CasesAcadia Partners, L.P. v. Tompkins,
759 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).» Caiazza v. Tuff Realty Corp.,
805 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).» Douglas Fertilizers & Chemical, Inc. v. McClung Landscaping, Inc.,
459 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).» Miller v. Jacobs & Goodman, P.A.,
699 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).» R.D.M.H., Inc. v. Dempsey,
618 So 2d 794 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).» Westwood One, Inc. v. Flight Express, Inc.,
940 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).»
Prevented multi-million dollar judgment addition in complex business litigation.
Acadia Partners sued Defendant corporate directors seeking to pierce the corporate veil and recoup a thirty million dollar ($30,000,000.00) judgment against the individual directors based upon a variety of tort theories.
Acadia prevailed at the trial court level, but was awarded less than three million ($3,000,000.00) of the thirty million ($30,000,000.00) dollars it sought.
Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the Defendant corporate directors in the appeal brought by Acadia. In a very complex matter involving the legal doctrines of joint and several liability, setoff, res judicata, and collateral estoppel, the twenty seven million ($27,000,000.00) dollar judgment addition sought by the Acadia Partners was denied.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Protected ownership of two multi-million dollar corporations.
Caiazza brought an action to enforce a New York state court judgment finding corporate stock to be part of a decedent’s estate.
The trial court entered summary judgment for the Defendant Tuff Realty Corporation finding Caiazza’s action barred by a five-year statute of limitations governing actions on a foreign judgment.
Ms. Lippincott successfully represented the Defendant Tuff Realty Corporation in this appeal, and the trial court decision in its favor was upheld.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Reduced damages to less than one-fifth sum awarded.
McClung Landscaping, Inc. sued Douglas Fertilizers & Chemical, Inc. and its insurer for damages to its sod field after a chemical treatment. The jury found for McClung and awarded damages for approximately $260,000.00.
Ms. Lippincott successfully represented Douglas Fertilizers and its insurer in this appeal, reducing damages to less than one-fifth of the sum awarded. The appellate court held damages for lost profits were too remote and speculative and could not be recovered by the customer.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Declared liquidated damages provision of employment agreement void.
Jacobs & Goodman, P.A. brought suit against former employees for breach of certain provisions of an attorney employment agreement regarding the division of client contingency fees upon an employee attorney’s departure.
The trial court held Jacobs & Goodman was entitled to receive 75% of the fees pursuant to the terms of their employment agreement and was also entitled to attorney fees for bringing this action.
Ms. Lippincott effectively represented the former employees and their new law firm on appeal. The Fifth District Court of Appeal found the liquidated damages provision of the employment agreement void and unenforceable and remanded for a new division of fees.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Reversed judgment for fraud and punitive damages.
Dempsey sued R.D.M.H., Inc. and its principal for breach of contract and fraud. The trial court entered judgment for breach of contract, fraud, and punitive damages in favor of the plaintiff. Ms. Lippincott effectively represented R.D.M.H., Inc. on appeal.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for fraud and punitive damages against R.D.M.H., Inc. holding a compensatory damage award for both breach of contract and fraud could not stand where the plaintiff fails to establish any difference in the damages sustained. And, in addition, the court held that without a successful fraud judgment the award of punitive damages could not stand.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5
Dismissed unauthorized appeal.
A company that provided aircraft and pilot services brought an action against a customer on an open account. The trial court granted the company’s motion for default and motion to strike the customer’s motion to compel arbitration and the customer appealed.
Ms. Lippincott represented Flight Express on appeal and was successful in having the customer’s appeal dismissed because the appellate procedural rules do not authorize an appeal from this type of order.Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5