The Case Histories on the following pages include summaries of several, but not all, of the cases handled by our firm in the past. The summaries were prepared by the firm and have not been reviewed or approved by the Florida Bar. Each case is different; your facts and circumstances may differ from the cases summarized. The results reflected in these Case Histories are illustrative only and are not intended to provide any indication of the likelihood of potential success or failure of any future action; every case is different and each client's case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits.

To continue to the “Cases” section of this website, check the box and click “Continue.”

I Understand

MPS v. Siemens Westinghouse

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Frank served as primary trial counsel in defense of a $300 million trade secret misappropriation case. Defending one of the world’s largest power plant equipment companies, he secured a directed verdict in favor of his client after two weeks of Plaintiff presentation to the jury. Frank defended his client’s judgment before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, prevailing at oral argument for a per curiam affirmance.

Starbucks v. Yeehaw Travel Center

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Negotiated a stipulated judgment and payment in favor of Starbucks in a trademark infringement and dilution action in Federal Court.

Transcontinental Records v.
Zomba Recording Corporation

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Local counsel in a career-threatening suit against the blockbuster band, N*Sync. The band’s former manager filed a multi-million dollar suit against the band for royalty and intellectual property rights as well as injunctive relief to stop the band from releasing its new album, later aptly named “No Strings Attached.” Working hand-in-hand with New York counsel, the team was successful in defeating Plaintiff’s claims and securing a significant settlement in their clients’ favor.

Lexmark International adv. iSiNetwork

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida

Frank and Jen defended Lexmark International, one of the world’s largest suppliers of printer and support services, in an action seeking over $100,000,000.00 in damages for an alleged failed business deal. iSiNetwork argued that it had an agreement in place to be the exclusive supplier of Lexmark materials in all of South America and, through a course of dealing, Lexmark had thwarted its efforts and breached the agreement. The FAHPA team embarked on an aggressive strategy of discovery, including depositions of persons stationed throughout North America and South America. Ultimately, the team was successful in obtaining a summary judgment in Lexmark’s favor that there was insufficient evidence to even support the creation of an agreement and, even had an agreement been created, it failed because of Florida’s statute of frauds. iSi Network’s appeal was dismissed.

Portion Pac Chemical Corporation v. Sanitech Systems

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Lead defense counsel in a trade dress, trademark, trade secret and copyright infringement action for a distributor of school sanitation chemicals. Faced with an aggressive barrage of motion practice from Washington counsel, Frank spearheaded the effort to secure a Report and Recommendation from the Court denying Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief less than thirty days after being retained. Frank’s early intervention and aggressive strategy changed the entire dynamic of the case and led to Plaintiff instituting immediate settlement discussions. On the eve of trial, despite alleging damages in excess of $1 million dollars, Plaintiff settled with Sanitech, paying Sanitech a six-figure settlement and dismissing all claims.

Holmes Regional Medical Center v.
Gresham Smith and Partners

Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Brevard County, Florida

Holmes sued Gresham Smith for alleged design deficiencies in the construction of a new hospital in Brevard County. Gresham Smith defended that its work was appropriate, that Holmes had failed to pay its substantial monies it owed and that Holmes’ allegations of damages were grossly overstated. Holmes initially sought in excessive of $750,000.00 in damages. At trial, Holmes reduced its demand to $250,000.00 on the first day of trial. After a week long non-jury trial, Frank successfully defended the case to a minimal judgment of $32,000.00, far below the amount Gresham Smith had offered to settle the case.

Glass Sentinel Products v.
Hurricane Window Shields

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Frank represented the South Carolina distributor of a proprietary window coating product facing trademark infringement, patent infringement and other claims. Frank developed an aggressive discovery and resolution plan, ultimately securing for his client a full release, and the rights to the internet domain names and logos at issue in the case.

Answer First v. Answer All

Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida

Frank defended this non-jury action representing one of Central Florida’s last answering service businesses. A classic mom and pop operation, Answer All had sold all its business assets to Answer First in return for Answer First’s promise to pay on a note against the property and to not further sell the property to anyone else until the note was paid. The business sale documents contained a number of cross-collateralization provisions and UCC-1’s. At trial, Frank proved that Answer First had breached the agreement by failing to make payments on the note and that its defenses against payment of the note were a subterfuge designed to hide its sale of the assets to an out-of-state company in direct violation of Florida law and the UCC’s. Answer All received a judgment in its favor and recouped the monies owed plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

Basner v. Archinetics, Inc

Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida

In this case, Frank defended the architect against claims resulting from a horrific car accident in which the Plaintiff, a rear seat passenger in a car struck by another vehicle, was rendered a virtual paraplegic. Frank immediately met with his client, reviewed his client’s documents and embarked on a detailed investigation and further review of the other parties’ documentation. This allowed Frank to move for, and obtain, a Summary Judgment in favor of his client against a seven figure demand. Ultimately, on the eve of trial, the case was settled among other parties for in excess of $10 million dollars.

Bennett v. TVA&A

Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Seminole County, Florida

As lead counsel defending an architect who had designed a handicapped ramp for a chain of restaurants throughout the United States, Defendants sufficiently persuaded the Plaintiff at trial that (1) she was largely responsible for her own damages in failing to pay attention to a clearly marked ramp, (2) the ramp met all applicable design standards and (3) any defects in the ramp were caused by defective construction. Immediately prior to trial, Plaintiff had settled with the contractor for a minimal sum but was forced at trial to acknowledge that the largest cause of her damages were construction defects. The case was settled after opening statement for a nominal payment from the Defendant architect.

deHoyos v. Holler

Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida

In this high profile case involving adjacent homeowners, Plaintiffs were asserting that a portion of their neighbor’s property was actually a continuation of a road right-of-way and should be open for public access to Lake Maitland. Defendants had purchased the homestead property for several million dollars and had made extensive improvements. Frank was retained after the Plaintiffs had obtained a pivotal Summary Judgment establishing the distance of the road way based on what Defendants contended were inaccurate and inadmissible documentation. Leading the discovery and ultimate trial of the action, Frank and his co-counsel obtained a Final Judgment on behalf of Defendants finding that, to the extent any roadway may have existed, it had either been abandoned or extinguished by Florida’s Marketable Record Title Act. Plaintiffs’ appeal to the Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals was per curiam affirmed in favor of Frank’s clients and Plaintiffs were ordered to pay in excess of $50,000.00 in court costs.

Emch et al. v. FW&A, Inc.

Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida

In defense of one of Florida’s oldest engineering companies, Frank tried this jury case to a directed verdict in his client’s favor. Plaintiffs sought several hundred thousand dollars in damages in a personal injury action over an alleged electrocution. In defense, Frank asserted that Plaintiff was responsible for his own injuries and that Plaintiffs’ expert was not qualified to testify as a standard of care expert against FW&A. At the conclusion of Plaintiffs’ case, the trial court agreed, granted a motion for directed verdict, and entered judgment in FW&A’s favor.

GSM v. HID, et al.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Plaintiff's counsel in suit to defend the copyright of one of the nation's premier medical information programs. Through the filing of appropriate supplemental registrations and an aggressive discovery strategy, Frank was able to secure an early settlement of the matter on behalf of his client that included payment of all attorneys' fees and an additional licensing fee.

Harrold v. Moeller

Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida

Plaintiff sued for what he alleged was a contract that bound Defendant to transfer stock in a very valuable health services company for stock in the Plaintiff’s apparently worthless bar business. Plaintiff sought almost $3 million dollars in his Complaint. As lead counsel for Defendant, Frank posited a number of counterclaims, chief among which was a claim that the Plaintiff had stopped payment on a $50,000.00 check with intent to defraud Defendant. Immediately prior to trial, Frank’s team convinced the Court to enter a number of discovery sanctions, including striking the Plaintiff’s damages expert. After a one week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that there was no contract, and that indeed Plaintiff had stopped payment on the $50,000.00 check with an intent to defraud Defendant, finding in Defendant’s favor in excess of $200,000.00 plus costs and attorney’s fees.

HMI et al. v. MWW

Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida

Spearheading the defense team’s efforts in this legal malpractice action, Frank successfully argued for the recusal of the trial judge and successfully compelled the successor judge to revisit and overturn a number of the prior judge’s orders, including an order granting Plaintiffs the right to pursue punitive damages and denying the Defendant’s right to assert a setoff for settlement proceeds received from other Defendants. While Plaintiffs initially claimed in excess of one million dollars in damages, immediately prior to trial, Frank was successful in convincing the court to strike a number of damages claims as well as a number of witnesses who had not been previously disclosed. Following opening statement and Plaintiffs’ unsuccessful efforts to submit their first witness, Plaintiffs settled the case entering a voluntary dismissal with prejudice in exchange for a nominal payment from Defendants.

Holland v. Dixon

Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Seminole County, Florida

Plaintiff claimed that Frank’s client had defrauded him in the sale of a vending business. As lead defense counsel, Frank defended that the sale was a proper arms-length transaction and that Plaintiff simply had not been able to run the business. Dixon additionally counterclaimed that Plaintiff had not paid the $300,000 he owed Dixon as his final payment on the business. At the conclusion of five days of testimony, the jury entered a zero verdict on Plaintiff’s claim in excess of a million dollars, including a separate claim for punitive damages, and entered a verdict in Frank’s client’s favor for the full measure of damages sought.

Jacoboni v. CBA, Inc.

Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Seminole County, Florida

Frank represented the Plaintiff in this action, seeking to recover damages on behalf of his client for the Defendant’s breach of contract in providing defective lighting fixtures to Plaintiff’s property. Defendant, having filed a third party claim against the distributor of the fixtures alleging that the distributor had breached their contract by providing defective fixtures, nonetheless asserted that it was not liable for any damages to Plaintiff. Frank had convinced his client to settle the case for 75 percent of the principal value of the loss, but Defendant refused. Additionally, on the eve of trial, Defendant asserted a counterclaim against Plaintiff, contending that Frank’s client had not paid amounts owed to the Defendant. In a week long jury trial, Frank obtained a successful verdict on behalf of his client and defeated the counterclaim to a zero verdict. Additionally, the court directed a verdict against Defendant on their third party claim. Ultimately, having had the opportunity to settle the case for $27,000.00, Defendant suffered a Judgment against it in excess of $50,000.00. Further, the Defendant became obligated for over a $100,000.00 in attorney’s fees to both Frank’s client and the other party the Defendant had sued.

Kurtz v. Gee and Jensen Engineers

Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Sarasota County, Florida

Frank served as second chair in the defense of both the Manatee County Port Authority and their engineer, Gee and Jensen, against allegations by the Plaintiffs that the Port Authority and Gee and Jensen had misled the Plaintiffs concerning a dredging project. Kurtz complained that in performing maintenance dredging of the Port, they had been provided inaccurate information about the depths to be dredged and the conditions on the Port floor. Conducting a vigorous investigation, including depositions across the country, the defense was able to prove that Kurtz had over dredged certain areas and was well knowledgeable of the conditions they should have encountered on the Port floor based on industry standards which were known to them. Additionally, Frank submitted and argued a summary judgment which cut out over $1.2 million dollars of Plaintiffs’ $1.4 million dollar claim. At trial, Plaintiffs settled the case for a nominal amount, far below even what the Defendants had offered to settle previously.


U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma

In this legal malpractice action, LGA, under the ownership of a successor in interest, sought damages for what it alleged was the malpractice of its prior attorneys. Having successfully obtained numerous judgments against the prior owners of the corporation and the corporation itself, the successor was seen as a formidable litigation threat. Frank was the principal attorney on a litigation team which embarked on an aggressive course of discovery and motion practice ultimately leading to the involuntary dismissal of Plaintiff’s case and the entry of a judgment against Plaintiff.

Standard Disposal v. Mid Town

Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida

In this non-jury action, Frank defended a claim brought by the landlord alleging that Mid Town had breached the lease by maintaining its construction and demolition waste disposal facility in violation of governing state rules and regulations. Contending that the landlord’s efforts were nothing more than a ruse to oust Mid Town from the property in favor of a more lucrative tenant, Frank was able to show, that seven days prior to the landlord instituting suit, the governing agency overseeing the facility’s operations had given it a clean bill of health and that in its prospectus to sell its interest to the property, the landlord had described the condition of the property as “good to outstanding”. At the conclusion of trial, Frank’s client received a ruling from the bench for judgment in its favor plus attorneys’ fees. Frank was able to recover all costs and fees associated with the litigation, and the tenant remains in possession of the property today.

Williams v. Luke Transportation
Engineering Company

Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida

In this personal injury action, Frank defended a traffic engineer over allegations that the engineer’s maintenance of traffic plan had led to a tragic car accident in which the Plaintiff, a young man riding a bicycle, had been struck by a car in the vicinity of a construction zone. Embarking on a detailed and specific discovery plan, Frank posited the case for Summary Judgment and ultimately obtained judgment in favor of his client on the basis that his client owed no duty to the Plaintiff and an accident such as the one that occurred was not foreseeable. The case settled soon after the entry of the Judgment.

Guthrie vs. Liotti

Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida

Our attorneys and staff worked diligently on behalf of the Guthries; owed money over a series of transactions dealing with sale of a bar business. The Defendant had defaulted and owed in excess of $90,000.00. Various asset searches revealed that the Defendant had a separate, unencumbered piece of property she was trying to sell. Frank and his team successfully attached those assets, established a lien with the title company, all of which led to a remarkable recovery-- one of the few cases where the creditor recovered every dime owed to them, including their attorneys’ fees and costs.

GTS adv. Dept. of Health

Florida Department of Health

Frank and his team became involved in this action after their client had been cited in a multi-hundred page inspection report for failure to follow Florida Department of Health guidelines in the sale of saline solution for training purposes to various community colleges and other entities. While the Department of Health considered saline a “prescription drug”, the FAHPA team was successful in convincing the Department that since the client only sold prepackaged saline solution for training purposes only, the specific and very restrictive mandates governing prescription drugs should be lessened here given the specific training nature of the materials involved and the materials themselves. Ultimately, the team was successful in convincing the Department to issue the appropriate permits to allow the client to continue their life’s work and eliminating over 90% of the fine. Further, Jen prepared a comprehensive Policy and Procedure Manual and retained appropriate business consultants to assist GTS in its future endeavors to keep it from running afoul of future Department intervention.

Dyal adv. Terry

Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal

Frank and Jennifer were retained to represent Dyal to defend the appeal of an insurance proceeds dispute. While tragic facts surrounded the case, the principal issue was whether the trial court had properly entered summary judgment in Dyal’s favor even though it was only the opposition who had moved for summary judgment. The team was successful in demonstrating to the appellate court that the trial court judge was well within his rights in entering summary judgment in a declaratory judgment action even though a particular motion had not been filed. Ultimately, after briefs and discovery and mediation, the appellate court per curiam affirmed the trial court’s ruling, leading to a resounding success for Dyal.