Articles Posted in Business Litigation

MIAMI BUSINESS LITIGATION: PREVAILING PARTY RECOVERY OF LEGAL EXPENSE
Mavrick Law Firm

We recently wrote articles on a litigant’s ability to recover prevailing party attorney’s fees under the American Rule. The Rule prohibits attorney’s fees unless they are authorized by statutes or by a contract provision. Q.H. v. Sunshine State Health Plan, Inc., 305 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“Under the American rule, a court…

Continue reading ›
FORT LAUDERDALE NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS: SOLICITATION REQUIRES PROACTIVE ACT
Mavrick Law Firm

Restrictive covenants, such a non-compete and non-solicitation 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. Legitimate business interests can include protection of substantial relationships with specific…

Continue reading ›
MIAMI BUSINESS LITIGATION: CONTRACTUAL ATTORNEY’S FEES PROVISIONS DO NOT ALWAYS ALLOW RECOVERY
Mavrick Law Firm

Earlier this week we explored the American Rule and its prohibitions against recovering attorney’s fees unless a contractual provision or statute permits the prevailing party to recover those attorney’s fees. We also explored two difficulties that can arise when a party seeks to recover his or her attorney’s fees under a statute. The first difficulty…

Continue reading ›
FORT LAUDERDALE BUSINESS LITIGATION: PREVAILING PARTY ATTORNEY’S FEES ARE NOT GUARANTEED
Mavrick Law Firm

Recovering attorney’s fees is governed by the American Rule. This rule generally prohibits a party from recovering his or her attorney’s fees unless the fees are expressly permitted pursuant to a contract, statue, or rule. Q.H. v. Sunshine State Health Plan, Inc., 305 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“Under the American rule, a…

Continue reading ›
FORT LAUDERDALE BUSINESS LITIGATION: CLASS ACTION WAIVERS
Mavrick Law Firm

Class actions are generally large lawsuits involving many plaintiffs bringing the same claims against the same defendant. These lawsuits can arise in a number of scenarios including employer/employee relationships. See Calderone v. Scott, 838 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 2016) (employees brought a class action lawsuit against their employer for violating Florida minimum wage laws). The…

Continue reading ›
MIAMI BUSINESS LITIGATION: IRREPARABLE INJURY IS PRESUMED WHEN A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS VIOLATED
Mavrick Law Firm

A plaintiff seeking permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court can rule it is entitled to an injunction. A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance…

Continue reading ›
FORT LAUDERDALE BUSINESS LITIGATION: LAWSUITS FOR ACCOUNTING
Mavrick Law Firm

A claim of accounting is a useful tool to trace funds or establish claims and liabilities in a fiduciary relationship. To obtain an equitable accounting, the plaintiff must prove the following elements: a fiduciary relationship exists between the parties or the transaction at issue is complex, and (2) the remedy at law is inadequate. Tracfone…

Continue reading ›
MIAMI BUSINESS LITIGATION: TRADE SECRETS AND FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES
Mavrick Law Firm

“Parties to a contract may stipulate to a particular forum in which to resolve future disputes.” Rudman v. Numismatic Guar. Corp. of Am., 298 So. 3d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). These clauses are known as forum selection clauses and presumed to be valid unless the party resisting enforcement can demonstrate the clause is unjust…

Continue reading ›
MIAMI BUSINESS LITIGATION: CONTRACT INDEMNITY AND “HOLD HARMLESS” COVENANTS
Mavrick Law Firm

Indemnity and hold harmless agreements are powerful tools that require the other party to the agreement to cover losses and expenses of the indemnitee. A hold harmless agreement is a type of indemnification agreement. “The term ‘hold harmless’ means to fully compensate the indemnitee for all loss or expense, and an agreement to hold harmless…

Continue reading ›
FORT LAUDERDALE BUSINESS LITIGATION: RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS MUST BE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO PROTECT
Mavrick Law Firm

A party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant must plead and prove the existence of at least one legitimate business interest justifying enforcement of the restrictive covenant. Fla. Stat. § 542.335. That same party must also “plead and prove that the contractually specified restraint is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interest or interests…

Continue reading ›

Client Testimonials

A few months ago our company was in need of a Labor Law Attorney and we were very lucky to have found Peter Mavrick. He is a great attorney, he maneuvered through a rather complex Employers Liability case advocating against the opposition and protecting our company and personal interests. He was...

C.Y.

Peter Mavrick successfully defended our company in a federal court jury trial. The jury ruled our way in a lawsuit by a person claiming our company owed him overtime wages. Mr. Mavrick “out-lawyered” the opposing lawyer and handled the case like our company was his own family’s business.

Business owner Arthur P.

For years, Mr. Mavrick has provided sound advice to my business and he provided excellent representation in a business lawsuit. He is highly responsive and his legal knowledge, skill, and advice are excellent.

Business owner Preston M.

Peter Mavrick successfully defended my company and me in a non-competition covenant lawsuit that sought an injunction that would have effectively shut down my business. Mr. Mavrick energetically handled the case like it was his own. He got the case dismissed with no liability and saved the business...

Business owner Kevin W.

Contact Us

Fill out the contact form or call us at 954-564-2246 or 305-570-4042 to schedule your consultation.

Leave Us a Message