Politics

Judge Denies RPOF Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit by Disgraced Former Chairman Jim Greer

By: Eric Giunta | Posted: October 9, 2012 3:55 AM
Mike Haridopolos, Jim Greer and John Thrasher

Former Sen. Mike Haridopolos, former RPOF Chairman Jim Greer and Sen. John Thrasher

After a two-hour informal back-and-forth in his chambers Monday, Judge John C. Cooper of the 2nd Judicial Circuit Court of Florida denied motions by the Republican Party of Florida and two state senators to dismiss a lawsuit brought against them by disgraced former RPOF Chairman Jim Greer.

Greer resigned from the state party chairmanship in 2010 facing accusations of fraud and money laundering; he is currently facing criminal charges of having diverted some $300,000 from the party to his private company, Victory Strategies.

Greer, meanwhile, is suing the RPOF, former state Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R-Melbourne, and state Sen. John Thrasher, R-St Augustine, for $5 million, claiming they breached a contract promising him severance pay of $124,000 in exchange for his resignation.

All three defendants filed motions to have their suit dismissed.

Attorney Stephen Dobson for the RPOF told Sunshine State News that “Mr. Greer filed a previous lawsuit that was virtually identical to this one, and there’s some case law that says if a plaintiff refuses to participate in discovery,” -- i.e., in the pre-trial phase in which parties seek to obtain evidence from opponents -- his suit can be dismissed. “That’s what Mr. Greer did in the first lawsuit: he pled the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions; we felt it would be appropriate for fees and costs to be assessed against him,” and for this present suit to be dismissed."

Attorneys Dean LeBoeuf and Ken Sukhia, representing Haridopolos and Thrasher respectively, argued that their clients could not be sued as private individuals because they signed the contested severance agreement in their “representative capacities” as party leaders. At the time the agreement was signed, Haridopolos was incoming Senate president and Thrasher was incoming RPOF chairman.

“Why in God’s name would [Haridopolos and Thrasher] sign that contract if they didn’t expect to be bound?” Greer’s attorney Damon Chase asked aloud in frustration.

At one point in the discussion, an exasperated Judge Cooper removed a 40-year-old law school textbook from his bookshelf, blew off the dust, and proceeded to go through the common law elements of a binding contract with LeBoeuf and Sukhia, who insisted that the severance agreement did not constitute an entering into a contract by their clients.

“Here’s what I’m gonna do,” Judge Cooper eventually ruled. “In motions to dismiss, the Florida Supreme Court says that I’m required to treat all [the plaintiff’s] allegations as set forth in the motion as true,” and determine whether he has stated a valid claim.

Florida law requires a judge, when considering a motion to dismiss a suit, consider no evidence beyond what is referred to “within the four corners” of a plaintiff’s complaint; in the present case, this meant Cooper was only allowed to consider the text of the severance agreement, and not external evidence as to how the parties interpreted that agreement.

Cooper admitted that the agreement, by itself, was ambiguous: the first eight paragraphs seemed to suggest that the agreement was a contract solely between Greer and the RPOF, but a ninth paragraph – which Cooper said looked to have been drafted separately and tacked on at the last minute (a common occurrence when contracts are negotiated) – seemed to say that Haridopolos and Thrasher were signing on as personal guarantors, committing themselves to do everything in their personal power to make sure the RPOF fulfilled its end of the agreement.

But in the face of such ambiguities, the law required Cooper to construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Greer.

“Although I find a lot of your arguments very persuasive,” Cooper said to the defense attorneys, “I just don’t think I can make the decision at this point in the case of who’s right and who’s wrong.”

Cooper then denied their motion to dismiss, but “without prejudice,” meaning the defendants are free to move for dismissal again if they find and produce additional evidence supporting their initial motion. LeBoeuf and Sukhia said they would try to find additional case law that would support their contention that their clients signed the agreements as representatives of the Republican Party of Florida, not as private individuals.



Reach Eric Giunta at egiunta@sunshinestatenews or at (954) 235-9116. 


Comments (5)

jeff martin
11:53AM MAY 6TH 2013
Maybe he could dust off this same copy to view the contract law that Rick Scott violated when he stole teacher's salaries across the state in order to give tax breaks to corporations, or doesn't the law apply to everyone in the state?
wbp
8:10AM OCT 15TH 2012
drag the whole mess out into the open. let's see what back room deals look like with sun shining on them.
Freeman
8:20PM OCT 9TH 2012
Open the can ,,,,,free the worms
Frank
7:43PM OCT 9TH 2012
I know, I know, it's all those activist Supreme Court judges fault, right?
RepublicanConscience
5:57AM OCT 9TH 2012
One must think why do they care if Jim Greer is tried? Greer funneled money to his own company for services, without disclosing the incestuous relationship.

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.