Modern building.Modern office building with facade of glass
Representing Businesses and Business Owners Contact Us Now!
Justia Lawyer Rating
Published on:

By

A cause of action for replevin is a valuable tool to recover property that is wrongfully retained by another. For businesses, replevin can be useful in recovering company property that a former employee or business partner wrongfully possesses and refuses to return. “[R]eplevin is a possessory statutory action at law in which the main issue is the right to immediate possession and the gist of the action is the wrongful detention of the property . . . .” Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church v. City of Miami Beach, 376 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

In an action for replevin, the “sole legal issue is the right of immediate possession, not ownership or title.” Williams Management Enterprises, Inc. v. Buonauro, 489 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). It also does not matter whether the defendant acquired possession to the property rightfully or wrongfully. The question is whether the defendant’s retention of the property is unlawful. Brown v. Reynolds, 872 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). The property that can be recovered in an action for replevin is limited to tangible property that can be specifically identified and manually seized. Williams Management Enterprises, Inc. v. Buonauro, 489 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Money may not be seized in an action for replevin because money is fungible and can be commingled, rendering it incapable of specific identification.  

Chapter 78, Florida Statutes, sets out the procedures for an action of replevin. According to section 78.055, Florida Statutes, a plaintiff must commence the action by filing a detailed complaint alleging a description of the property, that the plaintiff is the owner of the property or entitled to possession of it, the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, and the means by which the defendant came into possession thereof. Fla. Stat. § 78.055. The court must then issue an order to show cause to the defendant to explain why the property should not be taken from the defendant and delivered to the plaintiff. The court will schedule a hearing within five days after the order the served on the defendant and the court which party is entitled to possession of the property at that hearing. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the clerk of courts is required to issue a writ of replevin mandating the sheriff to seize the property.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

An employer should take care to understand its legal responsibilities if it has a pregnant employee because several laws prevent an employer from discriminating against that employee. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) prohibit employers from discriminating against pregnant employees. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may also prohibit employers from discriminating against pregnant employees because pregnancy-related impairments can qualify as an ADA disability under certain circumstances. The ADA requires employers to provide pregnant employees with a reasonable accommodation that allows them to perform their essential job functions. These anti-discrimination laws can be complicated and involve subtle nuance. Even well-informed and well-intentioned employers unknowingly violate these laws. The Miami business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

An employee must prove the employer treated similarly situated employees outside the relevant protected class more favorably to state a claim for employment discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 US 792 (1973). That said, an employer is not required to provide a reasonable accommodation to a disabled employee until the employee makes a specific demand for a reasonable accommodation. Gaston v. Bellingrath Gardens & Home, Inc., 167 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 1999). The employer does not have to provide the employee’s preferred accommodation. Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2000). An employer must, however, engage in an interactive process with the employee to identify and agree upon a reasonable accommodation after the employee makes a specific demand for a reasonable accommodation.

Harrigan v. Diaz, Anselmo & Associates, P.A., Case No. 21-CV-62115 (S.D. Fla.), provides a good example for how an employer can comply with the various legal requirements associated with pregnant employees. The plaintiff in Harrigan worked as a human resources manager at a law firm. She claimed that, while working for the law firm, she became pregnant and requested to work from home as an accommodation for pregnancy related complications. The law firm rejected the request and required the plaintiff to continue working in the office. However, the law firm offered the plaintiff a reduced work schedule. Sometime thereafter, the law firm terminated the plaintiff after she give birth citing poor work performance as the reason for termination. The plaintiff sued the law firm for discrimination and asserted claims under Title VII, the FCRA, and the ADA.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

It is common for businesses to enter into vendor-customer relationships with other business. One business might regularly purchase a product or service with another business. In exchange, the vendor will periodically invoice the customer for the product or service. If the customer stops paying the invoices, or otherwise accumulates a large debt in arrears, Florida law provides the vendor with certain ability for recourse. While the vendor might traditionally sue for breach of contract, the other causes of action like account stated and open account could also be available. The Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

“Actions for an account stated and an open account are two distinct causes of action requiring different burdens of proof.” South Motor Co. of Dade County v. Accountable Const. Co., 707 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). An account stated is “an agreement between persons who have had previous transactions, fixing the amount due in respect to such transactions and promising payment.” To establish a cause of action for account stated, a plaintiff must prove there was an agreement that a certain balance is correct and due, and an express or implicit promise to pay that balance. Carpenter Contractors of America, Inc. v. Fastener Corp. of America, Inc., 611 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

An implicit promise could occur when a party fails to object to an invoice within a reasonable time. Robert C. Malt & Co. v. Kelly Tractor Co., 518 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). “When a debtor has been issued an account statement and the debtor fails to object in a reasonable time, it is presumed that the account is correct and the debtor is liable.” Burt v. Hudson & Keyse, LLC, 138 So. 3d 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). “However, the failure to object only becomes an implied agreement when the plaintiff establishes that it had a practice of periodic billing in the regular course of dealing with the defendant.” Florida case law provides little guidance on what constitutes a reasonable time. Therefore, reasonable time likely depends on the factors of the particular case.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Indemnity is an important tool for businesses to cover their expenses in litigation should the need arise. Indemnity is a duty to cover the losses, damages, or liability of another. A claim for indemnity often arises when a party is forced to litigate a matter due to the actions of another party. You can imagine a scenario where slip and fall accident occurred in a store and the store owner sold the business. If the accident victim sued the store, the buyer of the store may be able to assert a claim for indemnity against the store seller because it was the accident occurred while the seller was in charge of the store. The buyer might sue to seller for the damages it has to pay the accident victim plus all the attorney’s fees and costs it had to spend defending itself in the slip-and-fall lawsuit.

There are two types of indemnity; contractual indemnity and common law indemnity. In contractual indemnity, a contract between two parties will contain an indemnity clause obligating one party to indemnify the other party or both parties to indemnify each other. These provisions are common in business contracts but their actual terms can vary greatly. An indemnity provision might require the indemnitor (the party required to indemnify) to indemnify the indemnitee (the party to be indemnified) only for legal expenses caused by the indemnitor’s own fault. Other provisions might require the indemnitor to indemnify the indemnitee for legal expenses caused by either the indemnitor’s or indemnitee’s fault. It may seem strange that the law allows an indemnitee to recover damages resulting from his or her own conduct, but in Florida, these sweeping provisions are valid so long as they “clearly and unequivocally express[es] the intent to indemnity for indemnitee’s own negligence.” University Plaza Shopping Center v. Stewart, 272 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 1973). The Miami business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

It is possible to seek indemnity against another without an indemnity provision by asserting a claim for common law indemnity. In Florida, a plaintiff must prove (1) the party seeking indemnity is without fault and its liability is solely vicarious for the wrongdoing of another, and (2) the party against whom indemnity is sought must be wholly at fault. Heapy Engineering, LLP v. Pure Lodging, Ltd., 849 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). In addition, there must be a “special relationship” between the indemnitee and the indemnitor. Houdaille Industries, Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1979). These special relationships are not well defined but have included vicariously, constructively, derivatively, or technically liable for the wrongful acts.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Federal Trade Commission’s rule banning most non-compete agreements is now before a federal appellate court. On May 7, 2024, the FTC proposed a rule that would have banned most non-compete agreements. This rule would have substantially impacted many businesses because non-compete agreements are used to prohibit employees from using the company’s information to compete after leaving. The rule was scheduled to go into effect on September 4, 2024. However, on August 15, 2024, the court in Properties of the Villages, Inc. v. FTC,  2024 WL 3870380 (M.D. Fla, Aug. 15, 2024), issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the FTC from enforcing the rule against the plaintiff. Several days later, on August 20, 2024, the court in Ryan LLC v. FTC, 2024 WL 3879954 (N.D. Tex., Aug. 20, 2024), issued a national permanent injunction against the rule. It was only a matter of an appellate court ruled on the matter. Properties of the Villages was appealed on September 24, 2024, to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and Ryan LLC was appealed on October 18, 2024 to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The FTC has since filed its Initial Brief in Properties of the Villages. The Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

In Properties of the Villages, the district court primarily issued the injunction based on the “major questions doctrine.” This doctrine requires government agencies like the FTC to identify “clear congressional authorization for the power it claims” when an agency claims to have the power to issue rules of “extraordinary … economic and political significance.” Courts consider a list of non-exhaustive factors to determine whether the doctrine applies such as whether the rule in question affects a significant portion of the economy, regulates in an area that has previously been the domain of state law, and is a consequential expansion of regulatory authority. In applying these factors to the non-compete ban, the district court found the rule will affect a significant portion of the economy because, based on the FTC’s own estimates, the rule will cause employers to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in additional wages. The district court also found that the FTC rule would preempt state laws that have traditionally governed non-compete agreements, and found that the rule is a significant expansion of the FTC’s authority. As a result, major questions doctrine applied and an injunction was granted because it determined Congress did not provide the FTC clear authorization to enact the rule.

The district court in Ryan LLC reached the same result through a different analysis. The court in Ryan LLC granted an injunction against the FTC based on statutory interpretation of the FTC Act. Sections 5 and 6 of the FTC Act were analyzed, and it was ultimately determined they did not provide the FTC authority to create substantive rules such as the non-compete ban. The Ryan LLC court also found the rule to be arbitrary and capricious. Properties of the Villages rejected both of these bases for issuing an injunction because the district court in Properties of the Villages determined the FTC Act provided the FTC substantive rulemaking authority, and the rule was not arbitrary and capricious.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Many employers attempt to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and treat all employees equally based on their protected statuses. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on race, color, sex, religion, and national origin. Notwithstanding, employers sometimes have to contend with unmeritorious Title VII lawsuits filed by unscrupulous employees or former employees. A common defense in these Title VII lawsuits is that the employee or former employee was not subjected to an adverse employment action. Employers commonly assert this defense because the employee or former employee is required to prove an adverse employment action to establish a prima facie discrimination case. In other words, the employee or former employee has the initial burden to prove he or she was subjected to an adverse employment before the employer is required the remaining parts of the employee’s or former employee’s claim. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The Miami business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

For many years, employees had to demonstrate adverse employment action by showing that an employer’s action created a “serious and material” change to the terms of employment. Davis v. Town of Lake Park, Fla., 245 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2001). This standard helped employers defeat Title VII claims when employees brought claims involving unsubstantial adverse employment action. However, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 601 U.S. 346 (2024), changed the standard, which makes it more difficult for employers.

Muldrow involved a Title VII claim by a police officer who alleged her transfer to another division within the police department was sex-based discrimination. The officer worked in a plainclothes unit specializing in intelligence. She had FBI credentials, a take-home vehicle, and the authority to pursue investigations outside of the city. A new supervisor requested that the officer be transferred out of the intelligence division and was replaced by a male officer.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Purchasing a business can be a complicated matter. Multiple documents such as contracts promissory notes, and financial schedules may can obligate the parties in different ways during the sales process. Sometimes a business sale goes bad. Maybe the buyer or seller wants to back out or a party does not comply with its contractual obligations. These circumstances can often result in litigation. The Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

An example of a business sale gone bad that devolved into litigation is North Bay Green Investments, LLC v. Cold Pressed Raw Holdings, LLC, 388 So. 3d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024). Two companies entered into a joint venture to create and operate an organic juice business. The companies established a separate holding company for the joint venture, with each company owning 50% of the holding company. The two companies later decided to end the joint venture and separate their businesses. They then entered into a series of contracts to govern the separation. Among these contracts was an agreement in which one company would purchase the other company’s shares in the holding company. The two companies entered into a promissory note in which the purchasing company agreed to pay $200,000 to the selling company. The purchasing company was to make an initial payment of $25,000, then pay the remainder through quarterly installments of $25,000. The principal of the purchasing company also signed the promissory note in a personal capacity.

After entering into the promissory note, the selling company transferred its assets in the holding company to the purchasing company. The purchasing company then made the initial $25,000 payment, but did not make any additional payments. The selling company then filed a lawsuit against the purchasing company and its principal, alleging various claims of breach of contract. The purchasing company filed various counterclaims, including fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, rescission of the contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The primary claim in the counterclaims was that the selling company failed to transfer certain assets to the purchasing company as part of the sale.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Trademarks are important for every business. Business names, logos, and symbols are important for the public to be able to identify the business and can help build and maintain goodwill in the business. Businesses want to protect their trademarks from infringement, and that might include pursuing litigation against an infringer. If a business successfully prevails in trademark litigation, several remedies are available, including an injunction, and damages for actual loss or disgorgement of profits that the infringer obtained from unlawfully using the trademark. Could a business even obtain the profits of the infringer’s affiliates, and does that involve piercing the corporate veil? That is the question that the Supreme will address in Dewberry Engineers Inc., v. Dewberry Group, Inc., Case No. 23-900. The Miami business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

This case is an appeal from a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Dewberry Engineers Inc. v. Dewberry Group, Inc., 77 F.4th 265 (4th Cir. 2023). The case involved two real estate development companies litigating over the use of the term “Dewberry” in their names. The plaintiff, Dewberry Engineers Inc. owned trademarks with the Dewberry name and claimed that the defendant, Dewberry Group, Inc., was infringing on those trademarks. After filing suit, the district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff. The court then held an evidentiary hearing regarding damages, and ultimately awarded the plaintiff about $42 million in damages. The district court based this damage award on a disgorgement of profits from the defendant.  However, the defendant argued it did not have any of its own profits. The defendant only provided administrative services to its various affiliates, which had common ownership with the defendant. The defendant’s affiliates were the business entities that actually in the profit-generating activities. The affiliates also were not named defendants in the lawsuit. Nonetheless, the district court accounted for the profits of the defendant’s affiliates in awarding the $42 million judgment to the plaintiff.

On appeal before the Fourth Circuit, the defendant argued the district court erred by considering the the profits of its affiliates without making a finding of piercing the corporate veil to reach those affiliates. However, the Fourth Circuit rejected this argument and affirmed the judgment. The Fourth Circuit reasoned the district court did not need to pierce the veil because it simply “considered the revenues of entities under common ownership with Dewberry Group in calculating Dewberry Group’s true financial gain from its infringing activities that necessarily involved those affiliates.”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Sometimes business deals result in disagreements between business partners about the direction of the business.  This includes cases where a business partner acts improperly by trying to usurp control of the business and oust or “freeze-out” other partners.  An example of this occurred in recent case filed in Pennsylvania, Harvey v. Tidemark Partners 1 LP. On October 10, 2024, a chef filed a Complaint against the partnership and his business partner claiming that his business partner improperly usurped control of the business, terminated the chef, and failed to pay the chef.  The Fort Lauderdale business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration

According to the Complaint in Harvey, the chef and the business partner entered into a limited partnership agreement in 2019 to open a food hall. A food hall is an establishment where several chefs sell their food in an auditorium setting. The partner would be the primary financier of the business and the chef would manage the day-to-day operations of the food hall as the director of operations. The chef also made cash contributions to the business totaling $215,000, and obtained a loan of $100,000 for the business. The chef then spent the following five years preparing to open the food hall, including organizing, preparing plans, obtaining permits, completing regulatory compliance, hiring employees, arranging for chefs to become tenants at the food hall. He was not compensated for these activities, believing that, pursuant to the partnership agreement, he would be compensated with a share of profits after the food hall opened.

However, things went south in 2024. The partner began to assert more control of the business and usurped the chef’s duties as Director of Operations. This caused disputes between the chef and the partner. The chef claims that, in June 2024, his business partner gave him an ultimatum to sign an amendment to the partnership agreement that substantially changed the terms of the agreement or be terminated. The chef signed the amendment, which reduced his role to Operations Manager, was to receive an LPA distribution share of 23.7% if he remained the Operations Manager through the remainder of 2024, which would then decline to 14.04% on January 1, 2025. He was also entitled to receive a minimum salary of $75,0000 and an allotment of profits from his equity share that exceeded $75,000.00. Yet, shortly after signed this amendment, the partner and the partnership terminated him.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Restrictive covenants, such as  non-solicitation and non-compete agreements, are important tools for businesses to protect their business interests. Restrictive covenants are enforceable if they are reasonable in time, geographic area, line of business, and supported by a “legitimate business interest.” Fla. Stat. § 542.335. Florida Statutes section 542.335 contains a non-exhaustive list of legitimate business interests that could support a restrictive covenant, which include the protection of trade secrets, valuable confidential business information, substantial relationships with specific prospective and existing customers, patients, or clients, and customer or client goodwill. But what is a “substantial business interest” with a customer? The Miami business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

A business must plead and prove “the identity of specific customers and the substantially of the relationship with those customers” to establish the legitimate business interest legal requirement. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alfieri, 23 F.4th 1282 (11th Cir. 2022). In Evans v. Generic Solution Engineering, LLC, 178 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015), the appellate court reversed a trial court order that granted a preliminary injunction enforcing a restrictive covenant against a former employee because the business failed to prove the existence of substantial relationships with customers. The restrictive covenant prohibited the former employee from providing services to customers of the business. After the former employee left and formed a competitive company, the business sued. The business argued the former employee was providing services to a specific former customer of the business, and the trial court granted a preliminary injunction. However, the appellate court reversed. The appellate court reasoned that the business failed to prove substantial relationships with customers because the former customer did not have an exclusive relationship with the business. The former customer often used competitors. As a result, the business had no reasonable expectation that the customers would continue to obtain services from the business in the future. Likewise, in Anich Industries, Inc. v. Raney, 751 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), the court also found that a business failed to prove substantial relationships with customers when customers had no exclusivity relationship with the business.

Although the Evans and Anich decisions were based on the absence substantial relationships due to a lack of exclusivity, Environmental Services, Inc. v. Carter, 9 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) was decided a similar issue differently. In Environmental Services, Inc., the court stated that exclusivity was not required to have substantial relationships with customers. The court determined substantial business relationships existed where a company “was attempting to protect established relationships with identifiable clients with whom it either had current projects of ongoing relationships.” The juxtaposition of these cases demonstrate the decision on whether substantial business relationships concerning customers often involves construing the likelihood that the customer will continue conducting business with the employer and whether the customer/business relationship is exclusive.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
Fort Lauderdale Office
1620 W Oakland Park Blvd
#300
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311
Phone: 954-564-2246
Miami Office
2 S Biscayne Blvd
#3760-A
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305-570-4042
We serve clients throughout Florida including those in the following localities: Broward County including Coral Springs, Deerfield Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, Pembroke Pines, and Weston; Miami-Dade County including Aventura, Coral Gables, Country Club, Doral, Kendall, Key Biscayne, Miami, North Miami, and South Miami Heights; and Palm Beach County including Boca Del Mar, Boca Raton, Delray Beach, Greenacres, Jupiter, Loxahatchee, North Palm Beach, Palm Beach, Palm Beach Gardens, Royal Palm Beach, Wellington, and West Palm Beach.

Fort Lauderdale Business Lawyer - Miami, Florida Non Compete Litigation Attorney - Mavrick Law Firm

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2017 – 2024, Mavrick Law Firm
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design