Balis et al v. Martin et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 35 Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction; Plaintiffs' Emergency Request for Status of the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 39 denied as moot. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 11/17/2020. (TLP)

Case 2:20-cv-00435-JES-NPM Document 42 Filed 11/17/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID 654

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GAY SANTARSIERO, LORI
MADDOX, LINDA SQUADRITO,
FRANCES FRANCIONE, ARDIS
BALIS, AND ANNE MARIE
PETRILLI,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No:

2:20-cv-00435-FtM-29NPM

JOHN MARTIN, HEATHER MARTIN,
LOU FRANCO, ALEX CHEPURNY,
VINCE AGRO, ANGIE AGRO, DAN
BEGIN, DONNA BEGIN, KATHRYN
CARHART,
JOHN
CARHART,
SHERYL FRANCO, and SUSAN
PERRIER,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Emergency
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
(Doc. #35) filed on October 16, 2020. Defendants filed a Reply in
Opposition to the Emergency Motion (Doc. #36) on October 20, 2020,
and plaintiffs filed a Response (Doc. #37) on October 21, 2020. On
November 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Emergency Request for Status
of the Motion. (Doc. #39.)
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order restraining defendants
John Martin, Lou Franco, Alex Chepurney, and Sheryl Franco from
the following:

Case 2:20-cv-00435-JES-NPM Document 42 Filed 11/17/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID 655

(1)

Conducting an election in Canada for directors of the
Edgewater Village Condominium Association scheduled for
November 17, 2020; and

(2)

Entering into or carrying out “any other agreements or
arrangements which would result in the furtherance of
their wrongful election process.”

(Doc. #35, pp. 1-2, 9.)
In Reply, Defendants argue that the Emergency Motion should
be dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and because plaintiffs
have waived their right to challenge the validity of the current
Board of Directors and its authority to schedule the Annual General
Meeting and Election of the Association pursuant to Florida Statute
§ 718.112(2)(d). (Doc. #36, pp. 1-5.) Defendants also point to a
recent Order by the Twentieth Circuit Court in Charlotte County,
Florida, that enjoined plaintiff Ardis Balis from conducting the
unauthorized meeting and/or election on November 11, 2020, in
arguing that plaintiffs have no legal authority to initiate the
election process for the Association’s Board of Directors. (Doc.
#36, pp. 5-6; Doc. #36-5; Doc. #36-6.)
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

- 2 -

Case 2:20-cv-00435-JES-NPM Document 42 Filed 11/17/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID 656

I.
On July 8, 2020, pro se plaintiffs Gay Santarsiero, Lori
Maddox, Linda Squadrito, Frances Francione, Ardis Balis, and Anne
Marie

Petrilli

Amended

(collectively

Complaint

(Docs.

##5,

plaintiffs)

1

35-1). 2 The

filed

a

ten-count

Amended

Complaint

includes claims for breach of contract (Count I), intentional
infliction of emotional distress (Count II), harassment (Count
III),

defamation

(Count

IV),

wrongful

conversion

of

property

(Count V), “board action beyond its authority” (Count VI), voter
fraud (Count VII), sexual harassment (Count VIII), “failure to
provide requested documents/destruction of material documents”
(Count IX), and negligence (Count X). (Doc. #35-1, pp. 13-22.)
The Amended Complaint alleges that plaintiffs are full-time
residents at the Edgewater Village (Edgewater) condominium complex
in Punta Gorda, Florida, and defendants John Martin, Heather

In the Amended Complaint, Sue Huchin is identified as one
of the plaintiffs in this matter. (Doc. #35-1, p. 3.) However, the
Court’s records indicate that on August 19, 2020, Ms. Huchin filed
a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the Amended Complaint,
dismissing all of her causes of action against all Defendants
without prejudice. (Doc. #20.) On August 25, 2020, the Court
endorsed an Order terminating Ms. Huchin as a party in this case.
(Doc. #23.) The Court will therefore disregard any of Ms. Huchin’s
purported claims set forth in the Amended Complaint.
1

Plaintiffs initially filed a Complaint and Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (Docs. ##1, 2) on June 19, 2020. The
Court found that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc.
#4, pp. 2-4.) The Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice
and denied the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as moot on
June 24, 2020. (Id., pp. 4-5.)
2

- 3 -

Case 2:20-cv-00435-JES-NPM Document 42 Filed 11/17/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID 657

Martin, Lou Franco, Alex Chepurney, Angie Agro, Dan Begin, Donna
Begin, Susan Perrier, Kathryn Carhart, John Carhart, and Sheryl
Franco (collectively defendants) are part-time Edgewater residents
who live full-time in Canada. (Doc. #35-1, pp. 3-14.) In addition,
some of the named plaintiffs and defendants serve on the board of
the

Edgewater

Village

Condominium

Association,

Inc.

(the

Association).3 (Doc. #35, p. 2; Doc. #35-1, pp. 6-7.)
The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants have improperly
closed all access to Edgewater’s common areas and amenities in
violation of the Association’s rules and failed to maintain such
areas. (Doc. #35-1, pp. 3, 7-8.) Plaintiffs further allege that
defendants have failed to retain the required flood insurance for
Edgewater,

engaged

in

abusive

and

harassing

conduct

directed

towards plaintiffs, and committed voter fraud, among other things.
(Id., pp. 3-14.) Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages “in whatever
amount in excess of $350,000,” punitive damages “in whatever amount
in excess of $1,000,000,” 4 and an order “enjoining/restraining

The Amended Complaint identifies plaintiff Ardis Balis as
“Vice President, Acting President” of the Association. It further
identifies defendant John Martin as the President of the
Association (when on premises), defendant Lou Franco as the
treasurer and director on the board of the Association, and Alex
Chepurny as a director on the Association’s board. (Doc. #35-1,
pp. 6-7.)
4 Plaintiffs seek punitive damages “in order to send a message
to the defendants intended to preclude defendants (and others
similarly situated) from continuing or initiating abusive and
harassing behavior of pro se plaintiffs and EWV unit owners and
others similarly situated.” However, the Amended Complaint does
3

- 4 -

Case 2:20-cv-00435-JES-NPM Document 42 Filed 11/17/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID 658

defendants . . . from further acts of harassment and retaliation
against each of the pro se plaintiffs . . .” (Doc. #35-1, pp. 2324.)
II.
The Court may enter a preliminary injunction or temporary
restraining order pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Squitieri v. Nocco, No. 8:19-cv906-T-36AAS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169099, at *8 (M.D. Fla. July
18, 2019). The purpose of a temporary restraining order, as well
as preliminary injunctive relief, is to preserve the status quo
between the parties and to prevent irreparable injury until the
merits of the lawsuit itself can be reviewed. All Care Nursing
Service v. Bethesda Memorial Hosp., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir.
1989)); Gasper v. Barr, No. 20-61128-CV, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
110775, at *6 (S.D. Fla. June 23, 2020). “This necessitates that
the relief sought in the motion be closely related to the conduct
complained of in the actual [amended] complaint.” Gasper, 2020
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110775 (citing Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470,
471 (8th Cir. 1994).
To

obtain

a

temporary

restraining

order,

a

party

must

demonstrate that (1) there is a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits; (2) irreparable injury will be suffered if the

not cite to any legal theory or statute allowing for such recovery.
(Doc. #35-1, pp. 5-6.)

- 5 -

Case 2:20-cv-00435-JES-NPM Document 42 Filed 11/17/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID 659

relief is not granted; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the
harm the relief would inflict on the non-movant; and (4) the entry
of the relief would serve the public interest. DeYoung v. Owens,
646 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2011); Haile v. Bombulie, No. 1714332-Civ, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165431, at *20-21 (S.D. Fla. Oct.
4, 2017). The moving party bears the burden of proof on each
requirement.
The Court finds that plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion is not
related to any of the allegedly wrongful conduct set forth in the
ten-count Amended Complaint. While plaintiffs allege in the Count
VII of the Amended Complaint that defendants Franco and Martin
committed voter fraud in the past by improperly opening ballots,
this is wholly unrelated to the issue of who may conduct the Annual
General Meeting and Election of the Association in November 2020.
See

Gasper,

2020

U.S.

Dist.

LEXIS

110775,

at

*6-7

(denying

petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief as it was unrelated to
the conduct complained of in any complaint or suit before the
court.)
Additionally, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not
established the requirements justifying a temporary restraining
order. Plaintiffs have not established that they are substantially
likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Ardis Balis,
as the purported Vice President of the Association, is permitted
to hold an election of the Association’s Board at will, and without

- 6 -

Case 2:20-cv-00435-JES-NPM Document 42 Filed 11/17/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID 660

other board members present, even if during a pandemic. (Doc. #35,
p. 8; Doc. #35-5, pp. 1-5.) Plaintiffs also do not address the
propriety of an extraterritorial application of a court order to
citizens of and in another country. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion
For Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is
hereby denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

The

Motion

for

Temporary

Restraining

Order

and

Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #35) is DENIED.
2.

The Emergency Request for Status of the Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #39) is DENIED as
moot.

DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
November, 2020.

Copies:
Parties of Record

- 7 -

17th

day of