Verdicts by Attorney: Ferreyra, Edgardo
Anthony Merendino, Esq., obtained a favorable result in a Motor Vehicle Accident matter styled Leon Hood & Felicia Brown v. Elizabeth Vilece and Frank Vilece when the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal and thereby upheld its prior Order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice. The Court also granted the Defendants’ Motion for Costs for defending the action.
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant rear-ended the Plaintiffs’ motor vehicle. The Court issued a Case Management Order requiring the Plaintiffs to submit an Agreed Case Management Plan by a date certain outlining pretrial deadlines. The Plaintiffs failed to timely file an Agreed Case Management Plan by the deadline imposed by the Court’s Case Management Order. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring the Plaintiffs to explain why the Case Management Plan was not timely filed. Thereafter, counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed upon a Case Management Plan, but the Plaintiffs neglected to file the Case Management Plan. The Court subsequently entered an Order of Dismissal of the case without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal alleging excusable neglect, and filed an Affidavit of a paralegal supporting the excusable neglect (which attempted to explain why the agreed Case Management Plan had not been filed). At a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal, Mr. Merendino pointed out deficiencies in the Affidavit filed by the Plaintiffs and convinced the Court that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated the requisite excusable neglect. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal and thereby upheld its prior Order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice. The Court also granted the Defendants’ Motion for Costs for defending the action.
Managing Partners Anthony Petrillo, Esq., and Anthony Merendino, Esq., obtained a favorable result in a personal injury matter styled Connie Ader v. Defendant Retail Store in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Florida. Plaintiff asked the jury for $1.1 million dollars at trial. The jury returned a verdict for $20,000 for the Plaintiff however Defendant had a proposal for settlement and is moving for attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiff alleged that while she was a business invitee of Defendant Retail Store, she sustained a permanent ulnar nerve injury in her left upper extremity as a result of cutting her left forearm on a display basket while walking past it at a Defendant Retail store. According to the Plaintiff, her left forearm was impaled by an allegedly defective display basket. Plaintiff’s position was that the allegedly defective wire basket either impacted her ulnar nerve or cut through the sensory branches of the ulnar nerve. Plaintiff claimed that as a result of the incident, she experienced pain, numbness, tingling, weakness, and burning in her left upper extremity, specifically, the 4th and 5th digits of her left hand, which caused her an inability to wear her wedding ring or grip/hold things including, among other things, a cell phone, golf club, bicycle handle, and her husband’s hand. Plaintiff sought damages for past and future pain & suffering, mental anguish, disability, disfigurement, inconvenience, and loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life.
Prior to trial, Defendant Retail Store admitted liability. At trial, an adverse inference instruction was given to the jury regarding Defendant Retail Store's loss of certain evidence (display basket) which allowed the jury to infer that the missing evidence was unfavorable to Defendant Retail Store. Plaintiff asked the jury for $1.1 million dollars at trial using a per diem argument that Plaintiff should be awarded $8.00 per hour for the 5 years since the incident and the estimated 20 years she is projected to live under the Mortality Table guidelines (excluding 8 hours per day for sleeping).
Prior to trial, Defendant Retail Store served a Proposal for Settlement (“PFS”) on the Plaintiff, and depending on the amount of Plaintiff’s recoverable costs incurred prior to the date of the PFS, Defendant Retail Store will likely be entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and costs from the Plaintiff from the date the PFS was served. Read more
Orlando Managing Partner Anthony Merendino, Esq., obtained a dismissal in the matter styled Craig Brown, Pro Se Plaintiff, Plaintiff, v. Fidelity National Title Group et al. Plaintiff sued the Defendant, Town of Rockport, Maine, in the Middle District of Florida, alleging four (4) causes of action against the Defendant: (1) Violation of Constitutional Rights by Rockport per 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985; (2) Retaliation against a Crime Victim by Rockport under 18 U.S.C. § 1513 (18 U.S.C. § 1961); (3) Obstruction of Justice by Rockport under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (18 U.S.C. § 1961); and (4) Extortion, Violation of the Hobbs Act under 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Plaintiff’s claims arose out of an eighteen (18) year old property boundary line dispute between Plaintiff and his neighbor on Plaintiff’s real property located in Camden, Maine (the “Property”). Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that his neighbor improperly erected a fence on Plaintiff’s adjacent Property, relying on a fraudulent survey in support. Plaintiff further alleged he engaged in self-help to remove the fence and was “falsely” convicted of criminal mischief as a result. Plaintiff alleged a criminal/civil conspiracy involving the erection of the fence and the lot lines for his Property by all of the Defendants in this litigation. In the instant case, the District Court Judge granted the Defendant Town Of Rockport, Maine’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that there was a lack of personal jurisdiction and that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Read more
Orlando Managing Partner Anthony Merendino, Esq., and Appellate Partner Daniel Weinger, Esq. obtained a favorable result when the court granted Defendant Delaney Gas Station’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment on July 9, 2020 in the matter styled Vera Prochounina v. Delaney Gas Station d/b/a Mobil Gas in the Circuit Court of Osceola County. Plaintiff filed suit alleging she slipped and fell in the restroom of the Defendant’s gas station, and claimed that liquid on the floor (which was shown in a video taken by Plaintiff’s ex-husband at the scene) is what caused her to fall. Plaintiff allegedly lost consciousness after the fall, was transported from the scene to the hospital by ambulance, and ultimately claimed injuries to her neck and lower back as a result of the slip-and-fall. Plaintiff’s claimed past medical expenses totaled approximately $130,000. At the hearing, Mr. Merendino persuaded the court that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof that the Defendant had either actual or constructive notice of any hazardous condition in the restroom pursuant to Florida Statute §768.0755. In addition, the court was persuaded by the Defendant’s argument that at the time of the alleged incident, the Plaintiff was not an invitee, but an uninvited licensee, limiting any alleged duty owed to the Plaintiff by the Defendant. Read more
Anthony Merendino, Senior Partner in the Boca Raton office was granted a Motion for Final Summary Judgment and Judgment in favor of Defendant in a fall from overhead case styled Velez v. Defendant Retail Store in the United States District Court Southern District of Florida on March 11, 2015. Plaintiff, a customer at Defendant Store alleged that he was attempting to retrieve a 4x4 piece of lumber off of a shelf when a metal safety rail fell on his head due to being defective, alleging negligence, including failure to warn, which resulted in serious bodily injury. Read More
Anthony Merendino, Junior Partner of the Boca Raton office of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones obtained a Final Summary Judgment in a false arrest case styled Rose M. Cortez vs. Defendant Retail Store in the United States Southern District of Florida on January 31, 2013. It was alleged that Defendant store wrongfully caused Plaintiff, a cashier at the subject Defendant store, to be arrested after Defendant store conducted an investigation into allegations that Plaintiff was allowing customers to leave the store without paying for merchandise in exchange for cash tips. Plaintiff brought a four (4) count Complaint for False Imprisonment, Abuse of Process, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Negligence. Read More