Firm forces non-signatory to agreement to Arbitration.
Rosenthal Law Group successfully obtained an order compelling arbitration on behalf of its
client, an indoor trampoline park, in a personal injury lawsuit filed
against its client.
In order to gain access to the trampoline park, participants were required
to sign a waiver and release. In response to the Firm’s motion to
compel arbitration and to stay the pending action, plaintiff argued that
he did not sign a waiver and release and, therefore, was not bound by
the arbitration clause in the waiver and release. Rosenthal Law Group
effectively argued that agreements to arbitrate are no different that
all other contracts and that plaintiff was on notice that he was required
to execute a waiver and release to participate in the trampolines. When
plaintiff participated, he assented to the terms of the waiver and release
and that said waiver and release contained an enforceable mandatory arbitration clause.
In February 2019, the Honorable Carol-Lisa Phillips of the 17th Judicial Circuit entered an order granting Rosenthal Law Group’s
motion to compel arbitration and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration
administered by the American Arbitration Association pursuant to the terms
of the waiver and release.
Firm Obtains Summary Judgment in Construction Lien Case involving Two contracts
and One Lien
On October 17, 2018, Rosenthal Law Group successfully obtained summary
judgment in its favor and against a demolition contractor on its lien
foreclosure case claiming unpaid charges on a demolition project.
In this case, the demolition contractor filed a single claim of lien for
the total charges due and owing under two separate and distinct contracts
between our client and the demolition contractor. Thereafter, the demolition
contractor filed suit to foreclose on the lien and for damages, our client
filed a counterclaim.
Rosenthal Law Group then filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf
of its client arguing that the claim of lien was invalid because the demolition
contractor improperly combined charges claimed to be due under to separate
and distinct contracts. The Honorable Mily Rodriguez Powell, entered an
order granting the motion for summary judgment and discharging the claim of lien.
Firm prevails on Appeal in Construction Lien Case
On June 12, 2019, Rosenthal Law Group recently prevailed in appeal before
the Fourth District Court of Appeal of a summary judgment in its favor
and against a demolition contractor on its lien foreclosure case claiming
unpaid charges on a demolition project.
The appeal followed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Firm’s
client by the Honorable Mily Rodriguez Powell. In its motion for summary
judgment, Rosenthal Law Group argued that the lien was improper because
the demolition contractor combined the charges due under two contracts
into a single claim of lien.
On appeal, the demolition contractor argued that Florida law did not prohibit
the combining of charges due under two contracts into a single claim of
lien. Rosenthal Law Group successfully argued that Fla. Stat. §713.09
and Florida precedent clearly prohibited the filing of a single claim
of lien which combines charges due under two direct contracts.
Oral argument was held on June 11, 2019 and was argued by Alex Rosenthal.
Less than 24 hours later, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued an
opinion affirming the summary judgment.
Summary judgment in favor of employer who was sued for injuries allegedly
caused by one of its employees in an off-site car collision.
Even though summary judgment is rarely granted in negligence cases in Florida,
Rosenthal Law Group has once again successfully obtained summary judgment
in its favor on behalf of its client, Park One of Florida, LLC, in a lawsuit
filed by an individual who alleged he was injured in a motor vehicle accident
with one of Park One’s employees who was driving in his own vehicle
for the purpose of obtaining a meal for himself at the time of the collision.
In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the employee, a valet parking
attendant, was employed to drive vehicles and that because he was “driving”
a vehicle at the time of the accident, Park One was liable for the injuries
allegedly caused by the employee. Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Mavel
Ruiz presided over a lengthy summary judgment hearing which was thoroughly
briefed by the parties and considered the deposition testimony of multiple
witnesses. The undisputed evidence at the hearing showed that the employee
was never hired to drive his own vehicle to do any job functions for Park
One, the accident occurred approximately ½ mile away from the employee’s
job location, and the employee’s negligent conduct was not at all
activated for any purpose to serve Park One. Thus, Rosenthal Law Group
successfully established that Park One was not liable for the acts of
its employee in this case as a matter of law and Park One was rightfully
granted its exist from this lawsuit.
Rosenthal Law Group recently obtained a judgment at trial for $1,373,560.49 against
Restalia Grupo De Eurorestauracion, S.L., the franchisor for 100 Montaditos,
for breach of guaranty of commercial lease agreement. The case arose out of a lease of commercial restaurant space on Lincoln
Road in Miami Beach, Florida. Restalia executed an absolute and unconditional
guaranty of the tenant’s lease obligations. After a few years into
the term, the tenant filed bankruptcy and rejected the lease in bankruptcy.
The landlord filed suit against Restalia to enforce the guaranty. Prior
to trial, Rosenthal Law Group successfully prevailed on a Motion for Summary
Judgment as to liability arguing, among other things, that the guaranty
contained a waiver of all liability defenses.
A non-jury trial on damages was conducted before the Honorable Abby Cynamon
on February 26 and 27, 2018. The case was tried by Alex Rosenthal and
Success in overturning longstanding precedent in En Banc Proceedings before
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. An appeal of summary judgment which resulted in an En Banc Argument before
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Ga which then overruled
more than 30 years of precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Until this case,
United States v. Stein, 881 F.3d 853 (11th Cir. 2018), the law in the Eleventh Circuit was that a taxpayer couldn’t
overcome the government’s presumption of correctness in a summary
judgment proceeding merely by filing a self-serving uncorroborated affidavit
in opposition. As a result of the Firm’s efforts on appeal, the
law of the land in the Eleventh Circuit is that the rules of summary judgment
apply the same to all litigants and all cases, and tax cases do not receive
special treatment. The Court held that “[w]e see no basis for imposing
a corroboration gloss on Rule 56 … and reaffirm that “even
in the absence of collaborative evidence, a plaintiff’s own testimony
may be sufficient to withstand summary judgment.” The Court went
on to hold that “[i]f corroboration is needed, then that requirement
must come from a source other than Rule 56, such as the substantive law
that governs the parties’ dispute or the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The impact of this ruling will be far-reaching in this Circuit and, perhaps,
others. Other than a single panel opinion in the Sixth Circuit Court of
Stein case is believed to be the only Federal Circuit Court opinion which has
held that a taxpayer can defeat summary judgment by filing an otherwise
admissible self-serving uncorroborated affidavit.
Summary judgment in favor of commercial property owner in a slip in fall case. It is a rare, challenging, feat to obtain summary judgment in a defendant’s
favor in a negligence action involving a slip and fall. However, this
is exactly what Rosenthal Law Group did when the Honorable Rodolfo Ruiz
of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit entered a sixteen-page Final Judgment
granting Rosenthal Law Group’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed
in favor of the defendant/landowner.
Prior to the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, plaintiff filed
an affidavit of her mother in an attempt to create a genuine issue of
material fact in order to prevent the entry of summary judgment. Relying
upon the arguments made by Rosenthal Law Group, the Court ultimately ruled
that the affidavit was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material
fact, and the entry of summary judgment was warranted.
Rosenthal Law Group argued that the plaintiff’s mother’s affidavit
contradicted plaintiff’s previous deposition testimony wherein plaintiff
testified that her mother had no personal knowledge of the conditions
of the room where plaintiff slipped and fell and, further, the affiant
provided no credible explanation for the discrepancy in the affidavit.
Based upon such, the Court found that plaintiff was precluded from relying
upon her mother’s affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary
judgment. Moreover, Rosenthal Law Group argued, and the Court agreed,
that the affidavit was also nevertheless insufficient because if the Court
were to rely upon it, the Court would be required to engage in an impermissible
stacking of inferences in order to create a factual issue. The judgment
was appealed by the plaintiff to the Third District Court of Appeal, but
no decisions have been made on appeal.
Judgment and Writ of Possession, affirmed on appeal, in favor of commercial
property owner against the tenant for failing to timely pay rent into
the court registry. Rosenthal Law Group was successful in swiftly obtaining possession of
leased premises for its client, the Landlord. In this case, on March 21,
2017, Landlord sought and obtained from the Court an Order requiring the
Tenant to pay accruing Rent into the Court Registry on or before the first
day of each month during the pendency of the eviction action.
The following month, April 1, 2017, happened to fall on a weekend and the
Tenant did not deposit the rent into the Court Registry until the following
Monday, on April 3, 2017. In accordance with the Court’s Order requiring
the timely payment of rent
on or before the first day of each month during the pendency of the eviction action, Landlord moved for a Final
Judgment of Possession. The Tenant filed a Memorandum in Opposition claiming
that the deadline fell on a weekend and should be extended to the following
Monday to which Landlord replied arguing that nothing required the Tenant
to wait until Saturday to pay the rent due when the order required it
be paid on or before the first day of the month. The Court agreed with
Landlord and entered a Final Judgment of Possession in favor of Landlord
stating “[t]he fact that April 1, 2017, fell on a weekend does not
extend the deposit date.”
Successful appeal affirming the amended judgment entered in favor of a
personal injury plaintiff against local taxi cab company. Rosenthal Law Group prevailed in an appeal before the Third District Court
of Appeal of an amended final judgment entered by the Circuit Court in
Miami-Dade County arising out of a vehicle accident involving a cab. The
underlying case was not handled by Rosenthal Law Group. However, after
the judgment was entered and a sanctions judgment was entered against
the defendant/judgment debtor, the plaintiff sought to amend the two judgments
to correct a scrivener’s error in the judgments. The judgments were
entered against Yellow Cab, Inc., even though the lawsuit was filed against
Yellow Cab Company. After the trial judge granted the motion to amend
the judgments, but long after the original underlying judgments were entered,
the defendant/judgment debtor appealed the sanctions judgment arguing
that the trial court lacked authority to enter sanctions in the case.
Rosenthal Law Group filed an Answer Brief on behalf of the plaintiff arguing
that the appeal was untimely. Because the time to appeal the sanctions
judgment was within thirty days of the original judgment, the mere fact
that a scrivener’s error in the party name was changed did not resuscitate
the time to appeal. A three-judge panel of the Third District Court of
Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal, leaving in place the underlying
Successfully obtained order compelling arbitration on behalf of the corporate
defendant of a personal injury claim against trampoline park. Rosenthal Law Group prevailed on a motion to compel arbitration and to
stay the pending action. In this case, plaintiff, a minor, through and
with his parents, brought suit against our client, an indoor trampoline
park for injuries allegedly sustained while jumping and flipping on defendant’s
trampolines. In order to gain access to defendant’s trampoline park,
plaintiff’s legal guardian was required to sign a waiver and release.
Rosenthal Law Group effectively asserted that said waiver and release
contained an enforceable mandatory arbitration clause.
In August 2017, the Honorable Lisa S. Walsh of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit
entered an order granting Rosenthal Law Group’s motion to compel
arbitration and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration administered
by JAMS pursuant to the terms of the waiver and release.
Successfully obtained order compelling arbitration of a commercial claim
against the firm’s client, a credit card processing, alleging various
business torts. Rosenthal Law Group prevailed on a motion to compel arbitration and to
stay the pending action. In this case, plaintiff and defendant entered
into a merchant card processing agreement that governed credit and debit
card processing services provided by defendant to the plaintiff. The merchant
agreement contained a broad and explicit arbitration clause which required
the parties to submit to binding arbitration in Colorado. In November
of 2016, plaintiffs improperly filed an action in Broward County, Florida
seeking to litigate its claims against defendant, in clear violation of
the terms of the agreement as all of the claims asserted against defendant
were based solely on conduct concerning or relating to the merchant agreement
and accordingly fell squarely under the merchant agreement’s broad
On March 28, 2017, the Honorable Brenda D. Forman of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit entered an order granting Rosenthal Law Group’s motion to
compel arbitration and to stay the action pending arbitration. Judge Forman
held that the dispute was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and
that the parties merchant agreement which stated that all disputes or
controversies concerning or relating to the merchant agreement be settled
through binding arbitration.
Successfully obtained order staying legal proceedings in Florida pending
prior filed action in New Jersey on behalf of the client. Rosenthal Law Group prevailed on a motion to stay proceedings in favor
of the first-filed lawsuit which was pending in a different state.
This case involved a dispute between two members of a New Jersey limited
liability company. The two members of the limited liability company were
in a dispute regarding the percentage of their respective membership interests
in the limited liability company. Additionally, each member accused the
other member of unlawfully misappropriating the limited liability company’s
assets. As a result of the dispute, our client filed a lawsuit against
the plaintiff in New Jersey – the first-filed action. A week later,
the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against our client in Florida – the
Rosenthal Law Group argued that because the issues in the subsequent-filed
action mirrored the issues in the first-filed action and because there
was substantial similarity between the parties and the actions, under
the principle of priority, the subsequent-filed action must stay pending
the outcome of the first-filed action.
On May 31, 2017, the Honorable Michael L. Gates of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit agreed with our position and entered an order granting Rosenthal
Law Group’s motion to stay proceedings in favor of the first-filed lawsuit.