Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 12, 2021.
________________
No. 3D19-0505
Lower Tribunal No. 14-17706
________________
Brent Blake,
Appellant,
vs.
American Sales and Management Organization LLC,
d/b/a Eulen America,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William
Thomas, Judge.
Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein, P.A., and David A. Rothstein, and Lorenz
Michel Prüss; Kula & Associates P.A., and Elliot B. Kula, and W. Aaron
Daniel, and William D. Mueller, for appellant.
Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and Joseph J. Mamounas; Holland & Knight
LLP, and Christopher N. Bellows, and Anthony J. Sirven, and Manuel
Miranda, for appellee.
Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and BOKOR, JJ.
ON MOTIONS FOR REHEARING AND WRITTEN OPINION
PER CURIAM.
On October 28, 2020, we per curiam affirmed this appeal without a
written opinion. Appellant Brent Blake seeks rehearing and issuance of a
written opinion. We deny Blake’s motions. See McDonnell v. Sanford Airport
Auth., 200 So. 3d 83, 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“Although there may be
instances where motions for rehearing are appropriate after the issuance of
what is commonly referred to as a PCA, such instances are rare and are
most often limited to occasions when a relevant decision of the Supreme
Court or another District Court of Appeal is rendered after briefing and oral
argument and not considered by the court. . . . [G]enerally, these motions
are considered improper because a motion for rehearing cannot direct the
court to matters overlooked if no written opinion has been published.”
(citations omitted)).
Blake has not directed us to points of law or fact that we have
overlooked or misapprehended. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(a)(2)(A). Nor
has Blake set forth an adequate basis for issuance of a written opinion. See
Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(a)(2)(D). However, we write to clarify that our
affirmance is based on the clear record before us, which leaves no doubt
that Blake is not entitled to additional fees on his claim for indemnification
2
because those expenses were not “reasonably incurred” as required by the
Operating Agreement.
In 2014, American Sales sued Blake, a former manager and officer, for
breach of fiduciary duties. The trial court determined Blake was entitled to
advancement of legal expenses pursuant to American Sales’ Operating
Agreement, and this Court affirmed. See Am. Sales & Mgmt. Org., LLC v.
Lopez, 217 So. 3d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). In November 2017, American
Sales filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. Blake was awarded nearly
$900,000 for advancement expenses, and American Sales continued to pay
Blake’s expenses through January 2018.
In January 2018, the parties exchanged emails as to how best to
resolve Blake’s pending counterclaim for indemnification. The relevant
portions of that exchange are as follows:
• January 23, 2018: In order to bring an end to the “seemingly endless
waste of resources” counsel for Blake wrote that he intended to
prepare a succinct motion for summary judgment as to liability on
Blake’s counterclaim for indemnification.
• January 23, 2018: Counsel for American Sales requested that Blake
not work on a motion for summary judgment as it would be “simpler
and cheaper” to stipulate to a judgment.
• January 24, 2018: Counsel for Blake responded that he had already
prepared a draft motion but that “it is very short and did not take much
time.”
3
• January 25, 2018: Counsel for Blake informed American Sales that
the advancement expenses for January totaled $16,000 and that if
American Sales agreed to pay before the end of the month, Blake
would be done with “all issues pertinent to advancement.”
• January 26, 2018: Counsel for American Sales again suggested a
stipulated or joint motion for judgment in favor of Blake on his
counterclaim for indemnification.
It is clear that despite American Sales’ attempt to resolve Blake’s
counterclaim by way of a stipulated judgment, counsel for Blake prepared a
short motion for summary judgment in January. Moreover, American Sales
paid $16,000 in advancement expenses for that month.
On February 8, 2018, Blake filed his four-page motion for final
summary judgment. That same day, American Sales filed a response stating
it did not oppose Blake’s motion; however, American Sales maintained that
it had “already fully indemnified and held harmless Blake against expenses
and attorney’s fees actually and reasonably incurred by him in connection
with his defense in this action . . . .” The trial court granted Blake’s
unopposed motion.
Nearly eight months after the trial court granted Blake’s motion for final
summary judgment, Blake filed a motion seeking a multiplier and, in a
footnote, Blake sought the expenses “incurred pursuing his counterclaims
for indemnification, which are recoverable per the Operating Agreement.” At
a hearing on Blake’s motion, the trial court asked the following:
4
THE COURT: So the question is are they entitled to
any additional fees or – because I’m not sure I
understand. If you’ve already paid all the fees – okay.
Help me understand. What are you asking for? Are
you asking for additional fees or are you asking for –
[COUNSEL FOR BLAKE]: A multiplier, as well as a
little sliver of additional fees that went in conjunction
with our motion for final summary judgment as to
liability on our counterclaim.
The trial court entered an order awarding Blake zero dollars in additional
indemnification. Blake appealed, and this Court per curiam affirmed. 1
The record before us is abundantly clear. Based on that record, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Blake zero dollars in
additional indemnification. See Bateman v. Serv. Ins. Co., 836 So. 2d 1109,
1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (“The standard of review for an award of attorney’s
fees is abuse of discretion.”).
Motion for written opinion and motions for rehearing denied.2
1
Blake’s primary argument on appeal was that he was entitled to a multiplier.
Blake has abandoned this argument in his motion for rehearing.
2
Blake also seeks rehearing on this Court’s award of appellate attorney’s
fees. American Sales’ motion for appellate attorney’s fees was unopposed.
Consequently, all the arguments in Blake’s motion for rehearing are being
impermissibly raised for the first time. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.330(a)(2)(A)
(“The motion shall not present issues not previously raised in the
proceeding.”).
5