The Resource Property Management lawsuit landscape centers on two active, opposing cases: a federal civil racketeering suit filed in September 2025 against RPM, its CEO Debra Reinhardt, the trade group CEOMC, and two Florida HOAs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and a harassment and cyberstalking suit RPM and Reinhardt filed two weeks earlier against the same plaintiff in Pinellas County, Florida. Neither case has been resolved. An older, unrelated contract case brought by RPM ended in a 2022 default judgment in the company’s favor.
Who Resource Property Management Is
RPM is a Florida community association management company incorporated on July 3, 1991, with its principal office at 7300 Park Street in Seminole. It manages more than 350 condominium, homeowner, cooperative, and manufactured home communities in central Florida.1Florida Division of Corporations. Resource Property Management Inc. Corporate Record2Resource Property Management. Resource Property Management Team3CEOMC. About CEOMC Backgrounder
The Federal RICO Case: Pinkerton v. Reinhardt
On September 11, 2025, a plaintiff identified as Krstafer Pinkerton filed Pinkerton v. Reinhardt (No. 1:25-cv-03127) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint invokes the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and names Reinhardt, RPM, CEOMC, Point Brittany Association, Inc., and New Atlantis Club Condominium Association, Inc. among the defendants.4Justia. Pinkerton et al v. Reinhardt et al Docket
Pinkerton’s filings describe an alleged racketeering enterprise that also sweeps in the law firm Rabin Parker Gurley, the Community Associations Institute, banking entities, and the technology providers Vantaca and CINC Systems. A February 2026 filing lists the alleged predicate acts as altered invoices, unauthorized assessments, bank fraud, and SBA/PPP loan fraud. The filing points to a claimed $851,863 “ultra vires special assessment” against owners in one association and a $730,500 seawall project that it characterizes as self-dealing.4Justia. Pinkerton et al v. Reinhardt et al Docket
The complaint also alleges what Pinkerton calls a 21-year pattern of “legislative capture” involving nine specific Florida enactments between 2004 and 2025, and “regulatory capture” in which management personnel allegedly held overlapping regulatory roles. Pinkerton points to an individual named Moran who the complaint says served as both an RPM vice president and vice chair of the DBPR Regulatory Council. Additional claims include obstruction and witness intimidation, with allegations of record destruction and cease-and-desist letters sent to silence the plaintiffs.4Justia. Pinkerton et al v. Reinhardt et al Docket
These are allegations in Pinkerton’s filings. The defendants have contested them.
Where the Federal Case Stands
In late October 2025, Reinhardt, RPM, and CEOMC filed a motion to dismiss. Point Brittany Association filed its own motion, and New Atlantis Club Condominium Association moved to dismiss the case as frivolous. Pinkerton filed a consolidated opposition in December 2025, and the defendants replied later that month.4Justia. Pinkerton et al v. Reinhardt et al Docket
In January 2026, Pinkerton filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order seeking expedited preliminary injunction proceedings. Judge Paul L. Friedman initially set a hearing for February 25, 2026, then vacated it the day before.4Justia. Pinkerton et al v. Reinhardt et al Docket
A separate procedural question hangs over the case. In February 2026, the court ordered Pinkerton to explain why the case should not be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where RPM is headquartered and where the HOA communities sit. Pinkerton filed a response with 48 supplemental exhibits and declarations opposing transfer, then a notice of errata with additional exhibits in March 2026. As of the last docket activity in May 2026, the case remained pending in D.C., with no ruling on the motions to dismiss or the venue question.4Justia. Pinkerton et al v. Reinhardt et al Docket5CourtListener. Pinkerton v. Reinhardt
The Florida Harassment and Cyberstalking Suit
About two weeks before Pinkerton filed in D.C., RPM and Reinhardt filed their own suit against him. On August 26, 2025, they sued in Pinellas County Circuit Court in a case styled Resource Property Management, Inc. vs. Debra Reinhardt Et Al. The docket categorizes the matter as a harassment tort and identifies the specific claims as harassment and cyberstalking. Pinkerton, a resident of Oregon, is named as the respondent.6Trellis Law. Resource Property Management Inc. vs. Debra Reinhardt Et Al.
The specific conduct RPM and Reinhardt say constitutes harassment and cyberstalking is not publicly available without a paid subscription to the court docket. The early entries show the complaint and several exhibits were filed and the case was assigned to a general civil track. As of the last available update in August 2025, summons had been issued but no further rulings were recorded.6Trellis Law. Resource Property Management Inc. vs. Debra Reinhardt Et Al.
The two cases offer opposing narratives. Pinkerton frames RPM and Reinhardt as operators of a racketeering scheme. RPM and Reinhardt describe Pinkerton’s conduct as harassment and cyberstalking. Neither has been resolved.
Earlier Civil Litigation: RPM v. DeAngelo Brothers
RPM has been involved in unrelated civil litigation. In May 2022, the company sued DeAngelo Brothers LLC and DBI Services LLC in the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court in Clearwater over a property management agreement and Aquagenix services, alleging it was owed refunds and that funds had been improperly retained. The complaint included a civil theft demand notice.7UniCourt. Resource Property Management Inc. et al vs. DeAngelo Contracting Services LLC
Neither defendant responded. The clerk entered defaults against both in November 2022, and on December 19, 2022, the court entered a default judgment awarding RPM $106,919.70. Court records do not indicate whether the judgment has been collected.7UniCourt. Resource Property Management Inc. et al vs. DeAngelo Contracting Services LLC
Consumer Complaints Outside of Court
Separate from the litigation, homeowners in RPM-managed communities have filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau. The BBB profile lists 31 complaints in the most recent three-year period, with five closed in the past twelve months. The most common categories are service and repair issues, billing disputes, and order-related problems.8BBB. Resource Property Management Inc. Complaints
Recurring themes include difficulty obtaining refunds after a property sale, incorrect billing and late fees, delayed or inadequate hurricane damage repairs, unauthorized entry into units by contractors without notice, and poor communication from management staff.9BBB. Resource Property Management Inc. Complaints, Page 3 In one 2026 complaint, a former owner reported that $1,123 in monthly dues was withdrawn from their bank account after they had already sold their unit; the matter was resolved after escalation. In several responses, RPM said certain maintenance decisions were beyond its authority and required approval from the community’s board of directors.8BBB. Resource Property Management Inc. Complaints