Filing # 67060201 E-Filed 01/25/2018 04:53:35 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION

SEAN FONTAINE, an individual,

and LOUIS MENDEL, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated,

Case No.:
Plaintiffs,
COMPLEX LITIGATION DIV.
v. CLASS REPRESENTATION

BUCCANEERS TEAM, LLC, a Delaware

Limited Liability Company,

Defendant.
__________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFFS, SEAN FONTAINE, an individual and LOUIS MENDEL, an individual

(collectively referred to herein as the "Plaintffs"), hereby bring this Class Action Complaint on

behalf of themselves and all other similary situated to seek relief and damages under Florida Law

from BUCCANEERS TEAM, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (referred to herein as

"Defendant" or the “Bucs”), and state as follows:

I. GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE CONTROVERSY

Pursuant to Rule 1.220 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs bring this class

action on behalf of themselves, individually, and all similarly situated persons who had properly

renewed their Season Tickets for the Bucs 2017 Season (“Season Ticket holder”), but, for no

legitimate reason, were notified by the Bucs that their Season Tickets had been revoked. These

wrongfully revoked Season Tickets were then resold at a significantly greater price than the price

1
promised by the Bucs for tenured renewal. This “resale” was offered or accomplished before

Plaintiffs, and/or those similarly situated, had even been provided notice of the revocation, and

before any unilateral “refund” of the monies paid for Season Ticket renewal were provided to the

Season Ticket holders. Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated

Season Ticket holders an award of damages and related relief for: 1) breach of contract, 2) unjust

enrichment, 3) misrepresentation, 4) equitable estoppel, and 5) conversion.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court as the case raises claims where the amount in

controversy exceeds $15,000.

2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 47.051, because the

named Plaintiffs and the Defendant all reside or do business in Hillsborough County,

Florida, which is also where the causes of action asserted herein occurred.

3. This Court has jurisdiction under Rule 1.220 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to

administer a class action in accordance therewith.

III . PA RT IE S

4. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Sean Fontaine has been a resident of Pasco County,
Florida, and he had been Season Ticket holder with the Bucs since 2012.

5. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Louis Mendel has been a resident of Hillsborough
County, Florida and he had been a Season Ticket holder with the Bucs since 1995.

6. Plainitffs are informed and believe that Buccaneers Team, LLC, is a Delaware Limited
Liability company that owns and operates the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, a professional

2
 football team which is a member of the National Football League. The Bucs have their

principal place of business in Tampa, Florida.

IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. The Bucs offer “Season Tickets” to those fans desirous of obtaining the rights and
privileges associated therewith.

8. A Season Ticket is a single or bundled group of tickets that provides the purchaser with a
ticket for a particular seat for each and every football game played by an NFL member

club in its home stadium during an annual NFL season, which generally consists of 10

individual tickets to attend each of the 2 preseason games and 8 regular season “home”

games played by the team.

9. The Season Tickets sold by the Bucs provide the purchaser with the following:
a. A bundle of tickets for a particular seat for every home game played by the team

during an NFL season;

b. A contractual Renewal Right enabling the Season Ticket Holder to purchase a

Season Ticket for the following NFL season when such Season Tickets are offered

for sale by the team several months prior to the start of the following NFL pre-

season at a discounted rate, depending on the number of previous years the

purchaser has been a Season Ticket holder;

c. Discounted guaranteed best pricing for a pre-season and regular season home game

tickets in a designated seat of choice;

d. Exclusive access to events, such as the NFL Draft Party;

e. Access to “behind the scenes” member only training camps;

f. Members only “meet and greets” with players and coaches;

3
 g. 15 % Food and merchandise discounts at the stadium;

h. 50% off youth tickets, age 16 and under;

i. Access to members only parking lots;

j. Automatic sign up for an NFL Club Membership, offering free NFL RedZone, to

not miss a second of any of the action around the league;

k. Access to exclusive game ticket offers;

l. A dedicated “Member Relations associate” for advance single seat relocation event.

10. At the point in time when an individual purchases a Season Ticket in advance of

the season from the Bucs, they are not informed nor put on notice of any terms and

conditions, nor do they sign any contract or manifest assent to any terms and conditions

through “I Agree” or any “clickwrap” program.

11. Every year, for the past (5) five years, Plaintiff Sean Fontaine has purchased (7)

seven Season Tickets from the Bucs by exercising his right for renewal to the tickets each

year.

12. On or about November 2016, Sean Fontaine prepaid for seven (7) 2017, Bucs

Season Tickets (Section 132, Row C Seats 22-22, Section 139, Row C, Seats 1-2, Section

140, Row B, Seats 1-3) in the amount of $3,267.36, through their Bucs “Member Relations

associate,” as they had done in the years past.

13. On or about February 2017, Sean Fontaine received a call from the Bucs “Member

Relations associate,” stating that this year’s Season Tickets had increased by $873.17. As

a dedicated fan, Sean Fontaine did not hesitate to pay the increased amount, immediately,

over the phone, to secure his Season Tickets.

4
14. Sean Fontaine believed that he had adequately accepted the Bucs offer of renewal

of his Season Tickets, and he assumed that everything concerning the renewal of his Season

Tickets was “handled,” and he awaited his annual package from the Bucs, which would

have included his tickets, lanyards, and “welcome” information, as prior renewal packages

contained.

15. In addition to the several other features provided to Season Ticket holders, the Bucs

maintain a website for the resale of tickets, presumably under the auspices of having an

“official” vehicle for such resales to prevent any possible adversities or counterfeiting

possibly associated with “street resales.”

16. On or about April 24, 2017, Bucs Director of Sales, Deno Agnoste, called the

Plaintiff and stated that the Plaintiff had sold six (6) tickets in October 2016, and that all

of his Season Tickets would be revoked immediately and refunded. Any “resales” engaged

in by the Plaintiff was done as facilitated and invited through the Bucs official resale

website.

17. On or about April 24, 2017, the Bucs sent Sean Fontaine a refund check in the

amount of $3,736.64.

18. At this point, Sean Fontaine was shocked. Sean Fontaine attempted to acquire

further information. In their communications, Mr. Agnoste was short, brief and refused to

explain the reason for the decision and stated that, “too bad, the decision had been made”

and then he hung up.

19. Sean Fontaine had received no prior description of any such “policy” barring the

resale of tickets, and nothing he ever received stated that such behavior was any type of

5
violation, nor had he ever received any warnings that such conduct was prohibited or would

have any impact on his Season Ticket renewal rights.

20. Devastated by this abrupt and unanticipated decision, Sean Fontaine called and

emailed several Bucs executives to get further information and attempted vigorously to

have his tickets reinstated.

21. Sean Fontaine called the Bucs CEO, Bucs Owner Brian Glazer, Ben Milson Chief

Ticketing Officer, and Chris Cook, Director of Member Services, all with no response.

22. As it pertains to Plaintiff Louis Mendel, every year since 1995, Mr. Mendel has

purchased (15) fifteen Season Tickets from Bucs by exercising their right for renewal to

the tickets each year.

23. On or about November 2016, Mr. Mendel prepaid for fifteen (15) 2017, Bucs

Season Tickets (Section 123, Row B Seats 15-18, Section 137, Row A, Seats 12-16,

Section 138, Row A, Seats 1-2, Section 139, Row A. Seats 15-18) in the amount of

$14,l39.06, through their Bucs “Member Relations associate,” as he had done in the years

past.

24. Mr. Mendel believed he had adequately accepted the Bucs offer of renewal of his

Season Tickets, and he assumed that everything concerning his renewal of his Season

Tickets was “handled,” and he awaited his annual package from the Bucs, which would

have included the tickets, lanyards, and “welcome” information, as prior renewal packages

contained.

25. On or about April 18, 2017, Mr. Mendel received a telephone call from a fellow

season ticket holder who advised him that his specific season ticket seats were available

online for sale.

6
26. Mr. Mendel, shocked, called his account representative at the Bucs office, Jim

Carroll, who refused to talk to him and instead forwarded his call to Bucs Director of Sales,

Deno Agnoste.

27. Mr. Agnoste informed Mr. Mendel that all of his season tickets would be revoked

immediately and refunded. Mr. Mendel looked online at his bank account and saw that the

Bucs had only refunded $5,920.06 on 4/17/17, which was less than half of what he had

already paid for his tickets.

28. On or about April 20, 2017, Mr. Agnoste sent Mr. Mendel an email stating that the

rest of his refund of $8,219 would be mailed in the next 2 weeks.

29. Mr. Mendel was perplexed as to why the Bucs would revoke his previously

renewed tickets with no warning or substantiated reasoning and failed to notify Mr. Mendel

prior to the Bucs offering his tickets for sale publicly at a significantly higher price. He

was even more amazed that the Bucs would be offering his season tickets for sale prior to

sending him the full refund for the money he sent in to renew his season tickets, which he

fully and properly believed manifested an acceptance of the consistent offer by the Bucs to

renew those season tickets.

30. Based on information and belief, the Bucs are apparently standing behind the

assertion that, since a few Season Ticket holders are reselling their Season Tickets and

those are being purchased by opposing sports team fans, this somehow dilutes the preferred

solidarity and “atmosphere” of the Season Ticket holders that are fans of the “home team.”

31. It is assumed that the Bucs relied upon terms and conditions articulated on the Bucs’

website, under “Season Tickets,” where, in small print on the bottom of the page, there is

7
a link for “Terms of Use.” These terms and conditions were never assented to by the

Plaintiffs, nor did they have actual or constructive knowledge of such terms.

32. Based on information and belief, the Bucs engaged in the revocation of several

Season Ticket holder’s tickets and benefits for some unsubstantiated allegation of a

violation of the terms and conditions and manufactured an after-the fact prohibition against

reselling the tickets.

33. The terms and conditions the Bucs rely upon to utilize against Season Ticket

holders are neither assented to by the Season Ticket holders, nor do they include the

grounds the Bucs have purportedly asserted as the basis to revoke the subject Season

Tickets.

34. Additionally, the masses of affected individuals that have had their Season Tickets

revoked for, purportedly, the same reason, have evinced a systematic scheme by the Bucs

engage in conduct to profit and enrich themselves through the reselling of the Season

Ticket holder’s tickets at a greater price, as they subsequently did with the Plaintiffs’

wrongfully revoked Season Tickets.

35. As evidenced above, it is never explicitly stated that the reselling of the Season

Tickets would constitute a breach of any kind. The only mention of reselling the tickets

made by the Bucs was that reselling tickets was permitted and actually advertised through

their own secondary reselling site via, “Account Manager,” an application created by the

Bucs, as described above.

36. The Bucs failed to quantify any number of tickets “forbidden” to be sold that would

initiate any basis for the revocation of Season Tickets, nor did they state or suggest that

any Season Ticket holder was engaging in any type of breach of contract, or engaging in

8
any unauthorized ticket “scalping,” or the reselling of the tickets, which may go to

individuals of another team as to affect the intended “atmosphere” of the Season Ticket

holder sections.

37. No feature of the Bucs-owned secondary reselling site, “Account Manager,” the

application created by the Bucs, would have any ability to limit to whom tickets would be

sold, either to a Bucs fan or anyone else.

38. Unlike other teams, the Bucs have not imposed any policies for reselling, nor have

they required that the resale of the Bucs tickets be effectuated only through the Bucs’

Ticketmaster’s Secondary Ticket Exchange, nor did they implement policies that

functionally limit a ticket holder’s ability to resell tickets.

39. Instead, the Bucs, encourage such reselling and made it easy and convenient

through their online Bucs “Account Manager” Apps, a process that provided the Plaintiffs

with no ability to limit or direct to whom their tickets would be sold.

40. By restricting Season Ticket holders’ resale rights and capabilities, and by

retroactively punishing the invited and facilitated resale conduct, it is clear the Bucs hoped

to capture a greater portion of secondary resale revenues, including an increase in the ticket

price and transaction fees and cost, especially for prime seats, such as those seeking to be

renewed, and were renewed, by the Plaintiffs.

41. The simplistic effort to “refund” money sent in by the Plaintiffs (after their seats

had already been resold, unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs) was in violation of basic

contractual rights, since the Plaintiffs had already manifested their acceptance of the

“offer” to renew their Season Tickets by submitting payment for them, thus creating a

fulfilled and enforceable contract.

9
 42. All conditions precedent to the submission of this Complaint have been satisfied,

have been waived, or would be futile.

COUNT I
BREACH OF CONTRACT

43. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-42 as if

fully set forth herein.

44. Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the Bucs for the purchase of a bundle of 2017

individual Season Tickets to all pre-season and regular season home games for established

seat locations and related benefits and features described above.

45. The contract provided that Plaintiffs would pay the Bucs the agreed upon price for

the renewal of their 2017 Season Tickets as an “offer.”

46. Plaintiffs fulfilled their obligations under the contract, as they paid the total amount

due to the Bucs for the renewal of their 2017 Season Tickets, manifesting acceptance of

the “offer” to renew and creating a valid and enforceable contract.

47. The Bucs breached its duty to Plaintiffs under the contract by refusing to give

Plaintiffs the 2017 Season Tickets, nor the related benefits and feature the Plaintiffs had

assented to receive, thus breaching the contract to renew.

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray this Court enter Judgment against the Bucs for (a) actual

damages; (b) consequential damages; (c) costs; (d) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; (e)

attorney’s fees and costs where allowable, and (f) such further relief this Court deems just and

proper.

COUNT II
BREACH OF CONTRACT-RENEWAL RIGHTS

10
48. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-42 as if fully set

forth herein.

49. As specified above, Plaintiffs entered into a valid and enforceable contract with the Bucs.

50. The contract provided that Plaintiffs would pay the Bucs the appropriate adjusted price,

based on years of renewal and other agreed upon factors, for the renewal of their 2017

Season Tickets as an “offer.”

51. Plaintiffs fulfilled their obligation under the contract, as they paid the total amount due to

Bucs for the renewal of their 2017 Season Tickets, manifesting acceptance of the “offer”

to renew and creating a valid and enforceable contract.

52. Pursuant to this contract, the Plaintiffs agreed to, and had, purchased Season Tickets and

annually paid the required monetary amounts established by Bucs, and the Bucs agreed to,

and had, for all years previous, provided Plaintiffs with the subject bundle of Season

Tickets to attend the home games played each year by the Bucs football team, which

contained a Renewal Right, i.e., the contractual right to purchase a Season Ticket for each

successive NFL Season at a lower price.

53. The Bucs are estopped from denying the existence of or repudiating, the contractual

Renewal Rights of Plaintiffs without providing any consideration.

54. The Bucs knowingly induced Plaintiffs to expect to receive Renewal Rights over the course

of more than five (5) years for Sean Fontaine, and 22 years for Mr. Mendel, during which

the Bucs agreed to, and did, provide Plaintiffs with a Season Ticket and Renewal Right in

each and every year in exchange for monetary payments from the Plaintiffs in amounts that

were established by Bucs and agreed to be, and were, paid by the Plaintiffs.

11
 55. The Bucs announced their intent to unilaterally terminate Plaintiffs’ Renewal Rights for

Season Tickets without providing any consideration in exchange for the termination of

such rights, in breach of their existing contract with Plaintiffs.

56. The Bucs unilaterally terminated valuable contractual rights and the reasonable

expectations of Plaintiffs without providing any consideration for the elimination of such

rights and the value of the benefits conferred on Plaintiffs by the elimination of such

Renewal Rights.

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray this Court enter Judgment against the Bucs for (a) actual

damages; (b) consequential damages; (c) costs; (d) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; (e)

attorney’s fees and costs where allowable, and (f) such further relief this Court deems just and

proper.

COUNT III
UNJUST ENRICHMENT

57. Plaintiffs repeat and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-42 as if fully set

forth herein.

58. The essential elements that must be proven under a theory of unjust enrichment are: a

benefit conferred upon a defendant by the plaintiff, the defendant's appreciation of the

benefit, and the defendant's acceptance and retention of the benefit under circumstances

that make it inequitable for him to retain it without paying the value thereof.

59. The Bucs received and retained valuable benefits conferred by Plaintiffs, at their expense,

through their breach of contract and elimination of the Plaintiffs’ Renewal Rights without

compensation.

60. The Bucs will receive and retain benefits conferred by Plaintiffs from the termination of

their Renewal Rights.

12
 61. The Bucs have also received, and are continuing to receive, fees from the improper sale

and resale of the tickets to which the Plaintiffs were and continue to be entitled.

62. As hereinabove alleged, the Bucs have benefitted and will continue to receive benefits

unjustly at the Plaintiffs’ expense, which, in equity and good conscience, the Bucs should

not be permitted to retain.

63. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law because of the Bucs’ conduct.

64. As a direct and proximate result of Bucs’ unjust enrichment, Plaintiffs have suffered non-

monetary and monetary injury.

65. Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution from the Bucs and an order for the disgorgement of all

profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by the Bucs from their wrongful

conduct.

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray this Court enter Judgment against the Bucs for (a) actual

damages; (b) consequential damages; (c) costs; (d) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; (e)

attorney’s fees and costs where allowable, and (f) such further relief this Court deems just and

proper.

COUNT IV
MISREPRESENTATION

66. Plaintiffs repeat and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-42 as if fully set

forth herein.

67. The Bucs clearly solicited and promoted its season tickets to season ticket holders to resell

tickets that they chose not to use, for whatever reason, on the Bucs own internet resale

service.

68. The Bucs provided the links to their secondary reselling website to Season Ticket holders

through the exclusive season pass holder applications and websites.

13
 69. This promotion by the Bucs, and lack of restrictions of reselling the tickets, misled the

Season Ticket holders, acting reasonably under the circumstances, to believe that reselling

the tickets would not be any type of violation of the Bucs Season Ticket terms and

conditions.

70. Notwithstanding, Plaintiffs used the system the Bucs promoted, and which was actually

used by the Season Ticket holders to resell their tickets, as a mechanism to revoke

previously renewed tickets. This clearly manifests a blatant misrepresentation to Season

Ticket holders.

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray this Court enter Judgment against the Bucs for (a) actual

damages; (b) consequential damages; (c) costs; (d) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; (e)

attorney’s fees and costs where allowable, and (f) such further relief this Court deems just and

proper.

COUNT V
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL

71. Plaintiffs repeat and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-42 as if fully set

forth herein.

72. In order to establish a claim for equitable or promissory estoppel as an alternative basis for

recovery, Florida law requires that a plaintiff establish that: (1) the plaintiff detrimentally

relied on a promise made by the defendant; (2) the defendant reasonably should have

expected the promise to induce reliance in the form of action or forbearance on the part of

the plaintiff or a third person; and (3) that injustice can be avoided only through the

enforcement of the promise against the defendant.

73. In this action, Plaintiffs detrimentally relied on their contract with the Bucs to renew their

Season Tickets, a long-standing policy that the Bucs should reasonably have expected their
14
 promise to induce, made obviously by the Plaintiffs payment of the necessary renewal fees

to again receive their agreed upon Season Tickets.

74. This cause of action prohibits the Bucs from contradicting the expectation of renewal that

season ticket holders have relied on, and which the Bucs have created.

75. Based on the facts articulated in this action, injustice can only be avoided only through the

enforcement of the promise to provide consistent renewal of Season Tickets against the

Bucs.

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray this Court enter Judgment against the Bucs for (a) actual

damages; (b) consequential damages; (c) costs; (d) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; (e)

attorney’s fees and costs where allowable, and (f) such further relief this Court deems just and

proper.

COUNT VI
CONVERSION

76. Plaintiffs repeat and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-42 as if fully set

forth herein.

77. To state a valid claim for conversion, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that it has ‘an

immediate, unqualified right to possession resting on a superior claim of title’ and establish

the ‘appropriation of personal property by another for that party's own use and benefit in

exclusion and defiance of the owner's rights.’

78. Under Florida law, “[c]onversion is an unauthorized act which deprives another of his

property for an indefinite time. Conversion must be proven by a preponderance of the

evidence [and] the claimant must further establish possession or an immediate right to

possession of the converted property at the time of conversion.

15
 79. The essence of conversion is not the acquisition of the property; rather, it is the wrongful

deprivation of property.

80. The Plaintiffs have an “expectancy interest” based on the practices of the Bucs where the

team automatically sent renewal letters to the previous season ticket holders, who needed

only to pay the amount owed, which created a property right in the season ticket holder.

81. The Bucs have deprived, and continue to deprive, the Plaintiffs of their property rights in

their properly renewed Season Tickets, thus amounting to conversion.

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray this Court enter Judgment against the Bucs for (a) actual

damages; (b) consequential damages; (c) costs; (d) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; (e)

attorney’s fees and costs where allowable, and (f) such further relief this Court deems just and

proper.

VII. CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS

82. Pursuant to Rule 1.220 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the named Plaintiffs seek

certification for the following putative class they seek to represent:

All persons who properly renewed their Season Tickets for the Bucs 2017 Season

(“Season Ticket holder”), but, for no legitimate reason, were notified by the Bucs that

their Season Tickets had been revoked, and which Season Tickets were then resold

at a significantly greater price than the price promised by the Bucs for tenured

renewal, and which “resale” was offered or accomplished before those putative class

members had even been provided notice of the revocation, and before any unilateral

“refund” of the monies paid for Season Ticket renewal were provided to said Season

Ticket holders.

16
83. This action is properly maintainable as a class action pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil

Procedure 1.220(a) and (b)(3), for the bases established below.

84. Numerosity: This action satisfies the numerosity requirement. The class defined above is

sufficiently numerous that separate joinder of each member is impracticable as the class

will be comprised of what is believed to be well over 1,000 (one thousand) putative class

members.

85. Commonality: The Named Plaintiff's claims raise questions of law and fact common to

each member of the class, which include, but are not limited to whether those members of

the putative class who properly renewed their Season Tickets for the Bucs 2017 Season

(“Season Ticket holder”), but, for no legitimate reason, were notified by the Bucs that their

Season Tickets had been revoked, and where these wrongfully revoked Season Tickets were

then resold at a significantly greater price than the price promised by the Bucs for tenured

renewal, and where this “resale” was offered or accomplished before the putative class had

even been provided notice of the revocation, and before any unilateral “refund” of the monies

paid for Season Ticket renewal were provided to the Season Ticket holders, and where these

putative class members can assert causes of action, and thus seek an award of damages and

related relief for: 1) breach of contract, 2) unjust enrichment, 3) misrepresentation, 4)

equitable estoppel, and 5) conversion.

86. Typicality: The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class

members because the representative Plaintiffs, like all members of the putative class, were

subjected to the same course of conduct by the Bucs and suffered typical damages.

87. Adequacy: The named Plaintiffs will vigorously pursue the claims alleged herein on behalf

of themselves individually and on behalf of other similarly situated Season Ticket holders.

17
 The named Plaintiffs have no adverse interests to the proposed absent class members

because they assert the same claims under the same provisions of the Florida Constitution

and seek the same relief as would the absent class members if each were to bring a similar

action individually. The named Plaintiffs will adequately protect and represent the interests

of each absent class member. Counsel who brings this action for the named Plaintiffs and

the proposed class are experienced in class action practice and procedure pursuant to Rule

1.220 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

88. Predominance: Pursuant to Rule 1.220(b)(3), class certification is appropriate because the

causes of action common to all putative class members predominate over any question of

law or fact affecting only individual members of the class. The predominant questions of

law or fact are clear, precise, well-defined, and applicable to the named Plaintiffs as well

as every absent member of the proposed class.

89. Superiority: Class representation is superior to other available methods for the fair and

efficient adjudication of the controversy for a number of reasons including, but not limited

to, the following: (1) the case challenges the policy of a large entity, the Bucs and many

Season Ticket holders may be reluctant to bring claims individually for fear of retaliation

or being ostracized; (2) some class members may feel they have no remedy for the wrongful

conduct of the Bucs as alleged in this matter(3) some putative class members individual

damages would not be substantial enough to be worth the effort of bringing individual

claims; (4) many class members may not have the resources to bring their claims

individually; and (5) it would be an inefficient use of scarce judicial resources to require

each adversely affected Season Ticket holder affected by the practices challenged herein

to bring his or her own individual claim.

18
 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs prays this Court grant the following relief:

a. Certification of this case as a class action pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P 1.220(a) and
(b)(3);

b. Designation of Named Plaintiffs as representatives of the class and Plaintiffs’

counsel as Class Counsel;

c. Judgment against the Bucs for (1) actual damages; (2) consequential damages; (3)
costs; (4) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; (5) attorney’s fees and cost,

and (6) such further relief this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: January 25, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/Luke Lirot__________________
Luke Lirot, Esq.
Florida Bar Number 714836
Candice Rojas, Esq.
Florida Bar Number 120514
LUKE CHARLES LIROT, P.A.
2240 Belleair Road, Suite 190
Clearwater, Florida 33764
Telephone: (727) 536-2100
Facsimile: (727) 536-2110
Attorney for the Plaintiffs
luke2@lirotlaw.com (primary e-mail)
jimmy@lirotlaw.com (secondary e-mail)
justin@lirotlaw.com (secondary e-mail)
candice@lirotlaw.com (secondary e-mail)

19