...onable acts or practices, is a per se violation of FDUTPA. In Count VII, plaintiffs have alleged per se violations of FDUTPA based on the alleged violations of ILSFDA, the 1933 Securities Act, and Florida Statutes §§
718.503,
718.506,
718.202, and
190.048....
...The reason is irrelevant; the claim is extinguished for all purposes, including serving as a predicate act for FDUTPA. Plaintiffs cannot establish a per se violation of FDUTPA based on alleged but unfounded violations of ILSFDA. Plaintiffs also have alleged predicate violations under Fla.Stat. §§
718.202 and
190.048....
...First, a violation of Fla.Stat. §
718.202 does not constitute a violation of FDUTPA. [129] So even if the Court later finds a violation under this section, plaintiffs cannot establish a per se violation of FDUTPA with this statute. Second, Fla.Stat. §
190.048 is inapplicable in this case because it applies only to contracts for the sale of a residential unit within a Community Development District. Mona Lisa is not selling residential units within a CDD. [130] Accordingly, Mona Lisa has not violated §
190.048, and plaintiffs cannot establish a per se FDUTPA violation using this statute either....
