Ayala Law is proud to welcome two new attorneys, Matthew Hernandez, Esq. and Gabriel Sierra, Esq., marking another milestone in the firm’s growth and its commitment to developing exceptional legal talent.

Both attorneys began their careers at Ayala Law as clerks, gained hands-on experience, passed the bar, and returned to the firm as attorneys. Their progression reflects a deliberate approach to talent development: identifying promising legal professionals early, investing in their growth, and maintaining the high standards required to join the firm’s legal team.

Building Attorneys, Not Just Hiring Them

Ayala Law’s clerk-to-attorney pipeline is an active part of the firm’s long-term strategy. Clerks gain practical exposure to legal work while developing the skills and judgment needed to enter the profession. But advancement is not automatic. The firm maintains rigorous hiring standards, and its decision to bring Matthew and Gabriel on as attorneys reflects their demonstrated ability and the quality of their work.

The model has already produced leadership within the firm. Partner Ryan Sawal also began his career at Ayala Law as a clerk before becoming an attorney and eventually a partner.

As the firm continues to grow, developing talent internally complements our broader goal of expanding our capacity to serve businesses and clients throughout South Florida.

Meet Ayala Law’s New Attorneys

Matthew Hernandez, Esq. is a Miami native with family roots in Havana, Cuba. He graduated from Belen Jesuit Preparatory School and earned a bachelor’s degree in political science, with a minor in entrepreneurship, from the University of Miami in 2022. His academic background includes business plan development and small-business management. In 2024, he completed a federal judicial internship with the Honorable Judge Adalberto Jordan at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, gaining exposure to federal appellate litigation and contract disputes.

Gabriel Sierra, Esq. is also a Miami native with Cuban heritage. He earned his bachelor’s degree in political science from Florida International University and his Juris Doctor from FIU College of Law. During a federal judicial internship at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, he gained insight into the federal judiciary. His practice focuses on business and real estate litigation in state and federal court.

Their appointments add more than two new attorneys to the team, and reflect Ayala Law’s investment in capable attorneys, our commitment to professional development, and our continued growth as a South Florida law firm.

Ayala Law Our attorney Eion Oosterbaan secured a $598,000 jury verdict in favor of an online content creator in a Broward County, Florida, case involving an alleged breach of a social media management agreement, defamatory statements, and unauthorized commercial use of her name and likeness.

The case highlights the financial and legal risks creators can face when they entrust their businesses, online presence, and personal brands to third-party management companies.

When a Social Media Management Company Fails to Deliver

The creator entered into a contract with a management company that promised social media management, brand development, marketing strategy, and support for her social media accounts. In exchange, the creator agreed to pay the company a commission on her earnings and meet specified content-production requirements.

According to the claims in the lawsuit, the creator paid approximately $40,000 in commissions but did not receive the services promised under the agreement. She also incurred additional expenses to meet the contract’s content requirements.

After the business relationship ended, the dispute escalated. The lawsuit alleged that the management company published false statements about the creator online and used her name, image, and likeness in promotional content without her authorization. The creator sought damages for breach of contract, defamation, and unauthorized commercial use of her identity.

How the Jury Awarded $598,000 in Damages

Following a jury trial to determine damages, the court entered final judgment awarding the creator $598,000 across three claims:

$70,000 for breach of contract: This included $40,000 in commission payments for services not performed and $30,000 in out-of-pocket expenses associated with the contract’s content requirements.

$490,000 for defamation: The award included $390,000 for lost net earnings and $100,000 for harm to reputation, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering.

$38,000 for unauthorized use of name, image, and likeness: This award addressed the commercial or advertising use of the creator’s identity without authorization.

The court’s final judgment also included prejudgment interest, with the amount continuing to accrue as specified in the judgment.

What Online Creators Should Know Before Signing a Management Contract

For content creators and other social media entrepreneurs, a management agreement can affect far more than marketing. It can determine how much revenue a company receives, what services it must provide, how a creator can end the relationship, and who controls the commercial use of the creator’s identity.

Before signing, creators should understand the services being promised, how commissions are calculated, what happens if the company fails to perform, and whether the agreement adequately protects their content, accounts, and personal brand.

If a management company fails to honor its contractual obligations or uses a creator’s identity without permission, those actions may raise legal issues that deserve careful review.

Protect Your Brand and Your Business

Your online presence is a business asset. The contracts you sign and the people you authorize to represent you can have a direct impact on your income, reputation, and future opportunities. Content Creator Content Creator Content Creator Content Creator Content Creator Content Creator Content Creator Content Creator

Ayala Law represents clients in business litigation, contract disputes, and claims involving commercial harm. 

If you are an online creator dealing with a management company that has failed to deliver on its promises, damaged your reputation, or used your identity without authorization, 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 are continuing our investigation into potential claims involving Revival Animal Health, LLC, following the company’s August 26, 2026, voluntary recall of certain feline milk replacer products due to inconsistent levels of vitamins and trace minerals.

This development follows our ongoing class action litigation on behalf of Saving Sage Animal Rescue Foundation, Inc., involving Revival’s canine milk replacer products. The pending lawsuit and the newer feline product investigation concern different products and remain legally distinct matters.

Why Did Revival Animal Health Recall Its Feline Milk Replacers?

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Revival announced the recall of certain Shelter’s Choice Feline Milk Replacer and Breeder’s Edge Foster Care Feline Milk Replacer products after testing identified inconsistent nutrient levels. The recall concerns low levels of potassium, copper, folic acid, choline and/or pyridoxine, also known as vitamin B6.

The FDA-published company announcement explains that third-party testing initially suggested a possible nutrient deficiency in one lot. Revival subsequently conducted confirmatory testing on multiple lots, and an independent animal nutritionist analyzed the results on August 12, 2026. The company attributed the recall to manufacturing inconsistencies involving a contracted manufacturer and stated that it had discontinued that relationship. The recalled products were sold nationwide through online retailers and physical pet stores.

What Risks Can Nutrient Deficiencies Pose to Kittens?

Milk replacers provide essential nutrition to kittens that cannot obtain sufficient milk from their mothers. This is particularly important for newborn kittens, whose rapid development makes them vulnerable to nutritional deficiencies.

According to the recall announcement, deficiencies involving the identified nutrients can pose risks that include anemia, neurological dysfunction, organ damage, skeletal problems and cardiac complications.

The announcement also states that Revival was investigating nine complaints involving potential gastrointestinal and bone-development issues. At the time of the announcement, no illnesses resulting from the use of these products had been confirmed. The reported complaints and potential risks should therefore be distinguished from confirmed product-related injuries.

Consumers who purchased the recalled products should stop feeding them to kittens and contact Revival regarding a return and full refund. Anyone whose kittens have consumed a recalled product and are showing clinical signs should contact a veterinarian.

The FDA notice lists the affected products, package sizes, UPCs and best-by dates. Purchasers should consult the official recall notice to determine whether their product is included.

How Does This Recall Relate to Ayala Law’s Existing Class Action?

Ayala Law currently represents Saving Sage Animal Rescue Foundation, Inc., in a class action lawsuit against Revival Animal Health pending in Broward County, Florida, under Case No. CACE-26-013252.

The existing complaint concerns canine milk replacer products. It alleges that the products contained inconsistent levels of vitamin D and asserts claims involving strict products liability based on alleged design and manufacturing defects, negligence, and breach of express and implied warranties. These remain allegations to be addressed through the legal process.

The feline recall introduces a separate area of investigation. Our attorneys are examining whether purchasers, animal rescue organizations, and others who used the recalled feline milk replacers may have potential legal claims arising from the products and the circumstances surrounding the recall.

The recall does not, by itself, establish that every affected purchaser has a valid legal claim. Any potential claim will depend on the available evidence, the circumstances of the purchase and use, any resulting losses or injuries, and applicable law.

Investigating Potential Claims Involving Recalled Kitten Milk Replacers

For animal rescues and other organizations caring for vulnerable kittens, a product-related problem can raise concerns about animal welfare, veterinary expenses and financial losses. Our team will continue investigating the circumstances surrounding the feline milk replacer recall and evaluate whether affected purchasers or organizations may have legal options.

If you purchased or used the recalled Shelter’s Choice or Breeder’s Edge feline milk replacer products, or believe your organization may have been affected, contact Ayala Law to discuss your circumstances. Revival Animal Health Revival Animal Health Revival Animal Health Revival Animal Health Revival Animal Health Revival Animal Health

Call 305-570-2208 or email arianna@ayalalawpa.com.

[This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The feline product investigation is ongoing, and no determination has been made that any particular person or organization has a valid claim.]

From one of the firm’s earliest attorneys to its newest partner, Orestes D. Garcia, Esq. proves that dedication, results, and a business-first mindset are a winning combination.

At Ayala Law, growth has always been about more than numbers. It’s about building a team of attorneys who understand what is at stake for the businesses and individuals who trust us with their most important legal matters.

Today, we are proud to announce that Orestes D. Garcia, Esq. has been named partner at Ayala Law, joining Eduardo A. Maura, Luis Quesada, and Ryan Sawal in leading the firm’s continued growth.

For Orestes, this milestone is particularly special. He joined Ayala Law in its earliest days, when the firm had just four attorneys, himself included. As the firm expanded, so did his responsibilities, experience, and reputation as a formidable business litigator. Orestes didn’t simply witness Ayala Law’s evolution; he helped build it.

A Business Lawyer Shaped by Experience

A Miami native raised by Cuban parents, Orestes brings a distinct understanding of South Florida’s business community to his practice. His approach to litigation is shaped by an experience close to home: watching his parents’ small business navigate a difficult legal dispute with a competitor.

That experience ultimately inspired him to become an attorney, determined to help business owners protect what they have worked so hard to build.

Today, Orestes represents business owners, investors, and contractors in complex commercial and real estate litigation, including breach of contract claims, partnership disputes, construction disputes, and other high-stakes business matters. His practice also extends to trademark matters and transactional counsel aimed at protecting clients’ long-term interests.

A Reputation Built on Results

For founding partner Eduardo A. Maura, Orestes’ promotion recognizes the attorney he has become and the value he consistently delivers to clients.

“I remember Orestes joining us in the early days. He was soft-spoken, thoughtful, and always willing to listen before speaking. What stood out was his determination and his ability to understand the bigger picture. Over the years, I’ve watched him develop into a confident, strategic attorney who knows how to get results. I like to call him ‘the Rainmaker’ because when it comes to collecting for our clients, he delivers. He’s earned this partnership, and I’m incredibly proud of him.”

— Eduardo A. Maura, Founding Partner

Orestes’ professional development reflects an impressive combination of academic achievement and practical experience. He graduated magna cum laude from Florida International University‘s Honors College, completing his Bachelor of Business Administration in Management Information Systems in just three years, before pursuing his legal education at the University of Miami School of Law.

Fluent in English and Spanish, he brings both analytical discipline and cultural fluency to an increasingly sophisticated South Florida business environment.

The Next Chapter

For Orestes, becoming partner represents both a personal achievement and a commitment to the clients and colleagues who have been part of his journey.

“I joined Ayala Law when we were a small team with big ambitions. Being part of the firm’s growth has been incredibly rewarding, and becoming partner is an honor I don’t take lightly. I’ve always believed that our clients deserve more than legal advice. They deserve someone who understands their business, fights for their interests, and helps them move forward. That’s the commitment I’ll continue bringing to the table.”

— Orestes D. Garcia

Orestes’ promotion marks another important chapter for Ayala Law as the firm continues to strengthen its leadership and expand its ability to serve South Florida’s business community.

Congratulations to Orestes D. Garcia on this well-earned achievement!

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