Skip to main content

Tag: Beach to Bay

LaRose sues Kaleta over parking contract termination

LaRose sues Kaleta over parking contract termination

BRADENTON BEACH – Following Shawn Kaleta’s termination of Easy Parking Group’s (EPG) contract to manage a Bridge Street parking lot, EPG owner Josh LaRose has filed a lawsuit against Kaleta and Beach to Bay Investments Inc. seeking damages in excess of $50,000.

The lawsuit, filed in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court on July 18, claims fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of agreement. The summons was served on the registered agent for Beach to Bay Investments, attorney Louis Najmy, on July 25. He has 20 days from then to respond on behalf of Kaleta, the president of Beach to Bay Investments. Kaleta is the only principal listed for the LLC on the Florida Division of Corporations website.

LaRose entered into the agreement on Jan. 12 with Beach to Bay Investments to provide management and operation services in exchange for a percentage of the net revenues generated by Kaleta’s parking lots, after agreed improvements and startup costs were repaid by Kaleta and basic operating expenses deducted from the gross revenues.

The initial term of the agreement was one year, with termination permitted without cause after the first six months with 30 days written notice.

On June 11, LaRose received a letter from Beach to Bay Investments Manager Sam Negrin terminating the agreement effective July 12, six months from the contract’s inception.

Negrin wrote The Sun in a text message on July 28 that EPG owes money to Beach to Bay.

“We are surprised they sued in response to our letter seeking payment,” he wrote. “We look forward to resolving the issues and recovering the funds owed to us.”

BREACH OF AGREEMENT CLAIM

The letter to LaRose states in part, “All meter equipment, signage, parking equipment and other equipment installed on the parking lots must be removed by July 26, 2024 or they will become the property of Beach to Bay Investments Inc.”

The suit claims that immediately after sending the notice of termination, and prior to July 12, Beach to Bay and/or Kaleta entered the parking lots and removed EPG’s parking app signs, installing new signs with instructions for making payment using a payment app, QR code or Text to Pay system with payments sent directly to Kaleta or his affiliate. Replacement parking meters also were installed and tape was placed over EPG parking meters, according to the complaint.

“The agreement prohibits Beach to Bay from terminating the services prior to July 12, 2024 and also prohibits the removal of parking meters and payment signage installed by EPG,” according to the complaint.

FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM

The lawsuit alleges that Kaleta falsely represented that he, or Beach to Bay, owned or controlled all the properties on which EPG provided parking management and operation services.

“Shortly after entering into the agreement, Kaleta, the president of Beach to Bay, tore down various structures on three additional properties immediately adjacent to 219 Gulf Drive S. (the property identified in the agreement), namely 101 Bridge St., 105 Bridge St. and 106 Third St. S., and asked EPG to expand its parking management and operation services onto the newly empty land. Kaleta did not tell EPG that the adjacent properties were legally separate and distinct from 219 Gulf Drive S., with different municipal addresses and owners, but rather represented that they were part and parcel of 219 Gulf Drive,” the complaint states.

“EPG does not know if the actual legal property owners are even aware that their properties were used as private parking lots or if they received any portion of the resulting revenues,” according to the complaint.

EPG asked the court to order Kaleta to immediately identify the owners of each of the properties where EPG provided or agreed to provide parking management and operation services, identify the revenues, if any, received by each property owner from the operation as parking lots and indemnify EPG from any actions brought by the owners of the properties.

EPG also provided parking management and operation services for Bradenton Beach properties at 206 Church Ave., 207 Church Ave., 102 Third St. N. and 202 First St. N.

The Manatee County Property Appraiser’s office website lists the owner of 206 Church Ave. as D&C Properties of Tampa LLC, with Maria Trim and Mark Dexter of Tampa as principals.

“While all of the properties but one (219 Gulf Drive S.) are owned by LLCs that are effectively owned, at least in part, and/or managed by Mr. Kaleta, Easy Parking Group provided its services under the impression that all of the properties were owned exclusively by Mr. Kaleta and/or Beach to Bay Investments Inc.,” LaRose’s Sarasota-based attorney, Bailey Lowther, wrote in a July 27 email to The Sun. “Accordingly, all of the parking revenues from the various lots paid by EPG were deposited into the same bank account, presumably belonging to Beach to Bay. If Beach to Bay failed to distribute those revenues properly, i.e. to the LLCs that owned the parking lot properties, EPG potentially faces claims from those LLCs.”

If one or more of those LLCs has members other than Kaleta, Lowther said it raises potential questions that include whether or not all the members of the LLC knew and consented to the property being used as a parking lot, and whether the LLC members received their fair share of the revenues.

“Depending on the ownership and operating agreement of each particular LLC, if the answer to any one of the questions is ‘no,’ my client could very well be sued by one or more of the LLC property owners,” she wrote.

Beach to Bay’s Negrin disputes the claim that Kaleta was using properties he wasn’t entitled to use.

“He is either the owner or agent of all of the properties,” Negrin told The Sun on July 27.

“With respect to 219 Gulf Drive S., which is owned by AMI Plaza LLC, Mr. Kaleta told my client, and the agreement specifically states, that property was owned by Beach to Bay Investments Inc.,” Lowther wrote. “Also, all of the questions above, and my concerns about the potential liability of my client, are applicable to the owner/landlord of 219 Gulf Drive S.”

According to the Florida Division of Corporations website, the owner of AMI Plaza LLC is Firkins Nissan. Registered agent William Saba confirmed in a July 27 telephone interview with The Sun that Kaleta leases the property from him.

“We have a written lease agreement,” Saba said. “Shawn is entitled to use the property.”

UNJUST ENRICHMENT CLAIM

“EPG, in providing its parking management and operation services, including but not limited to undertaking and incurring inception and start-up activities and costs, to Beach to Bay and Kaleta, conferred benefits on Beach to Bay and Kaleta,” according to the lawsuit complaint. “The reception and retention of the benefits conferred by EPG by Beach to Bay and Kaleta is inequitable unless Beach to Bay and Kaleta are required to pay EPG for the value of the benefits.”

Noise violation lawsuits settled

Noise violation lawsuits settled

ANNA MARIA – The city of Anna Maria has reached settlement agreements with the owners of two short-term vacation rental properties that received three or more noise ordinance violation citations within a one-year period.

The City Commission approved the settlement agreements during a special commission meeting held on April 24. The commission, mayor and City Attorney Becky Vose previously and privately discussed the proposed settlement agreements during a closed-door shade meeting on April 13.

During Monday’s meeting, the commission first approved the settlement agreement with Beach to Bay Investments, the AMI Locals real estate company and Shawn Kaleta. Those three entities are named as appellants in a 2022 appeals case filed against the city in response to Special Magistrate Gerald Buhr declaring the vacation rental home at 205 South Bay Blvd. to be a public nuisance after three noise ordinance citations were issued to rental guests there within a 12-month period.

Noise violation lawsuits settled
Guests staying at this vacation rental home at 205 South Bay Blvd. were cited for three noise ordinance violations within a 12-month period. – Joe Hendricks | Sun

According to the city’s code of ordinances, three or more violations occurring at the same premises within any 12-month rolling period shall be deemed prima facia evidence that the premises is a public nuisance. A vacation rental property deemed to be a public nuisance could face penalties that include the potential suspension of the rental property’s city-issued vacation rental license.

According to the Beach to Bay settlement agreement, “Beach to Bay agrees that if any verified noise citation occurs on or before 90 days after April 25, the noise nuisance designation shall be reinstated to be effective for a 90-day period from the date of such verified noise citation.”

Mangos on Magnolia

The second commission-approved settlement agreement pertains to five cited noise ordinance violations that occurred during a 12-month period at a vacation rental home at 313 Magnolia Ave. The 2022 lawsuit filed by the city named the Orlando-based Mangoes on Magnolia LLC and the Vacasa vacation rental company as defendants.

The city initially sought a court order that would have prohibited any short-term vacation rental activities at the Magnolia Avenue home for one year. Under the settlement agreement, the city and Mangoes on Magnolia LLC agree that the LLC will instead be on a voluntary form of probation for one year.

During Monday’s meeting, Vose said, “If there are no further proven noise violations, then the case shall be dismissed. Basically, they’re going to be on the hook for a year. If they do have a noise violation, they are agreeing to shut down the rental for a consecutive six-week period. They won’t be required to cancel any existing rentals that are less than three months in the future, but the shutdown period must commence no later than four months after the proven noise violation.”

Commissioner Jon Crane opposed the Mangoes on Magnolia settlement agreement because the city didn’t confirm or require an advertising requirement previously proposed by the attorney representing the LLC. In response, Vose said the city’s only concern is that future noise violations are prevented.