has ings ("Has ings"). Using these fa e names, Defendant purport ed 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 B ay 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