LUIS RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ v. AMERICAN SALES AND MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION, LLC, Etc.
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledDecember 1, 2021
Docket3D20-1724
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed December 1, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-1724
Lower Tribunal No. 14-17706
________________
Luis Rodriguez Lopez,
Appellant,
vs.
American Sales and Management Organization, LLC, etc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, William Thomas, Judge.
Dorta Law, and Matias R. Dorta; Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B.
Kula, and William D. Mueller, for appellant.
Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and Joseph Mamounas, and Jay A. Yagoda,
for appellee.
Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ.
LINDSEY, J.
Appellant Luis Rodriguez Lopez appeals from a non-final order
denying his motion for advancement of appellate attorney’s fees.1
Rodriguez seeks advancement of appellate fees in connection with a
separate merits appeal stemming from Appellee American Sales and
Management Organization, LLC’s July 2014 lawsuit against Rodriguez, its
former CEO and manager, for allegedly conspiring to form a competitor.
In 2017, this Court issued an opinion holding that the parties’ Operating
Agreement requires American Sales to advance expenses until final
disposition. See American Sales & Mgmt. Org., LLC v. Lopez, 217 So. 3d
230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). American Sales advanced expenses until a final
judgment was entered below. Following entry of the judgment, American
Sales appealed and Rodriguez cross-appealed. This merits appeal remains
pending. 2
1
We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). See Local Door Coupons Franchise, Inc. v. Mayers, 261
So. 3d 726, 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“An interlocutory order that outright
denies a party’s claim for advancement of litigation expenses under an
indemnification provision contained in a shareholder’s agreement most
assuredly determines a party's right to immediate possession of property: it
determines that the party has no such right. Ergo, review of an order denying
entitlement to advancement is warranted under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii).”).
2
In the merits appeal (3D20-0563), Rodriguez continues to be in the position
of defending against American Sales’ claim that he breached his duties as
an officer and manager. See American Sales, 217 So. 3d at 230 (“Section
5.15(b) of the parties’ Operating Agreement requires that [American Sales]
2
Rodriguez then filed a post-judgment motion in the trial court seeking
advancement of fees and costs incurred in the pending merits appeal. The
trial court denied the motion. Because this Court’s prior opinion interpreting
the parties’ Operating Agreement requires advancement until a final
disposition, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant Rodriguez
advancement of his appellate expenses. See Sun-Times Media Grp., Inc. v.
Black, 954 A.2d 380, 397 (Del. Ch. 2008) (holding that the phrase “final
disposition” in an advancement provision “is most plausibly read as meaning
the final, non-appealable conclusion of a proceeding”).
Reversed and remanded.
shall indemnify and hold harmless any person it sues by reason of the fact
that such person was a manager or officer of [American Sales].”).
3