In a putative class action filed on behalf of thousands of consumers who purchased airfare from a South American airline, the firm obtained a reversal from an order dismissing the case on federal preemption grounds. Though the district court had dismissed the putative class’ case on the basis that their request for damages was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act, the firm convinced the appellate court that the class sought merely to enforce the parties’ private agreements regarding the cost of passage and, thus, fell outside the scope of ADA preemption, as delineated by the United States Supreme Court.
In an appeal stemming from disputed ownership of a British Virgin Islands corporation that holds Florida real estate worth millions of dollars, the firm obtained reversal of an order compelling arbitration. Before the appeal, the BVI corporation had successfully intervened in the trial court—contending that an arbitration provision in its articles controlled the procedure for deciding who owns its shares. In a victory for the firm’s client, the appellate court held that the corporation had no interest in who owns it and, thus, no dispute with any shareholder over governance of the entity.
The firm recently prevailed for the insured in a residential property insurance appeal when the insurer voluntarily dismissed its appeal, after full briefing and the scheduling of oral argument. The appeal involved policy interpretation—specifically the insurer’s contention that an endorsement to the policy authorized it to pay for all loss, including the insured’s claim for additional living expense—from the mold coverage protection of the policy, thereby exhausting policy limits below the insured’s damages that were recovered at trial.
In an appeal arising from complex real-estate development litigation, the firm obtained a reversal of an order entering a substantial unjust-enrichment money judgment against the firm’s client. Through an opinion that addressed both the scope of equitable unjust-enrichment relief under Florida law and the limitations of such relief in the face of an LLC’s separate corporate existence, the firm was able to have the judgment against its client reversed.
The firm obtained a reversal of an adverse summary judgment order dismissing its medical-service-provider client’s insurance coverage case. After full briefing, the insurer, which was successful below, filed a confession of error, leading the appellate court to reverse the judgment against the firm’s client and allowing its client’s case to proceed in the trial court.
In an appeal arising from dissolution of marriage proceedings, the firm was able to obtain a reversal of an order improperly distributing the parties’ assets. The firm obtained this reversal by convincing the appellate court that the trial court had not considered the factors necessary to distribute the parties’ assets and, accordingly, that further litigation in the trial court was necessary under Florida law.
In the appellate court, the firm protected its client’s entitlement to pursue punitive damages against Bank of America in commercial litigation between its client and the bank. Bank of America had filed a petition for writ of certiorari to vacate the order allowing the firm’s client to pursue punitive damages against it. But the firm was able to defeat that attempt, entitling its client to pursue punitive damages against the bank in the trial court.
The firm was able to obtain a complete win for its client in a consolidated appellate proceeding in which the appellant challenged eleven orders entered by the trial court. The appellant sought relief through both non-final appeals and original proceedings, such as petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. This victory, in an appeal spanning the waterfront from equitable distribution issues to children’s issues, allowed the firms’ client to finalize the dissolution of marriage proceeding on remand and end the long-running family-law litigation.
The firm convinced the appellate court to reverse a $38 million judgment that the trial court had entered against the firm’s client—the former CEO of an international oil company—in post-judgment family-law proceedings. In an appeal that turned on interpreting the parties’ extensive property settlement agreement, the appellate court agreed with the firm that the multimillion dollar judgment had not enforced the terms of the parties’ agreement and, instead, amounted to a stand-alone money judgment that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter in post-judgment family-law litigation.
In an appeal arising from a complex real-estate development transaction, the firm obtained a reversal of a breach-of-promissory note judgment that had been entered against two of the firm’s clients. In achieving this victory, the firm was able to defeat the plaintiffs’ novel argument that monetary liability could be imposed on a non-signatory to a contract simply because the non-signatory benefitted from the loan proceeds that were the subject of the contract and happened to be related to the signing entity.