Case Results of Samuel Alexander

Despite client's history of part-time employment and a lack of proof that she could obtain full-time employment, relocate to Florida, and still maintain her seniority, the trial court found that she had voluntarily cut her hours in half by engaging in a “line-share” agreement that gave her a flexible schedule. We appealed on our client’s behalf, arguing that the trial court erred in doubling her historic income, ruling that she should relocate, finding without proof that her mother could care for her children, and imputing income without making the required findings. We also argued the trial court erroneously shifted the burden of proof to our client to show that income should not be imputed.

In a published opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit just agreed with our arguments that there was a reasonable basis in the evidence for a federal jury to find that our Miami client, AM Grand, suffered $9.28 million in damages from Hurricane Irma, rejecting the insurance company’s argument that the verdict was speculative and excessive. AM Grand Court Lakes LLC v. Rockhill Ins. Co., 20-13954, 2023 WL 3813777, at *1 (11th Cir. June 5, 2023). After a Miami jury awarded AM Grand $9.28 million on its claim for breach of an insurance policy in federal court, Rockhill Insurance Co. appealed. At trial Rockhill claimed the damage was under the deductible, while AM Grand claimed the damage was over the $15.1 million policy limit. On appeal, Rockhill argued (among other things) that there was no in-between evidence or argument. The defense on appeal was straightforward: there was plenty of in-between evidence, and the jury was free to reject the all-or-nothing theories of damage presented by both sides. We also argued that Rockhill failed to preserve its key argument and had taken a logically inconsistent position with respect to its motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court heard oral argument, then issued a lengthy opinion, agreeing with our arguments on appeal—every one of them. This case is typical of a case where oral argument is helpful: a fact-heavy record with complex arguments that can be understood better through the use of examples, comparisons, hypotheticals, questions, and answers.

Our client, Overture Realty, LLC, obtained a piece of property in the City of Madeira Beach. When the City of Madeira filed a foreclosure suit to collect on liens for an alleged failure to maintain the property, the City requested a summary foreclosure proceeding. But summary foreclosure is available only when a defendant refuses to defend against a suit. Here, Overture put on a strong defense. So summary foreclosure simply wasn’t available to the city. But the trial court granted summary foreclosure anyway, finding there were no disputes of fact and that the City’s allegations of hundreds of thousands of unpaid lien amounts required foreclosure. We appealed on behalf of the client, arguing that (1) summary foreclosure was not available in a defended suit; (2) the requirements of a summary foreclosure complaint were not met; and (3) the City’s evidence of the liens amounts was not properly verified and the amounts were unsupported. On appeal, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed, agreeing that summary foreclosure was unavailable to the City of Madeira, and agreeing that the complaint had issues. For example, it appeared the City had attempted to foreclose on another party’s lien, and the lien amounts the City asserted were backed by “minimal explanation.” In its brief, our firm argued that this case was similar to MDTR LLC v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 224 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). On appeal, the appellate court agreed, reasoning that because it was faced with a “similar scenario,” the court was “compelled to” reverse. The full opinion can be found here: Overture Realty, LLC v. City of Madeira Beach, 357 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). February 15, 2023 Previous Attorney Successfully Defends $9.28 Million Miami Verdict in Federal Appeal Next Samuel Alexander Elected to Executive Council of Florida's Appellate Practice Section Licensed in Florida. home | appellate analysis | services | resources| contact (689) 259-5010 | info@alexanderappeals.com | privacy policy 120 S Woodland Blvd Suite 200 DeLand FL 32720 A boutique law firm specializing in appellate litigation and trial support. A online Thank you for visiting Alexander Appellate Law P.A. How can we help you today?

In March 2018, Robert McKinley was walking through the TD Ballpark stadium when he was bitten without provocation by a deputy sheriff’s K9 unit. Mr. McKinley suffered severe injuries to his right arm. After suing the sheriff’s office, the trial court dismissed his case, ruling that sovereign immunity protected the sheriff from liability. Sovereign immunity protects the government from lawsuits for engaging in discretionary, policy-level decision-making, but does not protect the government from lawsuits aimed at operational-level conduct. Our firm was retained to handle the appeal. In the appeal, we argued that under Florida Supreme Court case law, police can be sued for negligent handling of equipment—like cars or firearms—and that a police dog was a form of equipment. We also argued that handling a police dog was “operational” rather than “policy-level” behavior. The Second District Court of Appeal agreed, holding: we do not hesitate to conclude that although the decision to patrol the baseball venue with K-9s may have been discretionary, the act of patrolling the venue with K-9s was operational. Therefore, McKinley's lawsuit is not barred by sovereign immunity. Accordingly, we vacate the order dismissing McKinley's fourth amended complaint and remand for further proceedings.

It's been a long journey for Tasha Ford. In 2009, Boynton Beach police arrested her for wiretapping and obstruction because she refused to stop recording them with her phone as they arrested her minor son. She sued for false arrest, but after 10 years of litigation, the City won its motion for summary judgment. We appealed in late 2019. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision.