Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 10, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0588 Lower Tribunal No. 22-24125-CC-05 ________________
Thompson Nation Holdings LLC, et al., Appellants,
vs.
Nicollette Gonzalez, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael G. Barket, Judge.
Law Office of Gawane Grant, P.A., and Gawane Grant (Lauderhill), for appellants.
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton LLP, and Rasheed K. Nader and Tal J. Lifshitz, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.
LOGUE, J. Appellants, Shawn Thompson, Thompson Nation Holdings LLC, and
Small Move Movers LLC, appeal a final summary judgment and permanent
injunction entered against them in an action brought by their client, Nicolette
Gonzalez, alleging claims for replevin, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violations of Florida’s
Household Moving Services Act and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (“FDUTPA”). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Thompson Nation Holdings LLC and Small Move Movers LLC are
moving companies owned and operated by Shawn Thompson (collectively,
the “Mover Defendants”). Nicolette Gonzalez, a pharmacy student set to
begin her studies in Gainesville, hired the Mover Defendants to transport her
belongings from Miami to Gainesville. The Mover Defendants offered her
various discounts and assured her that her belongings would arrive the same
day and the move would not be a shared move with anyone else. Gonzalez
executed a Binding Moving Estimate in the amount of $1,146.00 for her
move. The Binding Moving Estimate indicated there would be no additional
charges unless specified or upon request.
On the morning of the move, the movers handed Gonzalez a
Combined Uniform Household Goods Bill of Lading and Freight Bill.
2 Gonzalez testified this Bill of Lading did not specify any rates or additional
charges and that the subsequent Bill of Lading she was ultimately provided
after the move included handwritten information under “Rates and
Description,” which had previously been blank when she was asked to sign
it on the morning of the move. Thompson acknowledged in his deposition
that this information is tallied upon arrival at the destination.
On arrival in Gainesville, the movers presented Gonzalez with an
invoice totaling $4,389.25 for 25 hours of work (although only 14 hours had
elapsed since the pickup). The invoice also included fees Gonzalez did not
agree to and that were not included in the prior Binding Moving Estimate.
Finally, the invoice removed every discount Gonzalez was previously
promised under the Binding Moving Estimate.
Gonzalez refused to pay the new invoice amount and instead advised
she would pay the amount agreed to in the Binding Moving Estimate. The
Mover Defendants refused to unload her belongings unless she paid the new
invoice amount and left with her belongings when she went inside to call the
police. Gonzalez later spoke with Thompson directly and he rejected her
attempt to pay the amount agreed on in the Binding Moving Estimate, instead
offering to return her belongings if she paid the invoice amount with a slight
discount.
3 Gonzalez sued the Mover Defendants and alleged claims for replevin,
fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract, and violations of Florida’s Household Moving Services Act and
FDUTPA. The Mover Defendants responded and filed a counterclaim for
breach of contract. The Mover Defendants contended Gonzalez signed the
Bill of Lading, which they alleged provided Gonzalz with all the expenses
associated with the move, and Gonzalez agreed to pay the Mover
Defendants the amount of $4014 for the move.1 Gonzalez responded to the
counterclaim and alleged affirmative defenses including lack of
consideration, fraud in the inducement, prior breach by the Mover
Defendants, violation of FDUTPA and Florida’s Household Moving Services
Act, unclean hands, unconscionability, and misrepresentation.
The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of
Gonzalez on her claims, the Mover Defendants’ counterclaim, and her
affirmative defenses. The trial court concluded the Mover Defendants
violated Florida’s Household Moving Services Act, which constituted a per
se violation of FDUTPA, by misrepresenting and deceptively representing
1 This amount appears to reflect the slightly discounted amount Thompson directly offered Gonzalez.
4 their contract with Gonzalez and the price, size, nature, extent, qualities, and
characteristics of the moving services offered.
The trial court found the undisputed facts established the Mover
Defendants misrepresented and deceptively represented the price of the
move by including fees not previously specified or disclosed,
misrepresenting the cost of labor time, misrepresenting that the move was
discounted, misrepresenting that their employees were certified,
fingerprinted, background checked, and drug tested, and misrepresenting
that the Mover Defendants were licensed to provide household moving
services in Florida when the Binding Moving Estimate was signed and on the
day of the move. The trial court also found the undisputed facts established
the Mover Defendants misrepresented the timeframe and schedule for the
delivery by servicing another move during Gonzalez’s move.
The trial court concluded Thompson was personally liable under
FDUTPA because he was a direct participant in the improper dealings. The
trial court also concluded the foregoing established liability for Gonzalez’s
claims of fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent
misrepresentation. Finally, the trial court concluded the Binding Moving
Estimate was a valid contract and that the Mover Defendants materially
breached the contract by failing to provide moving services for the agreed
5 price in the Binding Moving Estimate. The trial court also granted Gonzalez
a permanent injunction under FDUTPA, enjoining the Mover Defendants
from misrepresenting or deceptively representing certain information to
future customers.
As for the Mover Defendants’ counterclaim, the trial court concluded
that the undisputed facts did not support the Mover Defendants’ contention
that Gonzalez agreed to pay the amount of $4014. This appeal timely
followed.
ANALYSIS
The Mover Defendants contend the trial court erred in granting
summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact
regarding Gonzalez’s failure to pay the contracted amount. The Mover
Defendants further argue the trial court erred in granting summary judgment
as to Thompson individually because he did not conduct any business with
Gonzalez in his personal capacity, rather the contracts were executed by the
corporate defendants and Gonzalez, and there was no evidence to support
his individual liability under FDUTPA. Finally, the Mover Defendants contend
the trial court erred in granting Gonzalez a permanent injunction because
she did not suffer any irreparable injury and the remedies available at law
6 were adequate to compensate for her injury. Each of these arguments,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed September 10, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0588 Lower Tribunal No. 22-24125-CC-05 ________________
Thompson Nation Holdings LLC, et al., Appellants,
vs.
Nicollette Gonzalez, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael G. Barket, Judge.
Law Office of Gawane Grant, P.A., and Gawane Grant (Lauderhill), for appellants.
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton LLP, and Rasheed K. Nader and Tal J. Lifshitz, for appellee.
Before LOGUE, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.
LOGUE, J. Appellants, Shawn Thompson, Thompson Nation Holdings LLC, and
Small Move Movers LLC, appeal a final summary judgment and permanent
injunction entered against them in an action brought by their client, Nicolette
Gonzalez, alleging claims for replevin, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violations of Florida’s
Household Moving Services Act and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (“FDUTPA”). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Thompson Nation Holdings LLC and Small Move Movers LLC are
moving companies owned and operated by Shawn Thompson (collectively,
the “Mover Defendants”). Nicolette Gonzalez, a pharmacy student set to
begin her studies in Gainesville, hired the Mover Defendants to transport her
belongings from Miami to Gainesville. The Mover Defendants offered her
various discounts and assured her that her belongings would arrive the same
day and the move would not be a shared move with anyone else. Gonzalez
executed a Binding Moving Estimate in the amount of $1,146.00 for her
move. The Binding Moving Estimate indicated there would be no additional
charges unless specified or upon request.
On the morning of the move, the movers handed Gonzalez a
Combined Uniform Household Goods Bill of Lading and Freight Bill.
2 Gonzalez testified this Bill of Lading did not specify any rates or additional
charges and that the subsequent Bill of Lading she was ultimately provided
after the move included handwritten information under “Rates and
Description,” which had previously been blank when she was asked to sign
it on the morning of the move. Thompson acknowledged in his deposition
that this information is tallied upon arrival at the destination.
On arrival in Gainesville, the movers presented Gonzalez with an
invoice totaling $4,389.25 for 25 hours of work (although only 14 hours had
elapsed since the pickup). The invoice also included fees Gonzalez did not
agree to and that were not included in the prior Binding Moving Estimate.
Finally, the invoice removed every discount Gonzalez was previously
promised under the Binding Moving Estimate.
Gonzalez refused to pay the new invoice amount and instead advised
she would pay the amount agreed to in the Binding Moving Estimate. The
Mover Defendants refused to unload her belongings unless she paid the new
invoice amount and left with her belongings when she went inside to call the
police. Gonzalez later spoke with Thompson directly and he rejected her
attempt to pay the amount agreed on in the Binding Moving Estimate, instead
offering to return her belongings if she paid the invoice amount with a slight
discount.
3 Gonzalez sued the Mover Defendants and alleged claims for replevin,
fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract, and violations of Florida’s Household Moving Services Act and
FDUTPA. The Mover Defendants responded and filed a counterclaim for
breach of contract. The Mover Defendants contended Gonzalez signed the
Bill of Lading, which they alleged provided Gonzalz with all the expenses
associated with the move, and Gonzalez agreed to pay the Mover
Defendants the amount of $4014 for the move.1 Gonzalez responded to the
counterclaim and alleged affirmative defenses including lack of
consideration, fraud in the inducement, prior breach by the Mover
Defendants, violation of FDUTPA and Florida’s Household Moving Services
Act, unclean hands, unconscionability, and misrepresentation.
The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of
Gonzalez on her claims, the Mover Defendants’ counterclaim, and her
affirmative defenses. The trial court concluded the Mover Defendants
violated Florida’s Household Moving Services Act, which constituted a per
se violation of FDUTPA, by misrepresenting and deceptively representing
1 This amount appears to reflect the slightly discounted amount Thompson directly offered Gonzalez.
4 their contract with Gonzalez and the price, size, nature, extent, qualities, and
characteristics of the moving services offered.
The trial court found the undisputed facts established the Mover
Defendants misrepresented and deceptively represented the price of the
move by including fees not previously specified or disclosed,
misrepresenting the cost of labor time, misrepresenting that the move was
discounted, misrepresenting that their employees were certified,
fingerprinted, background checked, and drug tested, and misrepresenting
that the Mover Defendants were licensed to provide household moving
services in Florida when the Binding Moving Estimate was signed and on the
day of the move. The trial court also found the undisputed facts established
the Mover Defendants misrepresented the timeframe and schedule for the
delivery by servicing another move during Gonzalez’s move.
The trial court concluded Thompson was personally liable under
FDUTPA because he was a direct participant in the improper dealings. The
trial court also concluded the foregoing established liability for Gonzalez’s
claims of fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent
misrepresentation. Finally, the trial court concluded the Binding Moving
Estimate was a valid contract and that the Mover Defendants materially
breached the contract by failing to provide moving services for the agreed
5 price in the Binding Moving Estimate. The trial court also granted Gonzalez
a permanent injunction under FDUTPA, enjoining the Mover Defendants
from misrepresenting or deceptively representing certain information to
future customers.
As for the Mover Defendants’ counterclaim, the trial court concluded
that the undisputed facts did not support the Mover Defendants’ contention
that Gonzalez agreed to pay the amount of $4014. This appeal timely
followed.
ANALYSIS
The Mover Defendants contend the trial court erred in granting
summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact
regarding Gonzalez’s failure to pay the contracted amount. The Mover
Defendants further argue the trial court erred in granting summary judgment
as to Thompson individually because he did not conduct any business with
Gonzalez in his personal capacity, rather the contracts were executed by the
corporate defendants and Gonzalez, and there was no evidence to support
his individual liability under FDUTPA. Finally, the Mover Defendants contend
the trial court erred in granting Gonzalez a permanent injunction because
she did not suffer any irreparable injury and the remedies available at law
6 were adequate to compensate for her injury. Each of these arguments,
however, lack merit.
To begin with, the Mover Defendants fail to identify any evidence in the
record creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the contracted
amount Gonzalez agreed to pay. The Mover Defendants simply continue to
maintain that Gonzalez signed the Bill of Lading, which they allege “list[ed]
the rates and description of the Services that [were] provided by the [the
Mover Defendants].” Thus, they argue the Bill of Lading was proof creating
an issue of fact regarding whether Gonzalez agreed to pay the new invoice
amount presented at the end of the move rather than the Binding Moving
Estimate amount.
However, the Mover Defendants fail to provide any evidence to counter
Gonzalez’s testimony that she did not agree to pay the new invoice amount
presented to her at the end of the move and that the Bill of Lading she
executed on the morning of the move did not specify any rates or additional
charges as reflected in the subsequent Bill of Lading she was ultimately
provided after the move. This subsequent Bill of Lading included handwritten
information under “Rates and Description” that was not there when Gonzalez
was asked to sign it the morning of the move. Indeed, rather than providing
evidence to establish a genuine issue of fact in this regard, the Mover
7 Defendants provided evidence corroborating Gonzalez’s version of events
as Thompson acknowledged in his deposition that the additional handwritten
information under “Rates and Description” was tallied upon arrival at the
destination. Thus, the Mover Defendants failed to provide any evidence
establishing Gonzalez agreed to pay any amount other than that reflected in
the Binding Moving Estimate.
As for the Mover Defendants’ argument that Thompson should not
have been found liable in his individual capacity, this argument also lacks
merit. “[I]t has long been the law in Florida that in order to proceed against
an individual using a FDUTPA violation theory[,] an aggrieved party must
allege that the individual was a direct participant in the improper dealings.”
KC Leisure, Inc. v. Haber, 972 So. 2d 1069, 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
Indeed, in Rollins, Inc. v. Heller, 454 So. 2d 580, 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984),
the appellant similarly contended that it was not the contracting party and
therefore could not be held liable, but this Court held that, like Thompson
here, the appellant was a direct participant in the dealings with the appellee
and could be held liable without the need to pierce the corporate veil.
Here, Thompson himself testified that all decisions and business of the
corporate defendants was conducted directly by him. Gonzalez also testified
that she spoke directly to Thompson, and he refused to return her belongings
8 unless she paid the invoice amount, offering only a slight discount.
Accordingly, there was undisputed evidence in the record to support the trial
court’s conclusion that Thompson was a direct participant in the improper
dealings.
Finally, the Mover Defendants’ contention that the trial court erred in
granting Gonzalez a permanent injunction because she did not suffer any
irreparable injury and the remedies available at law were adequate to
compensate her for her injuries also fails. FDUTPA provides, in relevant part,
that “anyone aggrieved by a violation of this part may bring an action to
obtain a declaratory judgment that an act or practice violates this part and to
enjoin a person who has violated, is violating, or is otherwise likely to violate
this part.” § 501.211(1), Fla. Stat. (emphases added). There is nothing in the
plain language of the statute that required Gonzalez to show any irreparable
harm or lack of adequate alternative remedies to obtain injunctive relief.
Instead, the statute simply requires that Gonzalez show she was “aggrieved
by a violation” of FDUTPA. The record here reflects that she did so.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Affirmed.