Since the day we started our practice, we have advanced our clients’ civil disputes through Florida’s state and federal courts, from complex disagreements to debt collection matters, community association controversies to shareholder & employee suits. Because we understand the anxiety and uncertainty associated with the litigation process, we quickly provide clients a variety of options that fit both their budgets and their objectives. We recognize the importance between proving a point and pursuing a resolution.
That’s My Name
When an established business discovered that someone in a different state was using a similar tradename and profiting from the confusion, it asked the firm to intercede. We did so with a suit in Federal Court setting out the elements for trademark infringement as well as violation of the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Lanham Act. In short order, the Court ruled in our favor holding that the defendant had in fact diluted our client’s name. The offending company was immediately enjoined from further infringement whether in a brick and mortar facility or in any electronic or printed medium. The Court also awarded our client its incurred attorney’s fees and costs.
In a hotly-contested federal case, originally initiated to redress a breach of contract for a ten-year charter, our clients were forced to deal with serious counterclaims while still prosecuting their multi-million dollar complaint. Defending against an attempt to impose a maritime lien on a $300 million luxury vessel, we were forced to litigate many of the same issues a second time – in a related suit filed in a distant jurisdiction, where our opponents had the home field advantage. We prevailed in both forums, and went on to obtain a complete victory for our clients, including a substantial award of fees and costs against the parties – and their attorneys.
Representing a large equipment manufacturer defrauded by one of its dealers, we successfully conducted a two-week trial in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, obtaining for our client a large and collectible verdict. The jury found the dealer’s principal and guarantor personally liable for the losses when it agreed with our position that he had set up and manipulated dozens of bogus charge accounts through his dealership and diverted payments due our client into his other enterprises.
Not all results are provided, the results are not necessarily representative of results obtained by the firm, and a prospective client’s individual facts and circumstances may differ from the matter in which the results are provided.