Robert C. Gunther, Jayne C. Gunther, and Highpoint Tower Technology, Inc. v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L L P
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledOctober 21, 2022
Docket2D21-0341
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
ROBERT C. GUNTHER, JAYNE C. GUNTHER, and HIGHPOINT
TOWER TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Appellants,
v.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, a Pennsylvania limited liability
partnership; BDO SEIDMAN, LLP, n/k/a BDO USA LLP, a New
York limited liability partnership; and AIG INTERNATIONAL INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Appellees.
No. 2D21-341
October 21, 2022
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Steven Scott
Stephens, Judge.
Adam P. Merrill of Watershed Law LLC, Chicago, Illinois; Scott F.
Hessell of Sterling & Slater, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, and Scott C.
Ilgenfritz of Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP, Tampa,
for Appellants.
Ceci C. Berman of Brannock Humphries & Berman, Tampa; James
P. Fogelman and Shannon Mader of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Los
Angeles, California; and Jennifer K. Bracht of Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP.
No appearance for remaining Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Robert C. Gunther, Jayne C. Gunther, and Highpoint Tower
Technology, Inc. (collectively, "Gunther"), appeal the circuit court's
dismissal with prejudice of Gunther's claims against Morgan, Lewis
& Bockius LLP.
This opinion issues contemporaneously with the opinion in
Logan v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, case number 2D21-337.
While the plaintiffs in the two cases differ, their complaints against
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP for allegedly aiding and abetting
fraud and breach of fiduciary duty and for civil conspiracy are
materially similar. The cases have traveled together in this court,
and they were presented contemporaneously at oral argument by
the same attorneys. Any factual differences between the cases,
while potentially important to the ultimate outcomes of the
proceedings below, are inconsequential to this court's review of the
orders dismissing the actions.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in this court's opinion in case
number 2D21-337, in which we reversed the dismissal of Logan's
2
claims, we likewise reverse the dismissal of Gunther's claims and
remand for further proceedings consistent with the Logan opinion.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ.,
Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
2