Tampa, FL
Personal injury Lawyer at Tampa, FL
Practice Areas: Personal Injury, Workers Compensation, Employment & Labor
OUTCOME: Class of trainees and coaches settled, pending court approal
National class of operations trainees and operations coaches. Trainees claims settled and approved. Coach class settled, pending approval by court
OUTCOME: proposed settlement of $2,102,500.00 pending before court
National Collective action for inside sales reps working overtime without pay. Case settled and submitted to court for approval.
OUTCOME: Jury verdict full damages awarded, liquidated damages of $192,000 plus fees and costs.
Minimum wage and FLSA violation for unlawful tip pool. 8 servers, plaintiffs, full jury trial. co-counsel with Ben Williams.
OUTCOME: settled for $750,000
Collective action for overtime wages class of inside sales reps violation of the FLSA.
OUTCOME: Settled for $2,900,000.00
National collective and class action hybrid case for store leaders and store managers seeking overtime wages.
OUTCOME: settled prior to class certification. $250,000.00
National collective action for overtime wages of single unit store managers.
OUTCOME: Settled for $4,800,000.00
NATIONALLY CERTIFIED FLSA OVERTIME WAGE COLLECTIVE ACTION OF CLASS HR MANAGERS. Originally settled for $10,500,000.00, but rejected by the court and for over-inclusion.
OUTCOME: settled for $1,000,000.00
Collective action for servers of Bar Louie, recovery of minimum wage tip credit
OUTCOME: Defense Verdict, 3 day jury trial
SILVER, LEVY, FELDMAN & BASS WINS BIG JURY TRIAL FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION On October 3, 2007 in the Alachua County Circuit Court, lead counsel, Mitchell L. Feldman, wit ... h the Firms Tampa and Ocala offices along with second chair counsel, Benjamin Williams, successfully obtained a defense verdict in the case of Crystal Chalich and Kristen Mann v. The Florida Department of Transportation stemming from an automobile accident in Gainesville, Florida on December 6, 2002. This case was a hard fought and heavily litigated battle, which had gone on for two years. Previously, the firm successfully obtained a Summary Judgment in favor of the Department of Transportations immunity defense before Judge Roundtree. However, that case was reversed on appeal after the First District Court of Appeal found questions of fact existed in the record of Affidavit’s filed by the Plaintiff’s counsel such that the case was remanded back to the Trial Court. The facts in the case are that on the intersection of State Road 26 and State Road 222 in Gainesville, at approximately 5:15 pm, a driver (deceased) Paul Anglico, made a left hand turn in the path of on coming traffic on State Road 26,which caused him to be struck in a t-bone type fashion. Kristine Mann and Crystal Chalich, mother and daughter, were seated in the rear and both sustained injuries in the accident. The Department of the Transportation, through its counsel, defended the claim on the basis that the deceased driver was 100% at fault in the accident as well as due to the sovereign immunity of the Department of Transportation. The complaint alleged a failure to warn and negligence of maintenance and creation of the road. The Department of Transportation’s defenses included sovereign immunity, in the Department was immune to planning level functions such as the creation of the road, the installation of traffic lights and the speed limit determinations on the road. The Plaintiffs tried to carve out an exception to the sovereign immunity defense by proving that the intersection was a known trap. The Trial Court, lead by Judge Roundtree and Summary Judgment, found that readily apparent conditions existed such that the Department of Transportation was immune. Trial began on October 1, 2007 before Judge Buzzy Green in the Alachua County Circuit Court. According to attorney Feldman “ the Plaintiffs’ disregarded the evidence in this case which demonstrated that the deceased driver was 100% at fault and negligentâ€. Further, attorney Feldman stated “ the Plaintiffs’ arguments that the deceased driver was confused by the intersection or that his view was obstructed was not supported by any evidence at all and was just pure speculation and argumentâ€. Attorney Feldman told the Jury on opening statement, “what you will not hear in this case is any evidence of any other t-bone collisions at this intersection, but you could consider there to be knowledge on the part of the Department of Transportation or any basis to conclude that there was a trapâ€. The Jury was given the case on Wednesday, late afternoon, at approximately 4:15 pm and came back with its decision 90 minutes later for the defense. According to the Jury, the conditions at the intersection were readily apparent to the driver such that all dangers were open and obvious and the driver would be charged with exercising reasonable care such that the Defendant is immune and not liable. The Jury found no evidence of a trap. The legal issue in this case surrounds sovereign immunity, planning and operational level duties and exceptions to the planning level immunities. According to attorney Feldman “ sometimes no matter how hard you try to resolve the case or settle it, the other side is just so convinced that their position is in the right that a trail must be hadâ€.
OUTCOME: Defense Verdict, 5 day jury trial
Craig v. RJD Enterprises, d/b/a McDonalds: Circuit Court, Sarasota County, December 2001. Mitchell Feldman, Esq. Represented the defense in a 5-day jury trial in Sarasota. A Defense Verdict was obtaine ... d. Pursuant to a proposal for settlement, the defense had the opportunity to seek recover of all fees and costs against the Plaintiff. Plaintiff Craig, an 83 year old woman, alleged to have tripped and fallen over a curb near the McDonalds restaurant drive through lane, sustaining multiple fractures and injures to her face, hands, back, knees, wrists, along with aggravation of her global arthritis. The Defense strategy was to prove to the jury that the Plaintiff was either lying, or simply confused about the facts of her fall. The defense case in chief swayed the jury to discount sympathy for the Plaintiff. Witnesses for the defense demonstrated for the jury on large-scale photographs of the scene of the incident, that the Plaintiff was actually far away from the curb when she stumbled and fell due to her age, preexisting medical conditions, and failing to use her cane. The Plaintiff sought a huge damage settlement and jury award. The defense discredited the Plaintiff's medical experts, and the Plaintiffs credibility was attacked and impeached through prior trip and falls and slip and falls, as well as through inconsistent statements about her health and medical condition.