Quantcast

FLORIDA RECORD

Saturday, April 20, 2024

Ruling awarding defendant All Points Services attorney’s fees is reversed

Lawsuits
Contract 04

MIAMI - An appeals court has reversed an order dictating that defendants in a contractual disagreement receive attorney’s fees and costs. The appellants, MC Liberty Express Inc. and P.S. Trucking Inc. successfully argued that the trial court’s original ruling was flawed.  

Under consideration was the appellants’ appeal of two orders issued in favor of the defendants, All Points Services Inc. (APS), Julio Martinez, and Maria Isabel Martinez. The trial court awarded the defendants damages under Florida Statute Section 57.105.  

The U.S. Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida reversed the ruling on Aug. 8. It found that: “The trial court failed to make the requisite findings in this case. No such findings are contained in the trial court record, no such findings are found in the trial court’s order, and the appellees’ brief is notably silent on this issue. Factual findings by the trial court are not only statutorily required, they are especially necessary in this case.” 


The appellants sued the appellees in 2014, alleging conspiracy, fraud, breach of an oral contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The suit argued that APS, a broker between truckers and shippers, altered invoices to defraud the appellants. After discovering the scheme, the appellants filed a lawsuit.  

In response, the appellees argued that “the claims at issue were either preempted and/or time-barred under various federal statutes governing interstate trucking and transportation of cargo by motor carriers... In addition, the appellees argued that the remaining claims failed to meet the circuit court’s jurisdictional requirements.” On Dec. 1, 2015, the appellees filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion for sanctions against the appellants.  

The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment. A separate hearing eventually granted the motion for sanctions. The sanctions order has been reversed. 

Both the appellants and the appeals court argued that the trial court “failed to make the requisite findings in its order or to apportion the fees and costs as required.”  

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News