Fla. Jury Sides With Polo Star In Fight Over Cloned Horse Deal

By Carolina Bolado ·

Law360 (May 6, 2024, 10:17 PM EDT) -- A Florida federal jury on Monday handed an Argentine polo star a win on breach of contract and trade secret claims against a competitor over the use of genetic material in cloned foals.

A jury in Fort Pierce, Florida, returned a verdict in favor of polo star Adolfo Cambiaso and his company La Dolfina SA on their claims that Alan Meeker, who owns Crestview Farm LLC and Crestview Genetics LLC, breached a 2019 agreement to clone horses.

The jurors also found in Cambiaso's favor on a claim for unjust enrichment against Crestview Farm and Meeker and on a claim for violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Florida Uniform Secrets Act for unauthorized cloning and selling of La Dolfina horses.

In Cambiaso's suit, filed in December 2020, Cambiaso said Meeker overstepped the bounds of their deal, which gave Crestview only limited licensing rights and not full ownership over the use of the original genetic material. Crestview had unilaterally sold three cloned horses to Pegasus Rider Ltd., Cambiaso's competitor, for $800,000 each in November 2020, in a contract that included an option for the sale of seven future cloned horses.

In August, U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon granted Crestview summary judgment on part of the suit, finding that a 2009 agreement between Cambiaso and Meeker was void and unenforceable because it is a "quintessential 'agreement to agree'" that does not meet what is required of a joint venture agreement.

The judge said the language of the agreement made clear that Cambiaso and La Dolfina meant to enter into a joint venture with Crestview, with details to be hammered out later, but that never happened, and the agreement includes no direction as to who would own the cloned foals or how the profits — or losses, if the venture was unsuccessful — would be shared.

But Judge Cannon denied summary judgment on a slew of claims, counterclaims and affirmative defenses, leaving it up to a jury to decide whether there was a breach of the 2019 agreement and whether equine genetic material constitutes a trade secret.

The jurors on Monday rejected each of Crestview's affirmative defenses and counterclaims.

"We're very pleased the jury saw the true picture," Cambiaso's attorney, Avery Chapman, told Law360.

Cambiaso has requested the return of the cloned horses and the genetic tissue in the case.

"It's his family's legacy," Chapman said.


Jury Awards $1M To Medical Co.'s Buyer Over Soured Deal

By Nathan Hale ·

Law360 (November 4, 2021, 6:58 PM EDT) -- A Florida federal jury has awarded more than $1 million against the former owner of a group of medical equipment companies after finding that he committed several breaches in connection with their sale and then interfered with their business.

Following an eight-day trial, jurors ruled Wednesday in favor of Partners Biomedical Services LLC, an entity formed by plaintiff Dr. Robert Burke for the acquisition, on most of its remaining claims regarding the ill-fated transaction. But they stopped short of finding that defendant Eugene Saltsman and his entity Alfatwo Holdings LLC had engaged in fraud or deception and also denied requests for punitive damages against them.

The jury also rejected most of Saltsman's counterclaims, which alleged breaches of various parts of the parties' agreements, but they did award him $200,000 in damages after finding that Burke and a broker failed to obtain required financing. Saltsman claimed that failure breached PBS' operating agreement and rendered Alfatwo's interest in PBS worthless.

Burke filed his 80-page complaint in September 2019, raising a variety of claims about how his "business plan or 'vision'" to acquire and consolidate Saltsman's companies — Gulf Coast Biomedical Inc., Gulf Coast Instrument Co. LLC and Advanced Laser Service Inc. — to form a leader in medical equipment sales and services for the biomedical industry went awry.

The suit claimed that Saltsman and others inflated and misrepresented numerous aspects of the companies' financial condition to fraudulently induce him into the acquisition.

It also alleged that a broker, Steven Friedman, secretly worked for Saltsman while purporting to represent the buyers and negotiating an equity interest in the new company for himself.

Additionally, following the closing of the deal — which left Saltsman, Friedman and other defendants holding interests in PBS — several defendants allegedly violated noncompete agreements and used company trade secrets to start a new company, Matrix Instrument Services Inc., to lure business and employees away from PBS.

"Eventually unable to service its customers in the New York tri-state area as a result of these improper acts by Matrix and other defendants, plaintiff PBS had to transfer its PBS customer contractual service obligations to a third party for nominal compensation, thus losing profits as a result of the violation of the PBS operating agreement provisions and the interference with the PBS-customer contracts as well," the complaint said.

The claims against Friedman and an entity he controlled were stayed after the court granted a motion to compel arbitration, but no arbitration proceeding has been filed, according to court records.

Fort Lauderdale-based U.S. Magistrate Judge William Matthewman, who presided over the trial, also narrowed the claims by granting partial summary judgment to several defendants, including Saltsman's son and Matrix.

During the litigation, Judge Matthewman also partially granted the plaintiffs' request for sanctions against the defendants and attorneys from Fowler White Burnett PA after it was revealed that Friedman obtained emails of Burke's after Burke's accounts were inadvertently left open on Friedman's laptop. The judge ruled that the defendants could not rely on that content in any manner in the litigation and related arbitration but stopped short of imposing harsher penalties after concluding there was no hacking involved or violations of state and federal legal ethics rules.

The plaintiffs are represented by Avery Spencer Chapman of Chapman Law Group PLC.

The case is Partners Biomedical Solutions LLC et al. v. Saltsman et al., case number 19-cv-81316, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.


Top Innovators: Avery Chapman Stresses the Personal Touch in Pandemic Era

"In this era the personal touch is always appreciated and is always more productive," the founder of the Equine Law Group says.

September 28, 2020 at 06:00 AM

AVERY CHAPMAN
Equine Law Group

Chapman founded a law firm in Wellington's horse country that addresses issues in the equine industry, including fraud claims, contract, sales and commissions disputes, disciplinary and doping violations, negligence claims, business formation and transactions, employment issues, insurance coverage disputes and equine liens.

Q: Explain what innovative steps you've taken to stay productive during the coronavirus pandemic? 
A: As a smaller office, we committed to keeping the office physically open, while providing 24/7 telephonic and e-access for our clients at their preference. Clients have both continued to come into the office but appreciate when we respond in real time late at night and on weekends to their queries and needs. New clients have appreciated our responsiveness and accommodation.

Q: Have you introduced any new hardware, software or workarounds to get things done? 
A: We have found the best way to get things done is to redouble our efforts to personally speak or virtually meet with our clients, adversaries and witnesses. Whereas before an email might have sufficed, in this era the personal touch is always appreciated and is always more productive.

Q: Do you have any insights on what the legal profession still needs to do to effectively move forward? 
A: The aspiration of professionalism should not be overlooked at any time, particularly at the present. With the absence of personal meetings, conferences, hearings and trials, and given some of the technical difficulties and disadvantages and unfair advantages virtual practice now has created, it is of the utmost importance that attorneys continue to be mindful of their professionalism obligations, both within and without the relevant Rules of Professional Conduct. Civility, courtesy and professional conduct mark a successful attorney, and a successful attorney is more effective for his or her client.



DBR Announces 2020 Professional Excellence Award Honorees

May 04, 2020 at 01:20 PM

By Catherine Wilson
Managing Editor

The top award winner will be announced at the DBR's annual Professional Excellence Awards event set for Oct. 7 at the Rusty Pelican in Miami. More than 70 honorees will be recognized for their work in litigation and transactions and as in-house counsel. New categories recognize attorneys for mentoring and social impact.

Normally a spring gathering, the event was postponed due to the public-distancing restrictions ordered in response to the coronavirus epidemic.

While we navigate these uncertain times, we want to focus attention on the positive work of Florida's legal community. It's easy to lose sight of the hard work accomplished by the state's legal professionals in 2019, and we want to shine a light on those achievements.

The events team is working hard to ensure the safety of our guests, and more information about the measures we are implementing will be communicated shortly.

Here are the honorees:
Innovators
Avery Chapman, Equine Law Group
Josias Dewey, Holland & Knight
Michele DeStefano, LawWithoutWalls


With Pro Bono Attorney’s Help, Sailor Obtained Favorable Judgement Against Car Dealership
Date: November 16, 2022
By: Rachael Derham
Re:  ABA Military Pro Bono Project
   
A Navy servicemember bought a vehicle from a car dealership. Shortly after the purchase, the car stopped working, and it remained in the dealership’s lot for several months without any action. It was then discovered that the dealership did not have title to the vehicle at the time of the sale, and therefore could not convey title to the sailor. She visited his local legal assistance office for help, and her JAG referred the case to the ABA Military Pro Bono Project.

The sailor was connected with a pro bono attorney through the Project. The attorney was able to obtain a judgment against the car dealership on the sailor’s behalf. The attorney also ensured that the sailor was properly paid out according to the judgment, making her whole financially and allowing her to move on.

The sailor was represented by Avery S. Chapman, of Chapman Law Group, PLC


Law & Justice Avery Chapman Horse Trainers Beware: Training Fees Not Included Under Stablekeeper’s Lien Law In Florida
May 1, 2019 
By: wellingtonINSIDER	


Many horse trainers not only provide training to the equine athletes in their charge but also provide feed and care for those horses. This is commonly billed to the owner as “training board.” However, and contrary to common belief, if the owner of a horse on training board does not pay the trainer for the entire bill, in most states, a trainer cannot claim a lien against the horse for unpaid amounts attributable to training fees. To make such a claim is to make an improper lien.

In this article, I discuss the proper scope of a lien. That is, what amounts can be claimed?

Florida, like most states, does not permit liens against horses for training services. Most states do not have specific lien statutes specifically designating non-payment of “training fees” as a legal basis to claim a lien against a horse and sell the horse to satisfy the lien.

The general principal of interpretation of law is that if something is not specifically included, then the statute should be read to omit it. Therefore, under Florida law, and in many other states, because training services are not specifically mentioned in the stablekeeper’s lien law, unpaid training fees do not properly subject the horse to a lien. In contrast, exceptions to this general rule are the stablekeeper’s liens laws of Maryland and West Virginia, which specifically state that training services are properly subject to a lien.

In other states, such as Florida, which do not specifically list or include “training” or “training fees” along with “care and feeding” of a horse, a trainer should be wary of claiming too large a lien upon a horse when providing multiple services to a horse. For example, Florida’s stablekeeper’s lien law (F.S. § 713.65), otherwise known as an agister’s lien, does not include a right to lien for unpaid training fees associated with a horse. The law is very specific in that it provides for a possessory lien in favor of the stablekeeper for “the caring and feeding” of a horse. The language of the statute does not include “training” in the categories of services provided.

The logical and proper interpretation of the law, using the common meaning of the words “care and feeding,” leads to the reasonable conclusion that Florida’s statute does not allow a trainer to impose a claim of lien against a horse pursuant to F.S. § 713.65 for unpaid training fees.

Reading other Florida statutes on the topic leads to the reasonable conclusion that the Florida Legislature specifically declined to include training expenses into a second lien statute on the subject. Specifically, F.S. § 713.66, which applies to racehorses, polo ponies and dogs, allows a non-posessory lien only to those who “furnish corn, oats, hay, grain or other feed or feedstuffs or straw or bedding material” for the cost thereof. As well, the legislature has provided an express remedy in F.S. § 713.655 to veterinary professionals for the professional services veterinarians supply to horses.

The point is that while providing feed providers and veterinarians specific lien rights against horses for their materials and services, a lawmaking body, such as the Florida Legislature, may have not specifically provided equine trainers a right of lien against horses for training services. In that case, a trainer and his or her attorneys should resist the temptation to include all overdue charges in a claim of lien when some of those overdue charges include training fees.

In contrast, Florida’s stablekeeper’s lien law does not specifically enumerate “training” or “trainers” as being a lienable charge and a party entitled to impress a lien for training services. “Feeding or caring for” and “feeding and taking care of” are not the same words and do not have the same meaning as “training,” and the statute does not ever mention “trainers” as a professional service provider entitled to impress a lien for training services. Accordingly, the amount of a proper stablekeeper’s lien on horses in Florida is, therefore, limited to the care and feeding costs and no more.

Finally, be aware that a party exercising self-help under Florida law does so at his or her peril. Therefore, a stablekeeper who imposes an improper lien for a too-large amount, and later causes a sale of the horse, is not free from responsibility of the improper lien. Florida courts have held that when a sale of a horse pursuant to a stablekeeper’s lien passes ownership of the horse, it does not establish the legitimacy of the underlying debt or of the lienor’s conduct. In other words, if a trainer imposes a lien for charges that are not properly included under F.S. § 713.65 and then forecloses the lien by selling the horse or horses under F.S. § 85.031 (non-judicial, public sale), the sale does not legitimize the actions of the trainer and the trainer is not immune to an action by the horse owner for foreclosing on a lien based on an inflated amount that should not have included training charges.

For these reasons, a stablekeeper, and his or her attorneys, should be wary of asserting a lien amount on a horse that covers amounts that are not covered by Florida’s stablekeeper’s lien law.

Confused yet? The process of impressing and foreclosing on the lien, as well as holding the public sale or pursuing judicial sale, are equally complex. I recommend the assistance of legal counsel when these issues arise.

Attorney Avery S. Chapman is the founding and inaugural chair of the Equine Law Committee of the Animal Law Section of the Florida Bar. He practices in Wellington, where he counsels members of the equine industry and athletes on a wide range of matters. Chapman may be reached at [email protected] or through www.equinelawgroup.com.


Magical legal Aid society Pro Bono celebration

On May 9,[2015] over 750 members of the legal community, together with friends and supporters of the Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, gathered at the Palm Beach County Convention Center to honor 9
attorneys, 1 law firm and a community volunteer at the 27th Annual Pro Bono Recognition Evening. The 11 award recipients were recognized for their extraordinary pro bono contributions in 2015.

Avery S. Chapman received the Elder Law Award for assistance to the elderly.