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 against 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.

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 she was largely responsible for her own damages in failing to pay attention to a clearly marked ramp, that the ramp met all applicable design standards and that 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 was construction defects. The case was settled after opening statement for a nominal payment from the Defendant architect.

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 claims of 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.

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 to include 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.

Holmes Regional Medical Center v. Gresham Smith and Partners, Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, FL.

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 some $32,000.00, far below the amount Gresham Smith had offered to settle the case.

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.

LGA v. DWRS&W,
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.

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.

PortionPac 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.

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.

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 GHR team was successful in defeating Plaintiff’s claims and securing a significant settlement in their clients’ favor.

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.