IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
TWENYTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF
LEE COUNTY FLORIDA
_____________________________________________________________
Warren T. Patriot, and Sheri Patriot,
Plaintiffs, Case No. 07-CA-00XXXX
vs.
OPPOSITION TO MOTION
AmSouthBancorporation, TO STRIKE PUNITIVE
and Regions Financial Corporation, DAMAGES
as successor to AmSouth Bancorporation,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
COME NOW, Plaintiffs, pro se, Warren T. Patriot and Sheri Patriot, in Opposition to the Motion to Strike Punitive Damages and state the following:
1. Defendant pleads Plaintiffs are prohibited to make a claim for punitive damages “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.” Fla. Stat. § 768.72(1) (2006).
In the instant case, Defendant was fully informed by the Plaintiffs of their website misrepresentation; prohibited from complying to the summons and warned if they complied Plaintiffs would hold the bank liable. The Defendant was ‘informed, prohibited and warned of the consequences should Defendant comply via fax marked URGENT, sent directly from Plaintiffs, and once via a letter, hand delivered and signed for by Defendant’s representative, which in turn was faxed to Defendant from the Defendant’s College Parkway branch office to Defendant’s Legal Department. Defendant spoke on the phone with Anne E. Choat, Legal Processor, in Defendant’s Legal Department in Birmingham , AL at least twice in regard to the ongoing problem.
Therefore, under the same Florida Statute § 768.72 (2)(a)(b),(3)(c), Plaintiffs want to respond that based on the evidence purported and stated in the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs claim the following:
Defendant, and/or Defendant’s employee, intentionally and willfully disregarded Defendant’s representation on their website’s Privacy Policy with regard to only complying with customer information requests “through properly executed court orders.” (See Exhibit B in Amended Complaint)
Defendant, and/or Defendant’s employee, had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness, and that high probability of damage to the Plaintiff would result.
Defendant, and/or Defendant’s employee, actions constituted a conscious disregard of the privacy rights afforded by The State of Florida to the Plaintiffs.
Defendant, and/or Defendant’s employee, engaged in conduct which contributed to the loss and injury suffered by the Plaintiffs.
2. The misconduct of the Defendant as described above in number 1 (a,b,c,d) was independent from other causes of actions against the Defendant. There is a fine line, although subtle, between Defendant breaching the contract with the Plaintiffs, and making a material misrepresentation on their website.
As a reminded to this Court, Plaintiff, Sheri Patriot, stated in the Amended Complaint, that the reason her checking account was opened at AmSouth was due to the representation on the bank’s website that compliance would only occur with a properly executed court order. This was extremely important to Plaintiff since she had been harassed by the Internal Revenue Service for eighteen years, and she believed there would be adequate protection at AmSouth after reading their website and confirming AmSouth’s ‘pledge’ with the bank’s representative upon opening her account.
3. Defendant pleads Plaintiffs are prohibited to make a claim for punitive damages because Plaintiff did not receive leave from this Court to add punitive damages to the Amended Complaint. Simeon, Inc. v. Cox, 671 So. 2d 158, 160 ( Fla. 1996).
Apparently, Defendant did not see in the Conclusion of the original complaint that Plaintiffs did ask “for any other punitive relief to which they show themselves entitled”. The request for punitive damages in the Conclusion of the Amended Complaint was not “new” or an addition. Punitive damages have always been in the Plaintiffs claim.
Perhaps now is the time to relate to this Court how the misconduct of the Defendant has injured the Plaintiffs. The unnecessary compliance to both unenforceable summonses exacerbated the harassment of the IRS to the Plaintiffs. For almost two years, the IRS has been criminally investigating the Plaintiffs.
In an effort to extort money from the Plaintiffs, the IRS included their adult children in said investigation. Quite recently, the children have been removed from the investigation. The IRS has gone to the residences of Plaintiffs and the children; to the office where they work causing other real estate agents to become worried and leave said office. The IRS has ‘hunted down’ many friends and co-workers of the Plaintiffs to question them and ruined relationships with those people and permanently damaged the Plaintiffs’ prior unblemished reputation. The Plaintiffs’ credit has been destroyed due to IRS notice of liens which are not valid, but the IRS will not remove them. After all of the above hardships, the IRS does not have whatever evidence is necessary to go before a grand jury for an indictment. None of these injuries to the Plaintiffs would have occurred if the Defendant had not unnecessarily complied with the Summons in this case. Unless things have changed in the United States of America , the Plaintiffs are innocent until proven guilty. The unnecessary compliance of the Defendant was made with knowledge; was willful with conscious disregard for their privacy rights and certainly contributed to the Plaintiffs injuries and losses.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs have provided this Court with a reasonable showing according to Florida Statute 768.72 (2)(a)(b), (3)(c) that the claim for punitive damages is valid. Additionally, the claim for punitive relief was in the Conclusion of the original complaint filed April 26, 2007. Plaintiffs move this Court to deny Defendant’s Motion to Strike Punitive Damages.
By:__________________________________
Warren T. Patriot, Plaintiff, pro se
1776 Patriot Way
Cape Coral , FL
By:__________________________________
Sheri Patriot, Plaintiff, pro se
Same as above