- A/R Assist, Inc. v. Gray, No. 2D15-1629, 2016 WL 7232181 (Fla. 2d DCA Dec. 14, 2016). After a jury returned a multi-million-dollar verdict against our clients in an alleged trade-secrets action, obtained the post-trial grant of a directed verdict exonerating these defendants and defended that result on appeal.
- Garcia v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 807 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2015). Obtained reversal of multi-million-dollar bad-faith verdict and judgment entered against insurer on the grounds that the trial court improperly excluded evidence regarding the development of the law on the underlying coverage issue. Case remanded for a new trial.
- Weitz Co., LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 982 F. Supp. 2d 975 (S.D. Iowa 2013), aff’d, 786 F.3d 641(8th Cir. 2015). As the lead defense firm in the Southern District of Iowa, obtained a defense summary judgment where the plaintiff general contractor improperly attempted to obtain a $50-plus million double recovery in equity against a project owner’s post-construction property insurers. The general contractor was previously sued for its materially deficient construction of the project in the Southern District of Florida. It settled with the project owner after having recovered several million dollars more from its liability insurers, subcontractors, and their liability insurers. As part of the appellate team in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, we defended entry of this summary judgment on appeal and obtained affirmance.
- Henry v. State, 175 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 2015). Handled all aspects of representing an indigent juvenile non-homicide offender before the Florida Supreme Court, including briefing and oral argument. Appeal involved an Eighth Amendment challenge to a 90-year sentence based on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). The Court ruled in favor of our pro-bono client, holding that his 90-year aggregate sentence was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment as construed in Graham.
- Kostelac v. Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG, 517 F. App’x 670 (11th Cir. 2013). Defended a forum non conveniens dismissal based on a German forum-selection clause. Presented oral argument to the Eleventh Circuit.
- Ford Motor Co. v. Stimpson, 115 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Overturned a JNOV and new-trial order issued below that had been predicated on unsupported findings of “fraud on the court,” an incorrect rejection of expert testimony, and an incorrect characterization of closing argument as improper.
- Chapman v. Ford Motor Co., 489 F. App’x 999 (8th Cir. 2012). Defended an order dismissing the plaintiff’s action, which had alleged purported “fraud on the court.”
- Uribe v. McDuffie, 133 So. 3d 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Defended a new-trial order based on the improper use of a medical treatise, the improper introduction of evidence, and improper closing argument.
- Farias v. Mr. Heater, Inc. & Home Depot, Inc., 684 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2012), aff’ing, 757 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2010), and 2011 WL 283245 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2011). Upheld the entry of a defense summary judgment in a products-liability warnings action in which the plaintiff contended that the subject product was defective for failing to include Spanish-language warnings and instructions (in addition to its concededly sufficient English-language instructions and warnings).
- Dorsch v. Pilatus Aircraft, Ltd., et al., No. 8:11–CV–441–T–17MAP, 2011 WL 5459716 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2011), reconsideration denied, 2012 WL 1565447 (M.D. Fla. May 2, 2012). Removed an aviation products-liability action to federal district court based on the doctrine of fraudulent joinder and defended against the plaintiffs’ attempts to remand to state court. Action was later dismissed against Swiss aircraft manufacturer based on lack of personal jurisdiction in the State of Florida.
- Waisman v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., et al., Case No. 11-CA-007795 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir. Dec. 21, 2011). Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a products-liability action against a Swiss aircraft manufacturer based on lack of personal jurisdiction in the State of Florida.
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Smith, 72 So. 3d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (table). Defended a verdict and judgment in favor of an estate and the estate’s personal representative based on a financial institution’s unreasonable refusal to honor a durable power of attorney.
- Maynoldi v. Archbishop Coleman F. Carroll High Sch., Inc., 62 So. 3d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). Opposed a request for attorney’s fees based on the denial of requests for admission.
- State v. Stang, 41 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 2010). Handled all aspects of representing an indigent habeas-corpus petitioner before the Florida Supreme Court, including brief writing and presenting oral argument. Persuaded the Court to discharge jurisdiction, leading to the client’s immediate release.