Case Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 1 of 32 PageID 871 EXHIBIT 3 Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 2 of 32 PageID 872 IN  THE  CIRCUIT  COURT  OF  THE  THIRTEENTH  JUDICIAL  CIRCUIT   IN  AND  FOR  HILLSBOROUGH,  FLORIDA     ROCA  LABS,  INC., CASE  NO:                Plaintiff,     vs.     MARC  RANDAZZA,                Defendant.   ______________________________/       COMPLAINT  AND  VERIFIED  MOTION  FOR  TEMPORARY  INJUNCTION     Plaintiff,  ROCA  LABS,  INC.  (“ROCA”),  a  Florida  Corporation,  by  and  through  the   undersigned  counsel,  files  this  Complaint,  Verified  Motion  for  Temporary  Injunction  and   Declaratory  Action  against  Defendant,  MARC  RANDAZZA,  and  states  as  follows:   PARTIES,  JURISDICTION,  AND  VENUE   1. This   is   an   action   for   injunctive   relief,   declaratory   relief,   and   for  breach  of  contract  involving   damages  in  excess  of  $15,000,  exclusive  of  interest,  costs  and  attorneys’  fees.   2. Venue   is   proper   in   this   Honorable   Court   as   this   is   an   action   for   Tortious   Interference   and   Defamation   Per   Se   and   seeks   an   award   of   money   damages,   including   actual   damages,   punitive   damages   and   reasonable   attorneys’   fees   and   costs;;   an   award   of   compensatory   damages   under   common   law   claim  of  tortious  interference  with  a  contractual  relationship;;  an   award   of   compensatory   damages   under   common   law   claim   of   tortious   interference   with   a   prospective   relationship,   an   award   of   compensatory   damages   under   common   law   claim   of   defamation   and   injunctive   and   declaratory   relief   all   stemming   from   conduct   that  occurred  in   Florida.   1     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 3 of 32 PageID 873 3. Plaintiff   ROCA   is   a   Florida   for-­profit   corporation   with   its   principal   place   of   business   at   7261A  Tamiami  Trail  S,  Sarasota,  FL  34231.     4. RANDAZZA  is  an  individual  residing  in  Nevada  and  practicing  law  in  Florida.   5. Pursuant   to   Florida   Statutes   Section   48.193(2),   RANDAZZA   is   subject   to   personal   jurisdiction  in  Florida  because  he  committed  a  tortious  acts  within  the  State  of  Florida.   6. Pursuant   to   Florida   Statutes   Section   48.193(1)(a),   RANDAZZA   is   subject   to   personal   jurisdiction   in   Florida   because   he   practices   law   within   the   State   of   Florida   and   maintains   a   law  office  within  the  State  of  Florida.     7. ROCA  retained  the  undersigned  counsel  and  agreed  to  pay  a  reasonable  fee  for  its  services.     8. All   conditions   precedent   to   the   filing   of   this   Complaint,   if   any,   have   been   satisfied,   performed,  or  waived.   GENERAL  ALLEGATIONS   A. PLAINTIFF  ROCA   9. ROCA   is   a   Florida   for-­profit   corporation   that   was   formed   in   2006   as   Appealing   Ventures,   Inc.    It  changed  its  name  to  Roca  Labs,  Inc.  in  2009.   10. ROCA   manufactures   food   additives   (sometimes   referred   to   a   nutraceuticals)   and   is   the   inventor   of   the   proprietary   Gastric   Bypass   Alternative®   that   is   an   effective   weight   loss   option  for  people  who  are  trying  to  lose  in  excess  of  50  pounds.   11. ROCA’s   products   have   been   purchased   and   used   by   thousands   of   people   as   a   surgery-­free   alternative  to  gastric  bypass.     12. ROCA’s   products   are   safe   and   effective   when   used   as   directed.   Thousands   of   individuals   have  used  ROCA  products  to  lose  weight.   2     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 4 of 32 PageID 874 13. ROCA’s  products  are  a  natural  alternative  to  surgery  and  to  the  best  of  its  knowledge,  no  one   has  required  medical  treatment  or  hospitalization  from  the  proper  use  of  ROCA’s  products.   14. ROCA   made   significant   investments   in   product   development   and   in   its   intellectual  property   rights.     15. ROCA   owns   numerous   registered   trademarks   including:   ROCA   Labs®,   Gastric   Bypass   Alternative®,   Gastric   Bypass   Surgery   Alternative®,  Gastric  Bypass  Effect®,  Gastric  Bypass   Results®,   Natural   Gastric   Bypass®,   Gastric   Bypass   No   Surgery®   and   Anti   Cravings®.   ROCA’s  trademarks  are  inherently  distinctive.   16. ROCA   invests   heavily   in   an   online   marketing   and   advertising   program   that   has   run   in   Florida  and  across  the  United  States.     17. ROCA   markets   and   sells   its   products   through   its   website,   “www.rocalabs.com,”   where   information  on  its  products  is  available  and  consumers  can  purchase  the  product  directly.   18. ROCA   relies   upon   its   reputation,   internet   reviews,   and   the   weight   loss   success   stories   of   its   customers  to  generate  new  business  and  attract  new  customers.   19. ROCA  relies  upon  its  reputation  and  the  weight  loss  success  of  its  customers  to  generate  new   business  and  attract  new  customers.   20. Indeed,   ROCA  has  a  unique  Money  Back  Reward  program,  where  ROCA  pays  individuals  a   monetary  sum  for  sharing  their  weight  loss  success  stories.     21. A   recent   search   for   ROCA   Labs   on   “YouTube”   pulled   up   more   than   six-­thousand   (6,000)   results,  the  majority  of  which  are  personal  weight  loss  videos  shared  by  individuals.   3     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 5 of 32 PageID 875 22. Unfortunately,   due   to   the   unencumbered   nature   of   the   internet,   anyone   with   a   keyboard   can   voluntarily   and   intentionally   detract   from   the   thousands   of   positive   stories   with   just   one   harmful  article,  interview,  tweet,  blog,  or  posting.     23. For   instance,   Consumer   Opinion   Corp.   and   Opinion   Corp.   own   and   operate   pissedconsumer.com   (hereinafter   collectively   “Pissed   Consumer”),   an   internet   haven   for   consumers,   competitors   or   even   Pissed   Consumer   itself   to   denigrate,   disparage,   and   defame   thousands  of  small  businesses,  regardless  of  the  truth  or  veracity  of  the  posting.     24. Based   on   the   website’s   name   alone,   Pissed   Consumer   invites   inherently   negative   commentary   to   be   disseminated   on   their   website.   In   other   words,   a   happy   or   satisfied   consumer  would  not  seek  out  Pissed  Consumer  to  communicate  a  positive  story  to  the  world.     25. ROCA’s   business   relationships   were   and   are   interfered   with   by   Pissed   Consumer.   As   a   result,  ROCA  continues  to  suffer  irreparable  harm  at  the  hands  of  Pissed  Consumer.   26. Pissed   Consumer  defamed  and  continues  to  defame  ROCA.   As  a  result,  ROCA  continues  to   suffer  irreparable  harm  at  the  hands  of  Pissed  Consumer.   27. ROCA   took   legal   action   to   protect   its   rights   and   reputation   in   the   State   of   Florida   and   sued   Pissed   Consumer   (Roca   Labs   v.   Consumer   Opinion   Corp.   and   Opinion   Corp.   Case   No   8:14-­cv-­2096-­T-­33EAJ   Middle   District   of   Florida)   for   issues   concerning,   among   other   things,   Pissed   Consumer’s   violations   of   Florida’s   Deceptive   and   Unfair   Trade   Practice   Act,   Tortious   Interference,   and   Defamation.   RANDAZZA   is   legal   counsel   for   Pissed   Consumer   in  the  foregoing  matter.     B. DEFENDANT  RANDAZZA   28. RANDAZZA  is  an  individual  residing  Nevada.     4     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 6 of 32 PageID 876 29. RANDAZZA   is   an   attorney   and   is   licensed   to   practice   law   in   the   State   of   Florida   and   RANDAZZA  maintains  a  law  office  in  Florida.   30. RANDAZZA   gained   notoriety   for   providing   legal   services   to   the   pornography   and   adult   entertainment   fields.   He   has   represented   a   number   of   adult   entertainment   companies,   1 including  Kink.com,  BangBus.com,  and  MilfHunter.com.   31. RANDAZZA   has   been   an   outspoken   advocate   for   Phillip   Greaves,   the   author   of   “The   Pedophiles   Guide   to  Love  and  Pleasure.”   Mr,  Greaves  pled  no  contest  to  criminal  charges  in   Florida  because  of  his  distribution  of  the  book  in  Florida.     32. RANDAZZA   adopted   the   use   of   the   Latin   term   “murum   aries   attigit”   to   describe   his   approach  to  litigation.   The  foregoing  phrase  translates  to  “the  ram  has  touched  the  wall,”  and   refers   to   the   ancient   Romans’   strategy   of   not   allowing   mercy   and  slaughtering  everyone  in  a   city   if   they   did   not   surrender   before   the   Roman   battering   ram   touched   the   city’s   walls.   RANDAZZA   adopted   this   term   for   his   approach   to   the   legal   profession,   and   consequently,   2 behaves  as  if  litigation  is  his  own  war.     33. Despite   being   an   Officer   of   the   Court   and   a   practicing   member   of   the   Florida   Bar,   RANDAZZA   has   waged   his   war  against  ROCA  by  intentionally  and  maliciously  publishing   many   false   and   defamatory   statements   in   his   pleadings,   with   the   intent   to   share   them   to   his   contacts   in   the   media,   and   indeed   by   directly   speaking   to   the   media   about   ROCA   with   the   intent   to   have   them   publish   false,   misleading   and   defamatory   articles   about   ROCA,   and   by   1 2  See  Wikipedia  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Randazza)    Id.   5     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 7 of 32 PageID 877 harassing   and   making   derogatory  statements  about  ROCA  via  his  personal  social  media  sites   including  his  Twitter  account.   34. RANDAZZA   announced   his   war   against   ROCA   via   a   simple   email   to  Paul  Berger,  counsel   for   ROCA,   that   simply   read   murum   aries   attigit.   (See   below,   Exhibit   1   email   from   RANDAZZA  to  Paul  Berger).     35. Fortunately,   we   are   not   the   ancient   Romans   and   do   not   live   in   fear   of   attacks  from  battering   rams.   However,   RANDAZZA   waged   modern   day   warfare   by   attacking   and   bullying   his   perceived   enemy   ROCA   in   the   media   for   the   sole   purpose   of   harming  ROCA  and  crippling   it  financially  by  battering  away  its  customers.   36. Indeed,   the   Institute   for   Defense   and   Government   Advancement   has   said   the   following:   “harnessing   and   controlling   messages   distributed   via   the   internet   and   social   media   will   be   a   next   big   battleground   to   win   the   heart   and   minds   of   the   world’s   masses   regardless  of  who  is   the   enemy   of   the   day.   The   question   of   which   nations   will   control   and   push  out  the  message   most   effectively   will   become   increasingly   important.   One   thing   is   clear;;   whoever   controls   the   message   controls   the   masses.   And   whoever   controls   the   masses   will   have   the   ability   to   win  future  wars.” 3   37. Through   his   own   words,   RANDAZZA   is   admittedly   waging   a   modern   war   in   the   online   media  against  ROCA.     3 Psychological  Warfare  in  the  Social  Media  Era:  Winning  Hearts  and  Minds  through  Facebook  and  Twitter?,  Nick     Younker,  Institute  for  Defense  and  Government  Advancement,  September  7,  2010.   6     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 8 of 32 PageID 878 38. RANDAZZA   uses   whatever   opportunity   his   has   to   fight   his   war   against   ROCA.   For   example,   just   recently   RANDAZZA   used   the   children’s   holiday   of   Halloween  in  an  attempt   to   humiliate   ROCA   and   malign   the   company   in   public  by  making  the  intentionally  false  and   malicious   statement   “Some   fucker   put   Roca   Labs’   shit   in   my   kids   candy   bag!”   (See   Tweet   below).   The   Tweet   came   from   his   personal   Twitter   account   “@marcorandazza,”   and   has   been  retweeted  to  more  than  5,000  people  as  of  the  date  of  this  filing.       39. The   foregoing   defamation   is   not   the   first   perpetration   by   RANDAZZA;;   rather,   he   routinely   issues   statements   about   ROCA   on   Twitter.   The   statements   are   not   related   to   litigation   between   ROCA   and   Opinion   Corp.,  but  are  made  with  malice  and  with  the  purpose  to  mock,   ridicule,  humiliate,  harm,  and  continue  his  war  against  ROCA.     40. As   a   Member   of   the   Florida   Bar   and   an   Officer   of   the  Court,  RANDAZZA’s  statements  are   more   likely   to   be   viewed   as   true   and   correct   by   the   general   public.   When   RANDAZZA   7     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 9 of 32 PageID 879 makes   the  statement  “Some  fucker  put  Roca  Labs’  shit  in  my  kids  candy  bag!”  because  of  his   respected  position  an  ordinary  individual  may  believe  it  to  be  true.     41. According  to  the  Creed  of  Professionalism  for  trial  lawyers  established  by  the  Florida  Bar;;     (1)   A   lawyer   is   both   an   officer   of   the   court   and   an   advocate.   As   such,   the   lawyer   always   should   strive   to   uphold   the   honor   and   dignity   of  the  profession,  avoid  disorder   and   disruption   in   the   courtroom,   and   maintain   a   respectful   attitude   toward   the   court;;   (4)   A   lawyer   should   be   courteous   and   civil   in   all   professional   dealings   with   other   persons.   Lawyers   should   act   in   a   civil   manner   regardless   of   the   ill   feelings   that   their   clients   may   have   toward   others.   Lawyers   can   disagree   without   being   disagreeable.   Effective   and   zealous   representation   does   not   require   antagonistic   or   acrimonious   behavior.   Whether   orally   or   in   writing,   lawyers   should   avoid   vulgar   language,   disparaging   personal   remarks,   or  acrimony  toward  other  counsel,  parties,  or  witnesses;;   and   (7)   A   lawyer  must  not  use  any  aspect  of  the  litigation  process,  including  discovery   and  motion  practice,  as  a  means  of  harassment.   42. RANDAZZA’s   actions   show   his   disdain   for   the   Court   system,   the   rules   that   govern   the   Florida   Bar,   and   our   legal   system.   To   RANDAZZA,   winning   the   war   and   harming   his   opponents  is  what  is  most  important.    There  is  no  room  for  civility,  truth,  or  justice.     C. THE  DEFAMATORY  STATEMENTS   1) Original  Dissemination  to  the  Media  Prior  to  Court  Pleadings   43. RANDAZZA   made   defamatory   statements   first   to   the   media,   then   repeated   them   in   subsequent  Court  filings.     44. Beginning   on   or   about   September   8,   2014,   and   continuing   to   present   date,   RANDAZZA   went   to   his   friends   in   the   online   media   and   caused   select   webzines   /   online   media   sites   to   encourage   the   publishing   of   false   and   defamatory   articles   about   ROCA   (See   Exhibit   2   September  8  &  9,  2014  articles).     45. RANDAZZA   went   to   the   media   before   he   made   any   responsive   pleadings   in  the  Roca  Labs   v.  Opinion  Corp.  case.     8     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 10 of 32 PageID 880 46. RANDAZZA   is   referenced   in   the   articles   contained   within   Exhibit   2,   and   the   articles   reference  information  that  RANDAZZA  provided  to  the  media  outlets.     47. RANDAZZA   encouraged   the   media   for   the   sole   purpose   of   harassing,   defaming,   and   injuring  ROCA  as  part  of  his  war  against  ROCA.     48. RANDAZZA’s   war   against   ROCA   began   with  him  telling  the  media  that  ROCA  was  snake   oil   salesman,   ROCA’s   products   did   not   work,   made   people   sick,   were   a   health   hazard,   and   that  the  government  was  going  to  close  ROCA  down.     49. On   September   8,   2014,   TechDirt,   an  online  magazine  (or  webzine),  which  claims  1.2  million   unique  visitors  a  month,  published  the  first  of  what  would  be  a  long  series  of  negative  articles   about   ROCA   from   the   “good   thing   we   never   bought   anything   from   Roca   Labs   dept.”   at   TechDirt  (See  Exhibit  2).     50. The   September   8,   2014   article   states   that   ROCA   is   the   “manufacturer   of   ‘dietary   supplements’   some   of   which   they   label  with  highly  questionable  claims  that  I  imagine  would   not  be  supported  by  anything  the  FDA  would  consider  to  be  credible  evidence.”     51. The   article   foreshadows   the   later   defenses   RANDAZZA   would   put   forth   on   behalf   of   Opinion   Corp.   and   references   ROCA’s   Complaint   stating,   “Almost   everything   there   is   ridiculous.   Presenting   a   platform   for   people   to   express  their  own  opinions  is  not  encouraging   them  to  break  any  contract  (which,  again,  is  of  dubious  legality  in  the  first  place).  Second,  the   site   is   not   authoring   or   co-­authoring   the   posts.   Third,  there's  no  evidence  that  anything  being   posted  is  ‘false.’  Fourth,  what  does  Twitter's  total  user  base  have  to  do  with  anything?”   52. RANDAZZA   caused   these   articles   to   be   published,   and,   based   on   his   past   dealings   with   TechDirt,  knew  the  articles  would  be  disseminated  all  throughout  the  internet.     9     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 11 of 32 PageID 881 53. Interestingly,   without   ever   reading   the   Complaint,   TechDirt   was  familiar  with  the  arguments   against  Pissed  Consumer  and  its  future  defenses.     54. Further,   on   September   9,   2014,   BoingBoing.net   wrote   “Roca   Labs   sells   dubious   snake-­oil   like   a   ‘Gastric   Bypass   Alternative.’”   Once   again   these   words   would   foreshadow   the   words   used  by  RANDAZZA  in  the  pleadings.     55. As   a   result   of   RANDAZZA’s   communications   with   the   media,   and   his   own   voluntary   actions   of   dissemination,   the   Defamatory   Statements   about   ROCA   were   thereby   purposefully   and   resolutely   published   and   disseminated   to   numerous   third-­parties   in   online   magazines,  websites,  and  blogs.     56. RANDAZZA   unequivocally   acted   with   intent   and   malice   in   making   and   distributing   the   Defamatory  Statements.     2) The  Subsequent  Dissemination  in  Court  Pleadings   57. On   or   about   September   18,   2014,   RANDAZZA   filed   Pissed   Consumer’s   Opposition   to   Plaintiff’s   Motion   for   Entry   of   a   Temporary   Injunction   (attached   as   Exhibit   3),   which   ironically   includes   the   same   false,   malicious   and   defamatory   statements   he   previously   made   to   the   media   a   little   more   than   a   week   earlier.   These   statements   include,   but   are  not  limited   to:   a. ROCA  shows  little  concern  for  what  happens  to  its  users;;   b. [ROCA   sounds]   like   a   disreputable   company,   producing   tubs   of   snake   oil   (or   snake  oil  goop,  as  it  were);;   10     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 12 of 32 PageID 882 c. ROCA   Labs   is   desperately   trying   to   force   a   cone   of   silence   over   each   and   every   customer   that   discovers   that   ROCA   Labs’   product   is   not   only   a  specious  remedy   for  weight  issues,  but  a  potential  cause  of  additional  health  problems;;   d. Plaintiff   [ROCA],   desperate   to   sell   as   many   tubs   of   goo   to   the   public   as   it   can   before  regulatory  agencies  come  knocking;;  and   e. [ROCA  Products  may  cause]  a  possible  health  crisis.   58. Additionally,   in   Pissed   Consumer’s   Emergency   Motion   for   a   Temporary   Restraining   Order   (attached   as   Exhibit   4),   filed   on   or   about   September   22,   2014,   RANDAZZA   repeated   his   false,   malicious   and   defamatory   statements   he   previously   made   to   the   media   including,   but   not  limited  to:     a. ROCA’s   product   threatens   the   health   and   welfare   of   at   least   a   portion   (if  not  all)   of  its  users;;  and   b. ROCA  has  threatened  them  [its  customers].   (These   statements   along   with   the   statements   referenced   in   the   paragraphs,   supra,   are   hereinafter  collectively  referred  to  as  “Defamatory  Statements.”)   59. The   Defamatory   Statements   were   first   made   as   factual   allegations   in   the   media,   and   cannot   be  claimed  to  be  his  personal  opinion,  puffery,  or  supposition.   60. Therefore,   chronologically   speaking,   RANDAZZA   made   his   Defamatory  Statements  first  to   the   media   on   September   8,   2014,   and   then   approximately   ten   days   later   memorialized   the   exact  same  statements  in  Court  pleadings  on  September  18  and  22,  2014,  respectively.     61.   Not   Surprisingly,   in   Pissed   Consumer’s   Answer   to  Roca  Labs’s  Complaint,  which  was  filed   with   the   Middle   District   Court   on   September   11,   2014   and   submitted   by   RANDAZZA,   11     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 13 of 32 PageID 883 Pissed   Consumer   claims   little   or   no   knowledge   about   ROCA.   Again,   chronologically   speaking,   there   was   a   claim   of   no   knowledge   about   ROCA   after   RANDAZZA   had   been   defaming  ROCA  to  the  media.     62. These   statements   were   repeated   by   TechDirt,   BoingBoing,   ArsTechnica,   and   other   media   outlets   (See   Composite   Exhibit   5).   For   example  on  September  22,  2014,  TechDirt  published   an  article  that  contained  the  following:     As   the   filing   questions,   all   of   these   should   raise   red   flags   about   the   company   and   its   products:   Does   that   sound   like   an   upstanding   company   that   stands   behind   its   safe   and   reliable   product?   Or   does   that   sound   like   a  disreputable  company,  producing  tubs  of  snake  oil  (or   snake   goop,   as   it   were),   and   which   knows   that   too   much   truth   will   hurt   its   fly-­by-­night   bottom   line?   Roca   Labs   is   desperately   trying   to   force   a   cone   of   silence   over   each   and   every   customer   that   discovers   that   Roca   Labs’   product   is   not   only  a  specious  remedy  for   their   weight   issues,   but   a   potential   cause   of   additional   health   problems.   Plaintiff,   desperate   to   sell   as   many   of   its   tubs   of   goo   to   the   public   as   it   can   before   regulatory   agencies  come  knocking  does  its  best  to  bully  its  former  customers  into  silence.       63. RANDAZZA   promoted   the   article   at   TechDirt   that   repeated   his   Defamatory   Statements   about  ROCA  on  his  Twitter  account.     12     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 14 of 32 PageID 884   64. RANDAZZA   also   had   Tracy   Coenen,   an   accountant   and   colleague,   publish   an   article   entitled   “Roca   Labs   Weight   Loss   Scam”   that   repeats   the   defamatory  statements  (See  Exhibit   6).   Mrs.   Coenen   has   a   long   standing   relationship   with   RANDAZZA,   and   on   February   2,   2013   wrote   on   her   Facebook   page   “First   Amendment   lawyer   Marc   Randazza   is   amazing.”   There   would   be   no   other   reason   for   an   Illinois   accountant   to   publish   on   her   blog   an   article   about   Roca   Labs   other   than   her   relationship   with   RANDAZZA   and   to   assist  her  friend  with   his   war   against   ROCA.   Mrs.   Coenen   also   Tweeted   about   her   article,   calling   Roca   Labs   a   “scam”:     65. Essentially,   RANDAZZA   restated   his   previously   made   Defamatory   Statements   in   his   subsequent   Court   pleadings   in   hopes   of   shielding   himself   from   liability   under   judicial   litigation   privilege.   In   all   events,   it   is   abundantly   clear   that   RANDAZZA,   a   seasoned   litigator   specializing   in   First   Amendment   and   Defamation   practices,   should   know   that   the   judicial  litigation  privilege  cannot  be  used  as  a  sword  and  a  shield.     13     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 15 of 32 PageID 885 D. RANDAZZA  CAUSED  AND  CONTINUES  TO  CAUSE  INJURY  TO  ROCA   66. The   publications   of   Defamatory   Statements   by   RANDAZZA   brought   disgrace,   humiliation,   injury,   and   loss   to   ROCA’s   business   relationships,   reputation,   and   goodwill   in   the   community.     67. These   publications,   and   ensuing   purposeful   dissemination,   regarding   ROCA   hurt   ROCA’s   business,  drove  away  customers,  and  interfered  with  ROCA’s  ability  to  sell  its  products.   68. RANDAZZA   made   the   Defamatory   Statements   in   the   media   first,   and   then   subsequently   in   Court  pleadings  at  a  later  date.     69. At   the   time   RANDAZZA   voluntarily   made   the   Defamatory   Statements,   he  did  not  have  any   genuine   knowledge   or   regard   for   the   truth   and   veracity   of   the   Defamatory   Statements   regarding  ROCA’s  customer  care.     70. At   the   time   RANDAZZA   voluntarily   made   the   Defamatory   Statements,   he  did  not  have  any   genuine   knowledge   or   regard   for   the   truth   and   veracity   of   the   Defamatory   Statements   regarding   any   health   risks   associated   with   ROCA   products,   which   have   safely  been  used  by   more  than  10,000  people.     71. At   the   time   RANDAZZA   voluntarily   made   the   Defamatory   Statements,   he  did  not  have  any   genuine   knowledge   or   regard   for   the   truth   and   veracity   of   the   Defamatory   Statements   4 regarding  any  alleged  (solely  by  RANDAZZA)  government  actions  against  ROCA.     4   ROCA   is   unaware   of   any  pending   investigation  or   inquiry   into   its  company   as   alleged  by  RANDAZZA.   Indeed,  if   assuming   arguendo,   there   were   an   ongoing   investigation,   it   would   be   hard   to   believe   that   any   U.S.   Government   Regulation   Agency,   including   the   Food   and   Drug   Administration,   would   share   such   confidential   information   with   a   private  citizen.   14     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 16 of 32 PageID 886 72. At   the   time   RANDAZZA   voluntarily   made   the   Defamatory   Statements,   he  did  not  have  any   genuine   knowledge   or   regard   for   the   truth   and   veracity   of   the   Defamatory   Statements   regarding  ROCA’s  internal  business  policies  and  programs.   73. In   truth,   RANDAZZA   knew   when   he   made   his   Defamatory   Statements   that   they   lacked   merit,  lacked  truth,  were  unsubstantiated,  and  were  injurious  to  ROCA.   74. The   Defamatory   Statements   caused   and   continue   to   cause   injury,   harm,   and   damage   to   ROCA,   including   but   not   limited   to   irreparable   harm,   public   humiliation,   and   unwarranted   ill-­repute  in  the  community,  which  in  this  case  extends  to  the  internet.     75. The   Defamatory   Statements   were   disseminated   by   RANDAZZA   to   numerous   third-­parties,   with   the   full   knowledge   that   those   third-­parties   would   further   disseminate   his   Defamatory   Statements.     76. Based   on  the  foregoing,  RANDAZZA  engaged  in  conduct  which  was  intentional,  fraudulent,   malicious,   oppressive,   and/or   he   engaged   in   conduct   with   such   gross   negligence   as   to   indicate  a  wanton  disregard  for  the  rights  of  ROCA.     77. RANDAZZA   was   politely   asked   to   stop   speaking   to   the   media   by   Paul   Berger,   counsel   for   Roca   Labs.   On   September   26,   2014,   Mr.   Berger   sent   RANDAZZA   an   email   respectfully   requesting   that   he   stop   speaking   to   the   media,   informing   him   of   his   limited   immunity   and   providing   him   with   notice   to   retract   his   statements   in   accordance   with   Florida   law.   (See   Exhibit  7).     78. RANDAZZA’S   response   to   the   email   by   Mr.   Berger,   was   to   immediately   distribute   the   email  to  the  media  and  to  Tweet  about  it.   15     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 17 of 32 PageID 887   79. TechDirt  published  the  following:   Roca   Labs'  lawyer,  Paul  Berger,  also  sent  threatening  emails  to  Randazza  himself,  suggesting   that   Randazza   had   been   "making   defamatory   comments"   to   the   media.   The   email   exchange,   which   Randazza   filed   as   an   exhibit   with   his   filing,   shows   Randazza   responding   to   Berger   asking   what   specific   defamatory   quote   he's   talking   about.   Berger   instead   quotes   PissedConsumer's   legal   filing   (about   calling  Roca  Labs'  product  "snake  oil"),  which  we  (and,   I   believe)   other   news   publications,   quoted.   Randazza   pointed   out   to   Berger   that   it   was   not   a   quote   from   him   but   rather   in   his   pleadings,   and   then   asked   (one   assumes,   sarcastically)   if   Berger   is   truly   asking   Randazza   to   retract   a   statement   from   his   motion   for   preliminary   injunction.   I   would   assume   that   Berger   is   aware   of   the   concept   of   litigation   privilege,   so   either   he   didn't   fully   read   Randazza's   earlier   filings,   he   forgot   about   litigation   privilege,   or   he's   just   blustering   for   the   sake   of   blustering.   Randazza's   latest   filing  suggests  the  latter  may   be  the  case:     The   desperation   continued   with   Roca   threatening   personal   claims   against   the   Defendants’   attorney  for  statements  made  in  the  course  of  litigation.     80. In   addition,   two   days   after   the   email   RANDAZZA   once   again   took   to   Twitter,   but  this  time   to  mock  ROCA’s  legal  team.       16     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 18 of 32 PageID 888 81. It   is   clear   that   RANDAZZA   believes   that   litigation   is   war,   and   that   pleadings   are   a   miraculous   battle   shield   that   permits   lawyers   to   make   intentionally   false,   misleading   and   defamatory   statements   for   the   sole   purpose   of   inflicting   as   much   injury   on   an   adversary   as   possible.   RANDAZZA’s   strategy   is   to   beat   up   ROCA   in   the   court   of   public   opinion,   to   drive  away  its  customers,  and  hope  that  ROCA  will  “cry  uncle”  and  give  up  its  day  in  Court.   COUNT  I   TORTIOUS  INTERFERENCE  WITH  ROCA’s     PROSPECTIVE  ECONOMIC  RELATIONSHIPS     82. The   allegations   set   in   forth   in   paragraphs   1   through   81   are   incorporated   by   reference   as   if   fully  repeated  herein.   83. ROCA   derives   it   revenues   through   online   sales   of   its   product   to   consumers   seeking   to   lose   weight.   84. ROCA   has   an   actual   prospective   economic   relationship   with   internet   users   that   search   for   ROCA  and  its  products  on  search  engines.   85. RANDAZZA   is   aware   of   the   existence   of   ROCA’s   prospective   economic   relationship   with   internet  users  who  desire  to  purchase  ROCA’s  weight  loss  products.   86. RANDAZZA   made   and   disseminated   Defamatory   Statements   with   the   knowledge   that   they   would   reach   ROCA’s   potential   consumers   and   cause   them   to   view   false,   negative   and   misleading  information  when  they  search  the  internet  using  search  engines.     87. RANDAZZA   knowingly   and   intentionally   warned   (essentially   counseled)   internet   users   against  the  purchase  of  ROCA  products.   17     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 19 of 32 PageID 889 88. The   conduct   of   RANDAZZA   tainted   the   actual   prospective   economic   relationship   with   numerous   consumers   and   these   customers   were   lost   because   of  the  malicious  and  intentional   conduct  of  RANDAZZA.   89. Indeed,   customers   have   refused   to   order   and   reorder   from   ROCA   as   a   direct   and   proximate   result  of  RANDAZZA’s  intentional  interference  with  said  relationships.     90. But  for  the  intentional  interference,  ROCA  would  have  sold  products  to  the  internet  users.     91. As   a   direct   and   proximate   cause   of   RANDAZZA’s   conduct,   consumers   have   not   purchased   ROCA  products.   92. Thus,   as   a   direct   and   proximate   cause   of   the   RANDAZZA’s   intentional   and   unjustified   tortious  interference,  ROCA  has  suffered  non-­monetary  and  monetary  damages.   WHEREFORE,   Plaintiff,   ROCA   LABS,   INC.,   respectfully   requests   that   this  Honorable   Court   declare   that   Defendant,   MARC   RANDAZZA,   has   intentionally   disrupted   and   interfered   with   ROCA’s   prospective   economic   relationships,   and   further,   that   this   Honorable   Court   grant   temporary   and   permanent   injunctive   relief   against   the   violating  conduct,  and  award  ROCA  with   an   amount   fair   and   just   to   account   for   its   money   damages,   interest,   reasonable   attorneys’   fees,   and  costs  incurred  herein,  and  for  such  other  relief  as  this  Court  deems  just  and  proper.   COUNT  II   DEFAMATION  PER  SE     93. The   allegations   set   in   forth   in   paragraphs   1   through   92   are   incorporated   by   reference   as   if   fully  repeated  herein.   94. RANDAZZA   is   representing   Pissed   Consumer   in   a   case   justifiably   brought   against   those   Defendants  by  ROCA  in  the  State  of  Florida.   95. RANDAZZA  authored  and  filed  several  pleadings  in  that  action,  including  Exhibits  3  and  4.   18     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 20 of 32 PageID 890 96. However,   prior   to   filing   the   foregoing   Court   pleadings,   RANDAZZA   made   and   disseminated  false,  malicious  and  Defamatory  Statements  to  the  media.   97. RANDAZZA   authored   and   published   the   Defamatory   Statements   to   the   media   and   disseminated  the  content  via  social  media  websites.     98. After   the   foregoing   mass   dissemination   of   the   Defamatory   Statements   to   the   media   perpetrated   by   RANDAZZA,   he   subsequently   repeated   his   Defamatory   Statements   over   a   week  later  in  Court  filings.     99. It   is   unequivocal   that   RANDAZZA   made   and   disseminated   his   Defamatory   Statements  first   to  the  media  on  September  8,  and  then  ten  days  later  in  Court  pleadings.   100.   In   truth,   RANDAZZA   knew   when   he   made   his   Defamatory   Statements   that   they   lacked   merit,   lacked   truth,   were   unsubstantiated,   and   were   injurious   to   ROCA.   The   Defamatory   Statements   were   made   only   for   his   own   war   against   ROCA   and   for   RANDAZZA’s   own   public  relations  efforts.     101. RANDAZZA’s   Defamatory   Statements   caused   and   continue   to   cause   injury,   harm,   and   damage   to   ROCA,   including,   but   not   limited   to   irreparable   harm,   public   humiliation,   and   unwarranted  ill-­repute  in  the  community,  which  in  this  case  extends  to  the  internet.     102. RANDAZZA’s   Defamatory   Statements   were   made   and   disseminated   by   RANDAZZA   to   numerous   third-­parties,   with   the   full   knowledge   that   those   third-­parties   would   in   fact   further  disseminate  his  Defamatory  Statements.     103. As   a   direct   and   proximate   result   of   RANDAZZA’s   reckless,   wrongful   and   malicious   statements,   ROCA   has   suffered   significant   loss   of   reputation   as   well   as   business   opportunities.   19     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 21 of 32 PageID 891 104. ROCA’s   losses   include,   but   are   not   limited   to,   the  failure  of  ROCA  to  sell  its  product  to   identifiable   potential   customers   as   well   as   significant   lost   revenues   from   other   potential   customers.   105. Based   on   the   foregoing,   RANDAZZA   engaged   in   conduct   which   was   intentional,   fraudulent,   malicious,   oppressive,   and/or   he   engaged   in   conduct   with   such   gross   negligence   as  to  indicate  a  wanton  disregard  for  the  rights  of  ROCA.     106. The  Defamatory  Statements   made  by  RANDAZZA  against  ROCA  constitute  defamation   per  se  under  the  law.     107. RANDAZZA   was   provided   with   notice   as   required   by   Chapter   770,   Florida   Statute.   A   true  a  correct  copy  of  the  email  notice  is  attached  hereto  as  Exhibit  7.     108. RANDAZZA   confirmed   his   receipt   of   the   foregoing   notice   when   he   referenced   the   notice  in  a  Court  filing,  shared  the  communication  with  the  media,  disseminated  the  notice  on   the  internet,  and  used  the  notice  to  further  harass  and  harm  ROCA.    See  Exhibit  8.     WHEREFORE,   Plaintiff,   ROCA   LABS,   INC.,   respectfully   requests   that   this  Honorable   Court   declare   that   Defendant,   MARC   RANDAZZA,   has   defamed   ROCA   per   se,   and   further   grant   temporary   and   permanent  injunctive  relief  against  the  violating  conduct,  and   award  ROCA   with   an   amount   fair   and   just   to   account   for   its   money   damages,   interest,   reasonable   attorneys’   fees,  and  costs  incurred  herein,  and  for  such  other  relief  as  this  court  deems  just  and  proper.   109. COUNT  III   DECLARATORY  RELIEF  AGAINST  RANDAZZA     The   allegations   set   in   forth   in   paragraphs   1   through   108   are  incorporated  by  reference  as   if  fully  repeated  herein.   110. This  is  an  action  for  declaratory  relief  pursuant  to  Section  86.011,  Florida  Statute.   20     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 22 of 32 PageID 892 111. There  is  a  bona  fide,  actual,  present  practical  need  for  declaratory  relief  in  this  matter.   112. A  present  controversy  with  ascertainable  facts  exists  between  the  parties  in  this  matter.   113. RANDAZZA   has   intentionally   interfered   with   ROCA’s   economic   relationship   with   potential   customers   when   he   made   his   Defamatory   Statements   to   the   media,   and   then   later   memorialized  the  exact  statements  in  Court  pleadings.     114. RANDAZZA’s   conduct   directly   and   proximately   caused   ROCA   to   monetary   damages   that  continue  to  accrue,  as  well  as  irreparable  harm  to  ROCA’s  reputation.   115. ROCA   is   in   doubt   as   to   their   rights   under   Florida   law   and   is   in   need   of   a   present   declaration   whether   the   conduct   of  RANDAZZA,  i.e.,  the  Defamatory  Statements,  tortiously   interfered  with  ROCA’s  prospective  economic  relationship  with  potential  customers.     116. ROCA   is   in   doubt   as   to   their   rights   under   Florida   law   and   is   in   need   of   a   present   declaration   whether   the   conduct   of   RANDAZZA,   i.e.,   the   Defamatory   Statements,   defamed   ROCA  per  se.   117. There   is   a   bona   fide,   actual   dispute   between   the   parties   based   on   the   refusal   of   RANDAZZA   to   cease   and   desist   its   conduct   after   ROCA   has  requested  same.   See  Exhibits   7  and  8.     118. ROCA   seeks   relief   in   order   to   enforce   contractual   and   legal   rights,   and   does   not   merely   seek  legal  advice  from  this  Honorable  Court.   119. ROCA’s   right   to   recovery   is   dependent   upon   the   Court’s   finding   of   facts   and/or   application  of  same  to  Florida  law.   120. The   parties’   interests   in   this   declaration   of   rights   are   actual,   present,   adverse   and   antagonistic  of  fact  and/or  law.   21     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 23 of 32 PageID 893 WHEREFORE,  Plaintiff,  ROCA  LABS,  INC.,  requests  the  Court  to:   a. Take  jurisdiction  of  the  subject  matter  and  parties  hereto;;   b. Determine   applicable   law,   including   the  provision(s)  of  Florida  Statute  that  apply   to  the  parties;;   c. Declare   that   RANDAZZA   has   intentionally,   tortiously   interfered   with   ROCA’s   economic  relationship  with  consumers;;   e. Declare  that  RANDAZZA  has  defamed  ROCA  per  se;;   g. Declare   that   ROCA   has   suffered   economic   damages   as   proximate   result   of   Defendant’s  conduct;;   h. Declare   that   ROCA   is   entitled   to   attorneys’   fees   and   costs   against   RANDAZZA   and  determine  the  amounts  thereof;;   i. Declare   that   ROCA   is   entitled   to   award   of   monetary   damages   against   RANDAZZA  and  determine  the  amounts  thereof;;   j. Declare  that  RANDAZZA  cease  and  desist  his  defamatory  conduct;;    k. Award  damages,  interest,  and  taxable  costs  against  RANDAZZA;;  and   m. Award  any  other  relief  this  Court  deems  just  and  proper  against  RANDAZZA.   WHEREFORE,   Plaintiff,   ROCA   LABS,   INC.,   respectfully   requests   that   this  Honorable   Court   enter   judgment  against  Defendant,  MARC  RANDAZZA,  for  all  damages,  attorneys’  fees,   and  costs.       22     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 24 of 32 PageID 894 VERIFIED  MOTION  FOR  ENTRY  OF  A  TEMPORARY  INJUNCTION   Plaintiff,   ROCA   LABS,   INC.,   by   and   through   its   undersigned   counsel   and   pursuant   to   Rule   1.610   of   the   Florida   Rules   of   Civil   Procedure  and  Section  688.003,  Florida  Statute,  hereby   moves   this   Court   to   enter   a   temporary/preliminary   injunction   forcing   Defendant,   MARC   RANDAZZA,   to   (a)   cease   and   desist   intentionally   and   tortiously   interfering   with   the   business   relationships   of   ROCA,   (b)   formally   retract,   in   writing,   any   and   all   previously   made   and/or   disseminated   Defamatory   Statements   of   or   about   ROCA,   and   (c)   remove  any  and  all  previously   made   Defamatory   Statements   of   or   about  ROCA  from  media  outlets  in  which  RANDAZZA  has   an   interest   in,   controls,   or   otherwise   has   authority   over   its   content.   In   support   hereof,   ROCA   states  as  follows:   INTRODUCTION   This   motion   is   supported   by   the   verified   factual   allegations   in   the   Complaint   filed   contemporaneously   herewith,   and   said   allegations   are   incorporated   by   reference   and   will   not   be   reiterated   verbatim   herein.   As   stated   above,   RANDAZZA   made   Defamatory   Statements   about   ROCA   first   to   the   media,   and   then   repeated   them   verbatim   in   subsequent   Court   filings.   The   publications   of   the   Defamatory   Statements   brought   disgrace,   humiliation,   injury,   and   loss   to   ROCA’s   business   relationships,   reputation,   and   goodwill   in   the  community.   These  publications   about   ROCA   hurt   ROCA’s   business,   drove   away   customers,   and   interfered   with   ROCA’s   ability   to  sell  its  products.  The  foregoing  conduct   tortiously  interfered  with  the  business  practices   and  relationships  of  ROCA.     The   verified   allegations   conclusively   demonstrate  that  (a)  there  is  a  substantial  likelihood   that   ROCA   will   prevail   on   the   merits   of   this   case   and   (b)   in   the   absence   of   injunctive   relief   to   23     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 25 of 32 PageID 895 maintain   the   status   quo   pending   the   outcome   of   the   case,   ROCA   will   suffer   immediate   and   irreparable  injury.     MEMORANDUM  OF  LAW   A. STANDARD  FOR  INJUNCTIVE  RELIEF     Under   Florida   law,   there   are   four   prerequisites   to   the   granting   of   preliminary   injunctive   relief:   (1)   the   plaintiff   will   suffer   irreparable   harm;;   (2)   the   plaintiff   has   no   adequate   remedy   at   law;;   (3)   there   is   substantial   likelihood   that   the   plaintiff   will   prevail   on   the   merits;;   and   (4)   a   temporary   injunction   will   serve   the   public   interests.   Provident   Mgt.   Corp.   v.   City   of   Treasure   Island,   796   So.2d   481,   485   n.   9   (Fla.   2001);;   Naegel   Outdoor   Advertising   Co.,   Inc.   v.   City   of   Jacksonville,  659  So.2d  1046,  1047  (Fla.  1995).   B. INJUNCTIVE  RELIEF  IS  APPROPRIATE   As   a   general   rule,   a   trial   court   has   sound   discretion   to   grant   injunctions.   Precision   Tune   Auto   Case,   Inc.   v.   Radcliff,   731   So.2d   744,   745   (Fla.   4th   DCA   1999).    Further,   the   purpose  of  a   preliminary   injunction   is   to   prevent   future  harm.    Advantage  Digital  Sys.,  Inc.  v.  Digital  Imaging   Servs.,   Inc.,   870   So.   2d   111,   116   (DCA   Fla.   2004)(“By   its   nature,   an   injunction   restrains   commission   of   a   future   injury;;   a   court   cannot   prevent   what   has   already   occurred.”)   Thus,   it   is   not   necessary   for  a  party  seeking  a  preliminary  injunction  to  wait  until  harm  has  occurred;;  such  a   delay   would   defeat   the   purpose   of   injunctive  relief.    The  facts  of  this  case  demonstrate  that  all  of   the   elements   are   easily   satisfied,   and   the   requested  injunction  should  be  issued  by  this  honorable   Court.       24     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 26 of 32 PageID 896 1) In  the  Absence  of  Injunctive  Relief,  ROCA  Will  Suffer  Irreparable  Harm       Irreparable   injury   is   an   injury   which   is   of   a   peculiar   nature,   so   that   compensation   in   money   cannot   atone   for   it.    Mullinix   v.   Mullinix,  182  So.  2d  268  (Fla.  4th  DCA  1966);;  First  Nat.   Bank   n   St.   Petersburg   v.   Ferris,   156   So.   2d   421   (Fla.   2nd  DCA  1963).      Due  to  the  nature  of  the   internet   (which  is  the  arena  for  the  majority  of  the  events  that  gave  rise  to  this  cause),  defamatory   postings  can  cause  great  harm  with  very  little  effort.     The   actions   taken   by   RANDAZZA   created   an   immediate   and   viable   state   of   emergency   for   ROCA,   which   has   already   caused   ROCA   to   incur   substantial   damages   and   which   threaten   further   immediate   and   irreparable   harm,   to   wit:   (a)   ROCA   has   lost   daily   sales   of   thousands   of   dollars   through   the   date   of   this   filing,   and   those   sales   will   continue  to  be  lost  until  the  actions  of   RANDAZZA   are   prohibited   or   cured   and   (b)   the   conduct   of   RANDAZZA   tainted   the   actual   prospective   economic   relationship   with   numerous   consumers   and   these   customers   were   lost   because   of   the   malicious,   intentional   conduct   of   RANDAZZA.   Indeed,   the   actions   taken   by   RANDAZZA   threaten   to   destroy   ROCA’s   business.   There   is   likely   potential   irreparable   harm   that  is  reasonably  likely  to  result  in  the  absence  of  an  injunction.     2) Plaintiffs  Do  Not  Have  An  Adequate  Remedy  at  Law   ROCA   does   not   have   an   adequate   remedy   law   because   an   injunction   is   the   only   means   available   to   stop   RANDAZZA   from   tortiously   interfering   with   the   business   practices   and   relationships   of   ROCA.   If   an   injunction   is   not   issued,   ROCA   will   likely   continue   to   lose   business   relationships   that   can   never   be   reestablished.   Further,   monetary   damages   that   would   arise   from   RANDAZZA’s   continued   misconduct   are   not   readily  ascertainable  and,  in  all  events,   would   be   insufficient   to   compensate   ROCA  for  the  wrongs  committed  by  RANDAZZA.   Given   25     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 27 of 32 PageID 897 the   vagaries   associated   with   calculating   lost   business,   lost   customers,   and   lost   goodwill   in   the   community,  no  legal  remedy  can  adequately  compensate  ROCA  for  RANDAZZA’s  actions.   3) Plaintiffs  Are  Substantially  Likely  To  Prevail  On  The  Merits   ROCA   is   substantially   likely   to   prevail   on   the   merits   in   this   matter,   particularly   with   respect   to   the   issues   raised   by   this   Motion.   ROCA   does   not  request  that  the  Court  pre-­judge  all   of   the   issues   raised   by   its   Complaint;;   rather,   the   relief   requested   herein   is   narrowly   limited   to   ensuring   that   RANDAZZA   (a)   cease   and   desist   intentionally   and   tortiously   interfering   with   the   business   relationships   of   ROCA,   (b)   formally   retract,   in   writing,   any   and   all   previously   made   and/or   disseminated   Defamatory   Statements   of   or   about   ROCA,   and   (c)   remove   any   and   all   previously   made   Defamatory   Statements   of   or   about   ROCA   from   the   media   outlets   in   which   RANDAZZA  has  an  interest  in,  controls,  or  otherwise  has  authority  over  its  content.     RANDAZZA   made   Defamatory   Statements   about   ROCA   first   to   the   media,   and   then   repeated   them   verbatim   in   subsequent   Court   filings.   The   parties   are   unequivocally  aware  of  the   certain   Defamatory   Statements   at   issue.   Further,   as   shown   in   the   Verified   Complaint   for   Damages   and  Injunctive  Relief  ,  the  defenses  RANDAZZA  will  undoubtedly  attempt  to  raise  are   inapplicable   as   a   matter   of  fact  and  law.   The  publications  of  the  Defamatory  Statements  brought   disgrace,   humiliation,   injury,   and   loss   to   ROCA’s   business   relationships,   reputation,   and   goodwill   in   the   community.   These   publications   about   ROCA   hurt   ROCA’s   business,   drove   away   customers,   and   interfered   with   ROCA’s  ability  to  sell  its  products.   The  foregoing  conduct   tortiously   interfered   with   the   business   practices   and   relationships   of   ROCA.   Thus,   the   Verified   26     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 28 of 32 PageID 898 Complaint   for   Damages   and   Injunctive   Relief   does   in   fact   and   law   demonstrate   that   ROCA   is   likely  to  prevail  on  the  merits.     4) An  Injunction  is  in  the  Public  Interest   ROCA   seeks   an   injunction   in   order   to   prevent   further   monetary   damages   and   other   irreparable   harm   from   lost   business,   lost  customers,  and  lost  goodwill  that  is  reasonably  likely  to   occur   if   RANDAZZA   continues   to   defame   ROCA   and   tortiously   interfere   with   the   business   practices  and  relationships  of  ROCA.   Under  these  circumstances,  an  injunction  is  in  the  public’s   interest.   See  Pino  v.  Spanish  Broad.  Corp.,  564  So.2d  186,  189  (Fla.  3d  DCA  1990)(holding  that   the   public   is   entitled   to   rely   on   certainty   in   contracting   and   the   protection   of   property   rights;;   indeed,   commercial   development   depends   on   the   ability   of   a   company   to   protect   its   legitimate   business   interests);;   see   also   Silvers   v.   Dis-­Com   Sec.,   Inc.,   403   So.2d   1133,   1137   (Fla.   4th   DCA   1981)   (“[i]f   contracts   are   to   have   any   viability   at   all,   there   must   be   some   means   of   meaningful   enforcement  available  for  the  courts….”).     C. BOND   In   cases   in  which  a  Temporary  Injunction  is  issued,  a  bond  is  required  to  be  posted  by  the   movant;;   the   amount   of   the   bond   is   completely   within   the   Court’s   discretion.   See   Fla.R.Civ.P.   1.610(b);;   Montville   v.   Mobile   Medical   Industries,   Inc.,   855   So.2d   212,   215   (Fla   4th   DCA   2003)   (holding   that   “the   trial   court  is  generally  afforded  discretion  in  setting  the  amount  of  a  bond  for  a   temporary   injunction   entered   pursuant   to   Rule   1.610(b)”).   Generally,   the   amount   of   the   bond   should   reflect   the   damages   that   are   reasonably   foreseeable   if   the   injunction   is   found   to   have   27     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 29 of 32 PageID 899 wrongfully   issued.   In   this   case,   a   bond   of   no   more   than   $1,000.00   is  appropriate  because  of  the   (a)  narrow  injunctive  relief  sought  and  (b)  lack  of  monetary  damage  suffered  by  RANDAZZA.     CONCLUSION   WHEREFORE,   Plaintiff,   ROCA   LABS,   INC.,   by   and   through   undersigned   counsel,   moves   this   Court   to   enter   a   temporary/preliminary   injunction   forcing   Defendant,   MARC   RANDAZZA,   to   (a)   cease   and   desist   intentionally   and   tortiously   interfering   with   the   business   relationships   of   ROCA,   (b)   formally   retract,   in   writing,   any   and   all   previously   made   and/or   disseminated   Defamatory   Statements   of   or   about   ROCA,   and   (c)   remove  any  and  all  previously   made   Defamatory   Statements   of   or   about   ROCA  from  the  media  outlets  in  which  RANDAZZA   has  an  interest  in,  controls,  or  otherwise  has  authority  over  its  content.   REQUEST  FOR  ATTORNEY’S  FEES   Plaintiff,   ROCA   LABS,  INC.,  requests  an  award  of  attorney’s  fees,  costs,  and  such  other   relief  that  the  Court  finds  to  be  appropriate.     DEMAND  FOR  JURY  TRIAL  ON  COMPLAINT     Plaintiff,   ROCA   LABS,   INC.,   hereby   demands   trial   by   jury   as   to   all   issues  so  triable  as   to  the  Complaint.       28     Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 30 of 32 PageID 900 Respectfully  submitted  on  this  6th  day  of  November,  2014.   /s/  John  DeGirolamo   JOHNNY  G.  DEGIROLAMO,  ESQ.   FLORIDA  BAR  NO:  0089792      The  Law  Offices  of  John  DeGirolamo,  Esq.   6000  South  Florida  Avenue,     P.O.  Box  7122,  Lakeland,  FL  33807   Attorney  for  Plaintiff,  Roca  Labs,  Inc.   Phone:  (863)  603-­3461   Email:  JohnD@inlawwetrust.com   29   Case Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 31 of 32 PageID 901 VERIFICATION BY DON KARL JURAVIN BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Don Juravin, upon being duly sworn, deposes and states: Under penalties of perjury, 1, Don Juravin, am Vice President of Roca Labs, Inc. declare and af?rm on day of October, 2014, under oath, pursuant to 92525., Florida Statutes, that I have read the foregoing Complaint and Motion, and declare that the facts stated in it are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and irreparable harm and damage will result if the relief is not granted. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. dag/MK Don ar Juravin 0/2 NOTARY P?Towdda My Commission Expires ANTONIOW 5 Notaty Public,Stata otFtodda . 1.2016 3O Case 8:14-cv-02096-VMC-EAJ Document 52-3 Filed 11/11/14 Page 32 of 32 PageID 902 CERTIFICATE  OF  SERVICE   I   hereby   certify   that   the   foregoing   document   has   been   e-­filed   via   the   Florida   State   E-­Portal  on  this  6th  day  of  November,  2014.     /s/  John  DeGirolamo   JOHNNY  G.  DEGIROLAMO,  ESQ.   31