Florida's Third District Court of Appeal declined to take up a discovery-order dispute between Akerman and a pro se litigant who alleged he was assaulted in the law firm's office.

Tien filed a notice of appeal after a lower court granted Akerman's motion to compel him to execute IRS Form 4506-T, which would grant the firm permission to access his past tax returns.

The Third DCA's ruling noted the lower court order was nonfinal and nonappealable. The appellate panel treated Tien's notice as a petition for writ of certiorari, and summarily denied it, finding the trial court neither departed from the essential requirements of law nor abused its discretion.

Tien's appeal stemmed from Akerman's attempt to collect attorney fees from him. The law firm's motion for fees was granted in March, shortly after summary judgment was entered against Tien.

Akerman's media relations manager, Marlisa Serrano, did not immediately return requests for comment. Neither the Kubicki Draper attorneys who represented Akerman in Miami-Dade Circuit Court nor the firm's appellate counsel replied to press inquiries by deadline.

|

Read Akerman's motion for summary judgment:

The legal battle between Tien and Akerman dates back to a physical altercation in September 2010 at the firm's former office in the SunTrust International Center. At the time, Tien's mother Ming was locked in a legal battle with her ex-husband, who had retained an Akerman attorney as his legal representative. Tien's mother was later sanctioned nearly $7 million in April 2016 for freezing approximately $100 million in assets during the divorce proceedings.

According to Akerman's motion for summary judgment, Tien accompanied his mother and her former lawyer Roger Slade for a deposition at the Akerman office. Tien purportedly approached his father's attorney and asked "Where is my father?" After the attorney said he did not know, Tien allegedly became irate and was asked to leave the office.

Although he refused to vacate the premises several times, Tien eventually relented. As he approached the elevator he was confronted by a guard employed with Red Coats, the security company used by the building.

Tien alleged the guard grabbed his right arm from behind and slammed him into the elevator, before forcing him to leave. He later entered a claim against the firm in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in September 2014. Tien contended the encounter left him with permanent injuries and alleged the guard had acted under the orders of Akerman.

The suit was later removed to Miami-Dade Circuit Court for lack of jurisdiction. The November 2016 amended complaint filed by Tien against Akerman charged the firm with negligence for allowing a guard with a violent criminal record onto its premises.

As noted in Akerman's motion for summary judgment, Tien also filed a federal lawsuit against Red Coats. The case resulted in a defense verdict after the jury concluded the guard did not act illegally in his interaction with Tien.

"The jury returned a defense verdict and held that while the security guard committed a battery by touching plaintiff, his use of force in response to plaintiff's actions were legally justified and/or done in self-defense of himself or others," the motion said, noting the suit was subsequently dismissed. "Despite the jury's adverse verdict and the court's dismissal … plaintiff continues to pursue this matter against Akerman, claiming it is vicariously liable as an employer of the security guard, or that it had a 'duty' to protect him under a premises liability theory."

The motion continued, "Since neither the security company nor the security guard is liable for plaintiff's damages, Akerman cannot be held secondarily liable either."

Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Thomas Rebull granted Akerman's motion for summary judgment against Tien in January, prompting the firm to later file a motion for attorney fees.

Tien's objection to Akerman's motion for attorney fees contended, in part, that the firm's $500 offer of judgment was not made in good faith. He declined to comment on the Third DCA's findings and told the Daily Business Review he had not yet reviewed the appellate court's order.

Related stories: