Raanan Katz, RK Centers: Court Of Appeal Granted Stay Of Raanan Katz Unlawful Injunction

Ах, до чего ж порой обидно, Что хозяина не видно, - Вверх и в темноту уходит нить. А куклы так ему послушны, И мы верим простодушно В то, что кукла может говорить. http://song5.ru

Well...I can imagine how disappointed was Raanan Katz and his attorneys Todd Levine and Alan Kluger, when third DCA granted stay of Mr.Katz  unlawful "injunction", preventing to proceed with another unlawful action- criminal contempt. 3 DCA ordered:

" Appellant's emergency request to expedite ruling on appellant's motion to stay preliminary injunction due to pendency of criminal contempt trial is granted. Upon consideration, appellant's motion to stay preliminary injunction is granted pending further ruling by this Court."

Actually, this is not the first time appeal had to be involved in Judge Lisa Walsh sympathetic Raanan Katz rulings. First time Judge Walsh refused to rule on bond enlargement, but appeal ordered her to make a ruling... Well, anyway she was able to overrule it ...


CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IS A NORM IN MIAMI TO SUPPRESS FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ONCE KLUGER AND CRIMINALLY CONVICTED RAANAN KATZ CONTROL THEIR MARIONETTES THEY ELECT. 

 

RK Centers, Raanan Katz: The Show Must Go On

Following Raanan Katz persistent requests to make his litigation private the Federal Court ordered and I complied by filing 267 pages of Raanan Katz deposition in public court records.

Considering we have only 365 days in a year, publishing only one page a day will take ...WOW...267 days and the same number of articles.

I have to say big thank you to Raanan Katz attorneys for such a great material that every journalist or Raanan Katz biographer could ever dream of. Well done, guys, keep up the good work!!!

For those who cannot wait for another 267 days, you can download Raanan Katz deposition directly from the Court records.

Just have you popcorn ready for the show...

Raanan Katz: Removal Of Ugly Picture

Here is publicly available and downloadable correspondence where Raanan Katz, RK Centers and Miami Heat owner, making detailed instructions to remove his ugly picture.

RAANAN KATZ

"August 26, 2011
VIA Electronic Mail
Seffi Magriso

RE:    Removal of Ugly Picture   

Dear Seffi:

It was nice speaking to you today and I really appreciate your willingness to help me.
I currently have a problem with an ex-employee who has gotten into some illegal things. Due to his removal, he is contacting online news publications telling them complete lies about me and also sent them an old ugly picture that they found an the Internet, specifically an 'HAARETZ.COM' article.
While no one believes the nonsense written on the blog, the picture is a total insult to me and apparently it was taken by you when, I was under some kind of pressure.
In the seven years that I was involved with Maccabi, you took many pictures of me and have much better ones to be used in the future if necessary.
I am enclosing the following:
1.    Copy of the original article from Haaretz newspaper from February 22, 2011.
2.    Copy of a blog an blogspot.com which is a google company dated May 3, 2011.Please click on the attached link to access the posting
(http://rkassociatesusa.blogspot.com/2O1 1 /07/rk-associates-history-and-somefacts.html). On the top of the page it gives you the option to report copyright abuse, please do so.
3. Copy of the Broward Bulldog article posted online dated this week.
4. Complete contact information for the Broward Bulldog publisher and article author.
All of these articles have the picture with my tongue out like Michael Jordan used to do when he drove to the basket.
It would be greatly appreciated If you could do the following for me:
1.    Contact Haaretz and any other Israel publication that you may have given this picture to and ask them to eliminate it.
2.    Contact Bulldog author and publisher and demand immediate removal from website and to make sure that if they have given the picture to any third party it would be their responsibility to retrieve it immediately.
3.    Contact Google by clicking the Report Abuse link on the blog.
I am also enclosing my business card with all my company information in Boston and Miami (currently I am in my Boston office). I can also be reached on my Boston cell Redacted.
Anything you can do to eliminate this quickly would be greatly appreciated, Keep in touch!
Regards,
Raanan Katz"

Raanan Katz, RK Centers: Give Us The Order Without Service

Today I would like to cover the subject of RK Centers and Raanan Katz interpretation of law related to "Service of process"

RAANAN KATZ

Does Florida Rule of Civil procedure 1.070 "Process" actually work in Miami 11th Court? You can see how, when rich RK Centers and Miami Heat owner Raanan Katz involved in litigation. Miami 11th Court CASE NO.: 11-17842 CA (32). Plaintiffs, RK centers and Raanan Katz, do not even bother to serve numerous defendants in the case, but somehow obtained an order against these defendants violating not only Florida Rules of Civil procedure 1.070 and 1.610, but most importantly the main Law- Constitution.

In other words, these defendants were not the party of the lawsuit, when brave Raanan Katz held his winning order against them.

Here is an extraction from Plaintiffs Motion filed in Miami State Court after Plaintiffs, RK Centers and Raanan Katz, obtained the order.

"PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DEEM AS WAIVED THE NECESSITY OF SERVING DEFENDANT WITH ORIGINAL PROCESS

 Plaintiffs, R.K./FL MANAGEMENT, INC., R.K. ASSOCIATES VII, INC., 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD., RAANAN KATZ, DANIEL KATZ, RK HALLANDALE 1, LLC, RK HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 18100 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD, RK 17600-17632 COLLINS, LLC, R.K.ASSOCIATES # 2, INC., R.K. ASSOCIATES XVIII, LLC, R K CAUSEWAY PLAZA, LLC, RK BISCAYNE PLAZA, LLC, CALIFORNIA CLUB MALL SHOPPING CENTER, LTD., RK SANS SOUCI PLAZA, LLC and RK SAGE PLAZA, LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this Motion to Deem as Waived the Necessity of Serving Defendant 02  with Original Process...

Defendant  02 chose not to appear at the hearing. John Doe's true identity is currently unknown, so it is also unknown whether he appeared at the hearing or not..."(my comment: is attorney Todd Levine trying to say here that John Doe(s) is/are a ghost (s) who appeared at the hearing, but was/were not visible to Mr. Levine and Mr. Katz.)

"Based upon the facts set forth in the Verified Second Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage would result to Plaintiffs before Defendant 02 or John Doe could be heard in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction—especially given Defendant 02's evasion of service of process and the fact the John Doe's identity is currently unknown...

As set forth above, Plaintiffs have been diligently attempting to serve Defendant 02 with process, but they were not required to give further notice because of Defendant 02 avoidance of service, and the fact that he had actual knowledge of the allegations of the Verified Second Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs' Motion for Prelirninary Injunction and the November 1st hearing, but he chose to ignore them. Plaintiffs are unable to serve John Doe until they learn his or her true identity...

Given the foregoing, this Court should amend the Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction to either:

Note that the Order was entered without Notice to Defendant 02 or John Doe because notice was not required given Plaintiffs' attempts to serve Defendant 02 and his apparent avoidance of service of process, the fact that John Doe's actual identity is currently unknown, the immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage would result to Plaintiffs before they could be heard in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and/or because Defendant 02 and John Doe had actual knowledge of the allegations of the Verified Second Amended Complaint and Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the November 1st hearing, but chose to ignore them..." .(my comment:I am curious, how attorney Todd Levine could make this statement, when his law firm did not serve above defendants)

This motion was  "Respectfully submitted, KLUGER, KAPLAN, SILVERMAN, KATZEN & LEVINE, P.L. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Miami Center, Seventeenth Floor 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1700 Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305) 379-9000
Facsimile: (305) 379-3428
By:
ALAN J. KLUGER Florida Bar No. 200379 TODD A. LEVINE Florida Bar No. 899119"

Interestingly enough, Plaintiffs appellate attorney, Paul Morris, submitted Confession of error with appeal court in regards to the service. As you probably know, Defendant 02 won the appeal, injunction was reversed, and attorneys fees were granted.
Would you like to be John Doe to get your fees and damages paid???

RK Centers, Raanan Katz Lost Injunction Appeal

Finally, we have court of appeal decision in 3 DCA in regards to Raanan Katz and RK Centers preliminary injunction for one of the Appellants(case 3D12-3221).

Raanan Katz and RK Centers simply LOST it!!!

Additionally, "upon consideration of the motion for attorneys fees filed by appellant, it is ordered that said motion is granted and remanded to the trial court to fix amount."

Right, it is time to FIX the amount and make Raanan Katz and all his numerous companies/ Plaintiffs  responsible for their court intimidation games in Miami state court. I will publish entire order shortly. 

Big Thank you to Appellants attorneys Kendall Coffey, Jeff Crockett, David Zack.

Attorneys who represented losers are Todd Levine, Alan Kluger of Miami based Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen, Levine law firm and appellate attorney Paul Morris.

RAANAN KATZ

Raanan Katz, RK Centers Adding Punitive Damages To The Claim

Raanan Katz, RK Centers are moving for punitive damages! Finally, Raanan Katz and RK Centers openly disclosed the amount they want to make from 10 count complaint. Oh là là ! Only 5 million dollars!?! Quelle catastrophe! Only 5 million dollars!?!

Here is the part of the punitive damages claim recently filed with Miami Court.

"Plaintiffs, R.K./FL MANAGEMENT, INC., R.K. ASSOCIATES VII, INC., 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD., RAANAN KATZ, DANIEL KATZ, RK HALLANDALE 1, LLC, RK HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 18100 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD, RK 17600-17632 COLLINS, LLC, R.K.ASSOCIATES # 2, INC., R.K. ASSOCIATES XVIII, LLC, R K CAUSEWAY PLAZA, LLC, RK BISCAYNE PLAZA, LLC, CALIFORNIA CLUB MALL SHOPPING CENTER, LTD., RK SANS SOUCI PLAZA, LLC and RK SAGE PLAZA, LLC, hereby provide notice to this Court that Defendant continues to publish defamatory blogs that support Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add Claim for Punitive Damages (the "Motion for Punitive Damages"), and state as follows:...


"...b.    Saturday, April 20, 2013: "Raanan Katz: The Picture is Unfair, They Make Fun of Me" (the "April 20 Blog")

RAANAN KATZ AND LISPING ALAN KLUGER

Similarly, the April 20 Blog defames Plaintiffs as liars. In particular, one of the labels attached to the April 20 Blog is the word "pizdabol." According to the online Urban Dictionary, the term "pizdabol" means liar in Russian. See, Urban Dictionary, 'www.urbandictionwy.com/define.php?term=pizdabol.' Additionally, the April 20 Blog contains a threat against Plaintiff Raanan Katz personaLly: "(w)ell, no worries, Raanan, .. .the good one is coming.. and I mean not only picture..." A copy of the April 20 Blog is attached as Exhibit "B."..."

3.    The April 10 Blog and the April 20 Blog are false and defamatory per se because they accuse Plaintiffs of being liars. See Walsh v. Miami Herald Pub. Co., 80 So. 2d 669, 671 (Fla. 1955) (imputations of untruthfulness are considered actionable per se)...

See also Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc. v. Sadow, 43 So. 3d 710, 727 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (affirming $5 million dollar punitive damages award for defamation per se even where jury awarded no compensatory or nominal damages)."

This BS was respectfully submitted by Todd Levine (Raanan Katz and RK Centers attorney). Quel imbécile!

Raanan Katz: How To Spell, Don't Ask Me

This Raanan Katz, Miami Heat and RK Centers owner, publicly available deposition speaks for itself. Deposition of Raanan Katz was taken in his alleged copyright  case related to his "ugly picture". Enjoy!!!

RAANAN KATZ

In this part Raanan Katz admits "how much he paid" for allegedly purchased copyright work. Let's not forget that copyright means an intellectual, original works, no matter what Raanan Katz wishes...

"Raanan Katz: Okay. I -- no, again, I you know withdraw -- I offered him again a few dollars, he refuses to -refused to take it.
Attorney: You offered him a few dollars?
Raanan Katz: Yeah, only $500 to be exact, only $500 dollars. He said, "Raanan, I know that I caused you a damage, I apologize 100 times, you know. I'll send it to you -I  send it to you and I'll make sure that an act like this will ever happen again."
Attorney: Okay. Did you give him $500?
Raanan Katz: No, I said no. He refused to take it.
Attorney: Okay. Did you do that offer over the phone?
Raanan Katz: Yes.
Attorney: Did you ever email him an offer in writing?
Raanan Katz: No.
Attorney: Okay. It was only over the phone?
Raanan Katz: Only documents -- all these documents are drawn by Michael Chesal.
Attorney: All the documents are done by Michael Chesal?
Raanan Katz: You know, this only document or this only document was done -- was done by, there is no any other documents.
Attorney: It was prepared by your attorneys.
Raanan Katz: Yes.
Yeah, the guy named Johav Borowski.
Attorney: Johav Borowski?
Raanan Katz: Johav; how to spell, don't ask me.
Attorney: Okay. But he is the -- he doesn't list his name,
It just says Haaretz sports staff, on its article
Raanan Katz: Yeah, yeah.
Attorney: But that's who you believe is the author of the article?
Raanan Katz: Yes, that I believe.
Attorney: Okay. And though he and Mr. Magriso told you that that article was now removed from the Haaretz Newspaper and online edition?
Raanan Katz: Yes.
Attorney: Okay. Yet it's still on their website at least as of August 2nd, 2012 as shown in Exhibit 9?
Raanan Katz: Well, I -- I cannot tell you.
Attorney: Okay.
Raanan Katz: We were disappointed with this.
Attorney: Did you ever send any written demand to the Haaretz magazine to take it down?
Raanan Katz: No.
Attorney: Okay. Do you know how Haaretz ever got the image in the first place?
Raanan Katz: Just as testified before, Mr. Magriso took same picture in Jerusalem while I was falling off -- you I don't remember.
Attorney: Okay. And is it your intent to have a registration in the U.S. for your copyright for your image?
MR. KLUGER: Object to the form.
Raanan Katz: There is no need to do if she stops those -- this baloney what she is doing. As long -- as long when this -- this my case should be over, I don't need to do it -- I don't need to do it. Only reason we try to do it to make sure that -- that your client will stop using this nonsense, okay. And maybe you can or maybe you can put together, understand why should you explain her to stop this nonsense, because it doesn't do any good to anybody whatsoever. You know it, both they know it, she knows it and all my attorneys knows it.
Attorney: Okay. That was not responsive. Let's try the question again.
Raanan Katz: It's very responsive. Okay.
Attorney: Is it your intent to register this image with the U.S. copyright office?
Raanan Katz: I don't know what -- whatever my attorney will -will advise me that's what I'm going to do..."

RAANAN KATZ

I really like this Raanan Katz answer...

"Attorney: Okay. Are you aware that you stopped suing Google as well?
Raanan Katz: I am not that familiar about the dates. So, I cannot tell you exactly when and how. Only I tell you that nobody here is familiar about this atrocity case whatever it is and then -- and then, you know, again everyone tried to find what the right way because nobody understood how far your client will go this kind of nonsense and also this has surprised everybody. As I told you, she should get a life...

Attorney:Okay. And after number 4 there is a sentence that says, "All of these articles have the picture with my tongue out like Michael Jordan used to do when he drove to the basket."
Raanan Katz: Yes.
Attorney: Right?
Raanan Katz: Yes.
Attorney: Was it terrible that Michael Jordan had his tongue sticking out?
Raanan Katz: Obviously, this was not, but Michael Jordan has tongue sticking out only when he drive to the basket. This was his gesture but not for me I don't stand like a yoyo and had put my tongue out because anybody stand with the tongue out all the time go to, you know, to ame yaya.
Attorney: So it's a signature image tor Michael Jordan one of the most iconic basketball players in the entire world -
Raanan Katz: Uh-huh.
Attorney: But if you stick your tongue out it's a terrible horrible image?
Raanan Katz: Na, no, na, see now you don't -- now you try to trick me. Michael Jordan had his tongue out only sometimes when he drive to the basket, okay. That's a beautiful move, you know, he is not -- I bet he is the second best player because LeBron James is better than him (my comment: at this time I thought he would say his name, but...)-- better than him okay than he was. However, I know - however, it's a different story but Michael did never ever, ever stood in any place with those people and put his tongue out, okay. So you see you are trying to confuse it completely in a -- completely out. I was, I was falling off the steps there and I was
trying to hold myself and that why the tongue out and the photographer made a joke, all right. Your client took the joke and tried to fight me an this. Do you know how much time and money we spend an this? I just hope she paid you and does she pay your legal fee for, you know, tor all these atrocity?
Attorney: My deposition tor you, not your deposition tor me."
Complete details of Raanan Katz case can be downloaded on the federal court website.

RK Centers, Raanan Katz New Lawsuit In Miami Court

According to Court records, RK Centers and Raanan Katz company, 17070 COLLINS AVE SHOPPING CENTER (LTD), initiated legal action for DAMAGES against former tenants located at 17100 Collins Ave., Sunny Isles Beach, FL 33160 case #2013-9648-CA-01.

RK Centers initiated legal action for DAMAGES on March 15, 2013, service was returned on March 18, 2013 for Defendant 01 and on March 22, 2013 for Defendants 02 and 03.

Now, the sign is posted on the premises by RK Centers that new business is coming. Does it mean RK Centers and Raanan Katz already signed a new lease? How long it takes for RK Centers to sign the lease since legal action for damages been initiated only on March 15?
Today is the due date for Defendant 01 to respond to RK Centers complaint.

How Raanan Katz and RK Centers expect tenant to pay rent if 17070 COLLINS AVE SHOPPING CENTER trespass customers from their tenants businesses, holding trespass order against John Doe(s).
I am curious how this claimed "DAMAGES" matter will be resolved...

RAANAN KATZ, RK CENTERS AND MIAMI HEAT OWNER

RK Centers, Raanan Katz Filed Concession Of Error In Appeal Court

This is the latest update in the appeal court in regards to preliminary injunction RK Centers, Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, R.K./FL MANAGEMENT, INC., a Florida Corporation, R.K. ASSOCIATES VII, INC., a Florida Corporation, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership, RAANAN KATZ, an individual, DANIEL KATZ, an individual, RK HALLANDALE 1, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, RK HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Florida Limited Partnership, 18100 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership, RK 17600-17632 COLLINS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, R.K. ASSOCIATES # 2, INC., a Florida Corporation, R.K. ASSOCIATES XVIII, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, R K CAUSEWAY PLAZA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, RK BISCAYNE PLAZA, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, CALIFORNIA CLUB MALL SHOPPING CENTER, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership, RK SANS SOUCI PLAZA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and RK SAGE PLAZA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,  somehow obtained in Miami State Court.

Alan Kluger and Todd Levine of Miami based Kluger, Kaplan, Katzen, Silverman, Levine Law firm helped rich and famous RK Centers and Raanan Katz to obtain unlawful injunction. 

Here is the extraction of the Concession of Error filed IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT CASE NO. 3D12-3221 by RK Centers and Raanan Katz.

"CONCESSION OF ERROR
In this appeal, the appellant challenges a preliminary injunction. In one of the grounds raised, the appellant argues that he was not provided with actual notice until after the hearing on the preliminary injunction and after the issuance of the preliminary injunction, and that the injunction did not meet the requirements of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.610(a)(1)(A) and (B) for dispensing with such notice. See Initial Brief of Appellant at 9-12 (section "A" entitled "The Injunction. Failed to Satisfy Florida Rules of Civil Procediure 1.610"). Upon review of the record, the appellees (RK Centers, Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz) concede that this argument is correct.
Accordingly, based upon this argument alone, the appellees (RK Centers, Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz) concede error and agree to reversal and remand with directions to vacate the preliminary injunction..."

I will not comment on this matter at this time due to the pending decision of the appeal court.

Just remember these names
RK Centers, Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, R.K./FL MANAGEMENT, INC., a Florida
Corporation, R.K. ASSOCIATES VII, INC., a Florida Corporation, 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership, RAANAN
KATZ, an individual, DANIEL KATZ, an individual, RK HALLANDALE 1, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, RK HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a Florida Limited Partnership, 18100 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership, RK 17600-17632 COLLINS, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, R.K. ASSOCIATES # 2, INC., a Florida Corporation, R.K. ASSOCIATES XVIII, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, R K CAUSEWAY
PLAZA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, RK BISCAYNE PLAZA, LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, CALIFORNIA CLUB MALL SHOPPING
CENTER, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership, RK SANS SOUCI PLAZA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and RK SAGE PLAZA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company.

RAANAN KATZ

RK Centers, Raanan Katz: Another Default Victory In Miami Court

RK Centers, Raanan Katz company, 18100 Collins Avenue Shopping Center, LTD, a Florida limited Partnership, filed legal action for DAMAGES against it’s commercial Tenant in Miami Court Case 2013-1486-CA-01 on January 14, 2013.

The same day the Defendants (the tenant and guarantor) were served with the pleadings (per court records). For some reason the Defendants have not responded to the complaint that gave RK Centers company green light to go straight to default.

What is the most amazing is the amount of the damages claimed and granted per default judgment $504,336.64

Here is the extraction from the order:

“1. 18100 Collins Avenue Shopping Center, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership, shall recover from Copper Chimney, Inc., a Florida Corporation, the sum of $369.247.86, as principal, that shall bear interest at the statutory rate, and, in addition, 18100 Collins Avenue Shopping Center, LTD, shall recover prejudgment interest in the amount of $2,017.68, for the period of January 14, 2013 through the estimated date of the entry of this judgment, February 25, 2013, totaling $371,265.54, for which let execution issue forthwith.

2. 18100 Collins Avenue Shopping Centers, LTD shall recover from and Jasmine Uberoi, Individually as Guarantor, the sum of $132,347.86, as principal, that shall bear interest at the statutory rate, and, in addition, 18100 Collins Avenue Shopping Center, LTD. shall recover prejudgment interest in the amount of $723.24, for the period of January 14, 2013 through the estimated date of the entry of this judgment, February 25, 2013, totaling $133,071.10, for which let execution issue forthwith.”

On February 7, 2013 RK Centers and Raanan Katz company filed affidavit in support of motion for summary judgment based on which the DEFAULT was granted.

What is the amount of monthly rent the Tenant was responsible for and how many months the rent was not paid to get $504,336.64 in default damages?

I could not find non-default cases where RK Centers, Raanan Katz and his companies were able to prove the amount of damages they claimed in the initial complaint.

RK Centers, Raanan Katz, 17070 COLLINS AVE SHOPPING CTR LTD Filed Voluntary Dismissal In Miami Court

Raanan Katz, the owner of 17070 COLLINS AVE SHOPPING CTR LTD, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal against the only defendant in the Miami Dade case 2012-43014-CA-01.

On November 1, 2012 Raanan Katz company, 17070 COLLINS AVE SHOPPING CTR LTD,  initiated legal action for DAMAGES against former tenant.  Raanan Katz company, 17070 COLLINS AVE SHOPPING CTR LTD, intensively was trying to move this case for DEFAULT. 
On December 24, 2012 default WAS NOT ENTERED...and on Feb 8, 2013 Raanan Katz company 17070 COLLINS AVE SHOPPING CTR LTD filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.  

Should we all make donations to "compensate" Raanan Katz for his alleged "DAMAGES"... and offer him additional "compensation" as  "punitive damages" for his frustration in NOT obtaining DEFAULT??? Another legal droppings made by Raanan Katz company -17070 COLLINS AVE SHOPPING CTR LTD.

Raanan Katz Has Elected To Make New Droppings In Copyright Case

In a recently filed Raanan Katz motion to strike affirmative defenses in copyright case, looks like Miami Heat and RK Centers owner, Raanan Katz, somehow is trying to drop his initial claim for damages associated with his alleged copyright infringement.

Here is the extraction from Katz motion: "Notably, Plaintiff (Raanan Katz) does not seek statutory damages in this action; instead it seeks injunctive relief. Therefore, Defendant's second affirmative defense should be stricken..."

 Another good point made by Raanan Katz

"As her seventh "affirmative defense," Defendant alleges that Plaintiff (Raanan Katz) has sustained no loss or damages. [ECF No. 28, p. 5 71. However, "a defense which simply points out a defect or lack of evidence in a plaintiffs case is not an affirmative defense." Morrison, 434 F. Supp. 2d at 1318. Accordingly, this "affirmative defense" should be stricken. Plaintiff (Raanan Katz) now asserts it has elected not to seek statutory damages in this case."

So far Mr. Katz has not filed any notice of withdrawing one of his claims related to the damages, but refused to provide proof of damages under statement: "Notably, Plaintiff (Raanan Katz) does not seek statutory damages in this action; instead it seeks injunctive relief."

This was
"Respectfully submitted,
KLUGER KAPLAN SILVERMAN KATZEN & LEVINE, P.L.
Co-Counsel for Raanan Katz 201 South Biscayne Blvd.,
17th Floor Miarni, Florida 33131
Telephone: 305-379-9000
Facsimile: 305- 379-3428
By: /s Todd A. Levine Alan J. Kluger Florida Bar No. 200379 Email: akluger@ klugerkaplan.com Todd A. Levine Florida Bar No. 899119 Email: tlevine@klugerkaplan.com Jorge R. Delgado Florida Bar No. 084118 Email: jdelgado@klugerkapIan.corn"

Does this Raanan Katz action continue to prove his abusive litigation strategy to enrich himself through his fabricated DAMAGE claims. Don't you need to have damages prior to filing legal actions against someone, Raanan Katz litigation practice proves not. Looks like, you do not need to have damages and cause of actions, just simply fabricate cases in attempt to make threats with monetary demands.

Raanan Katz is clearly claims " I can elect to seek damages from you or not."

He was trying to get money from me and at the same time refused to provide a single proof for it. We all know how it calls..., remember the case with single mother with a special needs Jewish little girl, Mr.Raanan Katz claimed around $250,000.00 of damages in his initial claim, at the end Mr.Katz filed satisfaction of judgement in the amount of $5.00.

How many members of the public has been or might be affected by Raanan Katz demanding and/or obtaining of something through litigation force. I am asking myself question, if I were not that strong, what amount Raanan Katz could get from me personally using his favorite DEFAULT strategy. Raanan Katz keeps harassing my family members making fake claims in state court in attempt to get money to his enrichment.  enrichment. enrichment. enrichment. enrichment.

RAANAN KATZ

RK Centers, Raanan Katz In House Attorney Moved Out Of House

What happened to RK Centers and Raanan Katz in-house attorney. I wounder why he is no longer in house. Maybe the grass is greener in Plantation, and the sun is shinning brighter!!! Why Mr.Kahn did not lease from Mr. Katz?
Anybody out there in Plantation want to move in instead???

 

Raanan Katz Company Got Another Final Judgement for Damages After Default

According to Miami Dade court records, Raanan Katz, Miami Heat and RK Centers Owner, got Judgement for Damages after default, case 2011-39340-CA-01. 
I could not believe in the amount of damages claimed by Raanan Katz  
company 18100 Collins Avenue Shopping Center, LTD  - $435,591.70.
here is the part of the court records

"It is ordered and adjusted that:

1. 18100 Collins Avenue Shopping Center, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership, shall recover from Copper Chimney, Inc., a Florida Corporation, the sum of $432,000.00, as principal, that shall bear interest at the statutory rate, and , in addition, 18100 Collins Avenue Shopping Center, LTD shall recover prejudgment interest in the amount of $1,910.80, for the period from November 28, 2011 through December 31, 2011, and $1,680.90, for the period of January 1, 2012 through the estimated date of the entry of this judgment, January 30, 2011, totaling $435,591.70, for which let execution issue forthwith."

This order was in effect  on 02/07/2012. Surprise, surprise, generous Raanan Katz filed motion of dismissal on April 11, 2012 together with stipulation of settlement, and obtained an order to VACATE the judgement.

You think it would be the end of Raanan Katz and RK Centers legal game.
On January 13, 2013 (what a lovely date), Raanan Katz company, 18100 Collins Avenue Shopping Center, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership, filed another lawsuit against the same tenant claiming damages again, and again, and again... It must be hard to be so pure...

It's time for the second default, the order is on it's way. Just curious, what will be the amount this time.

RAANAN KATZ............................................DANIEL KATZ

Raanan Katz Claims He Has A Right To Sue People

Raanan Katz, Miami Heat and RK Centers owner, likes filing lawsuits. Today I'd like to publish Raanan Katz peace of  you know what called by Raanan "Assignment of Copyright". Based on this peace of something Raanan feels free to sue people and companies for alleged copyright.

To remind you, back in June, 2012, Raanan Katz filed lawsuit against Google and Blogger for  alleged copyright violation of his FACE.

Prior to that, Google denied Raanan Katz DMCA complaint. If you wounder why, you need to see what Raanan submitted to Google as his copyright ownership rights. By the way, as of today Raanan has not attached this peace of something to any of his federal case pleadings, simply stating that he has exclusive ownership rights to the image. This statement in his complaint gives Raanan Katz right to sue people. Yes, Katz dropped his claim against Google.

Due to ongoing discovery and Raanan Katz deposition in the court I will not reveal more details at this time.

However, more details will be available to the public including Raanan Katz video deposition.

By the way,  Federal Judge denied Raanan Katz attempt to make discovery private  "...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."

Raanan Katz, RK Centers Claim RK Plazas Have Limited Public Access

Do businesses, leasing from RK TOWN CENTERS, know that Raanan Katz, his son Daniel Katz, and their "SHOPPING PLAZAS" prevent customers from entering businesses, including Bank of America, TD Bank, CVS Pharmacy, Walgreens, Publics, UPS and etc, at Raanan Katz and RK Centers own discression. At this time Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz claim in the court that RK SHOPPING PLAZAS and TOWN CENTERS have limited public access. I am not even mentioning that this Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz claim violates prior court order entered in 2009 and settlement agreement.

Well, subpoenas submitted to the businesses, such as Bank of America. TD Bank, CVS Pharmacy, Walgreens, Publics, UPS and others, will clear up whether the businesses are aware of Raanan Katz and RK Centers activities of harassing customers  of their tenants (I am not only talking about myself, my family and anyone associated with me, but also John Doe, who is practically might be any customer entering the businesses leasing from Raanan Katz and CO).
Logical question, what type of money could compensate damages caused by Raanan Katz actions. I am not even talking that Raanan Katz and his claimed to be SHOPPING CENTERS interfere into the business relationship between tenants and their customers. But who cares about people, businesses, matters of public interest and constitutionally protected freedom of speech, when Raanan business with his common area and automatic lease renewal is the first priority. What type of compensation will be available to the customers and businesses once appeal reversed JUDGE Leesfield unconstitutional, unlawful at the best order???
In the meantime, Katz and his attorneys, Alan Kluger and Todd Levine of Miami based Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen, Levine law firm, can celebrate the VICTORY. But..Not for a long time.

 Raanan Katz and Daniel Katz bring the following argument to the appeal court in the motion for extension of time. By the way, Katzes like taking extensions only in federal and appeal courts, in Judge Leesfield court their motions are emergency and go first priority (probably by accident).

"As his grounds for conditioning consent to this extension upon a stay of the injunction, counsel for the appellant claimed that the injunction prevents the appellant (mine clarification:blogger, all associated, as well as any member of the public) from entering the appellees' properties, thereby preventing the appellant from conducting activities such as banking or grocery shopping, and that the injunction also result in a denial of the appellant's freedom of speech.
However, the appellees (mine:Raanan Katz, Daniel Katz, RK Centers) have no monopoly upon all bank branches, grocery stores, or any other commercial establishments. The appellant is free to frequent any such establishments in South Florida or elsewhere as long as they are not managed by the appellees. Thus, at worst, the injunction poses to the appellant, as the trial court characterized it, a "potential inconvenience" until the matter is tried on the merits. The appellants inconvenience is far outweighed by the irreparable harm and danger to the appellees."
What type of danger Raanan Katz is talking about?

This was filed by LAW OFFICES OF PAUL Morris, P.A. 9350 South Dixie Highway, Suite 1450 Miami, FL 33156
(305) 670-1441 Florida Bar No. 193769 together with well known Miami law firm  of Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen and Levine.

Raanan Katz message seems very clear: "pay rent and whatever I ask you to pay, but you are not allowed to do the business..." Censorship and business destruction should not be allowed on Raanan Katz request in Miami, as Miami is still part of the United States of America. What type of freedom we have in Miami if we have to fight for basic things?
In the meantime, I can just enjoy watching meaning of freedom outside of Miami.

RK Centers And Raanan Katz Companies Droppings

On January 7, 2013, fourteen of Raanan Katz companies filed notice of dropping Count Ten (Stalking) without PREJUDICE in Miami Dade Court . 

Interestingly enough, these Ranan Katz companies already obtained Preliminary Restrain Order (thank you to the most phenomenal Judge Leesfield) against blogger, everyone who is associated with me, John Doe (who can be anyone). This order is subject of appeal at this time. Looks like Raanan Katz and all idiots associated with him like playing self-pleasure games in Miami Dade 11 circuit court. See details of Raanan Katz companies' droppings below.

 

"PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF DROPPING CORPORATEPLAINTIEFS FROM COUNT X OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, R.K./FL MANAGEMENT, INC., R.K. ASSOCIATES VII, INC., 17070 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD., RK HALLANDALE 1, LLC, RK HALLANDALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 18100 COLLINS AVENUE SHOPPING CENTER, LTD, RK 17600-17632 COLLINS, LLC, RK.ASSOCIATES # 2, INC., R.K. ASSOCIATES XVIII, LLC, R K CAUSEWAY PLAZA, LLC, RK BISCAYNE PLAZA, LLC, CALIFORNIA CLUB MALL SHOPPING CENTER, LTD., RK SANS SOUCI PLAZA, LLC and RK SAGE PLAZA, LLC (collectively, "Corporate Plaintiffs"), through their undersigned counsel and pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1)  hereby provide notice of the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of only the Corporate Plaintiffs' claims in only Count X (Injunction to Prevent Stalking) of the Second Amended Complaint. This Notice does not affect the claims of Plaintiffs Raanan Katz or Daniel Katz as alleged in connection with Count X of the Second Amended Complaint, nor does this Notice affect any of the Corporate Plaintiffs' claims as alleged in connection with Counts 1 through IX of the Second Amended Complaint.

Respectfully submitted, 

KLUGER, KAPLAN, SILVERMAN, KATZEN & LEVINE, P.L.

Attorneys for P1aintffs

Miami Center, Seventeenth Floor

201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1700

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 379-9000

By Alan Kluger and Todd Levine" 

 

 

RK Centers, Raanan Katz, Emergency Hearing On Second Preliminary Injunction Part IV

I think I did not mention in the prior article that Raanan Katz and RK Centers filed second emergency motion  for preliminary injunction and this transcript was taken  at the time of the hearing..

 "THE COURT: Proceed, Mr. Kluger, call your first witness.

MR. TODD LEVINE (Raanan Katz, RK Centers attorney): Thank you, Judge. Actually,

Todd Levine.

THE COURT: Mr. Levine.

MR. LEVINE: 1 will be calling Mr. Matthew Martinez to the stand.

THE COURT: The witness came forward.

MR. KAIN (blogger’s attorney) : Your Honor, did Mr. Martinez sign an affidavit or a declaration in this case?

MR. LEVINE: No, he did not, Judge.

THE COURT: You know, this hearing -- listen, I'm either going to impose a prior restraint or not and my order just says, if you have evidence bring it in. I didn't say you need to have an affidavit ahead of time. Here's the evidence, it's just like federal, criminal court. You draw a line down the page, you write what he said on one side and your

cross examination questions on the other side, it's very exciting. I used to cross-examine like that all the time.

MR. KLUGER (Raanan Katz, RK Centers attorney) : A little housekeeping. I read the rule because they didn't file the motion to have the press that normally the rule requires. It's okay, I'm a big first amendment guy. I would do            this, though, under the form motion, he has to identify himself and what press he's with, so if he            would just state on the record his name and the press he represents we know who he is.   

THE COURT:            That's a valid point. I would like to know that myself. Sir, if you will state your name and who you are with.    

MR. MILLER: My name is Carlos Miller, I run a blog called photography is not a crime. It's a national renowned blog.

THE COURT:            Okay.            Welcome. (Thereupon,the witness was duly sworn in the

the clerk.)        

DIRECT EXAMINATION     

BY MR. LEVINE:Would you please state your name for the record.       

Matthew Martinez          

Mr. Martinez,what do you do for a living?

I am the principal of a brokerage firm.

What is the name of your brokerage firm?

Beacon Hill Property Group.

What type of brokerage services does Beacon Hill provide?          

Our focus is on the retail segment of the market.

And that's retail businesses, shopping centers, things like that?

Shopping centers.

And are you personally a real estate broker?

I am.

Do you have a bachelor's degree or an advanced degree?

Yes.

What are your degrees in?

Business, and I have a Masters as well.

And where are your degrees from?

Ohio State University.

When did you obtain your degrees?

91 undergraduate and96 graduate.

Are you familiar with a company commonly known as R.K. Associates or R.K. Centers?

I am.

How did you become aware of -- I'm going to call them R.K. Centers because that's their current name,   is  that acceptable to you?

Sure.

How did you first become aware of R.K. Centers?          

Years ago with some of our clients wanting to lease space from R.K.

Have you been in communication with R.K. Centers over the past five years?

Sure.

In your role as a broker, do you bring potential tenants to shopping centers to obtain space in the centers?

Of course.

Do you conduct online research regarding landlordsfor your clients?

MR. KAIN:Objection, Your Honor, we are leading the witness.

THE COURT:He is leading a little bit, but I'm going to allow it. It helps to tell the story and since thisis a non-jury case, I really want to move this along so I'm going to allow him to go ahead.

MR. LEVINE:            Thank you, Judge.

BY MR. LEVINE:

And what about your clients, do they conduct online research regarding the landlords that you bring them to?      

Yes.

MR. KAIN: Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. State of mind, go ahead.

MR. LEVINE: Did you hear the question? Can you read back the question please. (Thereupon, the above-referred to question was read back by the court reporter.)

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. LEVINE:

Are you familiar with a blog located at the  website ‘www.rkassociatesusa.blogspot.com’?

Yes.

How did you first become aware of that website or that blog?

Yes. About a year ago or so, one of our clients had read the blog and asked me to personally check to see whether or not the things that were being stated are valid.

MR. KAIN: Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.

MR. LEVINE: Judge, it goes state of mind I believe.

THE COURT: Yes. I'll overrule it at this time. If we get to something that is offered as proof of the fact and it's hearsay, I'll sustain it, but at this time it's just state of mind and we are setting the scene so I’ll allow it.

MR. LEVINE:Thank you, Judge.

BY MR. LEVINE:

What client are you referring to?

Subway.

Subway is a national presence?

Yes.

What did Subway ask you to do with respect to the blogs? 

MR.     KAIN:  Objection, Your Honor, Hearsay.

THE COURT:  Overruled.

THE WITNESS: They wanted us to determine whether or not the things they were reading in the blog were accurate.

BY MR.LEVINE:  Did they express any concern over the information they were reading in the blogs?

Yes.

MR.KAIN:Objection,  Your Honor,hearsay.

THE COURT:  Overruled.

BY MR.LEVINE: What was your state of mind when you saw the blogs?After having read them?

Yes.

A bit shocked, I guess, as to whether or not the things being stated were true.

So what did you do after you read the blogs?

I had met with Raanan Katz in the past and

THE COURT: I'm sorry, you met with who?

THE WITNESS: Raanan Katz in the past, so I had his phone number. I gave him a call and ended up speaking with Danny.

THE COURT: Refer to people by their full names because there are a lot of Katz.

THE WITNESS: Sure.

THE COURT: And if it's Raanan Katz and here is his son, and a lot of the cast of the characters is large, so just the first and last name for the record.

THE WITNESS: So I had called their office to speak with someone about that.

BY MR. LEVINE:

And who did you speak with?

I had spoken with Danny Katz and then David on a call.

David who?

Katz.

And David Katz and Danny Katz are both Raanan Katz's sons; is that correct?

Yes.

What did you learn during that telephone conversation?  

Well,they had informed me, I wasn't familiar with what had been going on, and I was really            making this phone call on behalf of my client, and they had given me some background as to what had transpired, and assured me that the things that were being stated were false.       

Did you report back to Subway?         

I did.   

Did Subway enter into a lease agreement with R.K. Associates?     

For that transaction, no.

Do you know whether the blogs had anything to do -- and by the blogs, I'm referring to the blogs that are located primarily at‘www.rkassociatesusa.blogspot.com’. From now on I’ll just refer to that as blogs for purposes of shorthand.

THE COURT:Now,he's going to object and his objection will be sustained.    

MR. KAIN: Objection, hearsay.           

THE COURT:Ask it another way.    

MR. LEVINE:What part of the objection is sustained?        

THE COURT:Let me let him make the full objection.

MR. KAIN: Objection, Your Honor, witness cannot testify about someone at Subway, unknown person at Subway said or thought. And the witness is not qualified to relate what other people think nor what someone said who's not here to testify.

THE COURT: Your question is calling for this witness to know why somebody else did something that they did, is in essence what it is, and it would call for rank hearsay and it would call for a conclusion that couldn't be cross examined. So if something happened, even if something were said directly to him, I could take it not for the truth of the matter

asserted, but for the state of mind, really, what's all important is the state of mind of Subway. So if something were directly said they should look at with those blogs, whatever, I don't know, but for him to speculate as to why they did it, no. So that's why I'm asking you to be more specific and just back it up a little if you can.

MR. LEVINE: Let's break it down. First, for purposes of the rest of this examination, is it

acceptable if we refer to the blog that I identified as the blog or the blogs, is that okay with the Court and with the witness?

THE COURT: Okay. I don't see why not, unless you can be more specific. There certainly are a lot of blogs. And, by the way, one or the other of you will be objecting, so I can only have one on ones on here.

MR. KAIN: Yes, Your Honor. The witness has testified that this happened almost a year ago and hasn't identified any particular blog that was available a year ago.

THE COURT: Well, that's why I told him to be specific as specific as he can be.

BY MR. LEVINE: Mr. Martinez, when did this occurrence happen that you're testifying about?

Approximately, a year ago.

And who was the person at Subway that you were talking about?

Aaron Fox.

Aaron Fox?

Yes.

And what is Aaron Fox's title?

Director of real estate.

Aaron Fox is the director of real estate for Subway. And the blogs that you're referring to are the blogs that were posted on ‘www.rkassociatesusa.blogspot.com’; is that correct?

I suspect, yes, that's the case, but I don't recall the actual url.

Did Mr. Fox tell you what the reason was that Subway did not enter into a transaction with R.K. Associates?

MR. KAIN: Objection, Your Honor, it's hearsay. What Mr. Fox said is hearsay and what Mr. Fox thought was hearsay.

THE COURT: I'm going to allow it because I don't know that what Mr. Fox says is true or not true, but it will go to the state of mind of this person who may or may not do further business with them and so for that purpose, I'm going to allow him to say what Mr. Fox said and to weigh that. Go ahead. So did he give you some reason why he was not entering into a contract?

THE WITNESS: Do you want me speak to that particular transaction?

THE COURT: Well, actually better if you just answer his questions, I’ll make up my own.

THE WITNESS: Did he tell me why he didn't enter into the transaction?

BY NR. LEVINE: Yes.

He didn't enter into the transaction because of a space requirement, ultimately that was the issue.

Do you know whether the blogs had anything to do with the decision made by Subway, do you personally know? 

No.

Do you know whether the blogs, that you've identified, are impediments to you getting clients in your professional role, getting clients into R.K. Centers properties?

MR. KAIN:Objection, Your Honor, calls for speculation,hearsay,and no foundation.

THE COURT:Sustained. If he has some specific examples of that.

BY MR. LEVINE: Your job,sir, is to find tenants and bring them to landlord properties; correct?

Correct.

You're aware of the existence of these blogs; correct?           

I am, yes.

In your role as the broker that brings tenants to landlords, does the existence of the blogs

present an impediment towards bringing those tenants to the landlords?        

I would say that if any of my clients were aware of the blogs, they would probably express concern as did Subway.

Thank you.

THE COURT: That would be speculative. Let me ask you this, do you have a problem dealing with the Katz's, do you personally, do you hesitate or does it change your desire to do business with the Katz's because of these blogs?

THE WITNESS: I had read these blogs for the very first time a year ago and it was alarming to me so I personally made a phone call to them only because I knew them. If I didn't know them, I probably would have called them and we would all be very concerned about it, but I had called them and I had reassurances, personally from the very top, that this wasn't accurate. So because of that I feel comfortable dealing with them, but if I knew they were true, I would probably have an issue with that.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. LEVINE: And, sir, you testified you called them because you already knew Correct.

And you also just said if you didn't know them you wouldn't have called them; is that correct?

I may not have called them.

MR. LEVINE:            I have nothing further.

THE COURT:            Cross examination.

CROSS EXAMINATION…. "

I will leave just this part from cross examination since it is related to the direct examination bla bla bla...

"BY MR. KAIN:

Good afternoon, Mr. Martinez. How many blogs did you read? How many blog articles did you read?

Maybe, it's tough to say, I just went down the list, clicked on it, this is a year, maybe five,

six.      

And other than a year ago, did you ever check it since that time?

Yes.

How often?

Maybe two, three times.

How many tenants have you placed at any one of the R.K. Center locations since that time?

None.

And when I say you,  can I refer to your company also?

Correct. That would be the same answer, none.   

So over the past year you haven't placed any tenants with R.K., right?

That's correct.

THE COURT: How many tenants have you placed previous to this year?

THE WITNESS: None in R.K. Centers.

THE COURT: So you've never placed anybody in R.K. Centers?

THE WITNESS: No."

to be continued...

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…

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...