Amanda Jassem Jones is an associate at Rosenthal Law Group, where she focuses her practice in the areas of commercial litigation and premises liability matters.
Prior to joining Rosenthal Law Group, she worked with Mr. Rosenthal since February 2009 at Reimer & Rosenthal, LLP. Ms. Jassem Jones also gained extensive trial experience while serving as an assistant state attorney for the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, where she was responsible for the prosecution of misdemeanor and felony crimes.
Ms. Jassem Jones received her Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, with honors, from the University of Florida in 2003, where she was a member of the Alpha Lambda Delta National Honor Society. Ms. Jassem Jones then received her Juris Doctorate, magna cum laude, from Stetson University in May of 2006 where she was the recipient of a full tuition merit scholarship. While in law school, Ms. Jassem Jones was an Associate on the Stetson Law Review and a member of the Moot Court Board, placing twice in an International Moot Court Competition. During law school, Ms. Jassem Jones interned for the Office of the Attorney General for Child Services and served as an intern for United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida Mary S. Scriven. Ms. Jassem Jones was also the recipient of the William F. Blews Pro Bono Service Award. In 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 Attorney Jones was recognized in the Florida Super Lawyers Rising Stars list, a distinction exclusive to young attorneys who have already demonstrated considerable prowess in their practice area.
Ms. Jassem Jones is licensed to practice law in Florida and is a member of :
- The Florida Bar
- United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
- United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
- 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Ms. Jassem Jones has been involved in handling trial and appellate issues before both state and federal courts, where she has assisted in obtaining several precedent setting decisions including:
- GFA International, Inc. v Eric Trillas and Trillas Consulting Engineers, 2021 WL 3889283, ---- So.3d ---- (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), a case involving the appeal of the denial of a motion for temporary injunction. The firm represented the employer, GFA International, who sued its former employee Eric Trillas and his company, Trillas Consulting Engineers, to enforce a non-competition and nonsolicitation agreement. The trial court denied the motion for temporary injunction. The firm appealed the denial to the Third District Court of Appeal. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the denial of the temporary injunction and ordered the trial court to enter the injunction. Notably, the appellate court rejected the argument that the employee did not have a legitimate business interest to enforce the non-competition to protect the line of business because the employee claimed to have brought the line of business to the employer. The court also rejected the argument, advanced by the employee and agreed to by the trial court, that the non-compete should not be enforced so the employee could keep his new job performing storm damage and engineering services during the pandemic. In support of reversing the trial court, the Third District Court of Appeals cited Florida’s non-compete statute, Section 542.335, which provides: “In determining the enforceability of a restrictive covenant, a court … [s]hall not consider any individualized economic or other hardship that might be caused to the person against whom enforcement is sought.”
- Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v Wolfson, 299 So.3d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), a case where the firm represented a plaintiff in the appeal of a $1.6 million verdict obtained by the firm’s client and final judgment in an underinsured motorist case. The insurer sought the reversal of the entire verdict. The appellate court affirmed the verdict and permitted the setoffs request by the insurer.
- Off the Wall & Gameroom LLC v. Gabbai, 301 So.3d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), a case involving the appeal of an order denying arbitration filed by the firm. In a case of first impression and with wide ranging ramifications, the court reversed the order denying arbitration and held that children who procure a contract by fraud are bound by the contract and cannot involve the “infancy defense” to avoid the contract. The court also confirmed that reasonable reliance is not required in a claim for fraud.
- Fields v. Toussie, 295 So.3d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), a case involving the appeal of a Writ of Bodily Attachment entered against a judgment debtor. Rosenthal Law Group represented the judgment creditor who domesticated a foreign judgment exceeding $8,000,000. The judgment debtor failed to comply with discovery in aid of execution and violated multiple court orders requiring discovery. The firm successfully obtained a writ of bodily attachment against the debtor. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the issuance of the writ of bodily attachment.
- United States v. Estelle Stein, 881 F.3d 853 (11th Cir. 2018), an en banc decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals overruling more than thirty years of precedent in the Eleventh Circuit which previously held that a taxpayer could not overcome the presumption of correctness in favor of the IRS to defeat a summary judgment motion solely by filing an uncorroborated self-serving affidavit. The Eleventh Circuit held that an otherwise admissible affidavit is sufficient to defeat summary judgment even though it is self-serving uncorroborated.
- Inside the Art of Craftmanship Corp. v. Design Center of the Americas, 237 SO.3d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), a case where the appellate court affirmed a final judgment of possession entered against a commercial tenant who failed to deposit rent into the court registry pending the resolution of the case even though the court was closed on the due date.
- Acquisition Trust Company, LLC v. Laurel Pinebrook, LLC, 226 So.3d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), reh. denied, a successful appeal of a trial court’s dismissal with prejudice without leave to amend in a case involving a claim of an improper exercise of a right of first refusal.
- Design Center of the Americas, LLC v. Mike Bell, Inc., 254 F. Supp.3d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2014), a case which clarified that a defendant cannot seek removal to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction if the amount in the complaint is not alleged to be more than $75,000 and the sole basis for the removal is the amount at issue in the defendant's counterclaim. The decision was the first published opinion in the Southern District of Florida that clarified the rule that the counterclaim is irrelevant when determining the amount in controversy in a removal setting.
- Maya v. Omnicare, Inc., 2010 WL 2889569 (S.D. Fla. 2010), a case which clarified that a defendant cannot seek removal to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction if the amount in controversy is merely based on speculation