Business Litigation

Published on: September 8, 2010

ATTORNEY PETER MAVRICK DEFENDED COMPANY ADVERTISING LAWSUIT

Peter Mavrick, a Fort Lauderdale lawyer, recently successfully defended a local company, Roadrunner Permit Processor, Inc., that was sued for receipt of allegedly unwanted advertising. However, the plaintiff also advertised its contact information in printed advertisements. Roadrunner contended that it did not violate any law because the printed advertisements constituted a solicitation for Roadrunner’s and other advertisements.

Before Roadrunner hired attorney Peter Mavrick, the plaintiff demanded payment of several thousand dollars. Despite the threat of further litigation, Roadrunner refused to pay that because it believed it did nothing wrong. In addition, Roadrunner contended that the lawsuit was without merit because the plaintiff never received the advertisements. Instead, another company received the advertisement at the same address.

Attorney Peter Mavrick argued at a hearing before a Broward County Judge that the initial lawsuit filed by the first company lacked merit. The Judge agreed. The Judge determined that Roadrunner was entitled to reimbursement of its legal expenses associated with the lawsuit, because the case lacked an adequate basis under the law. The same law firm that represented the original plaintiff, filed another lawsuit against Roadrunner asserting grounds similar to the first lawsuit. Eventually, the case settled with Roadrunner paying nothing to either of the plaintiffs. Roadrunner admitted no wrongdoing.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 8, 2010

ATTORNEY PETER MAVRICK DEFENDED COMPANY IN TRADE SECRET CASE

By Mavrick Law Firm

Peter Mavrick, a Fort Lauderdale lawyer, successfully defended a professional recruiting business for alleged theft of trade secrets. The case was venued in Circuit Court, and followed departure of certain key employees from a company who then started their own business.

Before hiring attorney Peter Mavrick, the client corporation tried to show the plaintiff corporation that no trade secrets were stolen and that there was no breach of Florida law. However, the plaintiff demanded that Mr. Mavrick’s client close its business entirely and pay thousands of dollars.

After court argument and several depositions, the evidence showed that there were no trade secrets because nothing was kept secret. The plaintiff never treated any of its alleged secrets as a “secret” until after it decided to sue its former employees’ corporation. For example, the alleged trade secrets were kept in the open for everyone to view, there were no protective measures to safeguard the alleged secrets, and the plaintiff never even told its employees the alleged trade secrets were even “secrets” that were required to be kept confidential. Attorney Peter Mavrick argued that the there could be no theft of trade secrets under Florida law when no measures existed to ensure secrecy ever existed before the plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed. In addition, Peter Mavrick argued that the alleged secrets would not qualify as trade secrets that meet the requirements of Florida law.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 8, 2010

ATTORNEY PETER MAVRICK RECENTLY RECOVERS FOR SUBCONTRACTOR

By Mavrick Law Firm

ATTORNEY PETER MAVRICK RECENTLY RECOVERED PAYMENT FOR SUBCONTRACTOR IN CONSTRUCTION CASE

Peter Mavrick, a Fort Lauderdale lawyer, recently recovered funds owed to his client, a construction subcontractor in a case venued in Palm Beach Circuit Court. The settlement was paid by a general contractor to attorney Peter Mavrick’s client, Scotti M. Glass & Mirror, Inc., a subcontractor that supplied labor and materials under a construction contract. Before hiring Peter Mavrick’s law office, the business had unsuccessfully sought payment for its services for several months.

An interesting aspect of the case was that fact that Scotti M. Glass & Mirror, Inc. had actually been a defendant in a previous case, and attorney Peter Mavrick represented the plaintiff in that case. After resolution of that case, the company asked Peter Mavrick about the possibility of representation in the construction collection case.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 8, 2010

FOURTH DCA OVERRULES WORK PRODUCT OBJECTIONS TO CONTENTION INTERROGATORIES

By Mavrick Law Firm

FOURTH DCA OVERRULES WORK PRODUCT OBJECTIONS TO CONTENTION INTERROGATORIES

Compelling meaningful responses to contention interrogatories seeking the basis for a party’s contentions in its complaint or affirmative defenses often meets mixed success. Until the Fourth DCA’s decision in Grinnell Corporation v. The Palms 2100 Ocean Boulevard, Ltd., 924 So.2d 887 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), trial court decisions were hampered by conflicting case law interpreting the reach of the work-product doctrine. Grinnell held that a litigant may be required in an interrogatory to specify the facts supporting a claim or defense. For example, where an interrogatory asks for “all facts supporting” a denial or affirmative defense, a litigant may not refuse to answer on the grounds that the interrogatory seeks disclosure of the attorney’s mental processes and is protected work-product beyond the scope of permissible discovery.

The Grinnell decision is important, especially because it overruled, en banc, an important aspect of prior Fourth DCA precedent in Gabriel v. Northern Trust Bank of Florida, 890 So.2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Gabriel had allowed a work product objection where a discovery request asked for documents that “relate or otherwise support” the “essential” allegations of the complaint, unless the attorney expects or intends to use the documents at trial. Grinnell overruled this point of law, commenting that such a broad construction of the work product doctrine “interferes with the essential function of the discovery process of narrowing issues for trial.”

Continue reading →