Close

Articles Posted in Business Litigation

Updated:

FORT LAUDERDALE BUSINESS LITIGATION: CLAIMS FOR CONVERSION AND CIVIL THEFT

Many business litigation cases assert claims for conversion and civil theft.  Under Florida law, and as explained by Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal in Ice v. Cosmopolitan Residences on South Beach, a Condominium Association, Inc., 237 So.3d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), conversion “is the exercise of wrongful dominion and…

Updated:

MIAMI BUSINESS LITIGATION: ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION OF A CONTRACT

Under Florida law, breach of contract by anticipatory repudiation allows the non-breaching party to terminate his own contract and then sue for damages.  The Supreme Court of Florida in Hospital Mortgage Group v. First Prudential Development Corp., 411 So.2d 181 (Fla. 1982), explained in pertinent part that, “[i]n dealing with…

Updated:

MIAMI BUSINESS LITIGATION: UNJUST ENRICHMENT CLAIMS AND THE “DIRECT BENEFIT” REQUIREMENT

Business litigation cases frequently assert claims of unjust enrichment that fail to satisfy the requirements of Florida law.  Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal in Gonzalez v. Eagle Insurance Co., 948 So.2d 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), explained that, “[a]t the core of the law of restitution and unjust enrichment…

Updated:

FORT LAUDERDALE NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS: LEGITIMATE BUSINESS INTERESTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act prohibits conspiracies unreasonably restraining trade. A group of competitors cannot enter agreements fixing prices or wages; rigging bids; or allocating customers, workers, or markets. 15 U.S.C. § 1. Consequently, exclusivity contracts and other restrictive covenants reducing competition may violate the Sherman Antitrust Act if they are…

Updated:

MIAMI BUSINESS LITIGATION: DEFENDING AGAINST CLAIMS ALLEGING DECEPTIVE OR UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, often called “FDUPTA,” prohibits certain deceptive and unfair trade practices.  In Bookworld Trade, Inc. v. Daughters of St. Paul, Inc., 532 F.Supp.2d 1350 (M.D. Fla. 2007), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida explained that “[a] deceptive practice is…

Updated:

FORT LAUDERDALE BUSINESS LITIGATION: COMPELLING AND RESISTING ARBITRATION

This article discusses the circumstances obligating parties in business litigation to arbitrate and when they can avoid arbitration.  “Arbitration is a preferred method of dispute resolution.” Obolensky v. Chatsworth as Wellington Green, 240 So. 3d 6 (quoting BallenIsles Country Club, Inc. v. Dexter Realty, 24 So. 3d 649, 652 (Fla.…

Updated:

MIAMI BUSINESS LITIGATION: FLORIDA AND FEDERAL CLAIMS FOR UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO COMPUTERS

Federal law and Florida law provide private causes of action for unauthorized access to computers. The federal law is called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and imposes civil liability on those who “intentionally access[ ] a computer without authorization or exceed[ ] authorized access.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2).…

Updated:

FORT LAUDERDALE BUSINESS LITIGATION: SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE AGAINST A TRADE SECRETS CLAIM AND RECOVERY OF LEGAL FEES

The Defend Trade Secrets Act (commonly called “DTSA”) is a federal law that prohibits trade secret misappropriation.  DTSA states, at 18 U.S.C. section 1836(a), that “[a]n owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated may bring a civil action under this subsection if the trade secret is related to a…

Updated:

MIAMI BUSINESS LITIGATION: CONTRACTUAL DISCLAIMERS OF FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT

Sellers and buyers have competing interests when negotiating a contract. One term sellers and buyers should consider when negotiating their purchase agreement is the fraudulent inducement disclaimer provision. These provisions can help sellers avoid or defeat lawsuits if the buyer develops “buyer’s remorse” after entering the agreement because the buyer…

Updated:

FORT LAUDERDALE BUSINESS LITIGATION: EQUITABLE TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS

The expiration of a non-compete period does not necessarily mean the covenant is unenforceable. A former employer may be able to enforce a non-compete against a former employee if the non-compete period expired and the non-compete period was tolled by the former employee’s violation of his restrictive covenant. Restrictive covenants,…

Contact Us