MIAMI — A company is seeking to have its allegations against a business partner upheld while the defendant wants to have amended complaints dismissed.
Triton II LLC filed a complaint in 2018 in U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida against John Randazzo and Caprice Turner, seeking to dismiss the second amended complaint.
According to the complaint, Triton II's principal, Kris Lawrence, met Randazzo in 2015 during the sale of Lawrence’s company. Randazzo allegedly approached Lawrence with an investment opportunity in a company named Comprehensive Virtual Healthcare (CVH).
Lawrence says he agreed to invest $3 million in Triton’s funds in CVH for 30% interest. The company failed to take off, the suit alleges, and the initial investment amount was returned to Triton in spring 2015. Triton alleges Randazzo made misrepresentations to the plaintiff including a number of false statements, which led Lawrence to believe that CVH would be profitable.
Triton II alleges instead of using the fund for the investment, the defendant misappropriated the investment and used it to pay personal expenses and legal expenses. Lawrence says he confronted Randazzo in June 2018 but the defendant failed to provide information or documentation.
Lawrence, in turn, says he contacted Turner who said CVH had never operated as a virtual health care company and there was no history of this business. The plaintiff alleges the defendant is guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation.
The defendant is seeking dismissal of the second amended complaint.
Randazzo and Turner allege that the securities fraud claim is barred by an applicable statute of limitations, but the court sidesdwith the plaintiff.
The plaintiff’s second amended complaint alleges the defendant made five false statements to Triton II. The defendant says that the reliance on his representations was not reasonable as they were negated by the operating agreement.
The court, in a ruling handed down April 23, did not permit the defendant’s argument to hold.
The court also upheld the plaintiff’s claim of fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, although the court did not uphold the plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim and unjust enrichment claim.
The case was heard by U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom.
U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida case number 0:18-cv-61469