Tanya Suarez (Partner-Miami) and Michael Restrepo (Associate-Miami, FL) secured a complete dismissal of all claims in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court on behalf of Wilson Elser’s clients, a global resort group and its resort property located in the Bahamas. This complex third-party action arose from an alleged recreational vehicle accident near the resort’s security gate. The third-party plaintiff alleged negligence claims against our clients, alleging that inadequate roadway lighting contributed to the accident.

Tanya and Michael engaged in extensive motion practice, submitting more than 500 pages of briefing. The team moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims on multiple grounds, including expiration of the statute of limitations, failure to state a cause of action, and forum non conveniens. After nearly two hours of oral argument, the court granted the motion in full. The court agreed with Tanya and Michael’s arguments and found the statute of limitations issue to be dispositive, ruling that the claims were time-barred and untimely under Florida law, while also considering the Bahamian statute of limitations issues raised in the briefing. In light of this ruling, the court did not reach the remaining arguments, including forum non conveniens, which had previously been raised by the third-party plaintiffs (Florida residents), denied by the trial court, and affirmed on appeal in the original action, before our client’s involvement as a third-party defendant.

Jonathan H. Dunleavy (Partner-Miami) and Katherine E. Kaplan (Associate-Miami) secured a defense verdict in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, Florida, with the jury finding no liability on the part of Wilson Elser’s clients in a maritime case involving a fatality. The plaintiff brought this action on behalf of the estate of a decedent, who was a passenger on a jet ski (PWC) and was killed in a collision with a 46-foot Scarab vessel owned by our clients and operated by their employed captain through the clients’ yacht company.

The court entered default judgment against several co-defendants – including the PWC operator, the PWC rental company, the rental company’s owner, and related yacht entities – finding their negligence to be a legal cause of the decedent’s injuries and death.

The plaintiff nonetheless pursued claims against our clients, the Scarab’s captain, its owners, and their yacht company, alleging that the captain negligently operated the vessel by failing to maintain a proper lookout, operate at a safe speed, avoid the collision, yield to the PWC, and render aid. The plaintiff further alleged that the vessel owner contributed to the collision through modifications to the vessel, and that the yacht company was vicariously liable for the captain’s conduct.

On behalf of our clients, Jonathan and Katherine disputed liability, maintaining that the captain acted reasonably under the circumstances and that any competent boater would have taken his actions; the yacht company was not vicariously liable, and the owner’s actions did not cause or contribute to the collision. They further asserted that the negligence of the parties in default and, in part, the decedent caused the incident. Framing the case through a “red light/green light” theme, Jonathan and Katherine emphasized that under navigation rules, the PWC was the give way vessel and should have altered course, i.e., had the red light. The Scarab was the stand on vessel with the green light and had the right of way.

Mirelis Castilla (Of Counsel-Miami) secured summary judgment and a complete dismissal in Leon County Circuit Court, Tallahassee, Florida, for a residential property owner client. The plaintiff, a tenant at our client’s property, claimed she was attacked due to negligent security on the premises – specifically, inadequate locks and a defective window – and sought to hold the client liable under premises liability theories, including alleged violations of the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Mirelis moved for summary judgment on several key grounds, demonstrating that the client, as an out-of-possession owner, had fully delegated day-to-day management and maintenance responsibilities to a professional property management company and therefore owed no duty under Florida law because it retained no control and had no notice of any alleged dangerous conditions. She also relied on an exculpatory provision in the lease, previously deemed clear and unambiguous by the court in granting summary judgment to the codefendant property manager, arguing that it applied equally to our client, as owner and landlord. The court agreed, finding the lease’s exculpatory provision enforceable as to the client and concluding that the lack of actual or constructive notice, coupled with the client’s complete delegation of operational responsibilities, warranted summary judgment. The court held that the plaintiff failed to present specific facts creating a genuine dispute as to any essential element of her claims. The decision reaffirms that out-of-possession landlords who properly delegate management duties and include enforceable exculpatory provisions in their leases can effectively limit exposure to premises liability claims.

Miami partners Russell M. Pfeifer and Gustavo A. Martinez Tristani, and associate Jackson G. Adams, secured dismissal of a personal injury action on the eve of trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida through a successful Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a shoreside services provider. The plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries inside a cruise terminal during the disembarkation process and asserted maritime claims against the cruise ship owner, the terminal owner, and our client. She later settled her claims against the cruise ship and terminal owners. After extensive discovery and prolonged motion practice, Russell, Gus, and Jack persuaded the District Court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the remaining claims against our client. Specifically, the team argued that admiralty jurisdiction did not exist because the alleged incident, a slip and fall in a small puddle of water, occurred on land, involved a fixed terminal structure, and did not involve a vessel operator. In addition, the activity giving rise to the incident – the alleged failure to maintain the terminal and/or place warning signs – bore no substantial connection to traditional maritime activity. The decision marks a significant defense victory and establishes an important and new precedent curbing the expansion of admiralty jurisdiction. 

Amy Talisman (Of Counsel-Miami) and Erica Weintraub (Associate-Miami) prevailed on a motion for final summary judgment in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County, on behalf of a security services company client. The matter involved a wrongful death action arising from the fatal shooting of a woman in December 2017. The fatal shots were fired from the parking lot of a Miami-Dade County-owned regional library, where our client provided security services. The shooting occurred about two hours after the library closed, and the client’s personnel had left for the evening. The plaintiff alleged that the security company’s contract required it to make security recommendations and that it failed to do so. Amy and Erica succeeded on their motion for final summary judgment by establishing that the plaintiff was unable to prove that Wilson Elser’s client owed a duty to the decedent under the circumstances of the case, thus defeating a $6 million final demand against the security company.

Miami, Florida, partners Russell M. Pfeifer and Raul J. Chacon and associate Monika Ledlova secured final summary judgment in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court on behalf of a national retail client in a premises liability action. The plaintiff alleged she suffered injuries including a traumatic brain injury when a 25-pound metal price sign fell from the top of a large metal safe inside the store. Monika Ledlova argued the motion, successfully demonstrating that surveillance video clearly showed the plaintiff shaking the metal safe immediately before causing the sign to fall off and strike her in her head, thereby causing her own injuries. The team argued that the metal sign was open and obvious, and that no dangerous or concealed condition existed on the premises. The court agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of our client and finding no breach of duty under Florida law. This decisive win underscores the team’s strategic use of video evidence and persuasive advocacy in defeating unsupported premises liability claims. The victory also positions our client to recover attorneys’ fees and taxable costs under applicable Florida statutes, further solidifying a complete defense outcome.

Miami partners Russell M. Pfeifer and Gustavo A. Martinez Tristani and associate Jackson G. Adams secured dismissal of a maritime personal injury lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff, a Canadian citizen, filed a lawsuit seeking damages against a major cruise liner and its independent contractor, our client, for injuries sustained during an offshore excursion at the Krka National Park in Croatia. Despite the federal court having admiralty jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim against the cruise liner, Russell, Gus, and Jack persuaded the District Court that it lacked both diversity jurisdiction and admiralty jurisdiction to entertain the claims against their client, securing the complete dismissal of the action on those grounds on the eve of trial. The victory and corresponding 15-page order constitute an impactful precedent as it distinguishes the factual pattern in this case from a long line of cases decided by federal courts in Florida that routinely exercised admiralty jurisdiction in cases of similar nature against cruise lines and their shore excursion operators.    

Sergio Casiano (Partner-Miami) and Shawna Biggs (Associate-West Palm Beach) prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, against all claims brought against Wilson Elser’s client, the owner of a restaurant and rooftop bar. The plaintiff, a former employee of the restaurant/bar, filed a lawsuit against our client alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including failure to pay overtime, tip confiscation, minimum wage violations, breach of a service charge agreement, and retaliation. Upon the plaintiff’s filing of a motion for summary judgment, Sergio and Shawna filed a competing summary judgment motion asserting that the 7(i) exemption applies to the rooftop bar, and as such, the bar is exempt from the overtime pay requirements. They further argued that the tip pools are valid because the restaurant pays above the minimum wage, and the pools do not include employees who are prohibited from participating. Sergio and Shawna also refuted the retaliation claim, maintaining that the plaintiff’s reduced hours and termination were unrelated to his complaints and due to other legitimate reasons. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Wilson Elser’s clients as to all claims, concurring that the rooftop bar was exempt from overtime requirements under the 7(i) exemption, the tip pools were lawful, the restaurant correctly applied the tip credit, and no causal connection existed between the plaintiff’s complaints and the alleged retaliatory actions.

Miami, Florida, partners Raúl J. Chacón Jr. and Russell M. Pfeifer and associate Monika Ledlova secured an appellate victory in the Third District Court of Appeal with a written opinion affirming summary judgment they obtained in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court in a case involving a national retail client. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit after tripping over a wooden display pallet at our client’s retail store. The trial court granted summary judgment based on the open and obvious doctrine, after the Miami team argued there were no hazardous conditions present on the premises and that the plaintiff’s fall resulted from her own lack of attention. Surveillance video of the incident played a pivotal role in supporting the team’s argument, showing the plaintiff’s failure to follow the designated pathway, and subsequently tripping over a wooden pallet on her second visit to the store the same day. The trial court ruled in favor of our client, granting summary judgment, and following a request for rehearing by the plaintiff reaffirmed its decision. The plaintiff appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal, which affirmed the summary judgment citing case law referenced in our answer brief. This win serves as a crucial precedent, strengthening the defense position for property owners and retailers statewide and opens the plaintiff to the recovery of taxable costs.

Mirelis Castilla (Of Counsel-Miami, FL) secured summary judgment on behalf of our global real estate client in a case involving a fall within a landscaped island area. The plaintiff contends that our client “knew or with the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that individuals or invitees would be in the area where the plaintiff fell and that the unsafe condition of the ground in said area would create an unreasonable risk and hazard to the safety of said invitees” and that our client owed the plaintiff a duty of care to “maintain the ground in the plaza in a reasonably safe condition, specifically to ensure that the subject ground/grass area is not unsafe, causing a hazardous condition to occur.” The plaintiff also contends that as a result of the actions and/or inactions of our client, her injuries are either permanent or continuing in nature and she will suffer the losses and impairment in the future. However, Mirelis argued, the plaintiff’s claim is in direct conflict with the applicable and well-settled Florida case law regarding lack of landowner liability for incidents occurring in landscaping areas. As such, our client cannot be held liable for the alleged injuries and resulting damages. The Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida, agreed and issued summary judgment in our client’s favor.