We recently secured an important post-trial victory for our client in a Florida business litigation matter after the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County denied the opposing party’s Motion for New Trial and Rehearing.

Our attorneys Eduardo A. Maura, Orestes D. Garcia, and Gabriel Sierra represented the client throughout the litigation and post-trial proceedings.

The ruling is significant because obtaining a jury verdict is not always the end of a commercial lawsuit. Even after trial, the losing or dissatisfied party may ask the judge to set aside portions of the verdict and conduct a new trial. Here, the Plaintiff attempted to do exactly that, and the Court denied the request.

What Happened?

The case involved claims arising from the purchase of a CNC saw used in the stone-fabrication industry. The matter proceeded to a three-day jury trial in August 2026. By the time the case went to the jury, the remaining claims included negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

On the breach-of-contract claim, the Court entered a directed verdict concerning $34,723 associated with the trade-in machine. The jury was then asked to determine whether additional damages should be awarded. Although the jury found a contractual breach, it awarded zero additional damages on that claim.

The Plaintiff subsequently moved for a new trial and rehearing under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530, arguing that the zero-damages verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and legally inadequate.

Can You Get a New Trial After a Florida Jury Verdict?

A party dissatisfied with a jury’s decision may file a motion for new trial under Florida law, but filing the motion does not mean the case will automatically be tried again.

Among other grounds, a party may contend that a verdict is against the “manifest weight of the evidence” or that a damages award is legally inadequate. The important distinction is that a motion for new trial is not simply an opportunity to retry arguments that the jury already considered.

In opposing the motion, the defense emphasized that weighing conflicting evidence and determining witness credibility are traditionally functions of the jury. The defense argued that the Plaintiff had not established clear and undisputed additional damages that required setting aside the jury’s determination.

What Happens When a Business Cannot Prove Its Damages at Trial?

This case also illustrates an important lesson for businesses involved in Florida breach of contract litigation: proving that something went wrong is not necessarily the same as proving recoverable monetary damages.

The Plaintiff argued that it had suffered additional losses involving financing payments, employee wages, equipment downtime, and allegedly affected jobs. The defense responded that much of the claimed additional damages lacked documentary or sufficiently definite monetary support and that the trial evidence was disputed.

That distinction can become critical at trial. A business seeking contract damages generally must present evidence that allows the factfinder to connect the alleged breach to a legally recoverable and sufficiently established financial loss.

Why Are Motions for New Trial Important in Florida Commercial Litigation?

A favorable trial result may still require substantial post-trial litigation. Motions for new trial can seek another opportunity to litigate damages, challenge the jury’s evaluation of the evidence, or alter an otherwise favorable result.

For businesses defending these motions, the response often requires careful examination of the trial record, the evidence actually introduced, the jury instructions, and whether the moving party is attempting to obtain another opportunity to prove damages it did not sufficiently establish at trial.

The defense argued precisely that principle, contending that a party that failed to establish its claimed additional damages at trial should not receive a second opportunity to do so through a new trial.

Broward County Court Denies the Motion for New Trial

On September 24, 2026, Circuit Judge Daniel A. Casey entered an order denying the Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial and Rehearing. The Court’s order confirms that it considered both the Plaintiff’s motion and the defense’s opposition before denying the requested relief. The order leaves intact the trial result challenged by the Plaintiff and represents another significant litigation result for Ayala Law. Litigation Litigation Litigation

For Florida businesses, the case is also a reminder that successful litigation strategy does not end when the jury leaves the courtroom. Effective representation requires protecting a client’s position through trial, post-trial motions, and, when necessary, appellate proceedings.

Need legal help? Please don’t hesitate to contact one of our experienced attorneys at 305-570-2208. 

You can also contact our team directly at: arianna@ayalalawpa.com                       

Schedule a case evaluation online here.

[The opinions in this blog are not intended to be legal advice. You should consult with an attorney about the particulars of your case].

We secured an important appellate victory for our client after the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a final judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

At the center of the appeal was a fundamental issue of Florida lien law: when a lien exists only because a statute creates it, the party seeking to enforce that lien must strictly comply with the requirements of that statute.

Representing the appellant, Eduardo A. Maura, Esq., and Luis Quesada of Ayala Law successfully challenged enforcement of a statutory lien after showing that the required statutory notice was not provided on time.

Why Strict Compliance Matters in Florida Lien Law

Liens can give businesses powerful legal rights over property, but those rights are not unlimited. In this case, the Fourth DCA emphasized that a towing-storage operator’s lien is purely statutory. Because the lien does not arise under common law, it can only be created and enforced when the requirements of the statute are followed.

The court relied on established Florida law holding that liens that are “purely creatures of statute” require strict compliance with the statutes from which they derive.

That principle has implications well beyond the particular circumstances of this case. When a business claims a statutory lien against property, the question is not simply whether the business believes it is owed money. The legal requirements for creating and enforcing the lien must also be satisfied.

Florida Lien Notice Requirements Can Determine Whether a Lien Is Enforceable

Florida Statute § 713.78 establishes requirements governing certain liens for towing and storage charges. 

Among those requirements is a notice provision requiring the towing-storage operator to provide notice to the registered owner within five business days after the vehicle is stored. The statute also provides that failing to make good-faith efforts to comply with the notice requirements can prevent storage charges from being imposed against the vehicle.

In this case, the vehicle was stored on October 16, 2024. The required notice was not sent until October 26, 2024, outside the five-business-day period required by the statute. 

The appellate court determined that this failure meant the operator had not strictly complied with the statutory notice requirements.

The Court Rejected the Idea That Notice Is Just a Technicality

The Fourth DCA made an important point: the notice requirements are mandatory, not discretionary.

The purpose of the notice is substantive. It gives a property owner the opportunity to understand that charges have been incurred, that a lien is being claimed against the property, and that the lienholder may ultimately attempt to enforce the lien through a sale if the charges remain unpaid.

In other words, statutory notice can be much more than paperwork, but a critical part of determining whether a lien can legally be enforced.

Ayala Law Successfully Obtains Reversal

Because the required notice was not timely provided, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the final judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

For our attorneys, the decision represents another example of why careful attention to statutory requirements matters in litigation. A seemingly small procedural requirement can have significant consequences when someone’s property rights are at stake. Appellate Appellate Appellate Appellate Appellate Appellate Appellate

Attorney Eduardo A. Maura remarked, “Statutory liens carry significant legal consequences, but the right to enforce a lien comes with statutory requirements. This decision reinforces the importance of examining whether those requirements have actually been satisfied before a lien is enforced against someone’s property.”

What This Florida Lien Decision Means for Property Owners and Businesses

The decision is a useful reminder for anyone dealing with a disputed lien: do not assume that a lien is enforceable simply because another party claims one exists.

Whether a lien is valid and enforceable can depend on the statute creating it, the requirements imposed by that statute, and whether those requirements were actually followed. For businesses, property owners, investors, and others involved in disputes over property and statutory liens, these details can become central to the outcome of a case.

At Ayala Law, our litigation attorneys handle complex disputes involving property rights, liens, commercial disputes, and enforcement of legal rights. When a lien is being asserted against valuable property, understanding the statutory basis for that lien and whether the requirements were followed can make all the difference.

Need legal help? Please don’t hesitate to contact one of our experienced attorneys at 305-570-2208. 

You can also contact our team directly at: arianna@ayalalawpa.com                    

Schedule a case evaluation online here.

[The opinions in this blog are not intended to be legal advice. You should consult with an attorney about the particulars of your case].

We just filed a lawsuit alleging over $1.5 million in losses for our client. The case alleges that the defendant, a Delaware company, misled our client regarding the potential returns of this crypto fund.

As alleged in the complaint, the defendants, taking advantage of the plaintiffs’ lack of knowledge of the cryptocurrency market, confidently promised the plaintiffs that they could easily beat the market by using their “three-fund strategy deployment.”

Moreover, the defendants made representations of the “excellent” past performance that would easily be repeated in the future. After repeated pitches to our clients, the defendants stated that the funds presented in the decks were the DNA Liquid Token fund (the “Main Fund”), High Yield LP fund (the “High Yield”), and Moonshot LP Fund I (“Moonshot”).

Relying on all these representations, the plaintiffs agreed to invest a total of $1.5 million. Cryptocurrency Cryptocurrency Cryptocurrency Cryptocurrency Cryptocurrency

Contrary to initial representations, the defendants unilaterally redirected all $1.5 million to the defendant’s Main Fund, never implementing the three-fund strategy discussed. Rather than making a return on their money, the plaintiffs’ funds shrank to less than $700,000.

As stated by attorney Eduardo A. Maura, “It is a classic case of abusive investment companies overpromising to obtain funds from wealthy individuals to then engage in reckless, if not fraudulent, investment practices resulting in the disappearance of funds. We will strongly seek redress for our clients.”

If you or someone you know needs legal assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact one of our experienced trial attorneys at 305-570-2208.

You can also contact our team directly at: arianna@ayalalawpa.com       

Schedule a case evaluation online here.

[The opinions in this blog are not intended to be legal advice. You should consult with an attorney about the particulars of your case].

Ayala Law recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of our client alleging that based on allegations that their business partner accepted a substantial financial contribution toward a jointly owned real estate venture and later attempted to deny his ownership interest in the company and the property.

As set forth in the lawsuit, the parties formed a Florida limited liability company to acquire and hold a specific real estate asset. The company’s governing documents allegedly established shared management rights and equal voting authority. The lawsuit further alleges that our client contributed tens of thousands of dollars toward the property based on the agreement that parties would equally split financial interest in the property’s value, profits, gains, and other benefits.

After making that contribution, however, the other party refused to recognize his ownership rights, excluded him from participation in the business, and withheld information and financial benefits to which he was entitled.

As set forth in the lawsuit, our client brings several claims including

• Breach of Contract, based on the duties established within the express agreements of the parties
• Unjust Enrichment, asserting that it would be inequitable for the defendants to retain the benefits of our client’s contribution while denying them the ownership interest for which that contribution was made.
• Breach of Fiduciary Duty, based upon the parter’s improper actions against the interests of another member and the company itself.

Business disputes involving closely held companies are rarely just about money. They can involve control, ownership, access to information, management rights, and valuable business assets. When one owner attempts to freeze another out of a business or deny an agreed ownership interest, swift legal action may be necessary to protect both the investment and the business itself. Real Estate Real Estate Real Estate Real Estate Real Estate Real Estate Real Estate Real Estate

At Ayala Law, we represent business owners, investors, members, and shareholders in high-stakes partnership and ownership disputes. When a business relationship breaks down and significant assets are at stake, we take decisive action to protect our clients’ investments, enforce their rights, and pursue meaningful results.

If you need legal help, please don’t hesitate to contact one of our experienced attorneys at 305-570-2208.

You can also contact our team directly at: arianna@ayalalawpa.com         

Schedule a case evaluation online here.

The allegations described above are contained in a pending lawsuit and have not yet been proven in court.

[The opinions in this blog are not intended to be legal advice. You should consult with an attorney about the particulars of your case].

We recently secured an important post-trial victory for our client in Miami-Dade County, defeating an emergency attempt to stop the enforcement of a $335,000 equitable lien.

Following a jury trial, the Court entered a final judgment awarding our client $335,000 in damages and a $335,000 equitable lien against the Miami property at issue. We then moved to foreclose the equitable lien, and the Court granted this, scheduling the property for sale.

The Attempt to Stop the Sale

Shortly before the scheduled foreclosure sale, the defendant filed an emergency motion asking the Court to cancel or stay the sale. Among other arguments, the defendant claimed that the property was protected homestead and that allowing the sale to proceed would cause irreparable harm.

The defendant later also sought a stay pending appeal, again asking the Court to stop the scheduled sale. Our attorneys opposed those efforts, arguing that there was no legal basis to delay enforcement of the judgment.

We also presented evidence challenging the defendant’s homestead claim, including records indicating that the Miami-Dade property appraiser had determined that the defendant was not entitled to a homestead exemption on the property after discovering that it was being rented. The opposition also referenced homestead penalties and evidence connecting the defendant to a separate residence in Broward County.

The Court Denies the Emergency Motion

Today, after considering the motion, the record, and the arguments of counsel, the Court denied the defendant’s request to cancel the foreclosure sale.

The Court further confirmed that our client holds an equitable lien against the property and ordered that the property proceed to the scheduled foreclosure sale for no less than $335,000. The ruling preserves our client’s ability to enforce the judgment against the property.

Attorney Eduardo A. Maura stated, “Winning at trial is only part of the process. When a judgment is not voluntarily satisfied, we remain focused on protecting the client’s rights through enforcement. In this case, we successfully defended the equitable lien and preserved our client’s ability to proceed with the court-ordered sale.”

This case is also a useful reminder that litigation does not necessarily end with a favorable verdict. Post-trial motions, requests for stays, appeals, and collection proceedings can determine whether a successful party is ultimately able to enforce the relief obtained in court. That is why it is important to have a legal team behind you skilled enough to see it through until the end. Foreclosure Foreclosure Foreclosure Foreclosure Foreclosure Foreclosure

If you need legal help, please don’t hesitate to contact one of our experienced attorneys at 305-570-2208. 

You can also contact our team directly at: arianna@ayalalawpa.com                     

Schedule a case evaluation online here.

[The opinions in this blog are not intended to be legal advice. You should consult with an attorney about the particulars of your case].

Ayala Law is proud to announce that attorneys Orestes Garcia and Luis Quesada have been recognized in the upcoming editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America.

Orestes Garcia has been recognized in Litigation – Real Estate, and Luis Quesada has been recognized in Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Construction in the seventh edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America.

These recognitions reflect the depth of our business-focused litigation practice and our ability to handle the legal issues that arise across the life of a business.

Business Litigation Beyond the Courtroom

Our practice is centered on business litigation and transactions, but business disputes rarely fit neatly into one category.

Real estate and construction matters are often deeply connected to the commercial interests of our clients, particularly when representing developers, investors, business owners, and companies operating in South Florida and beyond.

Orestes’ recognition in Litigation – Real Estate reflects that perspective. Luis’ recognition in both Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Construction likewise highlights the breadth of experience our clients can draw upon when business disputes involve contracts, development projects, construction, property, or other commercial interests.

Another Recognition of the Work We Do

We are proud of these honors because they provide independent recognition of the quality of our attorneys’ work. They’re also part of a broader year of recognition for Ayala Law, including our place on the 2026 Inc. 5000, recognizing our firm as one of America’s fastest-growing private companies, and our recognition as Best Business Law Firm by the Small Business Awards.

Awards do not replace results, experience, or trust, but they can provide meaningful reassurance when a business is deciding who to trust with an important legal matter.

At Ayala Law, we intend to keep earning that trust.

To learn more about our business litigation and transactional practice, schedule a consultation with our team or call 305-570-2208. best lawyers best lawyers

We have obtained judgment in favor of our client, a contractor, following a dispute over payment for exterior work performed in and around a patio enclosure at the defendant’s Florida property.

Our client was hired to perform work, but after completing the project, thousands of dollars remained unpaid. Rather than paying our client the agreed-upon amount, the Defendant claimed that the project required additional work, despite there being no contractual basis for these alterations.

Our client ultimately recorded a construction lien against the property and pursued claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and enforcement of their lien. Following lengthy litigation, the Court ultimately entered judgment in favor of the contractor for the full amount of the unpaid balance, with applicable interest, as well as granted sanctions arising from the litigation, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

As stated by attorney Eion Oosterbaan, “I am happy with this result for our client. While property owners are entitled to have their work done at their property correctly, when businesses such as our client’s do so, they are entitled to payment for the full amount agreed upon. While enforcement of a construction lien is a serious matter, so is ensuring that our client is made whole.”

For contractors and business owners, the case illustrates the importance of documenting contractual performance and taking decisive action when a counterparty refuses to pay amounts owed.  When a payment dispute escalates into litigation, properly documented agreements, performance, communications, and payment records can become critical evidence in enforcing a client’s rights.

If you need legal help with contractor and subcontractor disputes, construction contract disputes, lien-related matters, and other complex issues involving development projects, please don’t hesitate to contact one of our experienced attorneys at 305-570-2208. construction construction

You can also contact our team directly at: arianna@ayalalawpa.com

Schedule a case evaluation online here.

[The opinions in this blog are not intended to be legal advice. You should consult with an attorney about the particulars of your case].

A significant commercial dispute involving more than $1 million in unpaid invoices for shipments of limes from Peru is moving forward after we successfully defeated a motion to dismiss filed by the opposing party.

The case involves our client’s claim for payment arising from the shipment and sale of limes imported from Peru. The dispute centers on invoices that remain unpaid, resulting in damages exceeding $1 million.

Motion to Dismiss Defeated

The opposing party sought to have the case dismissed at an early stage. After reviewing the allegations and applicable law, the court rejected that attempt, allowing our client’s claims to proceed.

Defeating a motion to dismiss is an important step in commercial litigation. At this stage, the court is generally determining whether the claims are legally sufficient to move forward—not deciding the ultimate outcome of the dispute.

For our client, the ruling means the case can now advance toward the next stages of litigation.

Protecting Our Client’s Commercial Interests

International business disputes can become particularly complex when they involve commercial transactions, agricultural products, international shipments, and substantial unpaid invoices.

Our team represents businesses in complex commercial disputes, including matters involving international trade, contract disputes, agricultural transactions, and unpaid invoices.

This case is another example of our commitment to pursuing our clients’ interests when significant commercial obligations remain unresolved.

As the litigation progresses, we will continue advocating for our client and pursuing the recovery of the amounts owed.

If your business is facing unpaid invoices, contract disputes, or other issues involving international shipments and trade, please don’t hesitate to contact one of our experienced attorneys at 305-570-2208.

You can also contact our team directly at: arianna@ayalalawpa.com              

Schedule a case evaluation online here.

[The opinions in this blog are not intended to be legal advice. You should consult with an attorney about the particulars of your case].

Ayala Law has been named on the 2026 Inc. 5000 list of the fastest-growing private companies in America—a significant milestone for a firm that has made aggressive, intentional growth part of its long-term vision.

For us, this recognition means more than a number on a list. It reflects what we have been building at Ayala Law for years: a sophisticated, expanding business law firm designed to serve companies, entrepreneurs, investors, and owners operating in an increasingly complex marketplace.

And there is something particularly meaningful about being recognized for business growth when business itself is at the heart of who we are.

We Don’t Just Advise Businesses. We Are Building One.

Ayala Law was founded in 2013 by Eduardo A. Maura, Esq., who came to the United States from Peru with just $500 and built his career from the ground up.

Before becoming a lawyer and founding Ayala Law, Eduardo was an entrepreneur himself. He understands what it means to build something from nothing, make difficult decisions with limited resources, take calculated risks, hire people, manage growth, and ultimately create an organization capable of serving clients at a higher level. That entrepreneurial perspective has always influenced the way Ayala Law operates.

We do not view ourselves simply as lawyers providing legal services. We are building a business with the same mindset that many of our clients bring to their own companies: growth, adaptability, discipline, and a willingness to invest in the future.

That is why the 2026 Inc. 5000 recognition is particularly meaningful to us.

Inc. describes its annual list as a recognition of America’s fastest-growing private companies. The 2026 list recognizes businesses that have demonstrated the ability to grow in a competitive and rapidly changing environment.

For Ayala Law, that growth has been intentional.

“I have always believed that if you want to build a great company, you cannot be afraid to grow. Aggressive growth requires taking calculated risks, surrounding yourself with talented people, and constantly asking how you can do more for the people you serve. That mindset has been part of Ayala Law since day one. I started this firm because I wanted to build something of my own, and that entrepreneurial spirit is still at the core of what we do today,” says founding partner  Eduardo A. Maura

Growth Means Building Greater Capability

Our growth is not simply about adding people or increasing the size of the firm. It is about building capability.

Over the past year alone, Ayala Law has added several attorneys to its team, including veteran trial attorney Jorge Garcia Menocal, who brings more than 20 years of litigation experience including over 100 trials to the firm. As well as Kristen Schlotzhauer with nearly a decade of business litigation experience, including business, real estate and construction disputes.

The addition of these attorneys significantly expands the depth of experience available to our clients, particularly in complex commercial litigation, corporate disputes, and sophisticated business matters. Their arrival is part of a broader strategy: building a team capable of handling increasingly complex legal issues for businesses operating throughout Florida and beyond.

Partner Luis Quesada states, “The growth we are experiencing allows us to build something much more sophisticated than a traditional boutique law firm. We are deliberately adding attorneys with different backgrounds, experiences, and capabilities so that we can take on increasingly complex matters and provide businesses with the depth of legal experience they need. Growth is valuable when it makes the firm better for our clients.”

This is especially important in South Florida, a region that has become a major destination for entrepreneurs, investors, developers, international companies, and established businesses looking to expand. As those businesses grow, their legal needs become more sophisticated, and they need counsel that understands not only the law, but also how businesses actually operate.

Recognition Is Not the Goal. Trust Is.

The Inc. 5000 recognition is the latest in a series of honors that we are proud to receive. Ayala Law has also been recognized as Best Business Law Firm by the Small Business Expo and recognized by Best Lawyers. In the 2026 edition of Best Law Firms, Ayala Law is ranked in Miami, with attorneys recognized by Best Lawyers across multiple practice areas. We are proud of these recognitions, but we do not view them as trophies.

When a business owner, CEO, entrepreneur, investor, or company entrusts a law firm with an important matter, they deserve to know that they are making a sound decision.

Awards and rankings cannot replace results, experience, judgment, or the relationship between a lawyer and a client. But independent recognition can provide another important piece of information: other organizations and professionals have recognized the quality of the work.

That matters.

Our goal is not to brag about being recognized. Our goal is for a prospective client to look at these recognitions and think, “This is a firm I can trust with my business.”

As Ayala Law enters its next chapter, our commitment remains the same: build a stronger firm, develop greater capabilities, and provide the sophisticated legal counsel that growing businesses deserve. Inc. 5000 Inc. 5000 Inc. 5000 Inc. 5000 Inc. 5000 Inc. 5000 Inc. 5000 Inc. 5000

We are proud to announce the addition of Jorge Garcia Menocal to our team of attorneys. With more than two decades of litigation experience and over 100 jury and bench trials handled throughout his career, Jorge’s arrival represents a significant step in the continued growth and evolution of our firm as a leading business litigation and dispute resolution practice in South Florida.

As businesses continue to expand throughout Florida, the demand for sophisticated legal representation continues to grow. South Florida has become a major hub for entrepreneurs, investors, international companies, and growing businesses seeking opportunities in one of the nation’s most dynamic markets. Ayala Law has positioned itself to meet that demand by continuing to build a team of experienced attorneys capable of handling complex commercial disputes, business matters, and international business issues.

Bringing Decades of Litigation Experience

Jorge joins Ayala Law as an experienced trial attorney with a career focused on litigation, corporate disputes, and transactional matters. Throughout his more than twenty years of practice, Jorge has represented clients in a wide range of legal matters, including complex commercial litigation and international commerce transactions.

His courtroom experience includes handling more than one hundred jury and bench trials, giving him a level of practical litigation experience that is invaluable when representing businesses and individuals facing significant legal disputes.

Jorge earned his Juris Doctor degree from Florida State University College of Law in 2005, where he consistently excelled academically and was included on the Dean’s List during multiple semesters. He earned his Bachelor of Arts degrees in Philosophy and Criminal Justice from Florida International University in 1998.

He is admitted to practice before The Florida Bar and several federal courts, including the United States District Courts for the Southern, Middle, and Northern Districts of Florida, as well as the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

A Strategic Expansion of Our Business Litigation Practice

Jorge’s addition reflects our firm’s broader strategy of continuing to strengthen our litigation capabilities and provide clients with experienced legal counsel.

“Our growth has always been intentional. We are building a firm that can handle increasingly complex matters for businesses, investors, and individuals throughout Florida and beyond,” said founding partner Eduardo A. Maura. “Adding an attorney with Jorge’s level of courtroom experience is a major step forward for our firm. We are not simply growing in size; we are growing in capability.”

Over the last year alone, Ayala Law has added three attorneys to our team, and we anticipate continuing this growth with additional attorney hires before the end of the year. Each attorney we bring into the firm is carefully selected based on experience, legal ability, and the ability to provide meaningful value to our clients.

From a Small Brickell Office to a Growing South Florida Litigation Firm

Our firm’s growth reflects the growth of the businesses and communities we serve.

When the firm was founded in 2013, it began with a single attorney working from a small rented office in Brickell. Today, we operate from our own building in Coral Gables and have grown into a team of attorneys and professionals handling complex litigation and business matters throughout Florida.

This growth has not happened by accident. The firm has taken an aggressive approach to expansion because South Florida’s business landscape continues to evolve. Entrepreneurs, international investors, developers, and established companies are increasingly turning to Florida to build and expand.

Ayala Law is committed to ensuring those businesses have access to experienced legal counsel when disputes arise, and as the firm continues to grow, our focus remains on building a team of skilled attorneys who can provide the level of representation our clients expect.