RK Centers, Raanan Katz, Preliminary Injunction Hearing Part III

I will skip defendants introduction at this time as it will be subject of the separate blog. Here is the continuation of the hearing

"MR. RANDAZZA (blogger’s attorney): Your Honor, as a matter of housekeeping here so I can understand what we are doing.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. RANDAZZA: It sounds as if there has been a determination that each and every one of these blogs has been proven false and that we are just looking at damages.

THE COURT: No. Actually, the truth or falseness of the blogs is not really relevant in this particular instance for me because if the blogs are false, but not in any way harmful, or they can't prove harm without prior restraints, then they can sue the Defendant for defamation, that's a whole other thing. So the truth whether it's defamation or it's not defamation, I'm really not focused on the truth or falsity or falseness of the blogs. What I'm focused on is they have asked for prior restraints, and to my mind and also to the mind of the law that I'm bound to follow, there is only very limited circumstances under which I would render prior restraints and they have the burden of showing that those prior restraints are necessary, not that they are not entitled to sue blogger for whatever they want to sue her under, under their verified second amended complaint, but do they need prior restraints or must I impose them. So I'm really focused on, and I'm going to tell them to take the next 45 minutes and present evidence, give me their best shot, and tell them that from nothing that I have so far read, and maybe I didn't focus on it, I'll allow them to take me to be focused, but I have not read or come across anything that has caused me, at this moment, to impose prior restraints and it's their burden to show me why I should. I'll give them that opportunity because if that doesn't happen, then we are just going to set this for trial and move on.

MR. RANDAZZA: I got it reversed. What we are really doing is, is there damage? If there's no damage, it doesn't matter if it's true or false because it could be false, but not prior to a subject restraint.

THE COURT: Correct.

MR. RANDAZZA: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The other thing is in the event that I do impose prior restraints that I find that the conclusion of this, I'm inclined to give the Defense a stay to take it up.

MR. RANDAZZA: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, Mr. Kluger?

MR. KLUGER: Very briefly, Your Honor. Your order that got us here today -

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KLUGER: -- said that at the hearing the Court will hear Plaintiff's (Raanan Katz and RK Centers) proof regarding whether statements made in Defendant's blog have or are likely, either one, to reach Plaintiff's (Raanan Katz and RK Centers) potential customers and to swayed them from doing business with Plaintiff (Raanan Katz and RK Centers).

THE COURT: Right, but the best evidence of something being likely to do that is evidence that it has, and I'm not just making that up just like some philosophical Jewish saying, that's what the law says. The law really says show me the damage and that will be an indication that there will be more damage.

MR. KLUGER: I think what I'm prepared to do, based on the Court's order, is a little of both and likely to and has -

THE COURT: Well, I want you to start with the has because the law tells me that if the blogging is not concurrent to another tort, which in your case the tort that you have set forth is tortuous interference with a business relationship. So you must show me, first, that there has been damage to a business relationship and then you can say, based on that, you can see clearly that there will be more or there should be more. So I'm going to ask you if you would, Mr. Kluger, to start with the damage that has occurred as a result of this blog, anything provable that you wish to set forth.

MR. KLUGER: I understand. I would like to inform the Court of a case from the Third District called Unistar, if I may approach I’ll give the Court a copy.

THE COURT: I will be happy to see it.

MR. KLUGER: It says, and I'll give it to you in a second.

THE COURT: If you give me a copy then I can read along and follow the bouncing ball which is always better for me. If anybody is handing me anything to read, don't read to me. Don't do what I just did to you, because it's better for me to be able to look at the material and flip back and forth. So tell me what -

MR. KLUGER: The second page.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. KLUGER: Headnote five.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. KLUGER: Says that we think appellant has made a prima facie showing of irreparable injury. Even if positive proof of an injury did not appear from the record, such irreparable harm could be presumed and neither be alleged or proved in a case involving wrongful interference with a business relationship. And so I'm going to give you both, Your Honor, but in giving you the road map as they did, I just would ask the Court to indulge me a second and I'm done and we will put on evidence.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. KLUGER: And that's this.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KLUGER: I think we will be able to demonstrate to you an instance of where a broker's customers on their own said, who are these people, we don't want to deal with them, and that will deal with that issue. We are also going to give you enough of a proof that the intent of these blogs is to interfere with the business.And if I can indulge the Court, it's sort of like, as you know, that you don't always know when people are spreading horrid, evil gossip about you, you don't know what they are, and so much of it is insidious that you can't prove it all, but I'll give you some proof and then I'llgive you the basis I believe to show that her intent is solely to interfere with this business.    

I think that the conjunction of those two will meet the burden that the Court has imposed on us, but I want you to understand it's twoflavors. I think part of the problem is you're never going to know all the people that don't do business because they don't pick up the phone and say,she says you're a criminal, we read you're a crook. We read on google that the entire first page has been essentially played with to put all of this information out there,people don't call you and tell you.     

THE COURT:Of course.

MR. KLUGER: So we are lucky that we found somebody that had a relationshipand told us the problem, but I think I'm going to be able to inform you easily to make the bridge that the intent of all of these things is not to exercise any free speech, but merely to interfere with the business. So having said that, we are ready to put on the evidence. Would you like us to proceed?"

AT THIS TIME I do not have Katz attorney Mr.Alan Kluger's video presentation, so in the meantime please enjoy this one... 

"THE COURT: Let me let Counsel respond.

MR. RANDAZZA: Your Honor, in just a quick review of this Unistar case, while it does say preciseiy what Counsel said it does, the context of this case is a trade secret case. So if Your Honor were asked to enjoin the Blogger from revealing a secret, but you cannot unring the bell once the trade secret is put out into the public sphere. We are talking about someone who is posing documents that are Miami-Dade court documents, public documents, documents that the public has a right to see. On this, the public had no right to see this. So this is very different. This is a very different content to try to shoe horn a prior restraint when we are talking about enjoining opinions and posting a public court document.

THE COURT: I understand what you are saying and without a doubt it certainly is more egregious to do that, however, the law is as it is, and if it shows me evidence of a concurrent tort, in other words, if the sole purpose, not the purpose, but if not only the sole purpose of her blogging is to damage and interfere with the business relationship, but she's being successful and some of it is true, some of it is not true, and she has committed a tort of interference with a business relationship, then I will have to weigh -

MR. RANDAZZA: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: -- whether or not there is substantial likelihood which is my standard, that there will be more damage and that a prior restraint is in order and I realize that's a heavy burden. I'm listening with that in mind, and I just am giving the Plaintiff (Raanan Katz and RK Centers)  the opportunity to do that and you, then, the opportunity to cross-examine on it and then let's see how it rolls.

MR. RANDAZZA: We recognize that, Your Honor, and any time somebody writes something negative about a business it may necessarily interfere with that business.

THE COURT: I understand that. I understand that and believe me-

MR. RANDAZZA: Thank you."

To be continued…

Another Raanan Katz' Tenant Alleged: RK Centers Proceeded To Change The Locks Using Self-Help In Violation Of The Law

You, as RK Associates tenant, never got an eviction notice for failure to pay rent or anything like that. However, you are coming to your business, and RK Associates simply changed the locks and took possession of your business and private property.
Court Case Number 07-20634-CIV-MORENO revealed that "Plaintiffs allege, and Defendant (RK Associates) do not dispute, that security guards threw Plaintiffs (Tenants) off the property and that RK Associates...changed the locks on the bank branch’s office doors. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege conversion of their remaining personal property by RK Associates... after they were escorted from the premises."

In this case RK associates were sued by the tenant: Count VI is for
unlawful eviction, Count VII is for conversion.

Court argues: "Lessors like RK Associates, typically change locks on their own property or at least require permission to do so. See, e.g., 4 Florida Jur. Forms Legal & Bus. § 16A:53, at III.(f) (generic commercial lease form stating that, “No locks shall be changed without the prior written consent of Lessor….”). If Plaintiffs (tenants) have or had personal property remaining on the premises, and RK Associates preventing Plaintiffs from reacquiring that property, then it seems plain that Plaintiffs have alleged a legal harm against the landlord."

RK Associates cannot take possession of the property without a court order unless tenant surrender the keys. However, RK Associates change door locks on leased premises at their sole discretion. Be careful and aware!!!

RAANAN KATZ

RK Shopping Plazas, Raanan Katz State Court Hearing Part II

Judge continued: All that being said, let me back up and have everyone announce – is there a court reporter? I take it there is. Announce appearances for the record. And for the Plaintiff?

MR. KLUGER: Alan Kluger.

MR. LEVINE: Todd Levine.

MS. NELSON: Meredith Nelson.

MR. LEVINE: All representing the Plaintiffs.

THE COURT: Okay. And just for the record, the Plaintiffs are?

MR. LEVINE: There is a long list of Plaintiffs but they are R.K. Florida Management Inc., R.K. Associates Seven, Inc., 17070 Collins AvenueShopping Center, LTD, Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, R.K. Hallandale One LLC, R.K. Hallandale Limited Partnership, 18100 Collins Avenue Shopping Center LTD, R.K. 17600-17632 Collins LLC, R.K. Associates Number Two, Inc., R.K. Associates Roman Numeral 18, LLC, R.K.Causeway Plaza LLC, R.K. Biscayne Plaza LLC, California Club Mall Shopping Center LLC, R.K. San Souci Plaza.

THE COURT: I get the picture.

MR. LEVINE: There is one left, R.K. Stage Plaza LLC.“

 To be continued...

RK Plaza Sunny Isles, Raanan Katz, State Court Hearing And Federal Court Order

In the case Raanan Katz v blogger CASE NO. 12-2221 1-CIV-KING Federal Court ruled: "...the Court's long-standing principle and practice of maintaining Court proceedings and documents public, 'The Federal Judiciary has zealously protected the right of all citizens to free, open and public trials'...The proceedings held in federal and state courts are open to public observation by any interested party. Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4 for the Southern District of Florida, absent some extraordinary need for secrecy, the judicial acts performed should be open to public scrutiny."

On November 1, 2012 Miami Dade Court held a hearing on Raanan Katz Motion for Preliminary Injunction against this blog. 

Judge Leesfield started the hearing with absolute brilliant speech : " Let me say this, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. The Plaintiff (Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, RK Centers) asks this Court to enjoin the bloggings of the Defendant. That type of activity froma court has been severely -- not severely, it's frowned upon from the Supreme Court case of Sullivan on down, that kind of restraint is frowned upon, but it is not out of the question under certain circumstances.

So to start, I want to tell you that I'm relying heavily on two cases. One is Dorothy Zimmerman versus Welby, and that's funny because I don't see the cite on this case for some reason and the second is Murtagh, N-U-R-T-A-G-H, versus Hurley. To frame this case, I'm going to do something 1 rarely do which is I'm going to read to the lawyers something from this case of Zimmerman versus -- Dorothy Zimmerman versus Welby to tell you what evidence is acceptable and what is not, because the issue here is whether or not the Defendant should be cut off in her blogging or continue on, or whether she should be limited. So I read you from this case which says, does it therefore follow that freedom of speeoh is an absolute right, one which cannot under any circumstances be curtailed or conditioned precedent and common sense indicate not. Indeed the Florida Constitutional provision contains its own limitation. One may speak, but not with impunity. The difficulty lies not so much with determining whether a particular communication constitutes an abuse, but whether the abuse is one which justifies injunctive relief. As we have seen, any prior restraint is presumptively flawed. The cases provide no clear path, but they do provide a trail. There's a distinction between pure speech and what is sometimes designated as commercial speech. advertising, other activities designated to improve one's economic position at the expense of the other. However, if it would be unfair, according to contemporary business standards, a temporary injunction prohibiting a real estate salesman, for example, from entering a premises of his former employee to solicit customers to purchase real estate was upheld, though there were certain limitation. There is a narrow line between what constitutes vigorous competition and a free enterprise society and malicious interference with a favorable business relationship under the heading of interference with perspective advantage. Let me say this, as to this case, in the final analysis the issue seems to turn upon whether the subject conduct is considered to be unfair according to contemporary business standards and most importantly, a distinction is made concerning any communication which is defamatory, but which is uttered or published incident to another tort. Defamatory word uttered in aid of another tort are said to constitute verbal acts and they are prohibited. Let me just say that if the Plaintiff (Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, RK Centers) has proof that not only that these blogs are concurrent to the tort, to another tort, and that if they can demonstrate to this Court actual harm that has been derived from this blog,  it will give this Court a reason to believe with substantial certainty, which is the standard, that future blogging will cause more future damage. So it is the burden of the parties that seek this injunctive relief to show actual damage as a result of the blogging. Now, the Plaintiff (Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, RK Centers) has presented the Court with numerous blogs, but what the Plaintiff (Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, RK Centers) has not presented to the Court is a nexus between those blogs and damage, and I had said the last time I spoke with you all to submit pleadings and I would rule on the pleadings if I could, but I do not think that I can because if I rule on the pleadings at this moment, I have not seen actual harm. So I'm giving the Plaintiff (Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, RK Centers) an opportunity to show actual harm."

STAY TUNED for Raanan Katz , Daniel Katz and RK Centers arguments on this hearing...


 

Miami-Dade Detectives Investigated Condo Maintenance Fraud...RK Centers...Raanan Katz

”Miami-Dade detectives with the economic crimes unit have arrested a condominium association president who is accused of stealing the association's money for personal use, officials announced Friday.

Ramon Perez, 57, was charged with one count of grand theft after an investigation found he stole $50,000 of board association fees at the Villa Grande Condominium, 6300 SW 138th Ct., police said.

Perez served as board president at Villa Grande from August 2004 to October.

''He's saying he used the funds on condo maintenance but we've found no evidence to prove that,'' said Sergeant Richard Davis.

Police said Perez used the money on car tires, vehicle repairs, light bills and other personal expenditures.

State Rep. Julio Robaina, a Miami Republican, said the case was investigated as part of a condominium-fraud pilot program that has been in place in Miami-Dade County since March. The program allows condo unit owners to report possible incidents of fraud to the police to investigate.

Facing a rising number of complaints from condo dwellers statewide who accuse their board associations of stealing money, Robaina decided to create a task force to crackdown on such crimes.

State officials receive about 1,000 complaints annually, Robaina said. His office receives about 40 to 50 calls daily.

''When people would call we never really had leg to investigate the allegations,'' said Robaina. "Now people have someone to turn to.''

With more residents statewide moving towards condo living, the risk of fraudulent activity is increasing, he said.

So far Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach have recorded the most complaints statewide, with an alarming number coming from Miami Beach, said Robaina. The program allows condo unit owners to report possible incidents of fraud by filling out a Condo Crimes Screening Checklist for police to investigate. The resource guide is now available at all police stations countywide.

Officers are also undergoing training in addressing complaints effectively.

At Villa Grande, a board member complained to police about Perez's supposed fraudulent activity. But with several other cases pending, officials said their work is just beginning.”
The Miami Herald By PETER BAILEY Published August 24, 2007.

 Raanan Katz,RK Centers have received much higher amount towards common area maintenance from tenants with no evidence of proof. Are business owners, RK Associates tenants, entitled to the same protection as condo owners? Or rich and famous can do whatever they want?

 

RK Centers, Raanan Katz Continue Litigation Ripoff Using Miami Court

Contradiction, contradiction..For you -trespass, For me-eviction...

More lawsuits were filed by Raanan Katz and RK Centers with Miami Court.

RAANAN KATZ

I found it's quite interesting that Raanan Katz company 17070 COLLINS AVE SHOPPING CENTER LTD  filed eviction legal action against commercial tenant, while at the same time Raanan Katz company 17070 COLLINS AVE SHOPPING CENTER LTD claims (in a separate lawsuit)  that it has a right to trespass any member of the public at RK Centers own discretion from this, the same leased premises.

So, why  17070 COLLINS AVE SHOPPING CENTER LTD needs to file eviction claim to obtain a writ of possession of the leased property if according to Raanan Katz company it already has a right, control, and possession of the same leased premises based on which  Raanan Katz has a right to  trespass anyone and everyone from this leased space or in this particular case from 17070 COLLINS AVE SHOPPING CENTER LTD.

Or if , in fact, 17070 COLLINS AVE SHOPPING CENTER LTD does not have legal control and possession of the leased space, then how Raanan Katz can have a right to trespass from these, the same leased premises???

RK Centers: Re-Branded Company, Re-Faced Cartoons

 
 
  

NBA Attorneys Demanded A Written Explanation From Raanan Katz

I came across this article "Heat Take No Prisoners".
http://articles.nydailynews.com/1995-12-19/sports/17983687_1_dave-checketts-knicks-and-heat-commandos by BY IAN O'CONNOR

Raanan Katz is not only the owner and parther of RK Centers (former Associates), he is a minor owner of Miami Heat...


 

RAANAN KATZ

According the NY Daily News Raanan Katz has threatened Garden's president Dave Checketts: "Remember the '72 Olympics. Remember how the Israeli commandos responded after the Palestinians killed those 11 (Israeli) athletes. We have access to those commandos. Tell Dave Checketts he had better watch himself and his family."