Real Estate, Rental & Leasing

MM&H successfully represented two Florida entities who own valuable real estate property in Miami. Plaintiffs are Argentinean lawyers who provided certain limited services to the manager of the Defendants. Plaintiffs initiated an ex parte secret legal action in Argentina against Defendants and others supposedly premised upon their entitlement to purported professional fees relating to the acquisition of a large Miami commercial property without notifying Defendants or providing them with an opportunity to be heard or appropriate due process. In August 2019, an Argentine court without giving notification to defendants, an opportunity to be heard or sufficient due process, entered a prejudgment injunction of $19 million against Defendants’ Florida properties. The Argentinean court then lowered the amount of the injunction to $4 million all at the direction of the Argentine parties. The Argentines then filed suit in state court in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County seeking to enforce their secret ex parte injunction against Defendants. What followed was a highly contentious litigation involving a removal of the case to federal court using a unique “snap removal,” that was followed by substantial motion practice that led to two appellate court appeals to date that were in favor of the Defendants. The trial court dissolved the lis pendens that was recorded by the Plaintiff’s and found MM&H’s clients entitled to fees earlier this year, which was affirmed by the Third District Court of Appeals. More recently, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants in a detailed opinion adopting MM&H’s arguments in large part. The case involves application of the doctrine of international comity and raises unique and interesting issues of law and fact relating to this attempted confirmation of a foreign state’s court pre-judgment injunction on U.S. property when there was no due process. Plaintiff has filed an appeal of the summary judgment award, and fee petitions by MM&H's client remain pending before the trial court.

Return to case filter page: