The Defendant should hope Tinkerbell 2.0 doesn’t find.......
treasure if the new Judge grants the motion filed by SFRX. If the Judge hears the Jolly Ole Everett paid promo announcing treasure being found, there is no way he could not be so impressed it wouldn’t lead to bias “agin” the Defendant.
I wonder when Huffman’s gonna learn to count and who is the Plantiff and who is the Defendant. See number 10 and the sentence in bold. I actually agree with it as written, but I added the emphasis. Unfortunately it’s not before the Court.....yet.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
SEAFARER EXPLORATION CORP., Plaintiff,
-v-
DARRELL VOLENTINE, an individual, Also Known as “BUCCANEER1961”
Defendant.
/
PLAINTIFF SEAFARER EXPLORATION’S MOTION TO ALLOW PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARD AND AMENDMENT
The Plaintiff, Seafarer Exploration, Corp., by and through the undersigned counsel, pursuant to Section 768.82, Florida Statutes and pursuant to Administrative Order of the Court, hereby files this motion to allow for amendment of the Complaint for punitive damages, argument and presentation of evidence for the award of punitive damages at trial. The Plaintiff further avers:
1. The Plaintiff in the original cause of action had plead for all damages allowable under Florida law; specifically, under Count I and Count II of the Complaint in this cause of action for libel per se is allowed for punitive damages in this cause of action.
2. This matter is set for Case Management Conference before the Court on March 11, 2021, and this matter could be argued and heard at such time.
3. Such complaint contains the extent of communications made by the Defendant
Through internet postings, which would allow of punitive damages under Florida law. All such allegations are attested to by Kyle G. Kennedy, Chief Executive Officer of Seafarer which establishes the factual proofs necessary for a punitive damages claim.
4. For such reason, there is ample evidence as cited before the Court to allow for punitive damages, and there is no matter which the Defendant could cite as argument against a pleading amendment for punitive damages at trial.
4. The Plaintiff has proven through filings of matters in this cause of action including the now verified complaint with attached internet postings, of the libelous matters posted by the Defendant in the public realm against the Corporation, its officers, directors and agents. Such matters were all verified and of record in this cause of action under affidavit.
6. During his deposition, the Defendant admitted to posting the primary matters knowing they were false, or in the very least not knowing whether they were truthful; all the postings were made in a manner to affect the ongoing matters of the Corporation, its operations, and investors attitude toward the Corporation, its officers and directors.
7. No further discovery is necessary in the matter by the Plaintiff to seek any financial information regarding the Defendant for argument for punitive damages before the Jury in this cause of action.
8. Under Section 768.82, punitive damages are specifically tied to be allowed for under proper evidence existing in the cause of action before such will be allowed to be plead for. Specifically such section states the following:
(1) In any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of such damages. The claimant may move to amend her or his complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages as
allowed by the rules of civil procedure. The rules of civil procedure shall be liberally construed so as to allow the claimant discovery of evidence which appears reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence on the issue of punitive damages. No discovery of financial worth shall proceed until after the pleading concerning punitive damages is permitted.
(2) A defendant may be held liable for punitive damages only if the trier of fact, based on clear and convincing evidence, finds that the defendant
was personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence. As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Intentional misconduct" means that the defendant had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury or damage to the claimant would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage.
9. Even though the Defendant is being sued for libel per se, and is now facing scrutiny by a jury for a huge amount of damages to the Plaintiff Company and potentially thousands of shareholders, he continued to disregard matters by pleading such negative and false matters.
10. The Plaintiffs conduct was intentional and must be allowed to be judged under a punitive damage award in the matter. The Defendant has always been under notice of the Plaintiff seeking such damages; such damage pleading and exhortation before the jury will take no less evidence that what will be presented, and will serve the true purpose of punitive damages as envisioned under common law and under Florida statute.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays this Court will allow for the pleading of punitive damages, presentation of necessary evidence, jury instruction and argument at trial for such at trial in this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
CRAIG A. HUFFMAN, ESQUIRE
Florida Bar No. 116149
Securus Law Group
13046 Racetrack Road
Tampa, Florida 33626
Telephone (888) 914-4144
E-mail: craig@securuslawgroup.com
CERTIFICAT OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this Motion for Punitive Damages via electronic delivery to counsel of record this 26th day of February, 2021.
CRAIG A. HUFFMAN, ESQUIRE
