G. William Bissett and Ariella Gutman, of the Miami office, combined to secure an order from the U.S. District Court which dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s pending amended complaint and denied Plaintiff’s pending motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The Plaintiff alleged in her complaints that an individual she thought was employed by our client, but who was actually employed by an independent contractor, came into her house and after being shown to her bedroom to examine her cable box exposed himself.
After the initial complaint was dismissed, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and Bill and Ariella filed motions to dismiss which were followed by Plaintiff counsel’s opposing memorandum. Before filing our final reply memoranda supporting the motion to dismiss, Bill sent a carefully and strategically worded letter to opposing counsel which included language praising the Judge and his correct legal analysis in dismissing the initial complaint.
Bill proceeded to file the Reply Memorandum on behalf of the client which Ariella, as part of the strategy, then adopted on behalf of the independent contractor who employed the technician. Shortly after Bill filed the Reply Memorandum, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. Plaintiff’s attorneys filed Bill’s letter, asserting they had complied with Bill’s challenges to their complaint. Bill and Ariella then prepared a memorandum opposing the motion for leave to amend. The Judge issued his order agreeing with Bill and Ariella’s position and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
