Complaint — Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. Primo Management Group, Inc. (M.D. Fla.)

Summary

A complaint for injunctive relief and damages filed June 4, 2021 by Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC and Diamond Resorts Hawaii Collection Development, LLC against Primo Management Group, Inc. and Israel Sanchez, Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI, Document 1. The complaint alleges that the timeshare exit company falsely advertises a guaranteed cancellation service and instructs owners to stop paying their timeshare contracts. It cites the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), for federal jurisdiction and refers to pandemic-themed advertising. The prayer for relief asks for injunctions against interfering with Diamond's contracts, unpaid note balances, punitive damages and costs, and the plaintiffs demand a jury trial. The complaint is 47 pages.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 1 of 47 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

DIAMOND RESORTS U.S. COLLECTION
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and DIAMOND RESORTS
HAWAII COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No.: _________________

PRIMO MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. and
ISRAEL SANCHEZ, JR.,

Defendants.
________________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Plaintiffs Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC and Diamond

Resorts Hawaii Collection Development, LLC (collectively, “Diamond” or

“Plaintiffs”), sue Defendants Primo Management Group, Inc. (“PMG”) and Israel

Sanchez, Jr. (“Sanchez”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages and injunctive

relief, and, in support, state:

I. Introduction

1. Plaintiffs market, sell, and finance the sale of vacation membership

interests (also known as timeshare interests) in the Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection

and the Diamond Resorts Hawaii Collection.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 2 of 47 PageID 2

2. Defendant PMG, which is part of the rising timeshare “exit” industry,

targets and disrupts valid contracts between timeshare developers, like Diamond,

and their customers through false advertising, tortious interference, and unfair and

deceptive trade practices. PMG and its CEO, Sanchez, falsely advertise and market

a timeshare cancellation service which promises timeshare owners to get them out

of their timeshare contracts “SAFELY. ETHICALLY. GUARANTEED.

FOREVER.”1

3. Unsuspecting timeshare owners pay thousands of dollars in advance

fees to sign up for PMG’s illusory timeshare cancellation service, which they are

told is “guaranteed” to release them from their timeshare obligations, be it mortgage

or maintenance fees, for any or no reason whatsoever, without any investigation of

whether there is a legitimate basis for any such release.

4. What really underlies Defendants’ so-called “guaranteed solution to []

timeshare troubles”2 is institutionalized tortious interference: an instruction to

timeshare owners to breach their timeshare contracts and cease making payments to

timeshare developers, including Diamond, which PMG hopes will results in

foreclosure or forfeiture of the timeshare interest. When PMG’s “timeshare

1
https://pmanagementgroup.com/ (emphasis in the original).
2
https://pmanagementgroup.com/about/

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 3 of 47 PageID 3

elimination experts” cause this breach, they knowingly subject timeshare owners to

adverse and potentially ruinous credit reporting and tax liability.

5. However, PMG spins the developer’s foreclosure or forfeiture of the

timeshare interest as a successful result and the promised “guaranteed” cancellation,

even though—other than the tortious interference precipitating it—PMG played no

role in achieving it.

6. But this is precisely the result that timeshare owners could have

achieved on their own, without having to pay PMG thousands of dollars for a falsely

advertised “safe” and “ethical” exit.

7. Far from being ethical, PMG’s entire business model of achieving a

timeshare “exit” is built on lies and deception, as PMG instructs its customers to lie

to Diamond and conceal their relationship with the exit company. This leaves PMG

free to work behind the scenes in order to accomplish its tortious interference with

Diamond’s timeshare contracts.

8. PMG operates under this veil of secrecy because it knows full well that

Diamond, among other timeshare developers, does not respond to fraudulent so-

called “cancellation” companies like PMG. This is why PMG instructs their

customers to never disclose their retention of PMG, so that PMG can freely ghost-

write communications for the timeshare owners—concealing that PMG wrote

them—to send to Diamond and other timeshare developers, requesting to be released

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 4 of 47 PageID 4

from their timeshare interests based on some unsubstantiated and generalized

allegations of hardship or deception during the sales process, all scripted by PMG.

9. Although PMG claims that it will “help to negotiate the release of [a]

timeshare contract obligation” and “will help [timeshare owners] to get out of [their]

timeshare contracts forever,”3 PMG is not a law firm and it knows that it has no legal

way of getting timeshare owners out of their valid and legally enforceable contracts.

PMG also knows that it does not directly negotiate with any timeshare developer,

including Diamond, as it hides behind the façade of timeshare owners’ hoax

correspondence. Yet, PMG boasts that it has an “outside general counsel,”4 thus

giving a false impression to timeshare owners that an attorney will be available to

them should the need arise.

10. PMG is purposefully vague as to how exactly it achieves the purported

“exits.” That is because despite its assertion that PMG provides “a high-touch,

boutique level of service,”5 PMG has no “exit” process at all, and certainly not one

“guaranteed” to result in timeshare contract cancellation.

11. Under Florida law, the “cancellation” of a timeshare contract is a

specific, non-waivable rescission right held by timeshare owners that can only be

exercised within a certain time period following the execution of a Timeshare

3
https://pmanagementgroup.com/faq/
4
https://pmanagementgroup.com/our-attorney/
5
https://pmanagementgroup.com/about/

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 5 of 47 PageID 5

Contract. Thus, the “cancellation” of a timeshare contract is not a service that can

be advertised, sold, or provided in commerce,

12. It is inherently false and deceptive for PMG to advertise to timeshare

owners who are not within the applicable rescission period, that PMG can relieve

them of all further liability pertaining to their timeshare contracts. But that is

precisely what PMG does. To perpetuate its falsehoods, PMG spends tens of

thousands of dollars on internet, television, social media, and other advertisements,

which are placed into interstate commerce, to aggressively pitch its false statements

and empty promises. PMG also lures its customers by misleading advertising on its

website.

13. PMG’s advertisements and marketing for its alleged timeshare

cancellation “services” utilize numerous deceptive and unfair trade practices in

soliciting customers and throughout the process of providing the supposed timeshare

cancellation “services.” These include statements guaranteeing contract

cancellation, assuring customers that no further payments on the underlying

contracts will be required, promising the ease of the “exit” process and the process

to repair negative credit consequences from PMG’s services.

14. PMG’s owner and CEO, Sanchez, who personally benefits from PMG’s

operations, helps to perpetuate the falsehoods by promoting PMG’s “exit” services

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 6 of 47 PageID 6

and promising unsuspecting timeshare owners that PMG has “a proven process” that

works.6

15. A key part of PMG’s unfair and deceptive practices involves instructing

or suggesting to timeshare owners that they should default on their valid and legally

enforceable contractual obligations to Diamond, thereby intentionally causing

damage and economic losses to the timeshare developer.

16. PMG knows all along that its ghostwritten submissions will be

unsuccessful and that, in the end, PMG will have to resort to tortious interference,

directing the customer to breach his or her timeshare contract and stop paying

without legal or factual cause, exposing the owner to the risk of foreclosure, a money

judgment, credit score impairment or worse. To accomplish its tortious interference

with Diamond’s contracts, PMG falsely leads its timeshare owner customers to

believe that by defaulting on their obligations, timeshare owners are generating

leverage with the timeshare developer.

17. Despite its assurances that a timeshare cancellation will be obtained,

PMG collects its entire exorbitant up-front fee long before the timeshare owner

receives any benefit of its services, if he or she ever does.7 PMG justifies its fee by

6
https://pmanagementgroup.com/, embedded video of Sanchez appearing on the TV
show The Balancing Act, approximately at 3:20 mark.
7
There are other legitimate federal and state regulated businesses that help their
customers reduce or eliminate debt or repair credit damaged by excess debt, two
things that PMG also promises to do. Debt relief providers, credit repair businesses

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 7 of 47 PageID 7

instructing the customers to stop paying legitimate and legally enforceable

contractual obligations, including annual maintenance, taxes, or mortgage payments

to their timeshare companies.

18. PMG’s use of false and misleading advertising and deceptive and unfair

trade practices, individually and in combination, plays a material and substantial part

in inducing timeshare owners to breach their existing contracts and cease doing

business with Diamond.

19. Now that the novel Coronavirus pandemic is ravaging America’s

health and economy, PMG’s false and deceptive assurance to “exit” consumers from

their timeshare ownership “safely, ethically, guaranteed and forever”8 sounds

particularly timely and appealing. PMG is already capitalizing on the pandemic by

telling timeshare owners: “Covid is keeping you from going on vacation but not from

your timeshare companies charging you. End it now, get away from your

timeshare contract!”9 Feeding on timeshare owners’ fears, PMG doubled down on

false advertising, going as far as telling consumers that despite difficult times,

and the like differ from PMG and other wholly unregulated timeshare cancellation
businesses in many ways, but one in particular stands out: the advance fee ban.
Unlike PMG, debt relief providers and credit repair organizations do not get paid
until the customer actually receives the promised result. See, e.g. the Florida Credit
Services Organizations Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 817.7001, et seq., T.C.A. § 47-18-5523 and
the Credit Repair Organization Act (CROA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679, et seq.
8
https://pmanagementgroup.com/
9
https://www.instagram.com/primomanagementgrp/?hl=en (emphasis added).

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 8 of 47 PageID 8

timeshare resorts are “pursuing payment from their owners more diligently than

ever” and that timeshare resorts will likely employ “underhanded methods” to hurt

timeshare owners once the pandemic is over.10

20. Thus, now, more than ever, it is imperative to impede PMG’s

deceptive practices and advertising, which will surely attract an even larger number

of unsuspecting timeshare owners affected by the recent pandemic. And this Court

has the power to stop PMG from continuing to prey on the vulnerable public and

eroding Plaintiffs’ already endangered business. Plaintiffs thus bring this action to

enjoin Defendants’ violations of law, and to recover the damages Defendants’

misconduct has caused them.

II. PARTIES

21. Plaintiff Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC is a

Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located at

10600 West Charleston Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada 89135.

22. Plaintiff Diamond Resorts Hawaii Collection Development, LLC is a

Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located at

10600 West Charleston Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada 89135.

10
https://pmanagementgroup.com/timeshares-coronavirus-questions-
2/?fbclid=IwAR0wrFNnt7PZBY2spbAULX5G6g8MH-
duQEn3OuQWp4ipl76mREzv8KL5GZM

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 9 of 47 PageID 9

23. Defendant PMG is a Florida profit corporation, which is engaged in

timeshare cancellation industry. PMG operates an office and call center at 7200

Lake Ellenor Drive, Orlando, FL 32809.

24. Defendant Sanchez is a founder and owner of PMG. Sanchez is a

resident of the State of Florida who resides in Orlando, Florida. As described below,

Sanchez has directed and personally engaged in PMG’s advertising in order to

facilitate the tortious scheme. Sanchez is responsible for, and personally directs,

PMG’s s mode of operation wherein PMG intends to and in fact causes the breach

of Diamond’s timeshare contracts.

III. JURISDICTION

25. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1331 and 1338(a) because a federal question is presented under the Lanham Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1125(a).

26. This Court also has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over the

state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because those claims derive from a

common nucleus of operative facts and are so related to the claim in the action within

original jurisdiction that it forms part of the same case or controversy under Article

III of the United States Constitution.

27. This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants because

they are subject to general jurisdiction in the State of Florida. PMG is a Florida

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 10 of 47 PageID 10

corporation with its principal place of business in Orlando, Florida, and Sanchez is

a Florida resident.

28. This Court has the authority to enter a declaratory judgment and to

provide preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

IV. VENUE

29. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391, because Defendants reside, are located, and do business within the State of

Florida, and in particular within the geographic confines of the Middle District of

Florida.

V. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Diamond Resorts

30. Diamond Resorts International, Inc. (“DRI”) is one of the largest

hospitality companies in the world with more than 420 branded and affiliated resorts

and over 27,000 guest beds in 35 countries and destinations throughout the

continental United States and Hawaii, Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, Europe, Asia,

Australia, and Africa. DRI and its subsidiaries develop, own, operate, and manage

vacation membership resorts.

31. Plaintiffs are indirect subsidiaries of DRI that offer multistate vacation

memberships that allow members to acquire vacation ownership interests in the form

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 11 of 47 PageID 11

of points, which they can then use to stay at various destinations within the network

assembled into various “Collections,” or to book airline tickets, hotel

accommodations, cruises, excursions, or other activities. Plaintiff Diamond Resorts

U.S. Collection Development, LLC has created the created the Diamond Resorts

U.S. Collection (the “U.S. Collection”), which consists of nearly 50 resorts in

Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico,

South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and St. Maarten. Plaintiff Diamond Resorts

Hawaii Collection Development, LLC has created the Diamond Resorts Hawaii

Collection (the “Hawaii Collection”) which consists of resorts in Hawaii, Nevada,

California, and Arizona.

32. Plaintiffs, for example, offer an ultra-flexible points-based program for

vacationing at a variety of destinations, primarily throughout the United States.

Members can select from more than 40 different resorts in places like Orlando, Lake

Tahoe, Sedona, Hilton Head, Las Vegas, and other destinations. In addition,

membership provides members with access to 110 resorts (through the Collections

or Diamond’s sister companies), and through Diamond’s internal exchange program,

hundreds of additional affiliated resorts and hotels, and dozens of cruise itineraries.

33. These vacation membership interests allow the customers to use

hundreds of vacation destination properties throughout the world. A customer who

purchases a timeshare interest from Plaintiffs (“Diamond Owner”) executes a

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 12 of 47 PageID 12

Purchase and Security Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) wherein the

customer agrees, among other things, to pay a certain price for the timeshare interest.

34. Customers who purchase vacation membership interests from the

Diamond Collections generally finance those purchases over time with Diamond as

both the seller and lender. Such purchase money financing arrangements allow

Diamond Owners to use their timeshare points for accommodations, air travel,

cruises and the like, even though they have not fully paid for them. The purchase

money financing payments, due monthly, are the first thing PMG tells the Diamond

Owner to stop paying so that the owner can, instead, pay PMG’s upfront fees. As a

result, the Diamond Owners use their points for vacation accommodations without

fully paying for them. And when pursuant to PMG’s instructions the timeshare

owner stops making the payments, Diamond never gets fully paid for that sale.

35. Purchasers of vacation membership points from the Diamond

Collection automatically become members of the members’ association for their

respective Collection. The members’ associations review and approve the operating

budget, assess and collect and spend annual assessments from members/owners, and

pay taxes, utility costs, and other costs incurred on behalf of member/owners.

Annual maintenance fees for a given year are generally billed by or on behalf of the

members’ associations during the previous fall and are due by January 1st.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 13 of 47 PageID 13

36. Customers who purchase Diamond Resorts vacation membership

points also become members of THE Club® at DRI (“THE Club”). THE Club has

affiliations with many other resorts and hotels, which expand the portfolio of

destinations at which members can stay when using their Collection points. THE

Club augments the array of accommodation options it provides to Collection

members by allowing the redemption of points for airline tickets, rental cars and

other travel related services. Pursuant to the purchase agreement and governing

documents, Collection members agree to pay annual fees for membership in THE

Club as an attendant benefit of their timeshare interest.

37. Diamond Owners’ compliance with their contractual obligations

(including timely and complete payments) are of utmost importance to Diamond’s

business.

38. In addition, as with any business, customer relations are vital to

Diamond’s business and success. Diamond devotes substantial resources to

advertising and other marketing promotions to increase the visibility and recognition

of its products and to maintain and enhance the value of its brand.

39. Diamond competes directly with other timeshare developers and

marketers of vacation and travel products/services, who, like Diamond, target

similar customers, namely existing timeshare owners (including especially existing

Diamond Owners) and prospective timeshare purchasers. PMG competes with

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 14 of 47 PageID 14

Diamond for Diamond’s own customers, promising to undo Diamond’ contracts

with their timeshare owners.

B. The Defendants’ Unlawful Scheme

40. Sanchez and PMG have actual, constructive, and/or specific knowledge

of the contractual relationships between Diamond and Diamond Owners. The very

fact that Diamond has a business relationship with Diamond Owners is the basis

upon which these Defendants seek to establish a relationship with Diamond Owners.

Indeed, if it were not for the existence of the contractual relationships between

Diamond and Diamond Owners, these Defendants would have no reason to market

their timeshare exit services to them.

41. As described above, Defendants falsely and misleadingly advertise a

“guaranteed” ability to “cancel” timeshare contracts on behalf of consumers,

including Diamond Owners.

42. In fact, PMG possesses no such ability, and PMG’s timeshare

cancellation scheme has no legitimate legal foundation. It is simply designed to

induce existing Diamond Owners to breach their Purchase Agreements with, and

related obligations to, Diamond in order to steer them to pay large, upfront sums to

PMG for its pecuniary gain, resulting in termination of the relationship between

Diamond and its owners and substantial harm to both Diamond and Diamond

Owners.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 15 of 47 PageID 15

43. Sanchez, PMG’s CEO and one of the co-founders of the company,

originated and devised PMG’s fraudulent scheme and has personally implemented

or directed others to implement and execute PMG’s fraudulent scheme. Sanchez,

who benefits from this scheme, directs and controls PMG’s activities which are the

subject of this lawsuit and/or controls others whom Sanchez has instructed to engage

in such activities. Accordingly, as used throughout this lawsuit, all actions

attributable to PMG are also attributable to Sanchez, and he is equally responsible

and liable to Diamond. PMG and Sanchez may, as the context dictates, be referred

to collectively as “PMG.”

44. PMG’s timeshare exit scheme is implemented by luring unsuspecting

Diamond Owners to hire PMG through false and misleading marketing, including

claims made in television and internet advertisements, as well as on its website

https://pmanagementgroup.com/ (the “PMG Website”). Defendants’ advertising

contains a multitude of false and misleading representations, some of which are

discussed below.

45. The PMG Website advertises “guaranteed solution” to timeshare

cancellation and boldly promises timeshare owners that it will get rid of their

timeshare “SAFELY. ETHICALLY. GUARANTEED. FOREVER.”11

11
https://pmanagementgroup.com/ (emphasis in the original).

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 16 of 47 PageID 16

46. A copy of the false and misleading advertising contained on the PMG

Website is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Complaint.

47. Throughout its website PMG falsely states that it has a “guaranteed”

way of cancelling timeshare contracts and boasts “the effectiveness of how we get

people out of their timeshare.”12 PMG misleads timeshare owners, including

Diamond Owners, when it implies on the PMG Website that it has found a silver

bullet for timeshare contracts cancellation by falsely stating, “We utilize our

extensive knowledge and experience to find the most effective ways to cancel a

timeshare specifically tailored to each client. We get you out of your timeshare

obligation forever.”13 But PMG does not have a legally cognizable method of

actually accomplishing what it promises.

12
https://pmanagementgroup.com/in-the-news/
13
https://pmanagementgroup.com/

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 17 of 47 PageID 17

48. Unlike other companies in the timeshare cancellation cottage industry,

PMG does not pretend to use lawyers to accomplish its “exits.” And even though

PMG promises to get timeshare owners, including Diamond Owners, out of their

legally valid and enforceable contracts, PMG insists that timeshare owners do not

need a lawyer to get out of a timeshare. In fact, PMG discourages timeshare owners

from seeking legal advice concerning their timeshare contracts for fear that once

such advice is received, timeshare owners will not fall for PMG’s lies and will not

buy its sham “cancellation” services. PMG falsely implies that it has some highly

specialized knowledge of how to accomplish a timeshare exit, which lawyers do not

possess:

Getting rid of a timeshare isn’t an easy process, and can be
very hard to navigate. Sure, you could hire a timeshare
attorney who would cost three times the amount, drag you
through a painful process, and provide no guarantee.14

49. Despite explicitly discouraging timeshare owners, including Diamond

Owners, from seeking legal advice, the PMG Website provides deceptive

information about PMG’s use of counsel in the timeshare cancelation scheme. The

PMG Website’s Section “About Us” contains a separate page titled “Our

Attorney,”15 which misleads timeshare owners into thinking that an attorney will be

available to fight for them should the timeshare cancellation process become

14
https://pmanagementgroup.com/
15
https://pmanagementgroup.com/our-attorney/

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 18 of 47 PageID 18

complicated and the timeshare owner has to defend a lawsuit as a result of default

intentionally orchestrated by PMG.

50. Timeshare owners’ confusion is readily apparent from the reviews that

the owners write for PMG on various social media platforms such as Google and

Facebook. One such customer, identified as Kathy Morrison, specifically observed

in her review of PMG on Google:

My confidence grew in Primo when I learned that they
have an attorney on retainer who will take their client’s
case to court, if necessary. I researched the attorney and
she is valid…. I researched other timeshare contract
release companies, like Primo, who did not have an
attorney on retainer.16

51. Another customer of PMG was similarly under the impression that

PMG’s attorney was working on her timeshare cancellation, but at the end was left

to defend a lawsuit on her own:

16
https://www.womply.com/biz/primo-management-group-inc-orlando-FL/
17
https://www.womply.com/biz/primo-management-group-inc-orlando-FL/

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 19 of 47 PageID 19

52. Diamond Owners are purposefully deceived into believing that they are

being represented by attorneys who work for PMG. One of PMG’s customers told

Diamond in May 2019 that he was being represented by attorney Miriam Alequin of

PMG, who is in fact not a lawyer but simply an account manager with PMG.

53. PMG also falsely advertises that it can help timeshare owners, including

Diamond Owners, to get rid of their timeshare at a whim, regardless of whether there

is any factual or legal basis for doing so. For instance, in trade publications

criticizing the timeshare industry, PMG misleadingly advertises that it “can help

timeshare owners eliminate a monthly debt and obligation that lasts for the contract

term (most commonly 10 years) and annual maintenance fees that endure in

perpetuity.”18

54. Similarly, the Forbes article touted by PMG falsely states that “PMG

helps its customers get out of unwanted timeshare contracts they can no longer afford

or wish to keep.”19

18
https://www.itravelnet.com/travel-blog/get-rid-of-your-timeshare-start-traveling-
to-different-places-instead/, which can be accessed from the PMG Website’s page
titled “In the News” at https://pmanagementgroup.com/in-the-news/.
19
https://www.forbes.com/sites/shephyken/2018/11/15/industry-leader-secrets-six-
ways-to-stand-out-with-customer-experience/?sh=57a298805798, which can be
accessed from the PMG Website’s page titled “In the News” at
https://pmanagementgroup.com/in-the-news/.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 20 of 47 PageID 20

55. PMG’s social media profiles, such as Facebook, Instagram, and

Twitter, are also replete with similar false and misleading advertisements, as they

often repeat the falsehoods published on the PMG Website.20

56. Upon information and belief, PMG uses other nefarious forms of false

and misleading advertisements, including through its telephone sales pitches.

57. Sanchez personally approved the false and misleading content

contained on the PMG Website, as well as the content of PMG’s false and misleading

advertising that appears on various social media websites, to which he contributed.

58. Sanchez, as the face of the company, also personally participates in

false advertising of PMG’s services. As an example, Sanchez personally appeared

on the TV show The Balancing Act where he falsely claimed that PMG has “a proven

process” of timeshare cancellation that works.21

59. Sanchez also falsely and misleadingly advertises PMG’s services on

various consumer websites. One such website by the name of Disease Called Debt,

quotes Sanchez as saying that “[f]or a small fee, we [PMG] eliminate a monthly debt

20
See PMG’s Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/primomanagemtgroup/;
PMG’s Instagram at https://www.instagram.com/primomanagementgrp/?hl=en; and
PMG’s Twitter page at https://twitter.com/primomgroup?lang=en.
21
https://pmanagementgroup.com/, embedded video of Sanchez appearing on the
TV show The Balancing Act, approximately at 3:20 mark.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 21 of 47 PageID 21

and obligation that continues for the contract period (most commonly 10 years) and

annual maintenance fees that continue in perpetuity.”22

60. Such advertisements by Sanchez are false and misleading because they

imply that timeshare owners, including Diamond Owners, can get rid of their

timeshares regardless of whether there is any factual or legal basis for doing so.

These advertisements also conceal from timeshare owners, including Diamond

Owners, that PMG’s method of “cancellation” involves an unlawful breach and

foreclosure, which will result in serious adverse financial consequences for the

timeshare.

61. PMG and Sanchez make these advertisements knowing that, in fact,

PMG will simply advise its customers to breach their contracts rather than offering

them a legitimate exit method or basis to “cancel” their contracts and mortgages.

PMG and Sanchez do not have any legitimate cause, justification, or privilege in

procuring the breach of contractual relationships between Diamond and its

customers, and their interference with Diamond’s business and contracts is willful

and malicious.

62. PMG backs its false and misleading advertising by “100% money back

guarantee.”23 But PMG’s much-advertised money back guarantee is not only

22
https://diseasecalleddebt.com/help-get-me-out-of-my-timeshare-now/.
23
https://pmanagementgroup.com/

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 22 of 47 PageID 22

misleading, but also illusory. No matter the validity and effectiveness of the “exit,”

PMG gets to keep the money. Despite PMG’s deceptive advertisement of its

services as risk-free because a customer is always entitled to a refund if PMG is

unsuccessful in obtaining an exit, on information and belief, the money-back

guarantee comes with numerous caveats and qualifications that allow PMG to avoid

paying a refund at its discretion virtually all the time.

63. PMG considers foreclosure by a timeshare developer or cancellation of

a contract as a result of non-payment to be an “exit” in satisfaction of PMG’s

contract, which prevents timeshare owners from seeking a refund of their large

upfront fee paid to PMG. But this is not a risk free result because this outcome,

which customers could have surely achieved on their own without paying thousands

of dollars to PMG, harms customers’ credit ratings and creates other negative

financial consequences, including lawsuits and judgments against them.

64. But PMG manages to capitalize even on this misfortune by promising

customers to help repair their credit either directly or through another credit repair

organization, for which, on information and belief, PMG receives illegal kickbacks

for referrals.

65. PMG’s false advertising not only promises timeshare owners 100%

money back guarantee, but also assures its prospective customers that it has 100%

success rate. But the two concepts are mutually exclusive because the first time

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 23 of 47 PageID 23

PMG returns its customer his or her money pursuant to the money-back guarantee,

PMG can no longer claim that it has 100% success rate.

66. PMG’s claim of 100% success is both literally false, as well as

deceptive, as PMG’s method of terminating Diamond Owners’ contracts through

default does not result in a legal release of Diamond Owners and ultimately harms

Diamond Owners’ credit.

67. Moreover, the claim of 100% success rate further promotes PMG’s goal

of causing Diamond Owners to immediately stop payments to Diamond, as PMG

can claim to prospective customers that its service allows them to safely stop

payments immediately upon signing up with PMG, since PMG’s process is 100%

effective.

68. PMG misleads the owner into believing that PMG is gathering evidence

to support a strategy that will allow timeshare owners, including Diamond Owners,

to legally cancel or terminate their timeshare interest to justify PMG’s exorbitant

fees. Instead, PMG’s actual purported “guaranteed” exit strategy is simply a hoax:

PMG instructs timeshare owners, including Diamond Owners, to breach their

Purchase Agreements by stopping payments to the timeshare company, hoping that

it will result in foreclosure actions or the exercise of other legal remedies by which

the owner forfeits its timeshare interest but which could have a negative credit rating

impact upon the timeshare owner, or, alternatively, could get the timeshare owner

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 24 of 47 PageID 24

sued—the negative consequences that PMG conceals from its customers. Far from

conducting an “ethical” exit that PMG advertises, PMG deceives timeshare

companies, including Diamond, by concealing its involvement in the timeshare

cancellation process. On information and belief, PMG instructs timeshare owners

not to reveal their relationship with PMG to their timeshare companies, including

Diamond.

69. PMG instructs its customers to communicate directly with the

timeshare company without ever revealing that the customer is working with PMG.

Among other things, PMG directs the customers to send correspondence to the

timeshare company falsely claiming hardship or accusing it of deception during the

sales process, even though such conduct did not occur.

70. When Diamond would learn by happenstance that an owner is

represented by PMG and request a confirmation of such representation, PMG would

sometimes respond confirming the representation and state that PMG “are consumer

advocates” working on behalf of a Diamond Owner. An example of such

correspondence from PMG is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Complaint.

71. However, it is a rare occurrence that Diamond learns about PMG’s

involvement because PMG shrouds its work in secrecy and does not inform

Diamond that it works on behalf of a given Diamond Owner in an attempt to “cancel”

a timeshare contract, as its whole timeshare “exit” model is built on deception.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 25 of 47 PageID 25

72. To keep PMG’s involvement a secret, on information and belief, PMG

advises and instructs Diamond Owners to lie to Diamond, thereby perjuring

themselves, about their affiliation with PMG in order to qualify for and take part in

the Transitions™ program, which offers timeshare owners a respectful way to

relinquish all or part of their vacation ownership. In order to qualify for the program,

Diamond Owners are required to sign an affidavit stating that they are not working

with a timeshare exit company.

73. PMG’s employees also use timeshare owners’ information to

impersonate them during phone calls to the timeshare developers, including

Diamond. This deceptive practice of impersonating timeshare owners is discussed

in multiple reviews written by PMG’s customers, one example of which is provided

below:

24
https://www.womply.com/biz/primo-management-group-inc-orlando-FL/

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 26 of 47 PageID 26

74. PMG’s tortious scheme is thus designed to be executed through

deceptive advertising followed by false promises of relief, deceptive

communications with Diamond and instructions to breach their valid and

enforceable timeshare obligations to Diamond.

75. When false cries of hardship and misrepresentations—if those are even

attempted by PMG—fail, PMG has no other card up its sleeve except to instruct its

customers, including Diamond Owners, to stop making payments to their timeshare

companies, one of which is Diamond.

76. The sum and substance of PMG’s tortious timeshare cancellation

scheme, disguised as the “expert” and “guaranteed solution” to achieve freedom

from timeshare obligations, has been eloquently described by one of its customers,

Trey Barnes: “They had me pay them and stop paying the resort.” 25 As Mr. Barnes

further explained in his review, “The only advice they could give me [] was to stop

paying, let it go to foreclosure then they would fix my credit.”26

C. PMG Competes for the Diamond Owners’ Payments

77. Once a Diamond Owner enters into an agreement with PMG, the sole

purpose of that agreement is to cause that Diamond Owner to withdraw his or her

25
Google review of Trey Barnes from March 15, 2020,
https://www.womply.com/biz/primo-management-group-inc-orlando-FL/
(emphasis supplied).
26
Google review of Trey Barnes from March 15, 2020,
https://www.womply.com/biz/primo-management-group-inc-orlando-FL/.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 27 of 47 PageID 27

business from Diamond, effectively converting that individual from a Diamond

Owner into a customer of PMG.

D. Defendants’ Actions Have Damaged Diamond

78. PMG’s and Sanchez’s false and misleading advertisements deceived,

timeshare owners, thereby having a material effect on their decisions to purchase

and/or retain Diamond’s timeshares and resulting in damages to Diamond in the

form of cessation of payments and defaults in attendant financial obligations due to

Diamond.

79. PMG’s and Sanchez’s deception is material and likely to influence and,

in fact, did influence the decisions of Diamond Owners who stopped making

payments to Diamond based on PMG’s and Sanchez’s false and misleading

advertising.

80. To date, PMG’s and Sanchez’s false advertising and hollow promises

have caused Diamond Owners to retain PMG and, at PMG’s express or implied

instruction, to stop making payments on their promissory notes and mortgages,

and/or to stop paying maintenance and other fees contractually owed to Diamond.

PMG’s and Sanchez’s actions have directly and proximately damaged Diamond, in

the form of Diamond Owners’ unpaid financial obligations, for their own pecuniary

benefit.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 28 of 47 PageID 28

81. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been satisfied,

waived, or have occurred.

82. Diamond has retained the law firms of Greenspoon Marder LLP to

represent it in this action and is obligated to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs

incurred herein.

COUNT I

FALSE ADVERTISING IN VIOLATION OF THE LANHAM ACT, 15 U.S.C.
§1125(A)(1)
(against all Defendants)

83. Diamond realleges and reincorporates the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 80 above as if more fully set forth herein.

84. This is a cause of action for false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1125(a), and is within this Court’s jurisdiction.

85. Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act provides a cause of action for unfair

competition through false advertising.

86. Diamond is engaged in commerce within the control of Congress

because it has cognizable commercial interests in its reputation, and falls within the

zone of interest protected by 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).

87. PMG’s “timeshare cancellation” services are offered in and its related

false and misleading advertisements travel in interstate commerce.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 29 of 47 PageID 29

88. PMG and Sanchez willfully and deliberately make false or misleading

advertisements on PMG’s website, television, social media, and through other

means, and falsely guarantee that PMG will legally relieve Diamond Owners of their

timeshare obligations if PMG is retained.

89. PMG does not offer its “service” to customers in any market other than

timeshare. PMG and Sanchez purposefully inserted themselves into the same

marketplace in which Diamond operates—the timeshare industry consisting of

existing timeshare owners. PMG’s and Sanchez’s false advertising is directed to

Diamond’s existing owner base, the same market to which Diamond provides its

products and services and to which it markets.

90. PMG and Sanchez falsely and misleadingly advertise to Diamond’s

existing owner base in order to interfere with Diamond’s business and contractual

relationships, to persuade them to do business with PMG instead of Diamond, and

to divert monies due and owing to Diamond instead to PMG.

91. Accordingly, PMG is in direct competition with Diamond for

Diamond’s timeshare owners.

92. PMG and Sanchez made material false or misleading statements in

interstate commerce in connection with commercial advertising or solicitation as

described above and by, inter alia:

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 30 of 47 PageID 30

a. producing false and misleading advertising and soliciting

Diamond Owners through such advertising and other means

which deceive Diamond Owners into believing that they may

cancel their timeshare interest without any legal basis or reason;

b. dishonestly inducing Diamond Owners into retaining PMG

based on its advertised “guaranteed” cancellation of timeshares

when PMG cannot actually fulfill the guarantee because it has no

legal means of doing so or cannot fulfill the guarantee using

legitimate legal methods and/or without detriment to Diamond

Owners;

c. misrepresenting that PMG has special skills and experience to

have Diamond Owners’ contracts cancelled when it has no such

skills and experience;

d. misrepresenting that PMG will perform a service, when it has no

intention of doing so, and may instead attempt to procure a

cancellation through inaction and/or foreclosure;

e. misrepresenting that PMG has 100% success rate; and

f. misrepresenting that PMG will procure a cancellation

legitimately.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 31 of 47 PageID 31

93. PMG and Sanchez have not stopped their false advertising, which

continues to evolve. So, this enumeration is not intended to be exhaustive; other

false and misleading statements are detailed above. Additional false advertising is

expected to be identified by continuing investigation and through discovery.

94. PMG’s and Sanchez’s statements, outlined in part above, are not only

literally false, but also misleading when considered in their full context.

95. PMG’s and Sanchez’s statements guaranteeing that PMG will relieve

timeshare owners, including Diamond Owners, of their timeshare obligations if they

are retained are false or misleading or made in bad faith. PMG has no basis or

legitimate method to exit or cancel a timeshare contract and its guarantee to do so is

false.

96. PMG’s and Sanchez’s false and misleading advertisement deceived, or

had the capacity to deceive, consumers, thereby having a material effect on

consumer decisions to purchase and to retain Diamond timeshares and resulting in

damages to Diamond in the form of cessation of payments and defaults in attendant

financial obligations due to Diamond.

97. PMG’s and Sanchez’s deception is material and likely to influence and,

in fact, did influence the decisions of Diamond Owners who stopped making

payments to Diamond based on PMG’s false and misleading advertising.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 32 of 47 PageID 32

98. At all times relevant herein, Sanchez managed and controlled PMG’s

operations and directed PMG’s marketing and advertising decisions and is

personally liable for them.

99. As outlined above, Diamond suffered an injury to its commercial

interests, has lost sales in the form of cessation of payments on sales already made

and defaults in the attendant owner financial obligations, and has suffered harm to

its business reputation (for which Diamond does not separately seek monetary

damages) as a result of PMG’s and Sanchez’s false and misleading advertising.

100. PMG’s and Sanchez’s actions have been willful and make this case

exceptional under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).

101. By this action, Diamond seeks the following specific relief:

a. Enjoining PMG, Sanchez, and PMG’s other officers, agents,

servants, employees, and attorneys and those persons in active

concert or participation with them from:

(i) Engaging in false and misleading advertising;

(ii) Engaging in deceptive or unfair trade practices;

(iii) Advertising that PMG can cancel timeshare interests

without any legal basis or reason;

(iv) Guaranteeing timeshare cancellation or exit;

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 33 of 47 PageID 33

(v) Stating or suggesting that timeshare owners may

discontinue payment of obligations associated with

timeshare ownership;

(vi) Misrepresenting that PMG has skills and experience to

have timeshare contracts cancelled;

(vii) Misrepresenting that PMG has a method or process that

guarantees timeshare cancellation or exit; and

(viii) Misrepresenting that PMG will procure a timeshare

contract cancellation legally and/or legitimately.

b. Requiring PMG and Sanchez to cease broadcasting, take down,

and destroy all such false, misleading, and deceptive materials;

c. Directing PMG and Sanchez to file with this Court and serve on

Diamond within fifteen days after the service of an injunction, a

report, in writing under oath, setting forth in detail the manner

and form in which PMG has complied with the injunction; and

d. Requiring PMG and Sanchez to provide notice of such injunction

by posting the Order on the websites used by PMG and any

websites which refer to and/or link to the websites used by PMG.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 34 of 47 PageID 34

e. A judgment in favor of Diamond and against PMG and Sanchez

for statutorily allowed monetary damages attributable to the

stopped payments and defaulted financial obligations;

f. A judgment in favor of Diamond and against PMG and Sanchez

for treble damages (see 15 U.S.C.A. § 1117(a));

g. A judgment in favor of Diamond and against PMG for the

recovery of PMG’s profits (see 15 U.S.C.A. § 1117(a)); and

h. A judgment in favor of Diamond and against PMG for costs of

suit, expenses, and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.

WHEREFORE, Diamond respectfully demands judgment in its favor and

against PMG and Sanchez and requests temporary and permanent injunctive relief,

damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such additional and further relief as this

Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II
VIOLATION OF FLORIDA’S DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR
TRADE PRACTICES ACT, FLA. STAT. § 501.201, et seq.
(against all Defendants)

102. Diamond realleges and reincorporates the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 80 above as if more fully set forth herein.

103. This is a cause of action for violations of the Florida Deceptive and

Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201, et seq. (“FDUTPA”), against PMG

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 35 of 47 PageID 35

and Sanchez, including unconscionable acts and practices and unfair and deceptive

practices in the conduct of trade or commerce.

104. PMG and Sanchez, by advertising, soliciting, offering, and providing

their timeshare exit scheme to timeshare customers, are engaged in “trade or

commerce” as defined by Fla. Stat. §501.203(8).

105. Plaintiffs are “interested part[ies] or person[s]” as defined by Fla. Stat.

§ 501.203(6).

106. PMG and Sanchez have intentionally engaged in unfair competition,

unconscionable acts and practices, and unfair and deceptive trade practices in

violation of Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1) by soliciting Diamond Owners through false and

misleading advertising and marketing materials.

107. At all times relevant herein, Sanchez managed and controlled PMG’s

operations, and directed PMG’s marketing and advertising decisions and the

unconscionable acts and unfair and deceptive practices committed by PMG in the

conduct of its business, and is personally liable for them.

108. PMG purposefully inserts itself into the same marketplace in which

Diamond operates—the timeshare industry consisting of existing timeshare owners.

PMG s false advertising is directed to Diamond’s existing customers.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 36 of 47 PageID 36

109. PMG advertises to Diamond’s existing customer base in order to

persuade them to engage PMG, to dishonor their existing contracts with Diamond,

and to divert monies from Diamond to PMG.

110. PMG has engaged in unconscionable, unfair, and deceptive acts or

practices as set forth above and by:

a. engaging in false and misleading advertisements, including but

not limited to suggesting that it has expertise regarding legitimate

methods of canceling or terminating timeshare contracts,

including mortgages and other related contracts when it does not;

b. instructing or suggesting that owners case making payments to

Diamond, the owner’s mortgagee, or other companies to whom

the owner owes obligations in connection with his or her

timeshare;

c. stating or implying to Diamond Owners that there is no penalty

or other legal consequence for not paying Diamond, the owner’s

mortgagee, or other companies to whom the owner owes

obligations in connection with his or her timeshare;

d. concealing that PMG has no legitimate methods to fulfill the

promises it has made, intentionally taking no action on behalf of

Diamond Owners, after entering into a contract with Diamond

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 37 of 47 PageID 37

Owners, or otherwise attempting to procure an exit through

inaction and/or foreclosure after Diamond Owners stop paying

Diamond;

e. entering into confidentiality agreements with Diamond Owners,

or otherwise deliberately obscuring their role in advising

Diamond Owners to stop paying or otherwise breach their

timeshare or related contracts;

f. impersonating Diamond Owners;

g. representing to consumers that an express or implied purpose of

the services is to improve the consumers’ credit rating while

failing to comply with and violating the Credit Repair

Organization Act (CROA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679, et seq., and the

Florida Credit Services Organizations Act, Fla. Stat. §§

817.7001, et seq. by charging money before the services were

fully performed;

h. representing to consumers that an express or implied purpose of

the services is to provide debt management services while failing

to comply with and violating the Florida Credit Counseling

Services Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 817.801 et seq., by charging excessive

fees; and

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 38 of 47 PageID 38

i. engaging in knowingly unlawful, fraudulent, false, and deceptive

practices.

111. This enumeration is not intended to be exhaustive and additional false

and misleading statements and deceptive acts and practices which Diamond will

include in this claim and for which Diamond will seek relief herein are expected to

be identified by continuing investigation and through discovery.

112. PMG and Sanchez have willfully engaged in the above-described

practices for their own commercial advantage when they knew that such practices

were unfair, misleading, false, and/or deceptive to Diamond and Diamond Owners.

113. PMG knew or should have known that the above conduct was

unconscionable, unfair, false, and deceptive.

114. PMG intended that the above conduct would induce another to rely and

act on it, specifically, consumers such as Diamond Owners.

115. PMG’s conduct offends established public policy, is immoral,

unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and/or substantially injurious to consumers and

businesses alike.

116. PMG’s conduct constitutes unconscionable commercial practices,

deception, fraud, false pretenses, misrepresentation and the known concealment and

misrepresentation of material facts, all in violation of FDUTPA.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 39 of 47 PageID 39

117. As a direct and proximate result of PMG’s unconscionable, unfair,

false, and deceptive conduct outlined above, Diamond Owners have been harmed

and Diamond has been damaged.

118. PMG’s conduct has also falsely induced Diamond Owners to stop

making payments to Diamond even though they are required to do so by legally

enforceable contracts. Diamond has been damaged in the amounts due and owing

to them by virtue of the Diamond Owners ceasing their payments of mortgage,

maintenance, and/or tax payments at the instruction of PMG.

119. Diamond has a clear legal right or interest in being free from PMG’s

unconscionable, unfair, false, and deceptive conduct described above that has

harmed Diamond, and will result in future harm to Diamond if PMG is not enjoined.

120. PMG is continuing to engage in the false, unfair, and deceptive conduct

described above, and there is, therefore, a strong likelihood that Diamond will suffer

irreparable harm on an ongoing basis, and any remedy at law for PMG’s perpetuation

of the unconscionable, false, deceptive, and unfair conduct is inadequate. Diamond

thus seeks an injunction against PMG and Sanchez to prevent this irreparable harm

from continuing.

121. An injunction serves the public purpose.

122. By this action, Diamond seeks the following specific relief:

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 40 of 47 PageID 40

a. Enjoining PMG and Sanchez and those persons in active concert

or participation with them from:

(i) engaging in false and misleading advertisements,

including but not limited to suggesting that it has expertise

regarding legal or otherwise legitimate methods of canceling or

terminating timeshare contracts, including mortgages and other

related contracts;

(ii) instructing or suggesting that Diamond Owners stop

making payments to Diamond, the owner’s mortgagee, or other

companies to whom the owner owes obligations in connection

with his or her timeshare;

(iii) stating or implying to Diamond Owners there is no penalty

or legal consequence for not paying Diamond, the owner’s

mortgagee, or other companies to whom the owner owes

obligations in connection with his or her timeshare;

(iv) instructing Diamond Owners not to use Diamond’s

timeshare properties;

(v) entering into confidentiality agreements with Diamond

Owners, or otherwise deliberately obscuring their role in

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 41 of 47 PageID 41

advising Diamond Owners regarding attempts to limit or reduce

their timeshare ownership;

(vi) instructing Diamond Owners not to communicate with

Diamond;

(vii) impersonating Diamond Owners;

(viii) intentionally taking no action on behalf of Diamond

Owners, after entering into a contract with Diamond Owners, or

otherwise attempting to procure an exit through inaction and/or

foreclosure after Diamond Owners stop paying Diamond, the

owner’s mortgagee, or other companies to whom the owner owes

obligations in connection with his or her timeshare; and

(ix) engaging in knowingly unlawful, fraudulent, false, and

deceptive practices.

b. Requiring PMG and Sanchez to cease broadcasting, take down,

and destroy all such false, misleading, and deceptive materials;

c. Directing PMG and Sanchez to file with this Court and serve on

Diamond within fifteen days after the service of an injunction, a

report, in writing under oath, setting forth in detail the manner

and form in which PMG has complied with the injunction; and

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 42 of 47 PageID 42

d. Requiring PMG and Sanchez to provide notice of such injunction

by posting the Order on the websites used by PMG and any

websites which refer to and/or link to the websites used by PMG.

e. A judgment in favor of Diamond and against PMG and Sanchez

for statutorily allowed monetary damages pursuant to Fla. Stat. §

501.211(2); and

f. A judgment in favor of Diamond and against PMG and Sanchez

for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Fla. Stat. §§ 501.211(2)

and 501.2105.

WHEREFORE, Diamond respectfully demands judgment in its favor and

against PMG and Sanchez, and requests temporary and permanent injunctive relief,

damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and such additional and further relief as this

Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE
(against PMG)

123. Diamond realleges and reincorporate the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 80 above as if more fully set forth herein.

124. This is a cause of action for tortious interference with contractual

relationships against PMG, and is within the Court’s supplemental and jurisdiction.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 43 of 47 PageID 43

125. Diamond has valid and legally enforceable contracts (the Purchase

Agreements and Promissory Notes) with all Diamond Owners for their timeshare

interests.

126. PMG generally had knowledge of Diamond’s relationships with the

Diamond Owners. In fact, the only reason PMG sought to establish a relationship

with the Diamond Owners was because Diamond had a business and contractual

relationship with the Diamond Owners.

127. PMG sought to capitalize on Diamond’s contractual relationships with

the Diamond Owners. As set forth above, PMG used false advertising and deceptive

and unfair practices to solicit the Diamond Owners, to convince the Diamond

Owners that they should seek to cancel their contracts with Diamond, to convince

the Diamond Owners that PMG had a “legal process” to cancel the contracts, and to

convince the Diamond Owners to pay PMG’s fees for this supposed “guaranteed”

process.

128. PMG, knowing it could not deliver any contract cancellation, and

certainly not any “legal” contract cancellation, instead sought to induce the Diamond

Owners to stop paying their legally-enforceable, contractual obligations to Diamond.

PMG’s hope was that, if the Diamond Owners stopped paying their obligations to

Diamond, they would be in default and Diamond would voluntarily cancel their

contracts or foreclose on the timeshare interest that secures the indebtedness

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 44 of 47 PageID 44

reflected in the Diamond Owners’ Promissory Notes. That is the only (undisclosed)

way PMG’s supposed “guaranteed” process works.

129. PMG induced the Diamond Owners to stop making payments to

Diamond—that is, breach their contracts with Diamond—in several ways, including

but not limited to (individually and in combination), false statements,

misrepresentations, affirmative statements and/or omissions in PMG’s advertising,

solicitation, and sales presentations; conduct; express instructions to stop making

payments; suggestions to stop making payments to Diamond; and suggestions that

the Diamond Owners’ limited funds be used to pay PMG’s fees, instead of paying

their obligations to Diamond.

130. PMG’s acts and omissions, individually and in combination, were

intended to convey to Diamond Owners that no reason was needed to cancel their

contracts with Diamond; PMG had a “guaranteed” process to cancel the contracts;

PMG was an expert in timeshare cancellation; the cancellation process was “safe,”

“ethical,” “guaranteed”; there was no downside; and payments to Diamond were not

required.

131. Diamond Owners stopped paying Diamond as a result of PMG’s

actions.

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 45 of 47 PageID 45

132. PMG’s willful and intentional actions to induce Diamond Owners to

breach their agreements with Diamond constitute intentional interference with

existing contracts.

133. PMG had no justification or privilege to interfere.

134. PMG’s actions were not in good faith, but rather were made with the

knowledge and purpose to enrich itself by harming Diamond, with reckless disregard

for the attendant consequences naturally, directly, and proximately resulting from

PMG’s actions.

135. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Diamond suffered

damages arising from unpaid and due promissory note obligations and balances for

Diamond Owners.

136. PMG is actively and continuously operating in this manner, attempting

to—and in some cases succeeding in—interfering with Diamond’s contracts and

business relationships. PMG’s actions present an immediate threat of harm to

Diamond, its customers and their relationships. Diamond will also suffer irreparable

harm from the destruction of the relationships with their customers caused by PMG’s

actions, for which there is no adequate remedy. Thus, injunctive relief is warranted

to enjoin PMG’s actions as described herein.

137. There would be no legitimate harm to PMG from entry of the requested

injunction, as they would merely be enjoined from performing unlawful acts. The

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 46 of 47 PageID 46

issuance of the requested injunction would also serve the public interest by

protecting consumers from PMG’s unlawful conduct and by protecting Diamond’s

legitimate business interests.

138. By this action, Plaintiffs seeks the following relief:

(a) Injunctive Relief, including:

i. Enjoining PMG and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and

attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation

with them, from tortiously interfering with Diamond’s contracts;

ii. Enjoining PMG and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and

attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation

with them, from engaging in any conduct or making any

statement suggesting that Diamond Owners may or should stop

making payments to Diamond;

iii. Enjoining PMG and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and

attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation

with them, from stating or suggesting that Diamond Owners may

or should stop making payments to Diamond without

establishing an attorney-client relationship with the customer,

investigating the customer’s factual circumstances, and

explaining the potential risks of default to the customer; and

Case 6:21-cv-00973-RBD-DCI Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 47 of 47 PageID 47

iv. Requiring PMG to provide notice of such injunction by posting

the Order on the websites it uses or controls and any websites

which refer to and/or link to the websites it uses or controls.

(b) Judgment against PMG for monetary damages, consisting of:

i. The unpaid and due promissory note obligations and balances on

the Diamond Owners’ accounts with Diamond;

ii. Punitive damages; and

iii. Costs incurred in this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Dated: June 4, 2021. GREENSPOON MARDER LLP

By: /s/ Richard Epstein
Richard W. Epstein (FBN 229091)
richard.epstein@gmlaw.com
maria.salgado@gmlaw.com
Jeffrey A. Backman (FBN 662501
jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com
khia.joseph@gmlaw.com
Julia Stepanova (FBN 1021185)
julia.stepanova@gmlaw.com
lajoi.thompson@gmlaw.com
200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1800
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: 954.491.1120
Facsimile: 954.343.6958

Counsel for Plaintiffs

File and source

File: Diamond_Resorts_U.S._Collection_Development_LLC_v._Primo_Management_Group_Inc.__flmd_6-21-cv-00973__doc1__gov.uscourts.flmd.390805.1.0.pdf
Size: 515,397 bytes
SHA-256: 2ff4ac6547e34ab2f3706b793091b6985f82d27ec8ffa831ee8ecf600e86e7b5
Our copy: Diamond_Resorts_U.S._Collection_Development_LLC_v._Primo_Management_Group_Inc.__flmd_6-21-cv-00973__doc1__gov.uscourts.flmd.390805.1.0.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com

Complaint — Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC v. Primo Management Group, Inc. (M.D. Fla.)

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records