By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A top Bahamian real estate firm has been dismissed as a defendant in the ongoing legal battle between a Harbour Island tourism operator and his former US business partner after a judge found it cannot be blamed for its employee’s purported actions.

Judge Kathleen Williams, in a July 10, 2026, verdict removed CA Christie and its franchisor, Corcoran Group, as defendants in the south Florida federal court lawsuit launched by Pablo Conde after finding the latter had supplied no evidence to show the Bahamian group was responsible, and should assume liability for, the alleged actions of its Briland agent, Julian ‘Shaq’ Gibson.

Mr Conde and Mr Gibson are embroiled in an increasingly bitter legal battle on both sides of the Florida straits following the messy break-up of their Conch & Coconut tour operator partnership, which has exposed allegations of illegal ‘fronting’ and more than $1m in unpaid Bahamian taxes. Mr Conde named CA Christie as a defendant on the basis it had allegedly been “unjustly enriched” by Mr Gibson’s use of his “trade secret customer lists” to generate real estate business for the firm.

However, CA Christie hit back by asserting that its inclusion and listing as a defendant was “improper” because no evidence was supplied by Mr Conde and his US firm, Conch & Coconut LLC, to show the company “directly participated” in the Briland business of the same name - Conch & Coconut Ltd - or the conduct complained about involving alleged trademark and copyright friend.

Mr Conde had argued CA Christie was “vicariously liable” for Mr Gibson’s actions since he was its agent, or employee, by hanging Conch & Coconut branding next to its own without permission, but Judge Williams ultimately disagreed. “According to plaintiffs, CA Christie ‘employs Mr Gibson as a real estate agent to rent and sell properties in The Bahamas’,” she wrote, “and Mr Gibson’s office displays plaintiffs’ marks alongside a sign bearing CA Christie’s logo.

“Plaintiffs aver that Mr Gibson “infringed [their] marks and counterfeited [their] services in furtherance of his job at [CA Christie], and to the benefit of [CA Christie]’. Mr Gibson ‘holds himself out publicly as an agent and employee of [CA Christie]’ and is listed on their website as an estate agent. grounds, Plaintiffs argue that CA Christie ‘is vicariously liable for the tortious and unlawful actions . . . of its agent and/or employee, Mr Gibson’.”

However, Judge Williams found that Mr Conde had failed to supply any evidence to prove his accusations against the high-end Bahamian realtor. “Again, as they did with the Corcoran Group, plaintiffs offer conclusory statements in an attempt to establish vicarious liability for CA Christie,” she ruled.

“Plaintiffs aver that Mr Gibson’s infringement was done ‘in furtherance of his job… using their marks ‘to rent, sell or offer to sell or rent real estate properties in The Bahamas to consumers in the United States and Florida’. Plaintiffs do not, however, explain how Mr Gibson used the marks for those purposes and whether that purported use falls within the scope of Mr Gibson’s duties as CA Christie’s real estate agent.

“Nor do they allege that CA Christie authorised, participated in or even had the ability to control Mr Gibson’s tortious activities. Plaintiffs seem to argue that CA Christie should be vicariously responsible for Mr Gibson’s tortious actions simply because he is its employee or agent and it was, in some unidentified way, unjustly enriched because of his actions.”

And Judge Williams added: “Plaintiffs… submit conclusory statements that allude to agency. They point the court towards CA Christie’s website, which lists Mr Gibson as a ‘real estate agent’. Still, this is not enough to establish vicarious liability…. To establish vicarious liability under actual agency, plaintiffs needed to allege that CA Christie had some ability to control Mr Gibson’s conduct and that he was acting within the scope of his employment.

“Putting aside the conclusory statements, the complaint does not offer specific allegations sufficient to establish either the scope of Mr Gibson’s engagement with CA Christie or CA Christie’s ability to control his conduct… Accordingly, because plaintiffs offer conclusory statements and fail to allege facts sufficient to establish vicarious liability, CA Christie is dismissed from this action.”

Mr Conde also suffered a further reversal after the south Florida federal court rejected his appeal of an earlier decision that refused to impose an injunction that would have barred Mr Gibson and the Briland-based business from using the Conch & Coconut brand and trademarks.

He had challenged the December 2025 ruling that found he “failed to adequately maintain control over defendants’ [Mr Gibson’s] use of their trademark, thereby granting them a ‘naked licence’, which extinguished plaintiffs’ ability to assert a trademark infringement claim”. However, Judge Williams dismissed this on the basis that Mr Conde and the US business admitted themselves that they did not have sufficient control over the Briland business and its alleged “quality issues”.

The latest south Florida verdict, though, did not go completely Mr Gibson’s way as Judge Williams also rejected his argument that the case be dismissed in favour of arguing the case in The Bahamas. The Bahamian tourism operator had argued that this nation was the better forum for resolving the legal dispute as all witnesses and evidence, plus the physical business and its assets, are located here.

Judge Williams, though, ruled that The Bahamas was not an appropriate alternative jurisdiction given that Mr Conde’s litigation was founded on violations of US trademark law. “While defendants claim the Bahamian courts are well-suited to redress plaintiffs’ injuries because of the overlapping nature of the underlying facts between this litigation and the parallel proceedings in The Bahamas, they do not explain how that remedy would impact the focus of this litigation: Plaintiffs’ rights under US trademark law,” she wrote.

“The Bahamas, therefore, cannot provide plaintiffs an adequate alternate forum for this dispute. Accordingly, the court declines to dismiss this case pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.” And Judge Williams also declined to remove Letamae DeCosta Johnson as a defendant, although she did dismiss two of the counts Mr Conde had alleged against her.

“Letamae Johnson was hired by Mr Gibson “at [the plaintiff LLC’s] insistence, to provide accounting, management information, and she was given access to [the LLC’s] platforms to facilitate [the] same, including ensuring that the Bahamian VAT taxes, licensing and registrations were properly handled’,” Judge Williams wrote of Mr Conde’s claims.

“Plaintiffs claim that Ms Johnson.. ‘began to edit [the LLC’s] existing bookings[,] cancelling them or lowering the total pricing for the booking[s] to match the deposit amount, in order to close out the booking[s]’.(Id. at 16). Plaintiffs further allege that Ms Johnson ‘or someone using her account[,] downloaded all of [the LLC’s] booking data from fareharbor.com, through the end of 2025’.

“In short, Plaintiffs claim that Ms Johnson facilitated defendants’ misappropriation of their trade secrets and interfered with their bookings. Defendants argue that all of these counts should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Specifically, defendants argue that Ms Johnson lacks sufficient contacts with Florida because she is a Bahamian national and all of her purported misconduct occurred in The Bahamas. This argument, by itself, is unavailing,” Judge Williams added.

“Here, plaintiffs specifically alleged that Ms Johnson accessed their website and edited their bookings. This allegation is sufficient to establish this court’s jurisdiction because LLC, as a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Florida, allegedly suffered injuries because of Ms Johnson’s conduct… Ultimately, this is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Ms Johnson and, at this early stage, the court will not dismiss her from this litigation.”