In what’s a more recurrent pattern in South Florida, defendant’s attorneys continue to use the sanction process as a tactic, to intimidate consumer plaintiffs, and sometimes, even their attorneys.
Under Florida Statutes 57.105, an attorney himself—not only the client—can be liable for attorneys fees in a case if the Court considers that the action was not supported by material facts, or then-existing law. It is not uncommon in South Florida for defense attorneys to try to intimidate, especially young lawyer-litigants, using (and abusing) the 57.105 device.
In the present case, even though the Defendant had already obtained fees against Ayala’s client—albeit uncollectible—the corporation sought fees, via Florida Statutes 57.105, against Ayala’s attorneys.
The motions for fees (two of them) were referred to a magistrate judge who denied them both at a three-hour evidentiary hearing. The Defendant corporation, challenged the magistrate judge’s decision to the circuit court main judge in the case who, on July 29, 2022, affirmed the magistrate’s rulings.
As stated by attorney Eduardo A. Maura: “We expect this defendant—and this attorney—to appeal this ruling to the Third DCA. They are simply obsessed. This is the type of corporation that thinks it can do no wrong; “how dare you sue me” type of entity. We will continue to defeat these frivolous motions because in the US, the judicial system works.”
For more information about commercial and civil litigation in Florida contact an experienced litigation attorney in Miami at 305-570-2208.
You can also email trial attorney Eduardo A. Maura at email@example.com.
You can also scheduled a case evaluation online at https://www.lawayala.com/