Miami Jury Hits Defense With $5.4M Verdict After String of No-Shows
Without the money to pay Fort Lauderdale defense attorney Sean Sheppard to represent him at trial, defendant Chad M. Freeman and his liquidation company Freeman Hammond LLC ended up on the losing side of a $10 million judgment.
February 20, 2019 at 03:01 PM
6 minute read
When a Miami-Dade jury awarded $5.4 million in damages to a Broward liquidation company Feb. 5, Fort Lauderdale defense attorney Sean P. Sheppard wasn't there. He'd skipped the trial and two mediation sessions at the request of his client, Chad M. Freeman, who said he couldn't afford to defend himself and his South Carolina company Freeman Hammond LLC.
To make matters worse, the judge ordered Freeman's company to pay $4.1 million, for a final judgment of nearly $10 million.
The case stems from a suit by the Recon Group, which refurbishes various goods to resell in bulk, against former employee Freeman in July 2015. He'd been fired and allegedly left with the company's client list, according to the suit, using it to start his own venture despite having signed a noncompete agreement.
It took about a week for The Recon Group's longtime clients to notice, according to outside general counsel Mikhael E. Keifitz in North Miami Beach. They called in, alleging someone else had got in touch, badmouthed the company and tried to sell them the same merchandise.
Cue trial lawyers Michael Sayre and Glen H. Waldman of Waldman Barnett in Miami, who Keifitz drafted in to help with the lawsuit alleging breach of contract, trade secret theft, unfair competition and defamation.
Click here to read the complaint
The defense denied all claims and moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Freeman never signed a noncompete agreement with The Recon Group, and that its customers weren't trade secrets because anyone could find them through a Google search.
Sheppard deferred comment to Freeman, who said he'd had no option but to start his own business after suddenly losing his job but had never taken a client list.
“When you're fired you have to do something pretty quickly,” Freeman said. “What I did quickly was what I knew, which was liquidation.”
The two sides saw things differently and were headed to court. But first, mediation.
In the 10 years Keifitz has managed The Recon Group's legal affairs, he says he's never had a no-show. The first one occurred at a hearing scheduled for 10 a.m. on Jan. 9.
“I'm driving through Miami traffic at 9:15 a.m., I'm almost there and I get an email from counsel saying they're not showing up,” Keifitz said.
According to Keifitz, defense counsel Sheppard emailed to explain that his client hadn't given him permission to attend, and after waiting about 40 minutes the mediator called it a day.
Keifitz then asked Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Barbara Areces to compel mediation in an emergency hearing. And she did, scheduling a Jan. 21 mediation and making it clear that another no-show wouldn't go over well.
“I went to mediation,” Keifitz said. “Again we were there for maybe 40 minutes and again he would not show.”
For Keifitz, it was Sheppard's lack of communication that bothered him more than the no-show.
“We have legal and ethical responsibilities to the Florida Bar,” Keifitz said. “His ethical responsibility is to let other Florida counsels know if he's coming or not, because we spent our time and therefore the client's money.”
|'He couldn't do it for free'
According to defendant Freeman, he couldn't afford to defend himself.
“The reason we didn't show up for court is because, as nice as my attorney is, he couldn't do it for free, though he offered me the best price possible to be able to go to court and fight it,” Freeman said. “My wife and I had used two credit cards between the both of us to hire him for a retainer fee. In under no circumstances did we ever in a million years think that it was going to be a $10 million judgment between the company and myself.”
After losing his job, then his business, Freeman's car and replacement motorcycle were repossessed.
At a second emergency hearing, the judge entered a default judgment against the defendants, finding liability, striking their responses and moving for a jury trial to decipher damages — a judgment Areces ruled she couldn't make, since both parties had previously asked for a trial.
Trial attorneys Sayre and Waldman stepped in at the last minute. Sayre had another case set for trial Feb. 4 but it settled three days prior, so he whipped up a verdict form, jury instructions and witness statements ready for The Recon Group's Feb. 5 trial.
About 80 potential jurors were supposed to appear that day, but according to Sayre only six came.
“I got what I got,” Sayre said.
After double-checking that none had signed noncompete agreements, Sayre proceeded.
“It's easier when there's nobody on the other side,” Sayre quipped. “But the jury still had to accept our version of our damages and our facts, and they thankfully did.”
The Recon Group's director of e-commerce testified, and though the company dealt in millions of dollars it asked for between $699,000 and $1.349 million.
“We didn't ask for too much, and I think the jury maybe appreciated that,” Sayre said.
Read the jury verdict:
Jurors found the defense liable for $1.349 million, which under Florida's civil theft statute can be tripled. Areces's final judgment ordered Freeman to pay $5.4 million and his company $4.1 million.
Freeman hasn't decided whether he'll appeal the verdict, but says it's shaken his confidence in the system.
“My wife and I have been through hell for three years,” he said. ”Whether you're innocent or not, if you don't have money you're guilty.”
But it's not about the money, the way Keifitz sees it.
“[The Recon Group] know that collecting millions is not going to happen,” Keifitz said. “Most important for the client is that they stood up not just for themselves but for their employees, because if they allowed this person to continue taking clients they would have to lay off some people. You lose customers, you lose income, then you lose jobs.”
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRogge Dunn Represents Florida Trucking Firm in Civil RICO Suit Against Worldwide Express
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
- 2Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 3Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 4De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 5Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250