The Tribune

BY NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A TOP Bahamian real estate firm and Briland tour operator have slammed the latest “fabricated and impertinent allegations” levied against them by the latter’s former US partner as they bid to dismiss his “shotgun pleading”.

CA Christie and Julian ‘Shaq’ Gibson, together with the latter’s Conch & Coconut Ltd and other defendants, again joined forces in an August 7, 2026, legal filing to demand that the new “confusing, mudslinging attack” on them by Pablo Conde and the US half of the destination management business be struck out by the south Florida court.

They are asserting that Mr Conde’s amended pleadings fail to cure the deficiencies which led the south Florida court to previously dismiss CA Christie as a defendant, having found that there was no evidence to show the Bahamian real estate firm know of, or was responsible for, Mr Gibson’s alleged actions despite him being their Harbour Island agent.

Describing Mr Conde’s revised lawsuit as “bloated”, Mr Gibson and the other defendants also assert that allegations featuring purported trademark violations, unjust enrichment and tortious interference should also be rejected to end one part of a legal battle that is raging in both The Bahamas and Florida amid claims of illegal ‘fronting’ and more than $1m in unpaid taxes.

CA Christie, though, now finds itself attempting to extricate itself from Mr Conde’s lawsuit for a second time after the south Florida federal court gave him 14 days to address the weaknesses in a case sparked by the latter’s messy split with Mr Gibson and the break-up of their respective arms of the Conch & Coconut operation.

Asserting that the south Florida court also has no jurisdiction over CA Christie, since it is a Bahamian company with no ties or nexus to Florida, the defendants’ collective response also argued that Mr Conde “fails to plead valid claims”.

“Plaintiffs have filed a bloated amended complaint, with nearly 100 new ‘factual’ allegations, asserting new claims and largely failing to address the deficiencies identified by the Order,” they said of the first ruling.

“The amended complaint is a prolix, confusing, mudslinging attack on Shaquille Gibson, his companies, one of his employees, his (non-biological) father and father’s fiancé, and two real estate-related entities who have absolutely nothing to do with plaintiffs’ trumped-up grievances. The complaint in its entirety should be dismissed.”

Focusing on Mr Conde’s assertions that CA Christie is “vicariously liable” for Mr Gibson’s alleged conduct, the dismissal motion again argued that Conch & Coconut’s former US partner had again failed to supply facts or evidence to back-up this claim - the same deficiency that sank the first lawsuit’s efforts to rope-in the Bahamian realtor.

“The amended complaint makes precisely the same vague and conclusory allegations about CA Christie’s and Corcoran Group’s (its franchisor) alleged control over Gibson’s actions,” the dismissal bid added. “Nowhere does the amended complaint allege how CA Christie and Corcoran Group controlled Gibson’s actions or identify any steps they allegedly undertook to do so. The reality is that they did not control Gibson’s actions….

“Plaintiffs’ failure to plead a viable theory of vicarious liability dooms their efforts to assert personal jurisdiction over CA Christie. Plaintiffs hope to assert jurisdiction by arguing that CA Christie comes within the long-arm statute because Gibson was its agent, and his actions satisfy the long-arm statute. But to rely on this approach, they must properly allege an agency relationship, which they have not done.

“Plaintiffs were required to plead that CA Christie has ‘operational control’ over Gibson, meaning ‘day-to-day control of the internal affairs or basic operations’ of his business. Plaintiffs have not come close to meeting this pleading standard. Thus, CA Christie is not subject to long-arm jurisdiction.”

Mr Conde and his Florida-domiciled Conch & Coconut LLC, in the latest version of their complaint, had alleged: “Gibson, as a real estate agent for Corcoran CA Christie and the Corcoran Group, uses the Conch & Coconut marks to rent, sell or offer to sell or rent real estate properties in The Bahamas to consumers in the US and Florida.”

This, he claims, employs “at least a portion of the Conch & Coconut trade secrets to market for Corcoran CA Christie and the Corcoran Group. Gibson infringed the Conch & Coconut marks, and counterfeited the LLC services, in furtherance of his job at Corcoran CA Christie, and to the benefit of Corcoran CA Christie and Corcoran Group….

“Gibson runs both his real estate services for Corcoran CA Christie and his infringing concierge business under the [Conch & Coconut Ltd] out of the same office – the Bungalow, in order to expose the LLC’s customers to his real estate services,” Mr Conde alleged.

“Gibson has further sold properties to, and listed properties for rent, for Conch & Coconut customers, and after breaching and misappropriating Conch & Coconut’s trade secrets.

“Gibson has sold at least four properties - Tickled Pink, Luna Sea, the Playhouse and Rosebud - and has at least three active listings that had been rented to Conch & Coconut customers through the Conch & Coconut platform - Java Estate, Sea Breeze Villa and White House Villa. Gibson will continue to market his real estate services for Corcoran CA Christie and Corcoran Group using Conch & Coconut’s misappropriated trade secrets.”

Meanwhile, turning to the claims against the other defendants, the dismissal motion added: “The amended complaint is a classic example of shotgun pleading. The body of the amended complaint consists of 182 paragraphs of ‘factual’ allegations purportedly supporting 13 counts by.. Conch & Coconut LLC and Pink Sands Spirits, an alcoholic beverage company.

“The 13 counts are asserted against eight named defendants. Despite the wide range of largely fabricated and impertinent allegations against each of those defendants, the amended complaint incorporates by reference every one of the 182 ‘factual’ paragraphs into each of its 13 counts.

“Thus, for example, allegations about Silverman’s alleged interference with the customers of Pink Sands are incorporated by reference into the LLC’s unrelated claim solely against Johnson for breach of a non-disclosure agreement. In short, the amended complaint is a mess.”

The dismissal motion reiterated previous arguments that Mr Conde’s claims of trademark and copyright violations should be dismissed because they granted “a naked licence” permitting Mr Gibson and the Harbour Island business to use the Conch & Coconut marks free from any oversight or control by his US partner.

As for the interference allegation, the motion added: “Here, as LLC [Conde] well knows, The Bahamas prohibits foreign entities such as LLC from providing services reserved for Bahamians. Indeed, LLC has never actually provided any concierge services in The Bahamas, either before or after the disputes giving rise to this lawsuit, and the amended complaint does not allege otherwise.” It argued that all other allegations should be rejected for failing to assert “a viable claim”.