Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bocas Group Demanda Ante Corte de Miami Por Difamación y Conspiración A Angie Pérez
Bocas Group Demanda Ante Corte de Miami Por Difamación y Conspiración A Angie Pérez
CASE NO.:
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
individual, and BOCAS FOOD GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability company, sue
1. This is an action for injunctive relief and for damages in excess of $15,000.00,
restaurants in South and Central Florida operating under the name “Bocas House”. Plaintiff C.
County, Florida and otherwise sui juris. Plaintiff L. de Grazia is an owner and operator of
several restaurants in South and Central Florida operating under the name “Bocas House”.
liability company, with its principal place of businesses in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Bocas
Group is the ultimate owner of several restaurants in South and Central Florida. Bocas Group is
groups of persons for the purpose of disseminating information regarding Venezuelan politics
and Venezuelan citizens. Defendant vozdeamerica.org was created on April 19, 2019. Its
dissemination of information is not limited to public figures. Upon information and belief,
groups of persons for the purpose of disseminating information regarding Venezuelan politics
and Venezuelan citizens. Defendant ultimahora24.com was created on May 20, 2019. Its
dissemination of information is not limited to public figures. Upon information and belief,
Venezuelan citizens. Defendant expresa.me was created in April 2019. Its dissemination of
information is not limited to public figures. Upon information and belief, express.me is owned
residing in Miami Dade County, Florida, is otherwise sui juris, and is subject to this Court’s
personal jurisdiction. Defendant Perez owns and operates an Instagram® page identified as
@angieepereztv and boasts of having approximately 400,000 followers. Defendant Perez claims
to be a Venezuelan journalist, blogger and interpreter. However, Defendant Perez is more well-
known for using her public Instagram® profile to unjustly accuse Venezuelan citizens of being
corrupt.
in Miami-Dade County, is otherwise sui juris, and is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction.
Prior to 2018, Gonzalez was a part owner in the restaurants owned by Plaintiff Bocas Group and
operated by the individual Plaintiffs. Prior to January 2018, Gonzalez was also the co-manager
of Bocas House Coral Gables, one of the restaurants owned by Plaintiff Bocas Group and
residing in Miami-Dade County, is otherwise sui juris, and is subject to this Court’s personal
jurisdiction. Dams operates and/or controls a series of web pages which publish unsupported
11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to Section 48.193,
Fla. Stat because Defendants reside in Florida, committed the acts alleged herein with the State
of Florida and/or engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this State, where such
1
In or around late 2018, Defendant Gonzalez was bought out of the Bocas House restaurant enterprise and relieved
of all his duties due to his fraudulent conduct as set forth in the complaint captioned, Bocas House of Coral Gables,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company, et al. v. Gonzalez, 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida, Case No. 2019-029718-CA-01.
3
35880306.1
activity is wholly interstate, intrastate or otherwise, and are therefore subject to the jurisdiction of
the courts of this state, whether or not the claim arose from that activity, and/or because
12. Venue is proper in Miami-Dade County, Florida because it is where the cause of
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Plaintiffs create Bocas Food Group and the Bocas House Concept
13. In or around November 2014, L. de Grazia and Gonzalez began discussing the
possibility of opening and operating a series of restaurants throughout Florida. The restaurants
would serve Latin American contemporary food based upon traditional Latin American cooking,
colors, roots, aromas and ingredients. The restaurants would be marketed to the Venezuelan ex-
14. As a result, on or about 2015 the first Bocas Group restaurant was opened in
Miami, Florida.
15. The restaurant enjoyed great success and led to the opening of similar restaurants
16. As of the filing of this complaint, Bocas Group operates restaurants in Doral,
marketing, Plaintiffs and Defendant Gonzalez agreed that Defendant Gonzalez would be
responsible for all traditional and digital marketing related to Bocas Group.
18. In that capacity, Gonzalez coordinated the social media based advertisement for
Boca Group.
19. For example, Gonzalez would design and control the content advertised on
Facebook®, for which Facebook charges the customer (i.e. Bocas Group) a monthly amount
4
35880306.1
depending on how many “likes” are received with respect to the advertisement.
20. Gonzalez would then forward the Facebook® invoices to Bocas Group for
payment.
21. Gonzalez performed in accordance with the Bocas Group business plan for
22. However, in or around November 2017, Bocas Group discovered that the invoices
being presented by Gonzalez as the costs for the social media campaign were not accurate and
23. Bocas Group’s investigation of the inflated invoices revealed that Gonzalez had
been intentionally altering invoices since 2015 in order to steal funds from Bocas Group.
24. As a result, in January 2018, Gonzalez was bought out and removed from Bocas
Group.
“Restaurant Property of Carmelo, Horacio and Levin de Grazia Serves as a Money Launderer In
Miami.”
26. On the same date, Defendant ultimahora24.com, through its Twitter® account
@UltimaHora24 published said article and accompanied the post with the Trademarked Image.
See Exhibit A
27. The statements contained in the ultimahora24.com article and Twitter® posting
are false.
29. The next day, Defendant Perez published on her Instagram® page a link to an
article with the headline: “Carmelo, Horacio and Levin de Grazia Utilize Chain of Restaurants to
5
35880306.1
comment on her own post, labeling Plaintiffs as criminals and claiming that the only reason
Plaintiffs’ business was successful was because they were laundering money.
30. The very same day, Defendant Perez published on her Instagram page® a picture
of a Learjet, stating that it was the private aircraft of L. de Grazia and located at the Opa Locka
airport. See Exhibit C. Defendant Perez continued to state that the plane was registered to an
31. The statements contained in Defendant Perez’s Instagram® postings are false.
32. The statements made by Defendant Perez are published on various internet sites
created by its co-defendants in order to create internet traffic to the articles and their defamatory
and extortionate content. See Exhibit D. Vozdeamerica.org also proceeded to publish parts of the
ultimahora24.com article into other articles and agree with the reports. Id.
35. The statements made by vozdeamerica.org are published on various internet site
36. Shortly thereafter, Defendant expresa.me published links to the posts created by
its co-defendants in order to create internet traffic to the articles and their defamatory and
extortionate content. expresa.me also proceeded to publish parts of the ultimahora24.com article
38. The statements made by expresa.me are published on various internet site and are
39. The unsubstantiated and false allegations made by Defendants were picked up by
several alleged news organizations including but not limited to the following Twitter® accounts:
(Witness #1) stating that another individual could resolve and remove all references throughout
the internet to any allegation that Plaintiffs were money launderers or otherwise involved with
41. On the same date, L. de Grazia made contact with the individual referred to by
Witness #1 aa the person who could resolve these issues. During said conversation, Witness #2
proceeded to state that he could control the release of defamatory statements and make sure that
no further articles, statements or posts about Plaintiffs were made. Witness #2 assured L. de
Grazia that if Plaintiffs agreed to pay the sum of $70,000, Witness #2 would erase all defamatory
2019, L. de Grazia advised Witness #2 that the payment of $70,0000 had been approved by
Plaintiffs. L. de Grazia requested details regarding how to make the payment and was advised
by Witness #2 that a third person would make contact in order to coordinate the payment
43. Shortly thereafter, a third person (Witness #3) made contact with L. de Grazia
44. On September 3, 2019, the funds were transferred to the bank account.
45. The very same day, the individual Plaintiffs requested a meeting with Witness #2
in Caracas, Venezuela to discuss the steps for removing the defamatory statements. The
individual Plaintiffs also sought to obtain information regarding the extortionate and defamatory
campaign launched against them. C. de Grazia attended said meeting in person, as did Witness
46. During said meeting, Witness #2 disclosed that the entire defamatory campaign
had been created and funded by Defendant Gonzalez. Witness #2 provided proof of same by
showing C. de Grazia a series of messages by and between Gonzalez and other members of the
defamatory and extortionate conspiracy. The messages included a draft of the defamatory
7
35880306.1
statements to be made. The draft is wholly consistent with the information published by
Defendants through multiple internet based media, including but not limited to Twitter®,
47. During the meeting, Witness #2 called Defendant Dams to inform Defendant
Dams that Plaintiffs had made the payment and that Defendant Dams could remove the
defamatory content from all web pages, Twitter® accounts, Instagram® pages and Facebook®
48. Defendant Dams agreed to remove the defamatory content and prevent any future
postings.
49. Despite Defendant Dams’ agreement, the defamatory campaign led by Defendant
Gonzalez continued.
50. On October 5, 2019, Defendant Perez published on her Instagram® page a series
of pictures, including one representing the opening of Bocas Group Weston location. See
Exhibit E. Defendant Perez then proceeded to comment on her own post that a certain former
Venezuelan judge had purchased a franchise of the Bocas Group and was an associate of L. de
Grazia.
51. The statements contained in Defendant Perez’s September 12th Instagram® posts
are false.
52. The statements made by Defendant Perez are published on various internet sites
residing in Florida.
54. Plaintiffs’ advertisements and publicity are mainly aimed at the Venezuelan ex-
8
35880306.1
55. Defendants’ defamatory campaign, commenced during the last quarter of 2019 is
intended to disrupt the Plaintiff’s business during the height of the season.
a 30% downturn in the locations operated in cities with a significant Venezuelan population, to
57. Defendants’ goal is to cause Plaintiffs to suffer irreparable harm to their business,
their reputations and to their advantageous business relations, and to be placed in a state of fear
58. Plaintiffs have retained the undersigned attorneys to represent them in this action
and are obligated to pay them reasonable fees in exchange for their services.
59. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have occurred, have been waived,
COUNT I
DEFAMATION PER SE
60. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 59
62. Defendants published false, libelous and unprivileged statements about Plaintiffs
to a third parties, to wit: Defendants published a series of false, libelous and unprivileged
statements on their social media and/or on web pages owned and/or controlled by Defendants
that described Plaintiffs as money launderers and conspirators in aiding and abetting the
63. Defendants also published false, libelous and unprivileged statements and remarks
64. Defendants also urged third parties to cease and desist from conducting business
with Plaintiffs.
9
35880306.1
65. The false and malicious statements posted by Defendants are published on
various internet site and are open to the general public to read.
66. The false, libelous and unprivileged statements about Plaintiffs have the tendency
to injure Plaintiffs in their trade or profession and subject Plaintiffs to hatred, distrust, ridicule
contempt or disgrace.
69. As a result of Defendants’ defamation per se, Plaintiffs have suffered and
70. Further, Defendants’ actions are intentional, willful, wanton, malicious, and
performed with a reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and, therefore, Plaintiffs reserve the
right to amend this complaint to seek punitive damages against Defendants pursuant to Section
GRAZIA, an individual, and BOCAS FOOD GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendants,
individual for compensatory damages, costs, and interest and such other further relief or recovery
COUNT II
LIBEL
71. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 59
73. Defendants published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiffs to third
10
35880306.1
parties, to wit: Defendants published a series of false statements on their social media and/or on
web pages owned and/or controlled by Defendants that described Plaintiffs as enemies of the
statements were reproduced by several Twitter® accounts, including but not limited to
74. Defendants’ statement are false and were false when made and Defendant knew
that the statements were false at the time they were published or Defendants made the statements
with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity and with reckless disregard for their adverse
effect on Plaintiffs’ reputation and/or their business and/or their commercial activities.
75. As a matter of fact, Defendants published said statements at the urging and
instruction of Defendant Gonzalez, who Defendants knew or should have known had been
76. Defendants’ false and defamatory statements were made intentionally and were
77. The false and malicious statements posted by Defendants are published on various
78. As a result of Defendants’ actions Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer
damages.
79. Further, Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton, malicious, and
performed with a reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and, therefore, Plaintiffs reserve the
right to amend this complaint to seek punitive damages against Defendants pursuant to Section
GRAZIA, an individual, and BOCAS FOOD GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendants,
individual for actual and compensatory damages, costs, and interest and such other further relief
COUNT III
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS
80. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 59
81. Plaintiffs have advantageous business relationships with customers for the sale of
food and beverages at multiple locations in South and Central, Florida. The crux of Plaintiffs’
83. Defendants have intentionally and without justification interfered with Plaintiffs’
business relationships through their social media campaign and postings on web pages owned
and/or controlled by Defendants. Defendants have urged multiple persons to stay away from
Plaintiffs’ businesses.
84. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer
damages.
85. Further, Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton, malicious, and
performed with a reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and therefore, Plaintiffs reserve the right
to amend this complaint to seek punitive damages against Defendants pursuant to Section
GRAZIA, an individual, and BOCAS FOOD GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment enter judgment against
12
35880306.1
an individual, CESAR GONZALEZ, an individual, and GERARDO JOSE GIL DAMS, an
individual for actual and compensatory damages, costs, and interest and such other further relief
COUNT IV
INJUNCTION TO STOP TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
86. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 59
87. Defendants have been interfering and continue to interfere with Plaintiffs’
88. Plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable damage not adequately
compensable at law unless this Court grants preliminary and permanent relief enjoining and
restraining Defendants (and any other person or entity acting on their behalf or in conjunction
with Defendants) from posting any content on the websites and/or social media that tortiously
remove from their websites and social media, all content regarding Plaintiffs that is defamatory
and/or constitutes tortious interference; and (c) ordering Defendants to instruct all websites and
social media that are reposting and or hosting Defendants’ defamatory content regarding to
89. The harm to Plaintiffs if injunctive relief is not entered outweighs any harm to
90. Such injunctive relief, if issued, will not disserve the public interest but, to the
contrary, will serve the public interest by ensuring that Defendants cease engaging in unlawful
conduct.
GRAZIA, an individual, and BOCAS FOOD GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability
13
35880306.1
ultimahora24.com, an anonymous website, vozdeamerica.org, an anonymous website,
individual, to (i) immediately remove any statements that tortiously interfere with Plaintiffs’
advantageous business relationships from web pages, Twitter® accounts, Instagram® pages and
Facebook® pages operated and/or managed and/or controlled by any of the Defendants; (ii)
immediately cease and desist from posting any statements that tortiously interfere with
pages and Facebook® pages operated and/or managed and/or controlled by any of the
Defendants and (iii) immediately instruct all websites and social media that are reposting and or
hosting Defendants’ defamatory content regarding Plaintiffs and their business to remove said
content; and
(b) awarding such other further relief or recovery this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT V
CONSPIRACY
91. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 59
93. Specifically, Defendants have worked together to create and publish a series of
false, libelous and unprivileged statements and remarks about Plaintiffs which attribute criminal
94. Defendants have also worked together to create and publish a series of false,
libelous and unprivileged statements and remarks about Plaintiffs regarding their business and
95. Defendants are pursuing this unlawful goal in an effort to destroy Plaintiffs’
business and/or to unlawfully extract money from Plaintiffs in order to make Defendants’ stop
14
35880306.1
their campaign.
publishing the posts, disseminating the posts on multiple web pages, and employing search
engine optimization techniques that result in their posts being predominately listed on a search
for Plaintiffs on the World Wide Web. Defendants have also committed overt acts in furtherance
of their conspiracy by ensuring that their posts are available to the general public and to those
with whom Plaintiffs have advantageous business relations. Defendants have also committed
overt acts in furtherance of their conspiracy by demanding money from Plaintiffs in order to stop
their campaign.
97. As a result of Defendants’ actions Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer
damages.
98. Further, Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton, malicious, and
performed with a reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights and, therefore, Plaintiffs reserve the
right to amend this complaint to seek punitive damages against Defendants pursuant to Section
GRAZIA, an individual, and BOCAS FOOD GROUP LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendants,
individual for compensatory damages, costs, and interest and such other further relief or
15
35880306.1
JURY DEMAND
16
35880306.1
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E