MIAMI – The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has granted the defendants' motion for sanctions and attorney's fees against Taverna Imports Inc. and its counsel.
Judge Jonathon Goodman issued the ruling on July 27. The multi-year dispute is over a copyright infringement claim that the court ultimately deemed to be unsubstantiated and "frivolous."
Plaintiffs Mariela Fonesca, representing Taverna Imports of Miami, and David S. Harris, her counsel, are accused of lying in court and dragging out a meritless lawsuit. In January 2017, after multiple unsuccessful hearings, plaintiffs filed a voluntary motion for dismissal.
Attorney David Harris
However, the case is still being litigated. Defendants Mario Taverna, A & M Wine and Spirits, Inc., and Cantina Wine and Spirits LLC, argued that the plaintiffs "spearheaded the litigation they condemn as unwarranted, unjustified, unreasonable, and motivated by bad faith."
In 2007, Fonesca and her husband attempted to force out Mario Taverna, the company president, according to court documents. This action spawned a lawsuit filed by Taverna to protect his rights. Eventually, a jury ruled in Taverna's favor.
After the ruling, Fonesca held a shareholders' meeting and "improperly" elected herself as company president, according to the lawsuit. She then retained the services of Harris' law firm and filed a suit against Taverna for copyright infringement.
"At the hearing, Mr. Harris and his purported client’s principal, Maricela Fonseca, admitted that certain statements in the Complaint he filed and in her affidavit were untrue," Goodman writes in his ruling.
"Specifically, they alleged that Taverna had made continuous use of the Il Carnevale de Venezia brand since 2004 – but admitted at the hearing that the use was only through 2008... The Undersigned is troubled by Mr. Harris and Ms. Fonseca’s positions."
Defendants also contest Harris' retention as Taverna Import's attorney. Fonesca was elected company president without Taverna's consent. Defendants claim she lacked the authority to hire Harris. Goodman notes that "the explanations about the circumstances surrounding Mr. Harris’ alleged retention are wobbly, changing, and problematic."
The next step in the case is to determine the amount that the defendants are liable for. The court determined that sanctions calculations should use Sept. 7, 2016, as a starting date.