3rd DCA Reverses Denial of Attorney Fees to Miccosukee Tribe in Litigation With Lewis Tein Firm
The appellate court ruled the lower court erred in denying the tribe's motion on the grounds its offers of judgment had been made in bad faith.
June 20, 2019 at 04:12 PM
4 minute read
The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida has received a reprieve from an appellate court in its long-running legal battle with a Miami law firm.
On Wednesday, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal issued an opinion reversing and remanding a Miami-Dade Circuit Court order denying the tribe's motion for attorney fees against the Lewis Tein law firm. The appellate panel ruled the lower court erred in its determination that the tribe's offers of judgment totaling $7,500 had been made in bad faith, in turn precluding it from collecting attorney fees. As noted in Wednesday's opinion, the trial court's conclusion was based on the “nominal” nature of the offers and because they were “not made at the beginning of the lawsuit but nine months into the case.”
“This was error under the facts of this case because 'even viewing such offers with “considerable skepticism,” proof of bad faith requires a showing beyond the mere amount of the offer,' ” the appellate court said, noting “ the nominal nature of the offers of judgment does not automatically indicate a lack of good faith.” The order also cited the principle of sovereign immunity and the Third DCA's lengthy August 2017 opinion dismissing Lewis Tein's suit against the tribe in its reasoning for the reversal.
“Here, the tribe had a well-founded, good faith, and legally correct belief that sovereign immunity divested the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction,” the opinion said. “Given these circumstances, the nominal offers had a reasonable foundation, namely the tribe's nominal exposure. In these circumstances, the nominal offers did not indicate a lack of good faith.” The appellate court also held the tribe's proposal was made “well within” the time restrictions outlined by the Florida statutes concerning offers of judgment, and could not be reasoned to have been made in bad faith due to timing.
Attorneys Guy Lewis and Michael Tein represented the Miccosukee Tribe until 2010, at which point now-disbarred Coral Gables litigator Bernardo Roman III handled its affairs. On Roman's involvement, a flurry of lawsuits were filed against the Lewis Tein law firm alleging it had overcharged the tribe for their legal services. In July 2018 the Florida Supreme Court disbarred Roman for misconduct and entering false evidence. The high court is currently considering a 10-year disbarment for Miami attorney Jose Herrera in connection with his purported role in assisting Roman with the lawsuits.
Read the appellate court's opinion:
Lewis Tein filed a complaint seeking damages from the tribe in August 2016 following Roman's lawsuits. The case reached the Third DCA after the tribe appealed a Miami-Dade Circuit Court order denying its motion to dismiss. Colson Hicks Eidson partner Curtis Miner represented the law firm before the appeals court and criticized both Wednesday's opinion as well as the appellate panel's August 2017 order in a statement to the Daily Business Review.
“In its original opinion the Third District Court of Appeal said that Lewis and Tein had to 'suffer from the squeeze' of the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity, which left them with no recourse in our courts for the tribe's malicious prosecutions,” Miner said. “It is disappointing that, after all the Miccosukee Tribe has put Lewis and Tein through, that it would seek to have them suffer further through the imposition of attorney's fees.”
Plantation-based attorney Robert Saunooke served as counsel to the tribe alongside Atlanta attorney George Abney. Saunooke called the Third DCA's ruling straightforward in a phone conversation with the Daily Business Review.
“We're obviously very pleased with the decision from the appellate court,” he said. “We look forward to this decision hopefully helping us resolve the matter and letting all the parties move forward from there.”
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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 2Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 3'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 4Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 5These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
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