IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANTONIO BATISTA FERNANDES …PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
DIEGO PASCALE DE SOUZA, GPS GENERAL SERVICE LLC, and
CREPALDI …DEFENDANTS
INDEX
S. No. PARTICULARS Pg. No.
1. Index 1
2. COMPLAINT 2-8
3. AFFIDAVIT
FLORIDA
Date:
Through Counsel for the Plaintiffs
ABHISHEK ROSS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANTONIO BATISTA FERNANDES …PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
DIEGO PASCALE DE SOUZA, GPS GENERAL SERVICE LLC, and
CREPALDI …DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Plaintiff, Antonio Batista Fernandes (“Fernandes”), by
and through undersigned counsel, and hereby files this
Complaint against Defendants Diego Pascale de Souza
(“Souza”), GPS General Service LLC, and Crepaldi, and states
as follows
2. That Plaintiff, Antonio Batista Fernandes, is an individual
residing in Orange County, Florida, and the sole owner of
FERO Building LLC, a Florida limited liability company.
3. That Defendant, Diego Pascale de Souza, is an individual who
conducted business in the State of Florida and purportedly
resides in Brazil at present.
4. That Defendant, GPS General Service LLC, is a Florida-based
limited liability company, owned and operated by Souza.
5. That Defendant, Crepaldi, is the wife and business partner of
Souza and is believed to reside in Brazil.
6. That On August 13, 2024, Plaintiff formed FERO Building
LLC to invest in the construction of new homes in Florida.
7. That Defendant Souza represented himself as a licensed
contractor in Florida and owner of an ongoing construction
business capable of procuring lots and constructing homes.
8. That On or about August 18, 2024 Relying on these
representations, Plaintiff entered into nine construction
contracts with GPS General Service LLC, drafted by Souza,
Between August 30, 2024, and October 7, 2024, Plaintiff
transferred deposits totaling $630,000(9*70000) to
Defendants for the construction of nine homes.
9. That Plaintiff later discovered through the Florida
Department of Business and Professional Regulation
(DBPR) that neither Souza nor GPS General Service LLC was
licensed to operate as contractors in Florida, in violation of
Florida Statutes Chapter 489.
10. That Property searches revealed that the lots identified in the
contracts did not exist, and no ownership or transfer of lots
occurred as promised.
11. That since 1 october 2024 Despite repeated attempts,
Defendants failed to perform the construction services or
provide a refund of the deposit amounts.
12. On October 7, 2024, Plaintiff contacted Defendant Crepaldi,
who disclosed that Defendant Souza was in jail in Washington,
D.C., on an Interpol request for a drug trafficking offence in
Brazil, with case number 157.031304.2021.8.260477.
CAUSES OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
13. That Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
12 as if fully set forth herein.
14. That Plaintiff and Defendants entered into nine valid contracts
for construction services, with specific terms and obligations.
15. That Defendants breached the contracts by failing to perform
the agreed-upon services and by misrepresenting their
licensing status.
16. That As a direct result of the breach, Plaintiff has suffered
damages in the amount of $630,000.
FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
17. That Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
12 as if fully set forth herein.
18. That Defendants knowingly and falsely represented that they
were licensed contractors and that they owned or could
procure the lots for construction.
19. That Plaintiff relied on these misrepresentations to his
detriment, resulting in significant financial loss.
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
20. That Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
12 as if fully set forth herein.
21. That Plaintiff conferred a benefit upon Defendants by
transferring a total of $630,000 in deposit payments for the
construction of nine homes.
22. That Defendants knowingly accepted and retained these funds
without providing the agreed-upon services or delivering any
tangible benefit to Plaintiff.
23. That It would be inequitable and unjust for Defendants to
retain these funds without compensating Plaintiff or
performing their obligations under the contracts.
24. That As a direct result of Defendants’ unjust enrichment,
Plaintiff has suffered financial damages in the amount of
$630,000.
VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTER 489
25. That Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
12 as if fully set forth herein.
26. That Defendants operated as unlicensed contractors, in
violation of Florida law, rendering the contracts voidable and
subject to penalties.
27. That Plaintiff is entitled to damages and equitable relief under
Florida law.
BREACH OF COMMUNICATION
28. That Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
12 as if fully set forth herein.
29. That Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of communication to
keep him informed about the progress of the contracts,
including updates on construction, licensing, and property
acquisition.
30. That Since October 1, 2024, Defendants have failed to respond
to Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to communicate via phone,
email, and text messages.
31. That Defendants’ breach of communication prevented Plaintiff
from addressing and resolving issues with the contracts,
further exacerbating financial losses.
32. That As a result, Plaintiff suffered damages, including delays,
uncertainty, and financial harm caused by Defendants’ failure
to communicate.
NEGLIGENCE
33. That The Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1
through 12 as if fully set forth herein.
34. That The Defendants owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff to act
reasonably and diligently in fulfilling their contractual
obligations.
35. That The Defendants breached this duty by failing to perform
construction services as agreed and failing to procure valid
lots for the Plaintiff’s investment.
36. That This breach of duty constitutes negligence, as the
Defendants acted with disregard for the Plaintiff’s reliance on
their representations and their contractual commitments.
37. That As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’
negligence, the Plaintiff suffered financial losses in the amount
of $630,000 and additional damages stemming from delays
and misrepresentation.
JURISDICTION
1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article V of the
Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes §26.012, as the
matter involves monetary damages exceeding $30,000.
2. Venue is proper in Orange County, Florida, as the
business transactions and agreements between the
parties were conducted in this jurisdiction.
PRAYER
It is, therefore Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter
judgment in his favor and against Defendants, awarding the
following relief:
1. Monetary damages in the amount of $630,000(70000*9), plus
interest.
2. Punitive damages and compensation for fraud and willful
misconduct.
3. Attorneys’ fees and costs as permitted by law.
4. Any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
FLORIDA
Date:
Through Counsel for the Plaintiffs
ABHISHEK ROSS
