Carl Leon v. French Montana Et Al

Filing
# 169084417 EFiled 03/20/2023 10:43:04 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR MIAMIDADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

CARL LEON, CASE NO.:

Plaintiff,

v.

KARIM KHARBOUCH, p/k/a FRENCH
MONTANA, MIAMI FINGA LICKING
176, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, GAYLES PLAZA I, INC., a
Florida for Profit Corporation, COKE
BOYS RECORDS, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company,

Defendants.
_______________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PLAINTIFF, CARL LEON, hereby sues Defendants, KARIM KHARBOUCH, p/k/a
FRENCH MONTANA, individually, MIAMI FINGA LICKING 176, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, GAYLES PLAZA I, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, COKE BOYS
RECORDS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and alleges as follows:
JURISDICTION
1. This is a personal injury action for damages in excess of Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($50,000.00) exclusive of attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.
2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants herein pursuant
to Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(a); § 48.193(1)(b); § 48.193(1)(c) and § 48.193(2).
3. This case cannot be removed to federal court because no federal question
exists, at least one defendant is a citizen of Florida, and complete diversity does not exist
between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Removal would therefore have no basis in
1

law or fact, and an improper removal would subject Defendant(s) to an award of costs,
expenses, and fees, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 447(c).
VENUE
4. Venue is proper in MiamiDade County, Florida pursuant to Florida Statute
§ 47.011 because the events giving rise to this action occurred in whole or substantial
part in MiamiDade County, Florida.
PARTIES
5. At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff, CARL LEON, is over the age of 18 and
is sui juris.
6. At all relevant times Defendant KARIM KHARBOUCH, p/k/a FRENCH
MONTANA, individually, (hereinafter referred to as “FRENCH MONTANA”), is an
individual over the age of 18 and is sui juris.
7. At all relevant times Defendant MIAMI FINGA LICKING 176, LLC
(hereinafter referred to as “FINGA LICKIN 176”) was and is an active Florida Limited
Liability Company, licensed, authorized, and doing business in the State of Florida with a
principal address at 17647 NW 27th Avenue, Miami Gardens, Florida 33056, the “Subject
Property” where the incident further described in this Complaint occurred.
8. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant MIAMI FINGA LICKING 176, LLC
possessed, controlled, occupied, or maintained the Subject Property located at 17647
NW 27th Avenue, Miami Gardens, Florida 33056.
9. At all material times, Defendant GAYLES PLAZA I, INC. (hereinafter
referred to as “GAYLES PLAZA”) owned the Subject Property situated at 17647 NW 27th
Avenue, Miami Gardens, Florida 33056.
2

10. At all material times, Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC, was and is
a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in the State of Florida, and may be
served via its registered agent at 1013 Centre Road, Suite 403S, Wilmington, Delaware
19805.
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11. This Complaint relates to a preventable, foreseeable incident that took place
on or about January 5, 2023, at a music video production occurring on the Subject
Property located at or about 17647 NW 27th Avenue, Miami Gardens, Florida 33056.
12. On or about January 5, 2023, Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC, by
and through their artist, apparent and/or implied agent, servant and/or employee,
Defendant FRENCH MONTANA, authorized the production and shooting of a music video
for Defendant FRENCH MONTANA and rapper, Robert Thomas (a/k/a and hereinafter
referred to as “Rob49”).
13. Upon information and belief, this music video production was moved to the
Subject Property per instructions given by Defendant FRENCH MONTANA himself
because of a prior altercation and robbery that took place between persons present for
the production and unknown assailants earlier that evening across the street from the
Subject Property.
14. On or about January 5, 2023, Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, by and
through its actual, apparent and/or implied agents, servants and/or employees, allowed
Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC, by and through their artist, apparent and/or
implied agent, servant and/or employee, Defendant FRENCH MONTANA to shoot a
music video and/or otherwise film on the Subject Property.
3

15. On or about January 5, 2023, Defendant FRENCH MONTANA and his
featured artist, rapper Rob49, were shooting a music video for their song, “Igloo,” in the
common area of Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176 and were surrounded by approximately
80 other individuals, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON.
16. During the video shoot involving Defendant FRENCH MONTANA on the
Subject Property, an unknown individual caused severe injury to multiple people,
including the Plaintiff.
17. Investigation by the Miami Gardens Police Department revealed that this
criminal activity was the result of Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC, by and
through their artist, apparent and/or implied agent, servant and/or employee, Defendant
FRENCH MONTANA’s failure to get the necessary permits required by the City of Miami
Gardens prior to engaging in music video production, which would have ensured that
proper police presence and security would be present on the Subject Property in order to
prevent or otherwise deter violence and/or other types of criminal activity.
18. Given the nature and type of production, the highnet worth individuals and
props present, and the prior altercation that occurred on the same evening directly across
the street, it was reasonable to anticipate that more likely than not, there would be some
sort of criminal activity by wrongdoers that would likely lead to an incident on the premises
if left unsecured.
19. Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, by and through its actual, apparent and/or
implied agents, servants and/or employees failed to provide for adequate security and/or
failed to require Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176 to provide proper security through use of
law enforcement when it hosted or allowed these types of gathering on its Premises, and
4

otherwise failed to prevent Defendant FRENCH MONTANA’s music video production to
be carried out on its Subject Property.
20. Similarly, Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, by and through its actual, apparent
and/or implied agents, servants and/or employees failed to provide for adequate security
and/or failed to require Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC, by and through their
artist, apparent and/or implied agent, servant and/or employee, Defendant FRENCH
MONTANA, to provide proper security through use of law enforcement when it hosted or
allowed these types of gathering on its Premises, and otherwise failed to prevent
Defendant FRENCH MONTANA’s music video production to be carried out on its Subject
Property.
21. Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, as owner of the Subject Property and the
surrounding and adjoining buildings, parking lot, walkways, sidewalk, and common areas,
had a nondelegable duty to ensure its tenants and invitees, and its tenant’s invitees like
PLAINTIFF, CARL LEON, were kept reasonably safe while on the Subject Property.
22. Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, as lessor also had a duty to its invitees and
patrons and the general public to ensure that they were kept reasonably safe while on the
Subject Property.
23. On or about January 5, 2023, while Plaintiff, CARL LEON, and other invitees
were on the Subject Property during the production of Defendant FRENCH MONTANA’s
music video, an incident occurred on the property that left many individuals, including the
Plaintiff, severely injured.
24. It would soon become clear that this incident was a crime of opportunity that
resulted from a lack of proper security and law enforcement that would have been present
5

had all Defendants ensured that the proper music video production permits were obtained
and were in place prior to moving the production to the Subject Property, and the negligent
training and supervision of employees to allow the music video shoot to occur on the
property without taking measures to ensure the safety of individuals such as Plaintiff, CARL
LEON.
25. Had the proper music video production permits been obtained, adequate
law enforcement would have been present making it highly unlikely that anyone on the
property, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON, would have been injured as a result of the
actions and omissions of the Defendants. Further, even if an incident did not occur on the
property, it is highly unlikely that there would have been so many persons injured as the
presence of law enforcement would have deterred the criminal activity and/or law
enforcement would have been able to take immediate action to reduce the risk of harm
to invitees and Plaintiff, CARL LEON.
26. All Defendants failed to properly plan and conduct the music video
production in a safe manner. Instead, they consciously ignored the extreme risks of harm
to its participants, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON.
27. As a direct and proximate result of the individual and collective actions and
omissions of Defendants, Plaintiff CARL LEON, suffered great bodily injury and damages
far in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
28. All conditions precedent to the filing of this suit have been met or waived.

6

COUNT I
NEGLIGENCE CLAIM AGAINST
DEFENDANT, KARIM KHARBOUCH p/k/a FRENCH MONTANA

29. Plaintiff realleges and reaffirms each allegation contained in Paragraphs
one (1) through twentyeight (28) of this Complaint as though fully alleged herein and
further alleges:
30. Defendant KARIM KHARBOUCH, professionally known as FRENCH
MONTANA, is a rapper as well as the talent, apparent and/or implied agent, servant
and/or employee of Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC.
31. On or about January 5, 2023, and as a result of an altercation occurring at
another venue for his music video production, Defendant FRENCH MONTANA, himself
and/or by and through his agents, servants and/or employees, authorized, directed,
approved, and otherwise instructed all persons involved in the music video production to
move the location to the Subject Property located at or about 17647 NW 27th Avenue,
Miami Gardens, Florida 33056.
32. The negligence of the employees, agents and/or servants of Defendant
FRENCH MONTANA is imputed to Defendant FRENCH MONTANA by the doctrine of
respondeat superior and agency theory.
33. As Defendant FRENCH MONTANA provided the instruction to move the
music video production to the Subject Property, Defendant FRENCH MONTANA
undertook and had an independent duty of care to ensure a safe production and
operation, which included ensuring that all permits were obtained in order to conduct his
business properly and legally on the Subject Property, despite ensuring that he had his
own personal security present to ensure his own safety.
34. Defendant FRENCH MONTANA knew or had reason to know of the
7

dangerous conditions resulting from unsecure music video productions, and the
propensity for violence and/or criminal activity resulting from attempts to harm or rob high
net worth, highly visible individuals of their expensive possessions.
35. Defendant FRENCH MONTANA had a duty to use reasonable care to
secure, safeguard and protect the persons who he invited to Defendant FINGA LICKIN
176, and breached his duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety
of his invitees and guests, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON.
36. Defendant FRENCH MONTANA had ownership and/or control over and/or
activities in question and had a duty to exercise the degree of care of a person of ordinary
prudence would use to avoid harm under circumstances.
37. At all material times, Defendant FRENCH MONTANA knew, or in the
exercise of reasonable care should have known that the Subject Property was in a high
crime area. Specifically, numerous criminal acts occurred in said area, and said criminal
acts were reasonably likely to be perpetrated on invitees, and the public unless Defendant
FRENCH MONTANA took appropriate measures to provide reasonable security for such
individuals, which includes but is not limited to ensuring that the proper music video
permits were obtained.
38. At all material times, Defendant FRENCH MONTANA knew, or in the
exercise of reasonable care should have known, that prior to January 5, 2023, that
numerous violent criminal acts including, but not limited to, assaults, muggings, and
robberies, occurred on the premises of the Subject Property and throughout adjacent
areas.
39. Defendant FRENCH MONTANA knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care
8

should have known that individuals, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON, could not take the
necessary measures to provide for his own security while on the premises of the Subject
Property, including the walkways, parking lot, and areas adjacent thereto.
40. Consequently, the violence that occurred on January 5, 2023, was
reasonably foreseeable, and Defendant FRENCH MONTANA was in a superior position
to appreciate such hazards and to take the necessary measures to prevent harm to his
employees, agents, staff, invitees, and the public, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON.
41. Defendant FRENCH MONTANA breached his duty to exercise reasonable
care for the safety and protection of his invitees and production crew, including Plaintiff,
CARL LEON, and acted in a careless and negligent manner through the following acts
and/or omissions:
a. failing to provide a safe environment for music video production
participants;
b. failing to perform music video operations in a safe, reasonable, and
prudent manner;
c. failing to control unauthorized access to the music video production
and its participants and guests;
d. failing to maintain, follow, and enforce policies and procedures for
safe music video production and operations;
e. failing to recognize and remediate known safety hazards;
f. failing to provide proper, safe equipment and competent personnel;
g. failing to provide adequate security personnel;
h. failing to provide adequate medical personnel;
i. failing to institute precautionary measures to protect production staff;
j. failing to obtain any and all necessary permits;
k. violating industry standards and best practices for safe music video
production operations, ingress/egress, and crowd control;
l. failing to properly train, supervise, monitor and retain employees and
contractors;
m. failing to adequately warn or make safe dangers or conditions of
which Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge;
n. failing to use ordinary care as a reasonable person/ company would
under the same or similar circumstances;
9

o. undertaking duties to provide a safe music video production and
operation and negligently executed such duties, to the detrimental
reliance of Plaintiff;
p. undertaking and assuming a duty to make safe dangerous conditions
on the premises, and failing to use reasonable care in doing so;
q. undertaking a duty to screen and vet production personnel to ensure
they were property experienced, trained, and otherwise qualified to
conduct safe operations;
r. undertaking a duty to ensure that the production was conducted
consistent with safe operating practice;
s. creating a dangerous condition and failing to prevent injury to others,
where it reasonably appeared or should have appeared to Defendant
that Plaintiff was likely to have been injured by creation of such a
dangerous situation, and failing to correct, make safe, or adequately
warn about this condition; and
t. such additional acts of negligence and gross negligence, which will
be established as this case progresses.

42. Defendant FRENCH MONANA, negligently failed to devise any procedures
governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area where the subject
incident occurred, or in the alternative;
a. Defendant FRENCH MONTANA devised procedures governing the
inspection, supervision, and/or security of the music video production
location where the subject incident occurred; however, Defendant
negligently and carelessly failed to implement said procedures; or in
the alternative;
b. Defendant FRENCH MONTANA devised procedures governing the
inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area where the subject
incident occurred; however, Defendant implemented same in a
careless and negligent manner.

43. At all material times, Defendant FRENCH MONTANA, himself and/or
through his agents and/or employees, negligently failed to hire persons, employees,
and/or agents reasonably suited to provide, implement, and maintain adequate security
measures to ensure the safety of his guests, invitees, and the public, including in the
parking area where the subject incident occurred.
10

44. Defendant FRENCH MONTANA himself and/or through his agents and/or
employees, created and/or allowed said dangerous conditions on the premises of the
music video production. Further, Defendant FRENCH MONTANA failed to warn his
guests, employees, invitees, and the public, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON, of the
existence of said dangerous conditions; or in the alternative, allowed said dangerous
conditions to exist for a length of time sufficient in which a reasonable inspection would
have disclosed same.
45. The negligence of Defendant FRENCH MONTANA directly led to the
January 5, 2023, criminal incident and proximately caused the injuries suffered by
Plaintiff, CARL LEON, in that:
a. The music video production location had inadequate and/or no
visible deterrents to prevent said criminal activity upon invitees;
b. The music video production location had inadequate and/or no
physical deterrents to prevent said criminal activity upon invitees;
c. Criminals could carry out criminal acts at and on the music video
production location without fear of being caught, discovered, and/or
prosecuted;
d. Defendant FRENCH MONTANA created an atmosphere on the
Subject Property that facilitated the commission of crimes against
persons.

46. Plaintiff, CARL LEON, received no warnings prior to the incident and was
without fault. Plaintiff, CARL LEON, did not contribute to the incident in question, and
Plaintiff’s injuries and damages were proximately caused by the negligence of Defendant
himself and/or his agents, servants, employees and/or representatives.
47. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant
FRENCH MONTANA, Plaintiff, CARL LEON, suffered great bodily injury, pain, mental
anguish, and loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life and incurred medical expenses
in the treatment of his injuries, loss of earnings, and other costs and expenses in
11

maintaining this action from the attack on January 5, 2023, at the abovementioned
premises. Within a reasonable degree to medical probability, these losses are permanent
and continuing in nature and the injured Plaintiff, CARL LEON, will suffer the losses in the
future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CARL LEON, sues Defendant, KARIM KHARBOUCH
p/k/a FRENCH MONTANA, and demands trial by jury and judgement against it for
damages exclusive of attorney fees, costs, and interest, in an amount in excess of the
jurisdictional limits of this court.
COUNT II
DEFENDANT, MIAMI FINGA LICKING 176, LLC

further alleges:
49. At all material times hereto, Defendant MIAMI FINGA LICKIN 176, LLC, was
lessee of a portion of the property that is the subject of this action, with the address being
Subject Property located at 17647 NW 27th Avenue, Miami Gardens, Florida 33056.
50. Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, had a duty to take such precautions as were
reasonably necessary to protect its invitees and the public, including Plaintiff, CARL
LEON, from reasonably foreseeable criminal attacks.
51. At all material times, Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, through its agents
and/or employees, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that
its restaurant was in a high crime area. Specifically, numerous criminal acts occurred in
said area, and said criminal acts were reasonably likely to be perpetrated on invitees,
12

patrons and the general public unless took appropriate measures to provide reasonable
security for such individuals.
52. At all material times Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176 through its agents and/or
employees, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that prior to
January 5, 2023, numerous violent criminal acts including, but not limited to, assaults,
muggings, and robberies, and criminal activity occurred on the Subject Property and
throughout adjacent areas.
53. Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, through its agents and/or employees, knew,
or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, individuals, including Plaintiff,
CARL LEON, could not take the necessary measures to provide for his own security while
on the Subject Property, including the common areas, parking lot and areas adjacent
thereto.
54. Consequently, the January 5, 2023, incident on the Subject Property was
reasonably foreseeable, and Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176 was in a superior position to
appreciate such hazards and to take the necessary measures to prevent harm to its
invitees, patrons and the general public, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON.
55. On the above mentioned date and place, Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176,
through its agents and/or employees, breached its duty to exercise reasonable care for
the safety and protection of its invitees, guests, patrons and Plaintiff, CARL LEON, and
acted in a careless and negligent manner through the following act and/or omissions:
a. Failing to provide adequate security for its patrons, guests, invitees,
and the public, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON;
b. Failing to warn its patrons, guests, invitees, and the public, including
Plaintiff, CARL LEON, of the nature and character of the surrounding
area when Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, knew, or in the exercise of
reasonable care should have known, numerous criminal incidents of
13

a similar nature to the one herein (i.e., crimes against persons)
occurred on the Subject Property prior to the incident which is the
basis of this claim;
c. Failing to warn, protect, guard, and/or secure the safety of its
patrons, guests, invitees, and the public, including Plaintiff, CARL
LEON, when Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, knew, or in the exercise
of reasonable care should have known, similar criminal acts occurred
in the area nearby the Subject Property, thereby creating a
dangerous condition to those individuals on the premises of said
property;
d. Failing to police, patrol, guard, deter, and/or otherwise provide
adequate protection for its patrons, guests, invitees, and the public,
when Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, knew, or in the exercise of
reasonable care should have known, of foreseeable criminal acts;
e. Failing to have sufficient number of guards in visible areas as to deter
crime, thereby protecting its patrons, guests, invitees, and the public,
including Plaintiff, CARL LEON, from foreseeable criminal acts;
f. Failing to have an adequate number of security guards to protect its
patrons, guests, invitees and the public, including Plaintiff, CARL
LEON;
g. Failing to implement adequate security policies, measures, and/or
procedures necessary to protect Plaintiff, CARL LEON, and other
patrons, invitees, and the public, from foreseeable criminal acts;
h. Failing to hire and/or retain competent security guards to protect its
patrons, guests, invitees, and the public, including Plaintiff, CARL
LEON;
i. Failing to properly train security guards to be reasonably skilled,
competent, and/or qualified to exercise appropriate security
measures to protect its patrons, guests, invitees, and the public,
including Plaintiff, CARL LEON;
j. Failing to provide proper and sufficient lighting at the Subject
Location and its surrounding areas;
k. Failing to provide an adequate number of surveillance cameras
throughout the Subject Property including, but not limited to,
walkways, parking lots, and areas adjacent thereto;
l. Failing to position surveillance cameras in appropriate locations such
that Subject Property including, but not limited to, walkways,
parking lots, and areas adjacent thereto, was adequately monitored
and/or deterred from criminal activity;
m. Failing to maintain surveillance cameras in working condition such
that every camera monitored and recorded the activity in its line of
view;
n. Failing to take additional security measures once on notice the
existing security measures were inadequate;
o. Failing to adequately provide an overall security plan that met known
industry standards and customs for safety in the community;
14

p. Failing to provide a reasonably safe structural layout of the property
upon purchasing said property as a commercial complex;
q. Failing to provide gates, guards, or other means of access control to
adequately keep criminals off the Subject Property;
r. The preceding paragraphs “a” through “q,” individually and/or as a
whole, represent strict and clear deviations from the existing
standard of care with regard to security, as recognized by similar
commercial complexes in the community;
s. Additional acts of negligence not yet discovered.

56. Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, through its agents and/or employees,
negligently failed to devise any procedures governing the inspection, supervision, and/or
security of the area where the subject incident occurred, or in the alternative;
a. Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, through its agents and/or employees,
devised procedures governing the inspection, supervision, and/or
security of the area where the subject incident occurred; however,
Defendant negligently and carelessly failed to implement said
procedures; or in the alternative;
b. Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, through its agents and/or employees,
Defendant implemented same in a careless and negligent manner.

57. At all material times, Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, through its agents
and/or employees, negligently failed to hire persons, employees, and/or agents
reasonably suited to provide, implement, and maintain adequate security measures on
the Subject Property to ensure the safety of patrons, guests, invitees, and the public.
58. Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, through its agents, and/or employees,
created and/or allowed said dangerous conditions on the premises of the Subject
Property. Further, Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, failed to warn its guests, patrons,
invitees, and the public, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON, of the existence of said
dangerous conditions; or in the alternative, allowed said dangerous conditions to exist for
a length of time sufficient in which a reasonable inspection would have disclosed same.
15

59. The negligence of Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, directly led to the January
5, 2023, incident on the Subject Property and proximately caused the injuries suffered by
Plaintiff, CARL LEON, in that:
a. The premises of the Subject Property had inadequate and/or no

visible deterrents to prevent said criminal activity upon lawful
invitees;
b. The premises of the Subject Property had inadequate and/or no
physical deterrents to prevent said criminal activity upon lawful
invitees ;
c. Criminals could place invitees in grave danger on Defendant's
premises without fear of being caught, discovered, and/or
prosecuted;
d. Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, created an atmosphere on the
premises of the Subject Property that facilitated the commission of
crimes against persons.

Plaintiff, CARL LEON’s injuries and damages were proximately caused by the negligence
of Defendant’s agents, servants, employees and/or representatives.
FINGA LICKIN 176, Plaintiff, CARL LEON, suffered great bodily injury, pain, mental
future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CARL LEON, sues Defendant, MIAMI FINGA LICKIN 176,
LLC, and demands trial by jury and judgement against it for damages exclusive of attorney
16

fees, costs, and interest, in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this court.
COUNT III
DEFENDANT, GAYLES PLAZA I, INC.

further alleges:
63. At all material times, Defendant, GAYLES PLAZA I, INC., is and/or was the
owner of the Subject Property located at 17647 NW 27th Avenue, Miami Gardens, Florida
33056.
64. At all material times, Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, as owner of the subject
premises, through its agents and/or employees, owed a nondelegable duty to its tenants,
patrons, invitees, and the public, to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to maintain the
premises of the Subject Property, including the stairwells, walkways, parking lots, and
areas adjacent thereto, in a condition reasonably safe for use by its patrons, invitees, and
the public.
65. In particular, Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, had a duty to take such
precautions as were reasonably necessary to protect its tenants, patrons, invitees, and the
public, including PLAINTIFF, from reasonably foreseeable criminal attacks.
66. At all material times, Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, through its agents and/or
employees, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that Subject
Property was in a high crime area. Specifically, numerous criminal acts occurred in said
area, and said criminal acts were reasonably likely to be perpetrated on tenants, patrons,
invitees, and the public unless Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, took appropriate measures
to provide reasonable security for such individuals.
17

employees, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that prior to
January 5, 2023, numerous violent criminal acts including, but not limited to, assaults,
muggings, and robberies, occurred on the premises of the Subject Property, and
throughout adjacent areas.
68. Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, through its agents and/or employees, knew, or
in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, individuals, including Plaintiff, CARL
LEON, could not take the necessary measures to provide for his own security while on
the premises of the County Club Shopping Center, including the stairwells, walkways,
parking lot, and areas adjacent thereto.
69. Consequently, the January 5, 2023, violent incident was reasonably
foreseeable, and Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, was in a superior position to appreciate
such hazards and to take the necessary measures to prevent harm to its tenants, patrons,
invitees, and the public, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON.
70. On the abovementioned date and place, Defendant GAYLES PLAZA,
through its agents and/or employees, breached its duty to exercise reasonable care for
the safety and protection of its tenants, patrons, invitees and the general public, including
Plaintiff, CARL LEON, and acted in a careless and negligent manner through the following
act and/or omissions:
a. Failing to provide adequate security for its tenants, invitees, and the
public, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON;
b. Failing to warn its tenants, invitees, and the public, including Plaintiff,
CARL LEON, of the nature and character of the surrounding area
when Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, knew, or in the exercise of
reasonable care should have known, numerous criminal incidents of
a similar nature to the one herein (i.e., crimes against persons)
occurred on the Subject Property prior to the incident which is the
18

basis of this claim;
c. Failing to warn, protect, guard, and/or secure the safety of its tenants,
invitees, and the public, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON, when
Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable
care should have known, similar criminal acts occurred in the area
nearby the Subject Property, thereby creating a dangerous condition
to those individuals on the premises of said property;
d. Failing to police, patrol, guard, deter, and/or otherwise provide
adequate protection for its tenants, invitees, and the public, when
Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, knew, or in the exercise of reasonable
care should have known, of foreseeable criminal acts;
e. Failing to have sufficient number of guards in visible areas as to deter
crime, thereby protecting its tenants, invitees, and the public,
including Plaintiff, CARL LEON, from foreseeable criminal acts;
f. Failing to have an adequate number of security guards to protect its
tenants, invitees and the public, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON;
g. Failing to implement adequate security policies, measures, and/or
procedures necessary to protect Plaintiff, CARL LEON, and other
tenants, invitees, and the public, from foreseeable criminal acts;
h. Failing to hire and/or retain competent security guards to protect its
tenants, invitees, and the public, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON;
i. Failing to properly train security guards to be reasonably skilled,
competent, and/or qualified to exercise appropriate security
measures to protect its tenants, invitees, and the public, including
Plaintiff, CARL LEON;
j. Failing to provide proper and sufficient lighting at the Subject
Location and its surrounding areas;
k. Failing to provide an adequate number of surveillance cameras
throughout the Subject Property including, but not limited to,
walkways, parking lots, and areas adjacent thereto;
l. Failing to position surveillance cameras in appropriate locations such
that Subject Property including, but not limited to, walkways,
parking lots, and areas adjacent thereto, was adequately monitored
and/or deterred from criminal activity;
m. Failing to maintain surveillance cameras in working condition such
that every camera monitored and recorded the activity in its line of
view;
n. Failing to take additional security measures once on notice the
existing security measures were inadequate;
o. Failing to adequately provide an overall security plan that met known
industry standards and customs for safety in the community;
p. Failing to provide a reasonably safe structural layout of the property
upon purchasing said property as a commercial complex;
q. Failing to provide gates, guards, or other means of access control to
adequately keep criminals off the Subject Property;
r. The preceding paragraphs “a” through “q,” individually and/or as a
19

whole, represent strict and clear deviations from the existing
standard of care with regard to security, as recognized by similar
commercial complexes in the community;
s. Additional acts of negligence not yet discovered.

71. Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, through its agents and/or employees,
negligently failed to devise any procedures governing the inspection, supervision, and/or
security of the area where the subject incident occurred, or in the alternative;
a. Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, through its agents and/or employees,
Defendant negligently and carelessly failed to implement said
procedures; or in the alternative;
b. Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, through its agents and/or employees,
Defendant implemented same in a careless and negligent manner.

employees, negligently failed to hire persons, employees, and/or agents reasonably
suited to provide, implement, and maintain adequate security measures to ensure the
safety of its tenants, invitees, and the public, including the parking lot of the Subject
Property, where the subject incident occurred.
73. Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, through its agents, and/or employees, created
and/or allowed said dangerous conditions on the premises of the Subject Property.
74. Further, Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, failed to warn its tenants, invitees, and
the public, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON, of the existence of said dangerous conditions;
or in the alternative, allowed said dangerous conditions to exist for a length of time
sufficient in which a reasonable inspection would have disclosed same.
75. The negligence of Defendant GAYLES PLAZA, directly led to the January
5, 2023, criminal incident and proximately caused the injuries suffered by Plaintiff, CARL
20

LEON, in that:
a. The premises of the Subject Property had inadequate and/or no
visible deterrents to prevent criminal activity upon lawful invitees;
b. The premises of the Subject Property had inadequate and/or no
physical deterrents to prevent criminal activity upon lawful invitees;
c. Criminals could carry out criminal activity upon lawful invitees on
Defendant's premises without fear of being caught, discovered,
and/or prosecuted;
d. Defendant GAYLES PLAZA I, INC., created an atmosphere on the
premises of the Subject Property that facilitated the commission of
crimes against persons.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, CARL LEON’s injuries and damages were proximately caused by the
negligence of Defendant’s agents, servants, employees and/or representatives.
GAYLES PLAZA, Plaintiff, CARL LEON, suffered great bodily injury, pain, mental
and continuing in nature and the injured Plaintiff will suffer the losses in the future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CARL LEON, sues Defendant, GAYLES PLAZA I, INC.,
and demands trial by jury and judgement against it for damages exclusive of attorney
COUNT IV
DEFENDANT, COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC

21

further alleges:
79. At all material times hereto, Defendant, COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC.
80. Defendant, COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC, is liable to Plaintiff, CARL
LEON, under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the individuals responsible for
arranging Defendant FRENCH MONTANA’s music video and production, as those
individuals were acting in the capacity of an agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant
COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC, and were acting within the course and scope of their
authority.
81. On or about January 5, 2023, and as a result of an altercation occurring at
another venue for his music video production, Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC,
by and through its agents, servants and/or employees, authorized, directed, approved
and otherwise instructed all persons involved in the music video production to move the
location to the Subject Property located at or about 17647 NW 27th Avenue, Miami
Gardens, Florida 33056.
82. The negligence of the employees, agents and/or servants of Defendant
COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC is imputed to Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC
by the doctrine of respondeat superior and agency theory.
83. As Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC provided the instruction to
move the music video production to the Subject Property, Defendant COKE BOYS
RECORDS, LLC undertook and had an independent duty of care to ensure a safe
production and operation, which included ensuring that all permits were obtained in order
to properly and legally conduct his business on the Subject Property, despite ensuring
22

that he had his own personal security present to ensure his own safety.
84. Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC knew or had reason to know of
the dangerous conditions resulting from unsecure music video productions, and the
propensity for violence resulting from attempts to harm or rob highnet worth, highly visible
individuals of their expensive possessions.
85. Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC had a duty to use reasonable
care to secure, safeguard and protect the persons who Defendant FRENCH MONTANA
invited to Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176, and breached his duty of care by failing to take
reasonable steps to ensure the safety of his invitees and guests, including Plaintiff, CARL
LEON.
86. Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC had ownership and/or control
over and/or activities in question and had a duty to exercise the degree of care of a person
of ordinary prudence would use to avoid harm under circumstances.
87. At all material times, Defendant, COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC, knew, or
in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that the Subject Property was in a
high crime area. Specifically, numerous criminal acts occurred in said area, and said
criminal acts were reasonably likely to be perpetrated on invitees, and the public unless
Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC took appropriate measures to provide
reasonable security for such individuals, which includes but is not limited to ensuring that
the proper music video permits were obtained.
88. At all material times, Defendant, COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC, knew, or
in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that prior to January 5, 2023, that
numerous violent criminal acts including, but not limited to, assaults, muggings, and
23

robberies, occurred on the premises of the Subject Property and throughout adjacent
areas.
89. Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC, knew, or in the exercise of
reasonable care should have known that individuals, including Plaintiff, CARL LEON,
could not take the necessary measures to provide for his own security while on the
premises of the Subject Property, including the walkways, parking lot, and areas adjacent
thereto.
90. Consequently, the January 5, 2023, criminal activity upon lawful invitees
was reasonably foreseeable, and Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC was in a
superior position to appreciate such hazards and to take the necessary measures to
prevent harm to its employees, agents, staff, invitees, and the public, including Plaintiff,
CARL LEON.
91. Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC breached its duty to exercise
reasonable care for the safety and protection of his invitees and production crew,
including Plaintiff, CARL LEON, and acted in a careless and negligent manner through
the following acts and/or omissions:
a. failing to provide a safe environment for music video production
participants;
b. failing to perform music video operations in a safe, reasonable, and
prudent manner;
c. failing to control unauthorized access to the music video production
and its participants and guests;
d. failing to maintain, follow, and enforce policies and procedures for
safe music video production and operations;
e. failing to recognize and remediate known safety hazards;
f. failing to provide proper, safe equipment and competent personnel;
g. failing to provide adequate security personnel;
h. failing to provide adequate medical personnel;
i. failing to institute precautionary measures to protect production staff;
j. failing to obtain any and all necessary permits;
24

k. violating industry standards and best practices for safe music video
production operations, ingress/egress, and crowd control;
l. failing to properly train, supervise, monitor and retain employees and
contractors;
m. failing to adequately warn or make safe dangers or conditions of
which Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge;
n. failing to use ordinary care as a reasonable person/ company would
under the same or similar circumstances;
o. undertaking duties to provide a safe music video production and
operation and negligently executed such duties, to the detrimental
reliance of Plaintiff, CARL LEON;
p. undertaking and assuming a duty to make safe dangerous conditions
on the premises, and failing to use reasonable care in doing so;
q. undertaking a duty to screen and vet production personnel to ensure
they were property experienced, trained, and otherwise qualified to
conduct safe operations;
r. undertaking a duty to ensure that the production was conducted
consistent with safe operating practice;
s. creating a dangerous condition and failing to prevent injury to others,
where it reasonably appeared or should have appeared to Defendant
that Plaintiff, CARL LEON, was likely to have been injured by
creation of such a dangerous situation, and failing to correct, make
safe, or adequately warn about this condition; and
t. such additional acts of negligence and gross negligence, which will
be established as this case progresses.

92. Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC, negligently failed to devise any
procedures governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area where the
subject incident occurred, or in the alternative;
a. Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC devised procedures

governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the music
video production location where the subject incident occurred;
however, Defendant negligently and carelessly failed to implement
said procedures; or in the alternative;
b. Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC devised procedures
governing the inspection, supervision, and/or security of the area
where the subject incident occurred; however, Defendant
implemented same in a careless and negligent manner.

93. At all material times, Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC negligently
failed to hire persons, employees, and/or agents reasonably suited to provide, implement,
25

and maintain adequate security measures to ensure the safety of its guests, invitees and
the public, including in the parking area where the subject incident occurred.
94. Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC created and/or allowed said
dangerous conditions on the premises of the music video production. Further, Defendant
COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC failed to warn its, invitees, and the public, including
Plaintiff, CARL LEON, of the existence of said dangerous conditions; or in the alternative,
allowed said dangerous conditions to exist for a length of time sufficient in which a
reasonable inspection would have disclosed same.
95. The negligence of Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC directly led to
the January 5, 2023 criminal activity upon lawful invitees and proximately caused the
injuries suffered by Plaintiff, CARL LEON, in that:
a. The music video production location had inadequate and/or no
visible deterrents to prevent criminal activity upon lawful invitees;
b. The music video production location had inadequate and/or no
physical deterrents to prevent criminal activity upon lawful invitees;
c. Criminals could carry out criminal activity upon lawful invitees at and
on the music video production location without fear of being caught,
discovered, and/or prosecuted;
d. Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC created an atmosphere on
the Subject Property that facilitated the commission of crimes against
persons.

Plaintiff, CARL LEON’s injuries and damages were proximately caused by the negligence
of Defendant, its agents, servants, employees and/or representatives.
COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC, Plaintiff, CARL LEON, suffered great bodily injury, pain,
mental anguish, and loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life and incurred medical
26

expenses in the treatment of his injuries, loss of earnings, and other costs and expenses
in maintaining this action from the attack on January 5, 2023 at the abovementioned
future.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CARL LEON, sues Defendant, COKE BOYS RECORDS,
LLC, and demands trial by jury and judgement against it for damages exclusive of attorney
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs demands a trial by jury of all issues triable as a matter of right.

Dated: March 20, 2023.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed via the
Florida Courts EFiling Portal on this 20th day of March 2023.

GRAHAM INJURY FIRM, P.A.

/s/ Josiah D. Graham
JOSIAH D. GRAHAM, ESQ.
Fla. Bar No.: 115123
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1743
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 4504848
Facsimile: (954) 6457301
jdg@grahaminjuryfirm.com
donna@grahaminjuryfirm.com
danielle@grahaminjuryfirm.com
emelyn@grahaminjuryfirm.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
27

Carl Leon v. French Montana Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carl Leon v. French Montana Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Filing

2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants herein pursuant

to Florida Statute § 48.193(1)(a); § 48.193(1)(b); § 48.193(1)(c) and § 48.193(2).

30. Defendant KARIM KHARBOUCH, professionally known as FRENCH

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CARL LEON, sues Defendant, KARIM KHARBOUCH

January 5, 2023, numerous violent criminal acts including, but not limited to, assaults,

55. On the above mentioned date and place, Defendant FINGA LICKIN 176,

reasonably suited to provide, implement, and maintain adequate security measures on

a. The premises of the Subject Property had inadequate and/or no

January 5, 2023, numerous violent criminal acts including, but not limited to, assaults,

a. Defendant COKE BOYS RECORDS, LLC devised procedures

You might also like