Orlando Partner Obtains Seven Appellate Wins in Seven Weeks
Orlando partner Michael D’Lugo has been on a hot streak lately, notching seven appellate wins in the last seven weeks.
The winning streak began on August 6, and consisted of (1) a case that was dismissed because the appellant failed to respond to multiple Orders to Show Cause; (2) a case that was dismissed as moot because the appellant had previously executed a settlement agreement; and the following:
1. A transfer case in which Plaintiff appealed a summary judgment that had been obtained by previous counsel. The underlying case involved an individual with documented drug addiction and mental health problems, who was dropped off by his mother at our client’s social work facility for a scheduled appointment. His mother failed to pick him up and left him there past closing time, so a case worker employed by the facility transported the individual to a nearby homeless shelter for the night. After he was dropped off, he attempted to cross a major interstate highway on foot, and was struck and killed by a passing vehicle. His mother, as the PR of his estate, sued our client, alleging that they breached their duty by dropping him off at the homeless shelter. Original defense counsel obtained summary judgment on the grounds that the facility did not owe a duty to the decedent as a matter of law, but this ruling was appealed. We inherited the case, and Michael submitted an Answer Brief outlining why the original summary judgment was proper and should be upheld. Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam affirmance on August 6, 2024.
2. A motor vehicle accident case in which our insured garbage truck driver collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle on I-4 in Orlando. There was significant evidence that Plaintiff had caused the accident, and accordingly, the trial team set our Motion for Summary Judgment for hearing. Plaintiff moved for a continuance of the hearing, but the trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion, the hearing went forward, and summary judgment was granted. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to grant his Motion for a Continuance, in violation of Rule 1.510(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In the Answer Brief, Michael argued that Rule 1.510(b) is not jurisdictional and can be waived, and that given the fact that the Plaintiff did not cite this rule to the trial court at the time of the hearing regarding the denial of his Motion for Continuance, the issue could not be brought up on appeal. On August 6, 2024, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam affirmance, and the following day, granted our Motion for Appellate Attorney’s Fees.
3. This was a case that was tried by outside defense counsel, and referred to Michael for handling of the appeal only. The underlying case was motor vehicle accident involving the Plaintiff driver and several other parties, including our client, a driver for a major trucking company. The case was tried in Orange County, Florida, and a defense verdict rendered by the jury in June 2022. Plaintiff filed his Initial Brief with the Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal in November 2023, challenging the granting of a partial directed verdict for the defendants, and the alleged surprise admission of one page of an OER report that totaled 2,600 pages.
In his Answer Brief, Michael argued that the partial directed verdict was proper with respect to our client because the evidence showed that our insured driver did nothing to cause the accident. He further argued that there was no surprise involving the allegedly omitted page of the OER report, as it had been disclosed on the Witness and Exhibit List filed with the court more than a year prior to trial, and the corporate representative from the trucking company had testified as to its existence in his deposition.
The Appellant requested oral argument in this case, but the Court declined and issued a per curiam affirmance on August 27, 2024.
4. Plaintiffs in this case were a married couple who attempted to prevent foreclosure on their house through pro se litigation. After their case was dismissed in state court, they filed again in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Southern District dismissed as well, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The dismissal was appealed to the 11th Circuit in September 2023, and the Court affirmed the dismissal on September 10, 2024.
5. This case involved a pro se Plaintiff with serious documented mental health issues. He alleged that he had been given ketamine against his will while under the care of our client while Baker Acted, and further alleged that the administration of this medication led to events that ultimately resulted in his eviction from his apartment. He sought damages in excess of $5 million. Our Motion to Dismiss was granted at the trial court level, which Plaintiff appealed. Michael submitted our Answer Brief to the Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal in August 2023, and the Court issued a PCA on September 24, 2024.
Congratulations Michael on this excellent work!
