Filing # 163192770 E-Filed 12/16/2022 10:59:43 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

FRABIAN ELI CARRION, CASE NO: 2022-16738-CA-01

an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EMMANUEL GAZMEY
SANTIAGO, an individual,
REAL HASTA LA MUERTE, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company,

Defendants.
___________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The Plaintiff, FABRIAN ELI CARRION (hereinafter the “Manager”), by and through

his undersigned attorneys, hereby responds to the Defendants’ Motion for Emergency

Injunctive Relief, and in opposition states as follows:

Introduction

Contrary to the Defendants’ allegation, this case does not center around an

“indisputable and categorical abuse of specified powers” by the Manager. Rather, this case

is really about an artist, Emmanuel Gazmey Santiago (hereinafter “Anuel”), that rose to

stardom based in part on the work done by the Manager, who has now chosen to lash out

against the Manager with falsities in response to a lawsuit which had to be filed due to the

Artist’s own irrational actions.

1
The instant Motion, much like the Counterclaim filed by the Defendants, is nothing

more than an attempt to divert the Court, and the public monitoring this case, away from

the undisputed facts of the case.

It is unquestionable, and in fact the Defendants’ filings have admitted, that the

Manager had an exclusive agreement which has yet to expire, which the Defendants

unilaterally terminated. This alone establishes the viability of the Manager’s Complaint to

recover monies earned which have yet to be paid, and those which are yet to become due,

based on the fruits of the Manager’s labor pursuant to the agreement.

Now, instead of litigating this case on provable facts, with evidence, Anuel is trying

to use a “kitchen sink approach” to muddy the waters and cause as much harm as he can.

There is no need to look any further than the instant Motion, which seeks for the Court to

prevent the Manager from taking any action, based on some unfounded belief of imminent

action by the Manager, over a specific piece of Property which is not within the jurisdiction

of the Court.

The relief being sought in this Motion is an invitation of error into the proceeding by

Anuel. The Court should deny the Motion.

The Property being Attacked

Is not at Issue in this Case.

The case sub judice is not a foreclosure, quiet title, or other real estate related

matter. Anuel rightfully does not claim any ownership interest in the Property, as to do so

would subject him to sanctions for raising fraudulent claims. There simply is no question

that the Property is not subject to the Court’s jurisdiction.

2
The Third District Court of Appeal dealt with a similar issue in the case of Airport

Executive Towers v. CIG Realty, Inc., 716 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). There, the Trial

Court issued an injunction preventing the litigant from moving out of Florida all net proceeds

from the sale of real property. Id. Just like in this case, the movant there was not a creditor

who had a security interest in the property at issue. In fact, the Third District ruled,

It is entirely settled by a long and unbroken line of Florida

cases that in an action at law for money damages, there is
simply no judicial authority for an order requiring the deposit
of the amount in controversy into the registry of the court, or
indeed for any restraint upon the use of a defendant's
unrestricted assets prior to the entry of judgment.
(Emphasis added). Id. at 313.

The Property in this case has zero restrictions associated with Anuel. He is not a

creditor or lien holder of the Property. As such, pursuant to Airport Executive Towers,

supra, there is no judicial authority to restrict the Manager in any way with relation to the

Property. The Court should deny the Motion on this point alone.

The Elements for an

Injunction Are Not Met.

The arguments above are enough for the Court to correctly deny the Motion.

Assuming, arguendo, that the Court needs additional legal basis to deny the Motion, which

it does not, several of the elements for an injunction to issue are missing, which further

warrants the denial of the Motion.

It is axiomatic that injunctive relief should be sparingly used. Citation to that pillar is

hardly warranted. To have a temporary injunction granted, the moving party must prove

the following elements: (1) the likelihood of irreparable harm; (2) the unavailability of an

3
adequate remedy at law; (3) the substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (4) the

threatened injury to the petitioner outweighs the possible harm to the respondent; and (5)

the granting of the temporary injunction will not disserve the public interest. Chevaldina v.

R.K./FL Mgmt., Inc., 133 So. 3d 1086, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). Anuel is not able to prove

these elements.

a) Irreparable Harm and Adequate Remedy.

Here, there is no irreparable harm. Anuel sued solely seeking the return of money.

Where his Motion fails is in the fact that he is ignoring that any money which he may be

able to prove is owed to him, which if there is any will be minimal at best, that sum would

be dwarfed by the amounts of monies which the Manager is entitled to under the exclusive

management agreement, which have yet to be paid.

The Third District has defined irreparable injury as “injury that cannot be cured by

money damages.” Sammie Invs., LLC v. Strategica Cap. Assocs., Inc., 247 So. 3d 596,

600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (citing Lutsky v. Schoenwetter, 172 So. 3d 534, 534 (Fla. 3d DCA

2015)).

The case of De Leon v. Aerochago, S.A., 593 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), is

further instructive. There, the Trial Court granted an injunction preventing the withdrawal

of funds from a certificate of deposit and freezing the certificate of deposit. Id. In reversing

the injunction, the Third District Court of Appeal found that the movant had sued for money

damages only, which was a “contingent, unproven and disputed claim for money damages,”

which was not a sufficient right or interest to warrant the issuance of an injunction. Id. at

559. Of particular importance, the Third District Court of Appeal ruled that “injunctive relief

4
may not be used to enforce money damages, or to prevent any party from disposing of

assets until an action at law for an alleged debt can be concluded.” Id.; see also Diamond

v. Interstate Trading Corporation, 606 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

Additionally, the Third District established that the test for an adequate remedy at

law is “whether a judgment can be obtained, not whether, once it is obtained, it will be

collectible.” Id. (citing Lopez–Ortiz v. Centrust Sav. Bank, 546 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1989)). Also, whether Anuel will be able to collect a judgment is not relevant to the

adequate remedy at law factor. See Leight v. Berkman, 483 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986);

De Leon v. Aerochago, supra.

The Manager sued in order to collect money which is owed to him. Anuel

counterclaimed arguing that he is the one that is in fact owed money. When the dust settles,

the two questions which will be resolved by the trier of fact are who is owed money, and

how much.

Because Anuel cannot establish irreparable harm or lack of an adequate remedy at

law, the Motion fails as a matter of law, and should be denied.

b) Anuel Will Not Succeed on the Merits.

What Anuel wants is to avoid the responsibilities which he agreed to under the

exclusive management agreement. He wants to continue to exploit the success which the

Manager helped build, while at the same time now claiming that the Manager stole monies

from him and acted without authority. His allegations are simply ludicrous.

5
Although Anuel raised nine counts in his Counterclaim, they revolve around two

basic principles that he would need to prove to have success on the merits, that the

Manager took actions to the detriment of Anuel’s career, and conversion of funds.

On the first, Anuel’s belief that he will have success on the merits is non-sensical. It

is unquestionable that Anuel’s career took off once he was released from custody. The

groundwork for that was laid by the Manager. The majority of the deals which were entered

into were negotiated by the Manager and Anuel’s attorneys, with Anuel’s direct involvement

and approval. Collaborations with Reebok, UFC, and other ventures such as the purchase

and management of a professional basketball team, were all joint ventures which were

primarily handled by the Manager. For Anuel to argue that he made millions of dollars

thanks to the Manager, but now somehow the Manager was acting to the detriment of

Anuel’s career, is preposterous.

Everything that the Manager did was for the benefit of Anuel’s career.

The unfounded allegations that monies were converted are even more egregious

than the allegations above. The Manager did not work under a traditional structure, where

the money which he was entitled to was paid to him on a common structure, i.e., weekly,

bi-weekly or monthly paychecks. That is simply not how the life of an artist and his manager

work.

The Manager was entitled to ten (10) percent of the gross income of Anuel’s artistic

career. For an artist making millions of dollars yearly, this was a substantial amount of

money which was due to the Manager. Furthermore, the Manager, as CEO of Real Hasta

La Muerte, LLC, was authorized to use funds on behalf of the company, for both the benefit

6
of the company and Anuel. In fact, because Anuel and the Manager traveled often together

on tours and other engagements, the majority of the company’s business was transacted

via verbal discussions, rather than through formal written communications. For Anuel to

now claim that transactions done under his direct instruction, and solely for his benefit, were

unauthorized, defies common sense.

Additionally, because the Manager was not getting a normal salary structure, the

majority of the funds which he was entitled to were withdrawn from the bank accounts not

as a traditional check, but rather as payments for services or items for the benefit of the

Manager. Had the company not operated that way, then traditional checks would have

been given out, and Anuel would not have an ability to raise such an unfounded claim.

Apparently, Anuel is of the belief that the Manager should not receive any compensation

for the work that he completed, or for what he is entitled to under the exclusive management

agreement. These claims cannot succeed on the merits.

To establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims, the

moving party must demonstrate good reasons to anticipate the result of the case are

present and not only to advance a mere colorable claim. City of Jacksonville v. Naegle

Outdoor Advertising Co., 634 So. 2d 750, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

In the case at hand, Anuel’s Counterclaim merely parrots the magic words, but fails

to do more than show a potential claim. Anuel cannot establish that he will have a likelihood

of success on the merits to establish the necessity for a temporary injunction. In City of

Jacksonville, supra, the First District relied on the Bailey v. Christo, 453 So. 2d 1134 (Fla.

1st DCA 1984) case for the proposition that because there are substantial facts and laws

7
supporting both litigants, the merits of their positions should be decided at trial. Id. at 753.

That should be a guiding principle here to deny the Motion, as Anuel cannot establish a

likelihood of success on the merits.

c) The Remaining Elements also Fail.

The Court’s inquiry into the appropriateness of the relief being sought should end

with the arguments supra. However, looking beyond those fatal flaws to the Motion, the

last two elements also favor the denial of the Motion.

The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo which existed

before the controversy, not to take sides. Chicago Title Ins. Agency of Lee Cnty., Inc. v.

Chicago Title Ins. Co., 560 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (citing Lieberman v.

Marshall, 236 So. 2d 120, 125 (Fla.1970)).

There is no question that Anuel has no claim of ownership or otherwise on the

Property. Thus, there is no status quo that needs to be maintained relating to the Property

which an injunction would be preserving. As such, since there is no injury to Anuel any

alienation of the Manager’s rights to his family home greatly outweighs the lack of possible

potential harm in the denial of the injunction.

On the same vein, one of the most important rights in the State of Florida are the

rights associated with a primary residence. The public would be disserved by setting a

precedent which allows non lien holders to alienate and freeze rights in real property, used

by an individual and family as its primary residence, simply because a lawsuit claiming

monies are owed is filed. This would be an inequitable result for the entire citizenry of the

State of Florida.

8
Conclusion

The entry of an injunction in this case would be reversible error. As established in

this Response, there are a number of failures in the legal reasonings in support of the

Motion which require that the Motion be denied.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, FABRIAN ELI CARRION, respectfully requests that the

Court deny the Motion, award the Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs associated

with this Response, and any and all other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished

this 16th day of December 2022, via the Florida e-filing portal to: Kubs Lalchandani, Esq.,

[email protected], counsel for the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs Emmanuel Gazmey

Santiago and Real Hasta La Muerte, LLC.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/__Kendrick Almaguer_____
The Hachar Law Group
Kendrick Almaguer, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 55323
Michael McCormick, Jr., Esq.
Florida Bar No. 1002312
Counsel for PLAINTIFF
7900 Oak Lane, Suite 401
Miami Lakes, Florida 33016
305.200.1308
305.200.1309 fax
[email protected]
[email protected]