Menu
  • Joseph Ianno Jr.
  • 561.650.8008
  • Share this page
Joseph Ianno Jr.

Joseph Ianno Jr.

Shareholder

Overview

Joe Ianno practices complex commercial litigation and is an experienced trial attorney. He has served as trial counsel for many Fortune 500 companies in multi-million and multi-billion dollar claims involving fraud, conspiracy, theft of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and other corporate misconduct claims. He has extensive involvement with the defense of class action lawsuits involving securities fraud, deceptive and unfair trade practices, antitrust claims and consumer fraud issues. 

Joe represents financial institutions, developers, manufacturers, contractors, and a variety of public and privately owned business clients.

Experience

  • Represented major financial institution in defense of multi billion dollar claim of conspiracy and fraud.
  • Represented major financial institution in defense of class action that resulted in dismissal of claims with prejudice under federal securities laws. 
  • Represented manufacturers in numerous indirect purchaser antitrust and unfair trade practice class actions throughout the State of Florida involving chemical components and computer components.
  • Defended a putative class action alleging improper utility billing at apartment complexes. After meeting with counsel for Plaintiffs, the case was voluntarily dismissed.
  • Defended an action brought by farm workers against the farm labor contractor and farm owner alleging violations of various federal statutes concerning wages. The case was amicably resolved.
  • Represented several national residential builders in litigation matters throughout the State of Florida.
  • Represented developers and contractors in corporate and construction litigation throughout the state of Florida
  • Represented national apartment complex owner in class action and corporate litigation in Florida and Georgia.

Reported Decisions:

  • Montgomery v. New Piper, Southern District of Florida, Case No: 00-14284-Civ-Roettger. Represented Textron/Lycoming in this action. Class certification was denied.
  • Mazza Block v. Morganti, Palm Beach County Circuit Court, Case No: CL 00-3885 AE. Represented Morganti in this action brought by a subcontractor. We obtained dismissal of the class action portion of this action and ultimately dismissal of the entire action.
  • Sanchez v. Signal Holdings, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 05-22259-CIV. Represent Defendants who provide insurance for cellular telephones. Plaintiffs allege claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act regarding the deductible charged on claims. Class certification was denied.
  • Acoma v. Crompton Corp. et al., Pinellas County Circuit Court, Case No.: 04-4143-CI-13. Represented Crompton Corp., Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc., and Uniroyal Chemical Company, Limited in an action alleging anti-trust violations concerning the sale of EPDM used in the manufacture of tires. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the complaint was granted.
  • Phyllis Spencer v. Wachovia Bank, US. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 04-civ-81016. Motion to dismiss class action complaint granted with prejudice under SLUSA.
  • Jim Moore Insurance Agency, Inc. v. State Farm Insurance, 147 Fed. Appx. 841 (11th Cir. 2005). Affirming trial court judgment and denial of class certification.
  • Phillip Morris USA Inc. v. Hines, 883 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).  Reversing certification of national class action - appeal currently pending before the Florida Supreme Court.
  • State of Florida v. American Tobacco Company, 723 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1998). Appeal from multi-billion dollar settlement with major tobacco companies.
  • Concept L.C. v. Gesten, 662 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Reversing trial court grant of motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict.
  • Fidel v. Pearlman, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 02-61258-CIV-Marra. Motion to dismiss securities fraud class action complaint granted with prejudice.
  • Village of Wellington v. Palm Beach Polo, Palm Beach County Circuit Court. Eminent domain action where client was offered $200,000 and ultimately awarded $5,200,000 by a 12 person jury.

Recognition

  • AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell
  • Selected for inclusion in Florida Super Lawyers (2006-2018)
  • Listed as a Top Lawyer in South Florida Legal Guide (2009-2010, 2014-2015)
  • Selected for inclusion in Florida Trend’s Florida Legal Elite editions (2007, 2010) 
  • Listed in The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Construction (2009-2019)
  • Listed in Chambers USA Guide to America's Leading Business Lawyers (2008-2018)

Professional & Community Involvement

  • Palm Beach County Bar Association
    • Chair, Judicial Relations Committee (2003-2007)
    • Chair, Circuit Civil Practice Committee (2007-2009)
  • The Florida Bar
    • Civil Procedure Rules Committee
  •  Palm Beach County
    • Board of Trustees, Business Political Action Committee
  • ABA Section of Business Law
    • Co-Chair, Class and Derivative Actions Subcommittee 
  • ABA Section of Litigation
    • Business Torts Committee
  • Fifteenth Circuit Judicial Nominating Commission (2008-2011)
  • Member, Board of Directors, PRIDE Integrated Services, Inc.

Credentials

Education
  • Stetson University College of Law (J.D., cum laude, 1986)
  • University of Florida (B.S., 1984)
    • President's Honor Roll
Bar Admissions
  • Florida
Court Admissions
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
  • U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida
  • U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
  • Trial Bar - U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Florida
  • Trial Bar - U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
  • Florida State Courts

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.