Cuban host Alexander Otaola has strongly refuted the statements made by Flor de Cuba, who publicly claimed to have emerged victorious in the initial court hearing of their ongoing legal battle. During his live broadcast on Friday, Otaola expressed his confusion over the alleged victory claimed by his opponent.
"We've heard Flor de Cuba declare that she won. I don't see what she won because what was presented in court today was just the first motion," Otaola stated. "My legal team presented four arguments, and the judge found that Flor's defense had not filed the complaint properly. The fourth accusation was completely altered, citing non-existent laws and fabricating matters not within the law, leading the judge to order the complaint to be rewritten," he elaborated.
The influencer further explained that the judge granted a 10-day period to correct the document's errors, while Flor's attorney requested 20 days. "You know what Flor's lawyer did, who is the same lawyer from the Clarita case... He brought some video links and translated below the alleged insults I supposedly said. The judge demanded that he provide a certified translation," Otaola added.
The Role of Otaola's Legal Team
During the broadcast, Otaola connected live with his attorneys from VPP Law Firm, who supported his position by stating that "Otaola doesn't have to prove anything; it's Flor who needs to fix the complaint," considering the hearing a success for their client. One of the lawyers specified that the judge ordered the removal of one of Flor's accusations: "cyberbullying and cyberstalking, which do not exist as charges within the State of Florida."
The second attorney emphasized that, contrary to being a victory for the plaintiff, the hearing was a win for Otaola: "They didn't win today's motion, you did."
Flor de Cuba's Perspective
On the other hand, Flor de Cuba had earlier claimed to have won the initial hearing against Otaola, as reported in a previous CiberCuba article. "Today, justice spoke: I WON the hearing against Otaola. The judge determined that his attacks were made with actual malice, acknowledged the emotional damage, and denied his request to dismiss the case," the influencer stated.
She further asserted that Otaola's defense "tried to argue that it wasn't valid because they were protected by freedom of speech, but the judge was clear and determined that it wasn't freedom of speech, but words intended to cause harm."
The differing accounts from both parties suggest that they experienced two entirely different hearings.
Flor de Cuba vs. Otaola: Legal Battle Insights
What were the main arguments presented by Otaola's legal team?
Otaola's legal team presented four arguments, highlighting that Flor's defense had not properly filed the complaint, with one accusation altered and citing non-existent laws.
How did the judge respond to Flor de Cuba's claims?
The judge ordered Flor de Cuba's complaint to be rewritten due to errors and demanded a certified translation of the alleged insults, dismissing some accusations as non-existent charges in Florida.
What was Flor de Cuba's reaction to the court hearing?
Flor de Cuba claimed victory, stating the judge acknowledged emotional damage and denied Otaola's request to dismiss the case, emphasizing that the attacks were made with actual malice.