RRB&T, PLLC understands that each case is unique and accordingly provides each matter the individualized attention that it requires. Please note that past ressults are no guarantee of future performance.
Attorneys: Benjamin L. Bedard, Shelli A. Healy, and Jeffrey W. Hurcomb
Summary: Plaintiff filed a negligence claim arising out of a motor vehicle accident alleging the co-defendant was acting within the course and scope of her employment with our client when the accident occurred. The co-defendant was exiting the condominium association property on her way to lunch when she rear-ended the Plaintiff's vehicle that was also exiting the property. Plaintiff was a resident of the condominium association and alleged significant injuries to include multiple neck surgeries and medical bills totaling over $600,000.
Our Client: Our firm represented the condominium association.
Final Disposition: The condominium association filed and successfully argued a Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that it was not vicariously liable for the negligence of the co-defendant since she was not within the course and scope of her employment at the time of the accident. The court agreed and granted the motion. The condominium previously filed a proposal for settlement as well as a motion for sanctions pursuant to Fla. Stat. 57.105.
Attorneys: Lyman H. Reynolds
Summary: Plaintiff filed multimillion dollar class action lawsuit against a local business for the sending of unauthorized faxsimile advertisements under 47 USC 227.
Our Client: Our firm represented the local business.
Final Disposition: The firm filed a Motion to dismiss, alleging as a matter of law the suit could not proceed as a class action. The judge agreed with our arguments and dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint from Circuit Court.
Summary: Plaintiff filed multimillion dollar class action lawsuit against a florist for the sending of unauthorized faxsimile advertisements under 47 USC 227.
Our Client: Our firm represented the florist.
Final Disposition: The firm filed a Motion to dismiss, alleging as a matter of law the suit could not proceed as a class action. The Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their action and brought their claim in county court. RRB&T was then able to settle the case for a nominal amount.
Attorneys: George P. Roberts, Jr.
Summary: In this action a city Resident brought an equal protection challenge against the City for restricting the Resident to only selling his wares at the City's green market to one (1) weekend a month, while other vendors were permitted to sell their wares each weekend of the month.
Our Client: Our firm represented the City.
Final Disposition: The case proceeded to trial. After the Resident rested his case at trial, the trial court granted a Rule 50(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., judgment as a matter of law in favor of the City. The Court found that the City had a rational basis for its categorization and separate treatment of the vendors, and that the Resident presented no evidence of unequal treatment between himself and similarly situated vendors.
Note: On appeal, in an unpublished opinion, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Southern District's judgment as a matter of law.
Summary: A city Resident brought a Florida Statute §768.295 'SLAPP' lawsuit for damages arising out of an eviction action taken by the City against the Resident. The Resident alleged that the City's eviction action was motivated solely to punish the Resident for exercising his first amendment right to free speech. The Resident refused to sign a new lease, which contained specific provisions regarding sanitation; as a result the City canceled the power to the Resident's floating home. The Resident initially obtained a temporary injunction requiring the City to provide the Resident with power to his floating home.
Our Client: The City.
Final Disposition: On the City's behalf, RRB&T successfully vacated the injunction. The Resident's floating home was seized in a maritime action and RRB&T successfully argued that the seizing of the floating home was appropriately handled under maritime jurisdiction. Ultimately, the resident voluntarily dismissed all of his claims against the City.
Attorneys: Gerard A. Tuzzio and Brittany H. Jacobs
Summary: The Plaintiff Association sued the developer, architect, general contractor, and various subcontractors for construction damages at a residential condominium property, consisting of thirty buildings and additional common areas. The subcontractor who installed the truss straps in turn sued the manufacturer of the truss straps.
Our Client: The manufacturer of the truss straps.
Final Disposition: The truss straps were manufactured at the request of a company other than the subcontractor who installed the truss straps on the project. Additionally, the truss straps were not sold by the manufacturer directly to the subcontractor who installed the truss straps. We argued a Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the fact that the subcontractor who installed the truss straps did not have the requisite “special relationship” with the manufacturer of the truss straps as required by Florida law to support a claim against it for common law indemnification. The Court granted our Motion for Summary Judgment finding that there was no special relationship between the parties.
Summary: The Plaintiff was involved in a work related accident during the construction of the Winter Garden Mall. The incident occurred during the installation of a pre-constructed tilt up concrete wall.
Our Client: Our client was hired by the general contractor as a subcontractor whose scope included concrete and tilt up walls. In turn, our client subbed out the installation of these walls to another company (sub-subcontractor) for whom the Plaintiff worked.
Final Disposition: At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was partaking in the installation process of a concrete wall while working as an employee for the sub-subcontractor. This sub-subcontractor carried workers' compensation insurance and the Plaintiff made a claim, and received, workers' compensation benefits following the accident. We filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based upon workers' compensation immunity. We argued that under Florida law our client was vertically immune from liability to the Plaintiff as a statutory employer. The Court agreed and granted our Motion for Summary Judgment finding worker's compensation to be Plaintiff's exclusive remedy as it pertained to our client.
Attorneys: Lyman H. Reynolds, Jr., Andrea Amigo, and Keith R. Hedrick.
Summary: This was a negligence action resulting from an alleged motor vehicle accident involving an employee of the Housing Authority of the City of Belle Glade. The Plaintiff alleged that employee of the Housing Authority was negligent in the operation of his vehicle which allegedly caused a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff brought suit against the employee and the Housing Authority of the City of Belle Glade.
Our Client: Our firm represented both the employee and the Housing Authority of the City of Belle Glade.
Final Disposition: The employee of the Housing Authority was voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff as Plaintiff did not allegewanton and willful disregard of human rights and safety, which is required under the Florida Statutes to bring suit against an employee of a government entity. Our firm filled a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on behalf of Housing Authority for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the strict notice provisions of 768.28(6)(a), Fla. Stat. The Court found that the Housing Authority of the City of Belle Glade was a government entity subject to the protections of 768.28, Fla. Stat., and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint. Further, Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed with prejudice as the statute of limitations had run on Plaintiff’s ability to place the Housing Authority on notice.
Summary: In this action a Business operating with the City's limit's challenged the City's enforcement of its own ordinance and resolution which designated the permitted business operations within certain areas of a redeveloped area. The Business performed chiropractic services, and alleged that its business was harmed by the City allowing another business to perform such services in an area of the redevelopment which was allegedly not designated for such business operations.
Our Client: Our firm represented the City.
Final Disposition: On the City's behalf, RRB&T filed a motion to dismiss asserting its sovereign immunity for the enforcement of its own ordinances, and the Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave for the Business to amend. After a lengthy period of no amendment, the City moved for dismissal of the action as the complaint still failed to state a cause of action which survives the City's sovereign immunity. The Court granted the City's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Summary: In this action a city Resident brought a negligence claim against the City for its placement of a roadway barricade during a City hosted public event. The Resident had collided with the barricade while riding his bicycle and sustained injuries.
Our Client: Our firm represented the City.
Final Disposition: On the City's behalf, RRB&T filed a motion to dismiss asserting its sovereign immunity against such actions for its discretionary decisions over traffic control as part of exercising the City's police powers. After reading the City's motion to dismiss, the Resident agreed with the grounds and voluntarily dismissed his case.
PERSONAL INJURY; INSURANCE DEFENSE; APPELLATE
Summary: Plaintiff, a mother on behalf of her minor daughter, filed a negligence action in Palm Beach County, Florida, against a tennis training academy. As a condition of the daughter's enrollment in the academy, the mother and daughter signed an agreement which contained a forum selection clause, which provided that the parties agreed to litigate all claims in New York. We filed a motion to dismiss the action on behalf of the tennis academy based upon the forum selection clause.
Our Client: The firm represented the tennis training academy.
Final Disposition: The trial court granted our motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed the trial court's order, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the action.
Attorney: Shelli A. Healy
Summary: Plaintiff filed a negligence action against a landlord/owner arising out of an alleged slip and fall that occurred at a residence rented by Plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed the landlord/owner was negligent for allowing a dangerous condition to exist outside the residence, specifically a drop off from a walkway onto the ground, and failed to warn Plaintiff of the dangerous condition. As a result of the fall, Plaintiff claimed injuries including a spinal fracture.
Our Client: Our firm represneted the landlord/owner.
Final Disposition: The firm filed and successfully argued a Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that the condition alleged by Plaintiff did not constitute an inherently unsafe or dangerous condition as a matter of law and the trial court agreed.
Attorneys: Lyman H. Reynolds, Nicholas Madsen, and Keith R. Hedrick
Summary: This was a negligence action filed by a guest of a residential tenant against property owner/landlord and the property management company. The plaintiff claimed she tripped and fell over an allegedly dangerous condition on the presented by a shrub branch extending onto the path leading to the front door of the home.
Our Client: Our firm represented both the property owner/landlord and the property management company.
Final Disposition: We filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a dangerous condition on the premises. The Court granted final summary judgment in our favor, finding that the dangerous condition alleged by Plaintiff was open and obvious and could have been avoided with the exercise of due care.
Summary: Plaintiffs filed a negligence/premises liability action against the owner of a shopping plaza; one of the tenants in the shopping plaza, a nightclub; and the driver of the vehicle that struck them as they walked across the roadway in the parking lot of the shopping plaza after leaving the nightclub. Plaintiffs alleged the nightclub breached its duty to provide a safe ingress and egress to and from the premises, failed to provide any form of traffic control management or security and failed to warn them of a foreseeable hazard.
Our Client: Our firm represented tenant/nightclub owner.
Final Disposition: The tenant/nightclub filed and successfully argued a Motion for Summary Judgment. The motion was granted and the Court reserved jurisdiction pursuant to previously filed proposals for settlement.
Summary: Plaintiff claimed that a laxative product she purchased through an infomercial caused her to suffer internal bleeding. She further claimed that the rapid rate and significant amount of blood loss necessitated invasive surgery that ultimately removed a portion of her colon to stop the bleeding. Plaintiff sought damages for her medical expenses, permanent scarring, and pain and suffering.
Our Client: Our firm represented the product manufacturer.
Final Disposition: We were able to obtain final judgment in our favor via summary judgment, using testimony obtained from Plaintiff's own deposition and the deposition of her treating doctors, by showing that there was nothing wrong with the product Plaintiff purchased, and that the product could not have caused her injuries.
Summary: Plaintiff claimed that shortly upon moving into his new home the Plaintiff's health began to deteriorate quickly, ultimately necessitating the Plaintiff receive a lung transplant. Plaintiff alleged his injuries were caused by the allegedly faulty or substandard air filtration system in his new home. Plaintiff sought damages well into the millions of dollars for medical expenses, pain and suffering from the lung transplant, loss of income from an invention, and damages to a warehouse in Michigan from the home builder and the air conditioning company.
Our Client: Our firm represented the home builder.
Final Disposition: We were able to eliminate several damage claims via summary judgment, using testimony obtained from Plaintiff's own expert witnesses, including Plaintiff's claims for a lung transplant. The Plaintiff took his remaining case to trial before a jury. The jury returned a full defense verdict for our client.
TRUCKING AND AUTO LIABILITY
Summary: Plaintiff filed a multimillion dollar garage liability case arising from a single vehicle roll-over accident allegedly caused by the negligent repair and/or maintenance of said vehicle.
Our Client: Our firm represented the tire retailer/installer.
Final Disposition: The firm filed a Motion for Final Summary Judgment on behalf of a tire retailer/installer claiming that Plaintiff's cause of action was insufficient as a matter of law because the tire retailer/installer did not owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff's to prevent the single vehicle roll-over accident. The court granted the Motion in its entirety, resolving this case in favor of the tire retailer/installer as a matter of law.
OTHER NOTABLE CASES
Attorneys: George P. Roberts, Jr., Lyman H. Reynolds, Jr., Andrea Amigo and Keith R. Hedrick.
Summary: This was a defamation action resulting from alleged defamatory statements which were written on a post card and returned to sender. The Plaintiff, whom the post card was returned to, brought suit against the individual that allegedly wrote the statement and the individual who owned the property where the mail was received.
Our Client: Our firm represented the individual who owned the property where the mail was received.
Final Disposition: Our firm filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the homeowner which argued that the alleged defamatory statement was not defamatory and the Plaintiff was unable to prove actual malice. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowner. Plaintiff appealed the Court's decision and the appeal was heard by the 4th District Court of Appeal. Following oral arguments, the 4th DCA affirmted the final judgment in favor of our client.
Summary: This was an action for judicial dissolution of closely held corporation brought by a shareholder. The shareholder moved to have a custodian appointed for the corporation, claiming that the current directors and officers of the corporation had engaged in the misuse of corporate funds.
Our Client: Our firm represented the closely held corporation.
Final Disposition: On behalf of the corporation, we opposed the shareholder's Motion for Appointment of Custodian. After a two day evidentiary hearing, the Court denied the Motion for Appointment of Custodian and ruled in favor of the corporation.