Golden Gate Homes, LC v. Levey
59 So. 3d 275
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Golden Gate Homs, LC hired Levey Airan in 2003 to represent it in L&G Litigation, Smith Litigation, and Caribbean Litigation.
- Discovery problems arose in L&G and Smith; Golden Gate’s principal Zingg allegedly withheld documents, while Levey Airan blamed Zingg for nonproduction.
- Levey Airan withdrew from representation in late 2006 as Smith and L&G cases progressed toward trial.
- May 2008 Golden Gate filed a complaint asserting two counts of professional malpractice and one count of negligent supervision against Levey and DeBianchi and the firm Levey Filler (f/k/a Levey Airan Brownstein Shevin Friedman Roen & Kelso, LLP).
- In Smith Litigation, late production of documents and a sanctions dispute led to trial-date sanctions, costs, and eventual settlement; Golden Gate alleged malpractice due to defendants’ conduct.
- In L&G Litigation, a sequence of discovery failures, withdrawal timelines, and court orders culminated in dismissal and later appellate proceedings, with Golden Gate asserting malpractice and causal links to the losses suffered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith-related malpractice claims were properly dismissed | Golden Gate asserts defendants’ late production and their conduct caused costs and prejudice | Smith and counsel were not responsible for Golden Gate’s late production and costs | Affirmed: dismissal upheld for Smith-related claims |
| Whether the L&G malpractice claims survive given withdrawal timing and alleged negligence | Negligence and proximate causation should be viable despite withdrawal | Withdrawal and intervening events break causation; no viable claim at this stage | Reversed in part: questions of fact remain; L&G-related malpractice claims viable and remanded |
| Whether Levey Filler is a proper party to the action | Levey Filler is the same entity as Levey Airan and should be proper | Levey Filler and Levey Airan are separate entities; Levey Filler not proper | Affirmed: Levey Filler properly dismissed as a party |
Key Cases Cited
- Dadic v. Schneider, 722 So.2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (privity not required; negligence can arise from attorney’s conduct after withdrawal)
- Law Office of David J. Stern, P.A. v. Security National Servicing Corp., 969 So.2d 962 (Fla. 2007) (three elements of legal malpractice; proximate cause considerations)
- Morin v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 963 So.2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (treat complaint and attachments as true on a motion to dismiss)
- Chipman v. Chonin, 597 So.2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (negligence without privity in professional malpractice context)
- Szteinbaum v. Kaes Inversiones y Valores, C.A., 476 So.2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (artificial entities and corporate separateness in liability context)
- Sure Snap Corp. v. Baena, 705 So.2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (proper party analysis; corporate entity distinction)