.

Legal Updates for Florida Coverage and Property Litigation

Failure to provide reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard rendered trial court’s involuntary dismissal of plaintiff’s suit a violation of due process.

Babcock New Haven, LLC v. Vaheed Teimouri and Teimouri & Associates, Fla. 5th DCA, 5D2023-1525, May 3, 2024

June 1, 2024

This appeal followed a trial court’s entry of a final order dismissing Babcock New Haven, LLC’s lawsuit for failure to comply with a prior order that required it to obtain successor counsel by a certain date. Babcock appealed the order, arguing the court’s entry of dismissal under the circumstances of the case violated its right to due process. 

The prior order at issue flowed from a motion by Babcock’s initial counsel to withdraw from representation of Babcock. On August 28, 2019, the trial court granted the motion to withdraw and ordered Babcock to obtain successor counsel within 30 days of the order. On October 2, 2019, after no attorney had entered an appearance for Babcock, the defendants moved for an involuntary dismissal and sent a copy of the dismissal motion via U.S. mail to Babcock. The next day, October 3, 2019, the trial court entered a final order granting the defendant’s motion for involuntary dismissal and dismissed the entire action without hearing. 

Upon review, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that Babcock’s due process rights had been violated and reversed the trial court’s dismissal. In doing so, the appellate court noted the fact that the trial court’s order concerning obtaining new counsel did not contain any “express language placing Babcock on notice that its failure to obtain successor counsel within the designated time could result in dismissal of the action.” It was further highlighted that the trial court’s ruling on the defendant’s dismissal motion without hearing, entered only approximately 25 hours after it had been filed, deprived Babcock of reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue. 


 

Legal Update for Florida Coverage & Property Litigation – June 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.