Lopez v. Am. Sales & Mgmt. Org., LLC

• Decision Date: 01 December 2021
• Docket Number: 3D20-1724
• Citation: 337 So.3d 399
• Parties: Luis Rodriguez LOPEZ, Appellant, v. AMERICAN SALES AND MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION, LLC, etc., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

337 So.3d 399

Luis Rodriguez LOPEZ, Appellant,

v.AMERICAN SALES AND MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION, LLC, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D20-1724

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 1, 2021

Rehearing Denied January 10, 2022

Dorta Law, and Matias R. Dorta ; Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula, and William D. Mueller, Miami, for appellant.

Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and Joseph Mamounas, and Jay A. Yagoda, Miami, 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

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.

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...