Filing # 135304855 E-Filed 09/24/2021 06:59:58 PM
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
`IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 2017-014452-CA-01
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HOTEL LA PETITE MUSE, LLC
`a Florida limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`VERZURA CONSTRUCTION, INC.
`a Florida corporation,
`
`Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff and Cross-Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`HOTEL LA PETITE MUSE, LLC
`a Florida limited liability company,
`
`Counter-Defendant and
`
`PRINCESS HOTELS USA, LLC
`A Florida limited liability company, and
`BEROURIA ABERGEL a/k/a GLORIA
`ABERGEL, an individual,
`
`
`Cross-Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
` /
`
`VERZURA CONSTRUCTION, INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO BOURIERA
`“GLORIA” ABERGEL AND PRINCESS HOTELS, USA, LLC’S MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`COMES NOW, Defendant/Counter and Cross-Plaintiff VERZURA CONSTRUCTION,
`
`INC. (Defendant or VERZURA), by and through undersigned counsel filing its opposition to
`
`Cross-Defendants BEROURIA “GLORIA” ABERGEL (ABERGEL) and PRINCESS HOTELS
`
`USA, LLC’S (PRINCESS) Motion for Partial Summary as it relates to Count III, Breach of
`
`Contract, Count IV Goods Sold and Delivered, Count V Unjust Enrichment and Count VI
`
`Quantum Meruit, and in support thereof states as follows:
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`1. On or about December 12, 2018, ABERGEL and PRINCESS filed and served its Motion
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`to Dismiss citing the exact same allegations, case law and arguments as presented in its
`
`July 8, 2021 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The December, 2018 Motion resulted
`
`in the Honorable Judge Santovenia Denying said Motion. (See Motion to Dismiss and
`
`resulting Order Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “A”)
`
`2. ABERGEL is a French national whose background began in the 1970’s is acquiring,
`
`renovating, owning and operating hotels in and throughout Paris, France. ABERGEL has
`
`testified under oath that she has owned, renovated and operated at least seven hotels in and
`
`around Paris, France. ABERGEL is a sophisticated hotelier and businessperson with
`
`extensive background and professional knowledge. (See Deposition Transcript excerpts
`
`attached hereto as EXHIBIT “B”). ABERGEL and her alter egos HOTEL LA PETITE
`
`MUSE, LLC (LA PETITE) and PRINCESS, has used her extensive background and
`
`knowledge to lead VERZURA into a relationship based on contractual and verbal
`
`assertions which she had no intention of fulfilling.
`
`3. VERZURA is a Florida corporation qualified by a Florida licensed General Contractor
`
`(Roberto Verzura), licensed and conducting business within the state of Florida with its
`
`principal place of business in Broward County. (See Affidavit of Roberto Verzura,
`
`President of VERZURA Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “C”)
`
`4. On or about January 20, 2015, VERZURA and HOTEL LA PETITE MUSE, LLC
`
`(hereinafter LA PETITE) executed AIA Document A107-2007 which is an AIA Lump
`
`Sum Contract (hereinafter “AIA”) expressly based on the building plans created by
`
`Architect KOBI KARP as incorporated with AIA. (See American Institute of Architects-
`
`AIA Document A107 – 2007 Lump Sum Contract Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “D”). 1
`
`
`1 American Institute of Architects construction agreements are widely used throughout the construction industry and
`include the real property owner, general contractor and Architect as parties to the agreement. The Architect is the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`5. Pursuant to the terms of AIA, VERZURA would provide labor and materials to the real
`
`property owned by LA PETITE located at 4210 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida
`
`(“Subject Premises”) the estimate for which was based on the design and architectural plans
`
`provided by KOBI KARP and incorporated with AIA.
`
`6. During the time of negotiating the AIA with VERZURA, ABERGEL, PRINCESS and LA
`
`PETITE were well aware that the material enticement for VERZURA agreeing to terms
`
`within the contract was KOBI KARP’S involvement as the registered Architect creating
`
`and furnishing the existing plans and drawings for the project.
`
`7. LA PETITE is a Florida limited liability company, operating and conducting business in
`
`Miami-Dade County, Florida established and underfunded by ABERGEL for the sole
`
`purpose of being her alter ego in a multi-million dollar renovation of real property wherein
`
`ABERGEL, through her multiple entities (including LA PETITE, PRINCESS, HOTEL
`
`PIERRE and others) would induce VERZURA into an agreement for renovations based on
`
`KOBI KARP’S involvement as Architect for the project and Subject Premises then
`
`ultimately avoid paying for material and labor provided by VERZURA.
`
`8. LA PETITE as an entity does not have any employees, was intentionally established with
`
`inadequate finances to consummate the AIA and without ABERGEL, it cannot stand or
`
`operate on its own.
`
`9. PRINCESS is a Florida limited liability company, operating and conducting business in
`
`Miami-Dade County, Florida and established by ABERGEL for the sole purpose of being
`
`
`designer who collaborates with the general contractor and engineer. The design document commonly referred to as
`the Site Plan belongs to the Architect and in many cases is a copyright document. The Site Plan is sealed by the
`Architect and Engineer and approved by the municipality almost exclusively through a board or panel in a process
`which can take a year or more to finalize. The “Lump Sum” contract is widely used in the construction industry,
`where the owner and contractor agree to a set price for labor, materials and overhead. The “Lump Sum” contract
`contemplates that ‘Change Orders’ and ‘Change Directives’ will be paid by the party receiving the benefit of the
`labor and materials, ie the real property owner.
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`the alter ego of ABERGEL, aiding and conspiring with ABERGEL and LA PETITE in a
`
`multi-million dollar renovation of real property wherein ABERGEL, through her multiple
`
`business entities would at times use each business entity for providing its employee to LA
`
`PETITE, making payments to VERZURA or particular subcontractors, seeking
`
`professional services from WES CURRAN, DANIEL KRIEF (Architects) and others and
`
`thereby seeking to avoid liability on behalf of LA PETITE for the payment for material,
`
`labor and professional service.
`
`10. PRINCESS as an entity is funded by ABERGEL personally, does not have any employees
`
`and was established by ABERGEL with the intent to conceal assets and finances of
`
`ABERGEL and LA PETITE as cited herein and as such, PRINCESS cannot stand or
`
`operate on its own without ABERGEL.
`
`11. ABERGEL has failed to act independently as it relates to her fiduciary duty as sole member
`
`and manager of LA PETITE and PRINCESS rendering decisions directly against the
`
`interest of LA PETITE and PRINCESS and outside entities involved in contractual and
`
`other business relationships.
`
`12. There are literally dozens of instances where ABERGEL has used corrupt business
`
`practices, breaches her fiduciary duties to the business entities and many instances where
`
`she interchanges herself individually with her alter ego business entities: creating and
`
`implementing the scheme of separating the renovation process into Phase I, Phase II and
`
`Phase III in an effort to confuse aspects of the overall project, underfunding, understaffing,
`
`comingling of employees, funds and assets and more relating to the formation of the entity
`
`and her actions as member and manager of LA PETITE and PRINCESS where she:
`
`a. In furtherance of ABERGEL’S scheme of creating Phases I through III, in one
`
`instance ABERGEL fabricated the scenario where “No Limit Glass”, a
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`subcontractor on the project who had provided labor and materials (exterior
`
`windows on the building shell in Phase I) and was paid in Phase I. Then during
`
`Phase II, as direct a result of one of ABERGEL’S Change Directives2, ABERGEL
`
`demanded that solid, interior walls originally erected by VERZURA consistent
`
`with site plans, be demolished and changed to glass walls which brought “No Limit
`
`Glass” back on to the Subject Premises for additional labor and materials, this time
`
`interior glass walls. On “No Limit Glass” submitting an invoice during Phase II
`
`for its labor and materials pertaining to ABERGEL’S specific change directive,
`
`changing the interior solid walls to glass, ABERGEL, LA PETITE and PRINCESS
`
`refused to pay the obligation as admitted within LA PETITE’S Second Amended
`
`Complaint asserting the allegations at paragraphs 18 and 40, that the invoice for
`
`payment to “No Limit Glass” was for labor and materials in Phase I. This is the
`
`perfect example of the scheme and fraud ABERGEL is using as her excuse to not
`
`pay VERZURA and through manipulation of these facts, ABERGEL believes she
`
`has thwarted VERZURA And is now attempting to obfuscate this Honorable Court.
`
`(See LA PETITE Second Amended Complaint Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “E”)
`
`b. Knowingly withheld the material information of KOBI KARP not being paid and
`
`the relationship was ended while negotiating contract terms with VERZURA. It
`
`was known to ABERGEL that her relationship with KOBI KARP was effectively
`
`and constructively ended prior to inducing VERZURA into AIA and finally ended
`
`soon after execution of AIA. (See Correspondence by and between ABERGEL/LA
`
`
`2 A change directive occurs where the real property owner initiates a change to the building plan, structure or design
`resulting in additional labor, materials and overhead to be expended by the contractor without consulting the
`contractor in regard to agreement to perform the change and discussion of cost involved. When dealing with AIA
`Lump Sum contracts, the cost for change directives is to be paid by the real property owner which is the party
`receiving the benefit of the labor, material and overhead rendered on the Subject Premises.
`
`5
`
`

`

`PETITE and KOBI KARP and its counsel Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “F”) This
`
`material information was intentionally withheld from VERZURA as KOBI
`
`KARP’S involvement was the sole inducement to enter the AIA with
`
`ABERGEL/LAPETITE.
`
`c. Knowingly inducing VERZURA into AIA with her under-funded, alter ego
`
`company, LA PETITE with the intent to not fully pay contractual liabilities due
`
`VERZURA. “…I’m not paying anything. I paid the contract for the entire Phase
`
`one and I will not pay for any changes from the architect. I don’t pay for the
`
`engineers, I will not pay for the parking. I will not pay for any breakfast, I will not
`
`pay for anything. I will not pay for the secretary, nor the stamps, nor the envelopes.
`
`I don’t want to know anything about that.” (ABERGEL Deposition Transcript Page
`
`66, Line 21 - 25; Page 67, Line 1 - 3)(See Deposition Transcript ABERGEL
`
`Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “G”)
`
`d. Knowingly comingling her employees between LA PETITE, PRINCESS and
`
`HOTEL PIERRE in an effort to confuse VERZURA and evade employment laws
`
`and taxes.
`
`e. Knowingly circumventing VERZURA by going to WES CURRAN and DANIEL
`
`KRIEF (Architects) to make change directives (material changes and alterations)
`
`to the KOBI KARP plans having the real time result that change orders and change
`
`directives would be greatly different than the KOBI KARP plans and having no
`
`intention to pay the Architects or VERZURA for the millions of dollars of physical
`
`changes to the Subject Premises directed by ABERGEL through LA PETITE and
`
`PRINCESS. (See Emails by and between Gloria@Princesshotelusa.com and WES
`
`CURRAN and Gloria@Princesshotelusa.com and DANIEL KRIEF Attached
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`hereto as EXHIBIT “H”) (Site Plans depicting the “Owner Changes” are available
`
`and are too large to attach hereto but will be submitted as evidence for the trial on
`
`the merits)
`
`f. Knowingly circumventing VERZURA and reaching out to VERZURA’S
`
`subcontractors in contravention to the terms of AIA and attempting to negotiate
`
`services and costs. (See Correspondence by and between ABERGEL/LA PETITE
`
`and G & I Land Development, Inc. Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “I”)
`
`g. Knowingly executing the City of Miami Beach Permit Application Construction
`
`Cost Affidavit, Notice of Commencement and financial instruments individually as
`
`‘owner’ of the Subject Premises in an effort to mislead VERZURA who is relying
`
`on the truthfulness of the documents. (See City of Miami Beach Permit Application
`
`Construction Cost Affidavit and Notice of Commencement Attached hereto as
`
`EXHIBIT “J”)
`
`h. Alleging within Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, Exhibit D hereto,
`
`introductory paragraph that, “This action arises from a dream held by Plaintiff’s
`
`representative, Ms. Berouria “Gloria” Abergel, a French national, to open a
`
`boutique hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. She contracted with Defendant Verzura
`
`Construction, Inc. in 2015” this is a direct admission of ABERGEL’S intent to
`
`individually enter the contract and reap the benefit of VERZURA’S labor and
`
`materials using her alter ego LA PETITE and as such must be held individually
`
`liable with LA PETITE.
`
`i. Throughout the process of VERZURA providing labor and materials to the
`
`Subject Premises and fulfilling its obligations under AIA, PRINCESS directly paid
`
`VERZURA over nine hundred thousand dollars through multiple checks signed by
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`ABERGEL individually. (See copies of checks with Payor PRINCESS HOTELS
`
`USA, LLC and Payee VERZURA CONSTRUCTION, INC. Attached hereto as
`
`EXHIBIT “K”)
`
`The above referenced intentional actions of ABERGEL acting through her alter egos (LA PETITE
`
`and PRINCESS) have resulted in personal financial gain to ABERGEL and LA PETITE, and to
`
`the direct detriment and injury to VERZURA.
`
`13. ABERGEL has used corrupt business practices as outlined above and herein as the sole
`
`member and manager of LA PETITE and PRINCESS, both Florida business entities
`
`established for purposes of concealing ABERGEL’S assets and providing cover for her
`
`actions (in the form of alter ego) of comingling funds and employees, paying LA PETITE’S
`
`contractual obligations through PRINCESS and all of ABERGEL’S business entities being
`
`under-funded by her, while taking advantage of this complex and corrupt infrastructure
`
`leading to financial gain for ABERGEL as the sole owner and creator of LA PETITE and
`
`PRINCESS and to the direct detriment and injury to VERZURA.
`
`14. ABERGEL as the sole member and manager of LA PETITE and PRINCESS, has
`
`dominated and controlled the entities through personal decisions, comingling of assets,
`
`using PRINCESS to pay financial obligations of LA PETITE as a method of concealing
`
`and obfuscating its liability and comingling employees of other entities dominated and
`
`controlled by ABERGEL individually to such an extent that the independent existence of
`
`LA PETITE and PRINCESS are in fact non-existent and the entities are in fact the alter
`
`ego of ABERGEL and as such, the entities must be set aside or pierced.
`
`15. ABERGEL specifically received labor and materials provided by VERZURA at the
`
`Subject Premises and at times paid for said labor and materials through LA PETITE and
`
`PRINCESS until ultimately failing to tender any further and final payments despite
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`receiving the benefit of labor and materials. Within ABERGEL’S Affidavit of June 21,
`
`2019, ABERGEL testified at paragraph 8, “Between January 20, 2015 and March 2017,
`
`Hotel La Petite Muse, LLC (“Hotel”) paid or caused to be paid over $6,200,000.00 toward
`
`construction…”. (See June 21, 2019 Affidavit of ABERGEL Attached hereto as EXHIBIT
`
`“L”) ABERGEL’S admission of “…Hotel La Petite Muse, LLC…caused to be paid…”
`
`exemplifies the ongoing scheme of directing payments through alter ego entities.
`
`PRINCESS tendered payments to VERZURA amounting to over nine hundred thousand
`
`dollars. (See EXHIBIT “K”)
`
`16. During the period of January 20, 2015 through May 17, 2017, ABERGEL and her alter
`
`egos LA PETITE and PRINCESS, bypassing VERZURA, went direct to WES CURRAN
`
`and DANIEL KRIEF (Architects on the project newly hired by VERZURA) initiating and
`
`demanding implementation of numerous Change Directives which in real time are
`
`enormous material deviations and alterations from that depicted within the original KOBI
`
`KARP plans incorporated with AIA and requiring physical changes to the Subject
`
`Premises. (See EXHIBIT “H”) ABERGEL’S further attempt to conceal her role acting as
`
`the individual behind the alter ego entities can be found within her June 21, 2019 Affidavit
`
`at EXHIBIT “L” where she testifies at paragraph 4 that “As the and Managing Member, I
`
`was the person who was involved in the construction Hotel La Petite Muse.” In this
`
`instance, ABERGEL is carefully attempting to mislead the reader by citing “Managing
`
`Member” while not mentioning which entity she was then referring to while carefully
`
`referring to the “…construction project La Petite Muse” as opposed to HOTEL LA PETITE
`
`MUSE, LLC, the Florida limited liability. This is yet another example of ABERGEL, the
`
`sophisticated hotelier and business person attempting to mislead the Court in furtherance
`
`of her use of the alter ego entities in a flagrant abuse of Florida law.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`17. Throughout the course of providing labor and materials on the Subject Premises,
`
`VERZURA routinely provided ABERGEL and LA PETITE with “Application and
`
`Certificate for Payment” in its normal course in order to request payments from ABERGEL
`
`and LA PETITE for labor and materials in performance of AIA.
`
`18. On or about April 6, 2017 and May 3, 2017, in its normal course, VERZURA presented
`
`ABERGEL and LA PETITE with its formal “Application and Certificate for Payment”
`
`which ABERGEL, LA PETITE and PRINCESS refused to pay. On or about April, 2017,
`
`ABERGEL, via text messaging on her personal phone, claims that VERZURA was seeking
`
`an erroneous amount for a standard progress payment, denying VERZURA’S attempts to
`
`provide accounting and explanation, effectively and physically stopped VERZURA from
`
`entering the Subject Premises, excluding VERZURA from fulfilling any further
`
`contractual obligations and preventing VERZURA from retrieving its tools from the
`
`Subject Premises. (See Text Messages by and between ABERGEL and VERZURA
`
`Attached hereto as EXHIBIT “M”)
`
`19. On or about May 17, 2017, ABERGEL and LA PETITE ultimately, physically excluded
`
`VERZURA from the Subject Premises, changing the locks so that VERZURA could not
`
`reenter. When VERZURA attempted to gain access to continue working or gather its items
`
`of property/tools, ABERGEL directed employees from one of her business entities to call
`
`the local police in an effort to deny VERZURA from gathering its tools from the Subject
`
`Premises. (See EXHIBIT “M”)
`
`20. On or about May 19, 2017, VERZURA prepared and filed its Claim of Lien, Miami-Dade
`
`instrument Number “CFN 2017R0284120” based on labor and materials rendered at the
`
`Subject Premises.
`
`21. On or about June 5, 2017 ABERGEL and LA PETITE filed its Notice of Contest of Lien,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Miami-Dade Instrument Number “CFN 2017R0314361”.
`
`22. On or about June 19, 2017, LA PETITE initiated the instant litigation through filing its
`
`complaint for damages.
`
`23. On or about July 28, 2017, VERZURA filed its Counterclaim and Crossclaim including its
`
`count for Construction Lien Foreclosure, Breach of Contract, Goods Sold and Delivered,
`
`Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit.
`
`24. ABERGEL and PRINCESS have not met the burden required to shift the burden of proof
`
`to VERZURA and have not presented credible material facts while the partial facts that it
`
`sets forth within its Motion have been controverted by VERZURA’S allegations supported
`
`by material, physical and testimonial evidence of ABERGEL and PRINCESS’ collusion
`
`with LA PETITE; PRINCESS and LA PETITE are the alter ego of ABERGEL and as such,
`
`all are and must remail parties to the instant litigation sharing in liability.
`
`COUNT III BREACH OF CONTRACT
`
`VERZURA re-asserts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`25. The terms of the AIA and supporting material were directed by ABERGEL as stated within
`
`LA PETITE’S Second Amended Complaint at EXHIBIT D hereto.
`
`26. ABERGEL and PRINCESS directed the Change Directives by circumventing VERZURA
`
`and dealing direct with WES CURRAN and DANIEL KRIEF, Architects in order to
`
`ultimately claim that LA PETITE has no financial or other liability for creating of said
`
`change directives. (See EXHIBIT “H”)
`
`27. The primary parties paying VERZURA based on the contractual obligations et forth within
`
`the AIA were LA PETITE and PRINCESS (See EXHIBIT “K”), both alter ego entities
`
`were using funds provided by ABERGEL and paying for the terms and Change Directives
`
`of ABERGEL which established the pattern or course of conduct. Ultimately neither LA
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`PETITE, PRINCESS nor ABERRGEL paid the outstanding balance due thereby breaching
`
`the underlying AIA.
`
`28. Considering the factual assertions and physical evidence herein and the Affidavit of
`
`VERZURA attached and incorporated (See EXHIBIT “C”) it is clear that ABERGEL has
`
`established the alter ego entities of LA PETITE and PRINCESS in an effort to evade
`
`liability for her non-payment of contractual obligations while directly receiving the benefit
`
`of VERZURA’S labor and materials and to the direct damage and detriment of VERZURA
`
`and as such the corporate entities of LA PETITE and PRINCESS must be set aside or
`
`otherwise pierced, holding ABERGEL liable for sums due and owing along with the
`
`entities fraudulent established and used.
`
`COUNT IV GOODS SOLD AND DELIVERED
`
`VERZURA re-asserts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`29. ABERGEL and PRINCESS’ argument that VERZURA has never presented proof of a
`
`sales contract as required in court decisions is a red herring considering that VERZURA
`
`and LA PETITE have presented the AIA. Considering the facts and evidence presented
`
`within the instant opposition, it is clear that ABERGEL intended LA PETITE to be her
`
`alter ego on withholding material information and negotiating the terms of AIA.
`
`ABERGEL and PRINCESS take further action on the AIA by circumventing VERZURA
`
`and demanding Change Directives directly to the Architects. The terms of AIA and
`
`physical provision of labor and materials has never been rejected by ABERGEL, LA
`
`PETITE or PRINCESS who continue to benefit from VERZURA’S labor and materials.
`
`30. VERZURA has presented its Claim of Lien, Miami-Dade CFN 2017R0284120 which is
`
`acknowledged and contested by LA PETITE and ABERGEL and ABERGEL confirms in
`
`her deposition testimony that she has not paid same.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`31. On piercing the corporate veil and setting aside the alter ego entities LA PETITE and
`
`PRINCESS, the Court must find that ABERGEL intended to hide behind the alter ego
`
`business entity LA PETITE and must be held personally liable along with the alter ego
`
`entities.
`
`COUNT V UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`
`VERZURA re-asserts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`32. ABERGEL and PRINCESS base their attempt to discredit VERZURA’S Count for
`
`Unjust enrichment by simply citing a fragment of VERZURA’S claim and alleging, “There
`
`is zero evidence in record to support this claim” however, the record is replete with material
`
`and testimonial evidence as specifically presented in the instant opposing document.
`
`33. ABERGEL and PRINCESS were directly responsible for Change Directives made by
`
`circumventing VERZURA and dealing direct with he Architects (See EXHIBIT “H”).
`
`34. Once all Change Directives were physically implemented at the Subject Premises,
`
`ABERGEL and PRINCESS were fully accepting and there is no evidence in the record of
`
`their rejection of same.
`
`35. ABERGEL is the direct beneficiary of her efforts in inducing, negotiating, Change
`
`Directives and failure to pay for labor and materials.
`
`COUNT VI QUANTUM MERUIT
`
`VERZURA re-asserts and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 24 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`36. Quantum Meruit, filed as a pleading in the alternative in many contract cases plays a
`
`valuable role in the instant litigation where ABERGEL, the direct beneficiary of the alter
`
`ego LA PETITE and PRINCESS’ attempts to shirk liability and claiming that because
`
`ABERGEL and PRINCESS are not parties to the AIA, or because the AIA was signed by
`
`VERZURA and LA PETITE, there is no liability on ABERGEL or PRINCESS. Quantum
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Meruit however, is the quintessential theory for which to proceed against ABERGEL and
`
`PRINCESS.
`
`37. Where ABERGEL established alter ego business entities as meticulously outlined and
`
`supported herein, Quantum Meruit rescues VERZURA from the ability of the Cross
`
`Defendants ability to claim they are not parties to the AIA and is properly plead as such
`
`within VERZURA’S Third Amended Cross Claim.
`
`38. Count VI of VERZURA’S Third Amended Cross Claim is the exact scenario where
`
`ABERGEL is liable. As proven herein, LA PETITE and PRINCESS are the alter egos of
`
`ABERGEL. If ABERGEL claims she is not a party to the AIA, the theory of Quantum
`
`Meruit stands for the maxim that ABERGEL, recipient and beneficiary of labor and
`
`materials from the performance of VERZURA, is financially liable to pay the value of said
`
`labor and materials. Neither ABERGEL nor LA PETITE and PRINCESS have rejected the
`
`labor and materials provided by VERZURA which are physically available for use and
`
`inspection.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`
`
`VERZURA has set forth physical and testimonial evidence sufficient to meet its burden of
`
`proof to pierce the corporate veil of the alter ego business entities created by ABERGEL, LA
`
`PETITE and PRINCESS. The physical and testimonial evidence presented by VERZURA herein
`
`is sufficient to reflect that there are genuine issues of material fact that the trier of fact needs to
`
`hear and determine rather than deciding on a summary basis.
`
`
`
`VERZURA has set forth the most accurate rendition of record facts and supported by the
`
`record, physical and testimonial evidence available in the present matter. The record, physical and
`
`testimonial evidence presented are certain to received and determined as true by the trier of fact
`
`and declaring VERZURA to be the prevailing party.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(h) allows this Honorable Court to enter a
`
`determination denying ABERGEL and PRINCESS Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and
`
`further awarding fees to VERZURA in its effort to respond and to same based on the frivolous
`
`nature of Cross Defendants’ Motion.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`The pleadings, sworn deposition testimony of ABERGEL together with Affidavits
`
`submitted by ABERGEL and VERZURA as they relate to the Motion for Partial Summary
`
`Judgment presented by ABERGEL and PRINCESS conclusively confirm that LA PETITE and
`
`PRINCESS were and are the alter ego entities created by ABERGEL in scheme to entice
`
`VERZURA into the contractual relationship where VERZURA went on to expend millions of
`
`dollars renovating the Subject Premises for the benefit of ABERGEL. Nearing the conclusion of
`
`the contractual obligations, ABERGEL unilaterally fabricated complaints about sums due failing
`
`to pay on any presentation of requests by VERZURA, ABERGEL would continue to resist
`
`payment while not cooperating in attempts at resolution because she believed she would complete
`
`the project herself using VERZURA’S subcontractors and get away without paying the balance
`
`due VERZURA. The record is clear that ABERGEL took measures to create the business entities,
`
`underfund each, comingle the employees and funds, switch between entities and her personal name
`
`when it was to her benefit and in clear efforts to defraud VERZURA. ABERGEL’S creation of
`
`the alter ego entities, withholding material information in her effort to entice VERZURA into the
`
`AIA then unilaterally creating the Change Directives while working in concert with LA PETITE
`
`and PRINCESS have directly and ultimately caused damage to VERZURA in the form of millions
`
`of dollars expended in providing labor and materials to the Subject Premises to the benefit of
`
`ABERGEL who refuses to pay.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Together with the inconsistencies within the facts and Exhibits presented by ABERGEL
`
`and PRINCESS, and the evidence presented herein by VERZURA, this Honorable Court must
`
`deny ABERGEL and PRINCESS’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Accordingly, it is
`
`proper and VERZURA requests that this Honorable Court deny Summary Judgment relating to
`
`ABERGEL and PRINCESS.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant/Counter and Cross-Plaintiff, VERZURA CONSTRUCTION,
`
`INC. respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an Order denying Partial Summary
`
`Judgment as requested by ABERGEL and PRINCESS and any other relief this Court deems just
`
`and equitable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_/S/ BERNARDO PROTANO, ESQ.____
`BERNARDO PROTANO
`
`
`LAW OFFICE OF BEN PROTANO
`FBN: 0348960
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished to GARY
`D. FARMER, ESQ., INTERNATIONAL COUNSEL, PLLC through Florida eFile Portal and via
`email gfarmer@international-counsel.com and BARRY DUBINSKY, ESQ., Galloway, Johnson,
`Tompkins, Burr & Smith, PLC, via email FLLservice@gallowaylawfirm.com and
`BDubinsky@gallowaylawfirm.com this _24th_ day of _September___ 2021.
`
`
`LAW OFFICE OF BEN PROTANO
`PROTANOLAW.COM BUILDING
`121 SOUTH 61ST TERRACE, SUITE A-1
`HOLLYWOOD, FL 33023
`Email:
`bp@protanolaw.com
`Secondary:
`protanolaw@hotmail.com
`Phone: (954) 927-6714; Fax: (954) 927-6711
`
`By:
`
`/s/BERNARDO PROTANO, ESQ.
`Attorney for Defendant/Counter and Cross-Plaintiff
`FBN: 0348960
`
`
`
`16
`
`