Skip to main content

verdicts

Case:
Timothy Lillis, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Margaret Solomon, Timothy Lillis, individually and as Next Friend of B.L., a minor v. Alon Blum
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Leto Law Firm (Matthew P. Leto)
Result:
Appeal Successful
Summary
Jacksonville Associate Jack Garwood secured an appellate victory after Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Notice of Confession of Error on July 31, 2023. At the trial court level, the court had held that service of process had been properly effectuated under Florida’s substituted service of process statutes. However, it was clear from the record that Plaintiff had not strictly complied with the substituted service statutes as required. The substituted service of process statutes are to be strictly complied with because of due process concerns. After reviewing the cases cited in the initial Appellate Brief, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he could not say that the statutes had been strictly complied with. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel referred to one of the cases in Appellant’s brief—Monaco v. Nealon, 810 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)—as one he could not get past. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he has never confessed error before, but that due to the cases cited in Appellant’s Brief, he had to in this case.  Read More
Case:
Maria Davila, as P.R. of the Estate of Candido Manzanares v. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Rubenstein Law, P.A. (Gregory Deutch and Kevin Mulet)
Result:
Dismissal with Prejudice
Summary:
This matter involved a wrongful death cause of action brought by the Estate of the Candido Manzanares stemming from an automobile accident that occurred within the construction zone of FDOT’s roadway expansion project along Krome Avenue in Miami-Dade County, FL. On the date of the incident, just prior to the time the workers were to be dismissed for the day, co-Defendants Perez Camejo and Roversys Hernandez entered their personal vehicles and took it upon themselves to engage in a dangerous, high-speed drag race within the construction zone. During the race, both drivers lost control of their vehicles, with Camejo’s car striking Mr. Manzanares as he was standing next to his vehicle which was parked within the construction zone. The Plaintiff’s alleged that FDOT had a duty to maintain the roadways in a reasonably safe condition and to learn and discover any dangerous issues on the roadways and to prevent any such dangerous conditions from existing on the roadways. This included having the necessary personnel controlling traffic, training all on-site personnel about how to properly and safely move vehicles, and maintaining appropriate traffic control devices, signals, and signs. FDOT purportedly breached these duties by failing to: (a) ensure that the job site was safe; (b) have appropriate personnel directing, supervising, and/or controlling traffic; (c) comply with all applicable codes, regulations, statutes and any other governing authority regarding roadways and traffic; (d) warn of the hazardous conditions of the roadways of the job site; (e) provide proper warnings and signage; (f) train employees and other persons on the job site of the proper way to move and drive vehicles; (g) maintain and enforce safety protocols; (h) make necessary changes to the roadways; and (i) properly create, execute and/or implement relevant designs at and for the job site.   Read More
Case:
Manuel Castillo v. Ulysses Lopez
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Lonnie B. Richardson, P.A. (Michael Compo and Lonnie Richardson)
Result:
Motion for Summary Judgment for Defendant
Summary:
Senior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte, Esq., and Appellate Partner Edgardo Ferreyra, Esq., obtained a summary judgment in an auto negligence matter styled Manuel Castillo v. Ulysses Lopez. The primary issue on the case involved whether Plaintiff had presented evidence to establish he was even a passenger in the vehicle crashed by Defendant. Plaintiff was not listed on the traffic crash report. The Defense argued it was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff had failed to present evidence or an explanation as to why his name was not included in the traffic crash report, and thus the presumption under Florida Statute section 316.068(2)(g) that he was not involved in the accident was unrebutted. The Defense argued that this omission from the traffic crash report was fatal to Plaintiff’s negligence action, because Florida statutory law holds that in “[t]he absence of information in such written crash reports regarding the existence of passengers in the motor vehicles involved in the crash constitutes a rebuttable presumption that no such passengers were involved in the reported crash.” Fla. Stat. § 316.068(2)(g). The vehicle Plaintiff claimed he was travelling in had four passengers, all of which had met earlier in the evening at a bar. Plaintiff claimed that immediately after the accident, he walked away from the accident scene and did not wait for police to arrive. Three of the four passengers did not recognize Plaintiff at all, and the officer would not amend his report to include Plaintiff because he did not recognize him as being a part of the accident. Only one of the passengers placed Plaintiff in the vehicle, but she was admittedly drunk, stoned, and her account directly contradicted Plaintiff’s version of events in that she testified that Plaintiff actually remained on the scene and spoke with the police. The crux of our argument was that Plaintiff failed to present “credible evidence” to overcome the rebuttable presumption under section 316.068(2)(g). Therefore, Defendant was entitled to summary judgment. The Court agreed. Read more
Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Plaintiff Counsel:
Menendez Trial Attorneys (Jose M. Menendez); Ralph O. Anderson, P.A. (Ralph Anderson)
Result:
Net Verdict of $590,751
Summary:

Tender of $1M Policy Limits Rejected - $13,023,932 Jury Demand - 2-Week Trial Miami – Net Verdict $590,751.

On April 1, 2022, Senior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte, Esq., and Managing Partner Daniel Santaniello, Esq. obtained a favorable result in a motorcycle accident matter that occurred on northbound Turnpike just north of Florida City. Plaintiffs jointly asked for $13.1 Million dollars. The $1M policy limits had been tendered and rejected well in advance of trial. The jury apportioned liability 50% to the Plaintiff(s), 10% to the fabre driver, and 40% to the Defendant Abby Tingjing Lu resulting in a net verdict of $590,751.

The case styled Plaintiffs vs. Abby Tingjing Lu was tried over the course of two weeks before Judge Charles Johnson in Miami-Dade County. Our client insured was a Chinese resident living in New York City and was visiting the Florida Keys. She had rented a vehicle from Hertz and was heading back to Fort Lauderdale when the accident happened. Plaintiff was a Cuban-American and Miami resident. His wife, a registered trauma nurse with the Jackson Memorial Health Care System, was on the back of a motorcycle at the time of the accident. Coincidently they were both airlifted to Jackson from this accident. The jury was comprised of five Cuban Americans and one African American.

Our Client encountered some debris on the turnpike and attempted to swerve to avoid it. Nine witnesses testified regarding the accident. There was a dispute over the existence and extent of the debris and a dispute over the actions of our client.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant improperly failed to avoid the debris like other cars that had successfully maneuvered around it according to witnesses. They suggested she was looking at her phone using it for GPS navigation. They claimed that the Event Data Recorder supported that our client moved into the shoulder and then abruptly moved back into the travel lane at only 5.6 mph, striking the motorcycle. They called expert engineer Ralph Aronberg, P.E. who testified the defendant was totally at fault for the accident.

The Defense disputed liability. We called motorcycle expert and engineer Alan Moore to the stand to testify that the plaintiff was following too closely. The Court did not allow us to present evidence that the plaintiff did not have a motorcycle endorsement.

The injuries to both plaintiffs’ were significant. Plaintiff motorcycle operator, was catapulted at 65 mph into the median and sustained significant lower right extremity injuries involving degloving injuries, a shattered femur, shattered ankle. He can no longer walk without pain and severe limp and needs to undergo at least two further surgeries, including an ankle fusion which was not disputed by the defense medical experts. He required four surgeries to save the leg. He did not have health insurance so his specials totaled $906,214.

Plaintiff girlfriend-passenger and now wife, also was catapulted onto the left lane, where she sustained a fractured femur, and required emergency surgery to align and fixate it. She continues to suffer from pain and limitations due to her leg. Her medical bills were $100,003. It is significant to note both plaintiffs are very young – in their late twenties when the accident happened.

Opposing counsel, Jose Menendez, a renowned Miami tobacco trial lawyer, asked the jury for $9,000,000 in pain and suffering for Plaintiff motorcycle operator and $3,020,715 in pain and suffering for Plaintiff passenger. The total damages requested in closing argument were $9,906,214 for Plaintiff motorcycle operator and $3,117,718 for Plaintiff passenger, both totaling $13,023,932.00.

More than 20 witnesses were called to this trial, including eight plaintiff medical experts. The defense employed two key strategies to deal with the sympathy/prejudice associated with a Miami trial involving a Cuban-American plaintiff versus a Chinese resident of New York; and a reasonable pain and suffering award in light of the facts. These strategies were employed in jury selection and closing arguments and helped deliver a verdict wherein the jury gave less than the defense even suggested for non-economic damages.  Please feel free to reach out directly to Dan Santaniello to discuss this result further.  

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Final Summary Judgment
Summary:

On July 9, 2018, Senior Partners Luis Menendez-Aponte, Esq., Stuart Cohen, Esq. and Senior Associate Matthew W. Van Wie, Esq. obtained Final Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant Global Cargo Alliance Corp. in relation to a trip-and-fall incident in matter styled Gonzalez, Armando & Deliaimar vs. Global Cargo Alliance, Corp.    The Plaintiff, a deliveryman, suffered a severe knee injury after he tripped and fell on a concrete riser step which led exclusively into the unit lease by the Defendant.  As a result of the fall, the Plaintiff underwent arthroscopic knee surgery to repair the damage, and received a medical recommendation for a second surgery.  Read More

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:

Miami Managing Partner Stuart Cohen, Esq. and Senior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte, Esq.  obtained a defense verdict on 12/15/2017 in the automobile liability matter styled Arianny Pinero vs. Laura Ruiz. The Defendant admitted negligence in causing the accident, but denied that her negligence was the legal cause of any loss, damage or injury to the Plaintiff.  Plaintiff demanded $350,000. The Plaintiff underwent an MRI which revealed a herniation at C3-C4 and a bulge at L4-L5. Read More

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Favorable Verdict
Summary:

On July 20, 2017, Orlando Partner Paul Jones, Esq. and Miami Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte, Esq. obtained a favorable verdict in the slip and fall matter styled Pineda v. Defendant Store. Plaintiff slipped and fell in Defendant’s store from water leaking from melting ice bags.  The store had six months of repair work orders from the ice machine producing melting ice leading up to the day of the incident.  Plaintiff sustained a large abrasion on her knee from the fall that was captured in photographs.  She actively treated with an orthopedic surgeon which ultimately resulted in two surgeries involving her knee and her shoulder.  Plaintiff incurred $133,755 in medical bills.  At trial, the plaintiff presented documentary evidence and testimony from her orthopedic surgeon that she required additional surgery, including a total knee replacement, from the fall.  The plaintiff asked the jury for $330,755.  The jury rejected the future care, found the plaintiff 50% at fault for the fall, and declined to award her any pain and suffering damages.  The net verdict was approximately $68,000, half of the plaintiff’s final demand before trial.  Read More 

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:

On April 27, 2016, Dan Santaniello and Luis Menendez-Aponte received a defense verdict in an MVA tender rejection case tried where Plaintiffs asked the Jury for $42 million at trial. The case was featured in an article in the Daily Business Review on June 16, 2016, “Miami Driver Avoids Liability in Crash With Drunken Driver” by Celia Ampel. The case styled Clairmeda Simeon as guardian of Vilbrun Simeon and Kedlen Joachim v. Michelett Auguste and Lanea Everett was venued in Miami-Dade County.  After eight days of trial and nearly 7 hours of deliberation, the jury entered a Defense verdict for Defendant Michelett Auguste finding that he was not negligent in the operation of his motor vehicle.  Plaintiff Simeon is in a persistent vegetative state and Plaintiff Joachim has a permanent seizure disorder.   Defendant, Michelette Auguste, was the only party represented who had insurance coverage.  Policy limits were tendered but rejected and the case went to trial.  The Plaintiffs also presented the testimony of life care planner Lawrence Forman in support of their request for a $19,856,000 life care plan.  Through the testimony of the defense engineer Roland Lamb, PE, the defense was able to establish that Plaintiffs’ expert engineer’s analysis was faulty and that the physical evidence supported our version of the accident.   Read More

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:

Managing Partner Dan Santaniello and Miami Junior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte received a defense verdict on January 8, 2016 in the motor vehicle accident matter styled Evelia Rodriguez v. Humberto Torres.  The accident occurred when the Defendant, Humberto Torres, rear-ended the Plaintiff, causing significant property damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Defendant pled the affirmative defense of sudden loss of consciousness.  According to the Defendant, the accident happened when he lost consciousness due to the sudden onset of an epileptic seizure, a condition he had never suffered from before this accident. Read More

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:

Managing Partner Dan Santaniello and Miami Junior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte received a defense verdict on December 3, 2015 in a traumatic brain injury Trucking liability lawsuit. Plaintiff, a 37 year old male was involved in a catastrophic intersection accident with an 18 wheeler semi-truck operated by the Defendant driver. Plaintiff’s vehicle was completely destroyed due to the severe impact and the Plaintiff had to be extracted from the vehicle by first responders using the jaws-of-life.  After Plaintiff’s release from the hospital, the Plaintiff underwent pain therapy, orthopedic therapy, and began treating with a neurologist Nicholas Suite, MD and neuro-psychologist Alejandro Arias, Psy.D. for alleged traumatic brain injury sustained during the accident. Read More

Case:
Practice Area:
Attorney(s):
Result:
Defense Verdict
Summary:

South Florida Managing Partner Daniel Santaniello and Miami Junior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte obtained a defense jury verdict after admitting liability on an automobile accident involving a 2 level cervical neck discectomy with fusion in the matter styled Jonathan Pallone vs. Harvey Ruiz-Padilla and Orlando Villanueva on July 2, 2015.  The Defendant admitted negligence but disputed causation and damages.  The Plaintiff demanded $527,828.62 at trial.  The jury returned a defense verdict finding that the Defendant’s negligence was not the legal cause of the Plaintiff’s damages.  Read More