Preview
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
FISHER, RUSHMER, WERRENRATH,
DICKSON, TALLEY 8c DUNLAP, P.A., CASE NO: ^ ^ - ' ^ ^ , I ^ / / ^
Plaintiff,
FLORIDA SOLAR DISTRIBUTORS, INC.,
a Florida Corporation,
Defendants.
' -. o.>
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the law firm of Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Dickson, Talley & Dunlap,
P.A., ("LAW FIRM"), by and through its imdersigned attomey, and hereby files this Complaint
against Defendant Florida Solar Distributors, Inc. ("FLORIDA SOLAR"), and states:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. This is a lawsuit to collect on a debt owed by FLORIDA SOLAR to LAW FIRM.
The amount in controversy is greater than $ 15,000, exclusive ofany and all claims for prejudgment
interest, court costs and attomey's fees; therefore, jiorisdiction is proper in this Court.
2. At all times material hereto, LAW FIRM was a Professional Association authorized
to do and doing business in the State of Florida.
3. At all times material hereto, FLORIDA SOLAR was a Florida Corporation duly
authorized to do business in the State of Florida and doing business in Orange Coimty, Florida.
4. Venue is proper in Orange County, Florida as FLORIDA SOLAR retained LAW
FIRM to provide it with professional services in Orange County, Florida and FLORIDA SOLAR'S
payment obligations to the LAW FIRM were in Orange County, Florida.
5. On or about October 18*, 2005, FLORIDA SOLAR retained LAW FIRM to provide
certain legal services. Specifically, LAW FIRM was retained to assist in the case of Florida Solar
Distributors, Inc. v. Phoenix Home Services, Inc., et. a/.,(the "Phoenix Case").
6. On or about Febmary 6*, 2006, FLORIDA SOLAR retained LAW FIRM to provide
certain legal services. Specifically, Plaintiff was retained to assist in the case of Hornerexpress v.
Florida Solar Distributors, Inc., (The "Homerexpress Case").
7. On or about April 27*, 2006, FLORIDA SOLAR retained LAW FIRM to provide
certain legal services. Specifically, LAW FIRM was retained to assist in the case of Muirhead, et.
al. V. Florida Solar Distributors, Inc., fthe "Muirhead Case").
8. On or about September 20*^, 2006, FLORIDA SOLAR retained LAW FIRM to
provide certain legal services. Specifically, LAW FIRM was retained to assist in the case of
Williams v. Florida Solar Distributors, Inc., (The "Williams Case").
9. On or about January 3^^ 2007, FLORIDA SOLAR retained LAW FIRM to provide
certain legal services. Specifically, LAW FIRM was retained to handle general legal matters for
FLORIDA SOLAR.
10. For all of the legal matters stated above, FLORIDA SOLAR and LAW FIRM had a
verbal contract under which FLORIDA SOLAR agreed to pay $200/hour for shareholders, $ 150/hour
for associates, and $85/hour for paralegals. LAW FIRM and FLORIDA SOLAR also verbally
agreed that LAW FIRM would be entitled to legal fees if LAW FIRM should have to institute
judicial proceedings to collect its fees and costs.
11. Between October 18*, 2005 and June 2"'',2006, LAW FIRM rendered the
professional services for which it was retained in the Phoenix Case.
12. Between April 27*, 2006 and June 29*, 2006, LAW FIRM rendered the professional
services for which it was retained in the Muirhead Case.
13. Between Febmary 6*, 2006 and May 11*, 2007, LAW FIRM rendered the
professional services for which it was retained in the Homerexpress Case.
14. Between September 20*, 2006 and December 4*, 2006, LAW FIRM rendered the
professional services for which it was retained in the Williams Case.
15. Between January 3"", 2007 and June 6*, 2007, LAW FIRM rendered the professional
services for which it was retained in regards to general legal matters.
16. There remains due and owed the principal amount of $27,846.89 in the Phoenix
Case; the amount of $7,460.54 in the Muirhead Case; the amount of $12,123.95 inthe Homerexpress
case; the amount of $911.69 in the Williams Case; and the amount of $404.12 for general legal
matters.
17. Defendant's total unpaid costs and fees due to Plaintiff are $48,747.19.
18. Plaintiffhas had to retain the undersigned attomey to prosecute this matter and is
obligated to pay said attomey and said firm a reasonable attomey's fee for services rendered.
19. Plaintiff has made demands on Defendant for payments of said invoices.
20. Defendant has in tum repeatedly promised payments and never once objected to the
amounts ofthese invoices.
21. Plaintiff has complied wdth any and all other conditions precedent to bringing this
action.
COUNT I - BREACH OF VERBAL CONTRACT
22. Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates all allegations of paragraphs 1-21 as if fully set
forth herein.
23. Defendant retained Plaintiff and entered into a verbal contracts to provide legal
services commencing on said dates.
24. Plaintiff performed all services required pursuant to the verbal contracts.
25. As part ofthe verbal contract in the Phoenix Case, Plaintiff sent Defendant invoices
on the following dates: December 19*, 2005; January 19*, 2006; Febmary 15*, 2006; March 9*,
2006; April 24*, 2006; May 11*, 2006; June 16*, 2006; September 15*, 2006; October 12*, 2006;
November 30*, 2006; January 11*, 2007; Febmary 19*, 2007; April 16*, 2007; and June 27*, 2007.
26. As part ofthe verbal contract in the Muirhead Case, Plaintiff sent Defendant invoices
on the following dates: May 17*, 2006; June 2V\ 2006; July 19*, 2006; August 15*, 2006;
September 15*, 2006; October 12*, 2006; November 30*, 2006; January 11*, 2007; Febmary 2^',
2007; March 12*, 2007; April 5*, 2007; June 27*, 2007, and July 10*, 2007.
27. As part of the verbal contract in the Homerexpress Case, Plaintiff sent Defendant
invoices on the following dates: March 9*, 2006; April 24*, 2006; May 11*, 2006; July 18*, 2006;
September 15*, 2006; December 11*, 2006; January 12*, 2007; Febmary 16*, 2007; March 14*,
2007; April 30*, 2007; May 16*, 2007; and June 22"", 2007.
28. As part of the verbal contract in the Williams Case, Plaintiff sent Defendant an
invoice on December 11*, 2006.
29. As part of the verbal contract for general legal services, Plaintiff sent Defendant
invoices on the following dates: January 12*, 2007; Febmary 16*, 2007, March 14*, 2007; April
30*, 2007; June 22"", 2007 and July 10*, 2007.
30. Defendant has periodically sent Plaintiff checks in the amount of $500, several of
which have been retumed for insufficient fimds.
31. Defendant has only made one payment of $ 1,000 that has cleared to Plaintiff.
32. Defendant has materially breached said verbal contracts by failing to pay said
amounts due within a reasonable time.
33. Defendant's material breaches ofthe verbal contracts have caused injury to Plaintiff
who has lost the principal sum of $48,747.19, plus prejudgment interest on said amount fi'om June
27*, 2007 until this date, and because Plaintiffhas been forced to retain the undersigned attomey and
is paying said attomey a reasonable fee for the prosecution ofthis case.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfiilly requests this Honorable Court enter final judgment
against Defendant in the principal amount of $48,747.19, plus all prejudgment interest authorized
by law, for its expended attomey's fees and costs in this action, and for any and all other reliefthis
Honorable Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II - ACCOUNT STATED
34. Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates all allegations of paragraphs 1-21 and 25-29 as
if fully set forth herein.
35. Pursuant to the verbal contracts, Plaintiff sent Defendant said invoices.
36. On April 16*, 2007, Plaintiff sent a final invoice to Defendant seeking payment for
its professional services rendered in the Phoenix Case for the amount of $27,846.89.
37. On June 27*, 2007, Plaintiff sent a final invoice to Defendant seeking payment for
its professional services rendered in the Muirhead Case for the amount of $7,460.54.
38. On June 22"", 2007, Plaintiff sent a final invoice to Defendant seeking payment for
its professional services rendered in the Homerexpress Case for the amount of $12,123.95.
\L
39. On December 11 *, Plaintiff sent a final invoice to Defendant seeking payment for its
professional services rendered in the Williams Case for the amount of $911.69.
40. On June 22"", 2007, Plaintiff sent a final invoice to Defendant seeking payment for
its professional services rendered in general legal matters for the amount of $404.12.
41. Said amounts remain due and payable as ofthe date ofthe filing ofthis Complaint.
At no time between the date said invoices were mailed and the date ofthe filing ofthis Complaint
has Defendant ever voiced any objection or concem over the reasonableness or accuracy of the
amounts reflected in any ofthe invoices, and never indicated in any way its intention not to satisfy
said invoices.
42. Accordingly, Defendant's failure to object to the amounts due on said invoices within
a reasonable period of time constitutes an account stated as a matter oflaw.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter final judgment in its favor
against Defendant in the principal amount of $48,747.19, plus any and all prejudgment interest
permissible by law, and for any and all other reliefthis Court deems just and proper.
Dated this ^ ' day ofDecember, 2007.
iall Oden, Esquire
Jar No. 0038172
Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Dickson,
Talley & Dunlap, P.A.
Post Office Box 712
Orlando, FL 32802-0712
(407)843-2111 (telephone)
(407) 422-1080 (facsimile)
Attomey for Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and
the facts stated in it are tme.
Jbn M^shall Oden, Esquire
Florid Bar No. 0038172
Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Dickson,
Talley & Dunlap, P.A.
Post Office Box 712
Orlando, FL 32802-0712
(407)843-2111 (telephone)
(407) 422-1080 (facsimile)
Attomey for Plaintiff
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this c/l day ofDecember, 2007, by
~S.c>r\ yWoL/>s>>y\;exJZx Odg-IH , who is personally known to me of who has produced
as identification and who did so declare
the above verification under oath.
^ ^ Notary Public State of Floffda Notary Public
f%ff r. SandiJKracht
^ My Coinmission DD516546 State of Florida
\
offf^ Expires 10/23/2001
ConimissionNo."DX>,5 \^Smo
My Conimission Expires /Oj QSj30CR
Preview
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA FISHER, RUSHMER, WERRENRATH, DICKSON, TALLEY 8c DUNLAP, P.A., CASE NO: ^ ^ - ' ^ ^ , I ^ / / ^ Plaintiff, FLORIDA SOLAR DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Defendants. ' -. o.> VERIFIED COMPLAINT COMES NOW the law firm of Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Dickson, Talley & Dunlap, P.A., ("LAW FIRM"), by and through its imdersigned attomey, and hereby files this Complaint against Defendant Florida Solar Distributors, Inc. ("FLORIDA SOLAR"), and states: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. This is a lawsuit to collect on a debt owed by FLORIDA SOLAR to LAW FIRM. The amount in controversy is greater than $ 15,000, exclusive ofany and all claims for prejudgment interest, court costs and attomey's fees; therefore, jiorisdiction is proper in this Court. 2. At all times material hereto, LAW FIRM was a Professional Association authorized to do and doing business in the State of Florida. 3. At all times material hereto, FLORIDA SOLAR was a Florida Corporation duly authorized to do business in the State of Florida and doing business in Orange Coimty, Florida. 4. Venue is proper in Orange County, Florida as FLORIDA SOLAR retained LAW FIRM to provide it with professional services in Orange County, Florida and FLORIDA SOLAR'S payment obligations to the LAW FIRM were in Orange County, Florida. 5. On or about October 18*, 2005, FLORIDA SOLAR retained LAW FIRM to provide certain legal services. Specifically, LAW FIRM was retained to assist in the case of Florida Solar Distributors, Inc. v. Phoenix Home Services, Inc., et. a/.,(the "Phoenix Case"). 6. On or about Febmary 6*, 2006, FLORIDA SOLAR retained LAW FIRM to provide certain legal services. Specifically, Plaintiff was retained to assist in the case of Hornerexpress v. Florida Solar Distributors, Inc., (The "Homerexpress Case"). 7. On or about April 27*, 2006, FLORIDA SOLAR retained LAW FIRM to provide certain legal services. Specifically, LAW FIRM was retained to assist in the case of Muirhead, et. al. V. Florida Solar Distributors, Inc., fthe "Muirhead Case"). 8. On or about September 20*^, 2006, FLORIDA SOLAR retained LAW FIRM to provide certain legal services. Specifically, LAW FIRM was retained to assist in the case of Williams v. Florida Solar Distributors, Inc., (The "Williams Case"). 9. On or about January 3^^ 2007, FLORIDA SOLAR retained LAW FIRM to provide certain legal services. Specifically, LAW FIRM was retained to handle general legal matters for FLORIDA SOLAR. 10. For all of the legal matters stated above, FLORIDA SOLAR and LAW FIRM had a verbal contract under which FLORIDA SOLAR agreed to pay $200/hour for shareholders, $ 150/hour for associates, and $85/hour for paralegals. LAW FIRM and FLORIDA SOLAR also verbally agreed that LAW FIRM would be entitled to legal fees if LAW FIRM should have to institute judicial proceedings to collect its fees and costs. 11. Between October 18*, 2005 and June 2"'',2006, LAW FIRM rendered the professional services for which it was retained in the Phoenix Case. 12. Between April 27*, 2006 and June 29*, 2006, LAW FIRM rendered the professional services for which it was retained in the Muirhead Case. 13. Between Febmary 6*, 2006 and May 11*, 2007, LAW FIRM rendered the professional services for which it was retained in the Homerexpress Case. 14. Between September 20*, 2006 and December 4*, 2006, LAW FIRM rendered the professional services for which it was retained in the Williams Case. 15. Between January 3"", 2007 and June 6*, 2007, LAW FIRM rendered the professional services for which it was retained in regards to general legal matters. 16. There remains due and owed the principal amount of $27,846.89 in the Phoenix Case; the amount of $7,460.54 in the Muirhead Case; the amount of $12,123.95 inthe Homerexpress case; the amount of $911.69 in the Williams Case; and the amount of $404.12 for general legal matters. 17. Defendant's total unpaid costs and fees due to Plaintiff are $48,747.19. 18. Plaintiffhas had to retain the undersigned attomey to prosecute this matter and is obligated to pay said attomey and said firm a reasonable attomey's fee for services rendered. 19. Plaintiff has made demands on Defendant for payments of said invoices. 20. Defendant has in tum repeatedly promised payments and never once objected to the amounts ofthese invoices. 21. Plaintiff has complied wdth any and all other conditions precedent to bringing this action. COUNT I - BREACH OF VERBAL CONTRACT 22. Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates all allegations of paragraphs 1-21 as if fully set forth herein. 23. Defendant retained Plaintiff and entered into a verbal contracts to provide legal services commencing on said dates. 24. Plaintiff performed all services required pursuant to the verbal contracts. 25. As part ofthe verbal contract in the Phoenix Case, Plaintiff sent Defendant invoices on the following dates: December 19*, 2005; January 19*, 2006; Febmary 15*, 2006; March 9*, 2006; April 24*, 2006; May 11*, 2006; June 16*, 2006; September 15*, 2006; October 12*, 2006; November 30*, 2006; January 11*, 2007; Febmary 19*, 2007; April 16*, 2007; and June 27*, 2007. 26. As part ofthe verbal contract in the Muirhead Case, Plaintiff sent Defendant invoices on the following dates: May 17*, 2006; June 2V\ 2006; July 19*, 2006; August 15*, 2006; September 15*, 2006; October 12*, 2006; November 30*, 2006; January 11*, 2007; Febmary 2^', 2007; March 12*, 2007; April 5*, 2007; June 27*, 2007, and July 10*, 2007. 27. As part of the verbal contract in the Homerexpress Case, Plaintiff sent Defendant invoices on the following dates: March 9*, 2006; April 24*, 2006; May 11*, 2006; July 18*, 2006; September 15*, 2006; December 11*, 2006; January 12*, 2007; Febmary 16*, 2007; March 14*, 2007; April 30*, 2007; May 16*, 2007; and June 22"", 2007. 28. As part of the verbal contract in the Williams Case, Plaintiff sent Defendant an invoice on December 11*, 2006. 29. As part of the verbal contract for general legal services, Plaintiff sent Defendant invoices on the following dates: January 12*, 2007; Febmary 16*, 2007, March 14*, 2007; April 30*, 2007; June 22"", 2007 and July 10*, 2007. 30. Defendant has periodically sent Plaintiff checks in the amount of $500, several of which have been retumed for insufficient fimds. 31. Defendant has only made one payment of $ 1,000 that has cleared to Plaintiff. 32. Defendant has materially breached said verbal contracts by failing to pay said amounts due within a reasonable time. 33. Defendant's material breaches ofthe verbal contracts have caused injury to Plaintiff who has lost the principal sum of $48,747.19, plus prejudgment interest on said amount fi'om June 27*, 2007 until this date, and because Plaintiffhas been forced to retain the undersigned attomey and is paying said attomey a reasonable fee for the prosecution ofthis case. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfiilly requests this Honorable Court enter final judgment against Defendant in the principal amount of $48,747.19, plus all prejudgment interest authorized by law, for its expended attomey's fees and costs in this action, and for any and all other reliefthis Honorable Court deems just and proper. COUNT II - ACCOUNT STATED 34. Plaintiffrealleges and incorporates all allegations of paragraphs 1-21 and 25-29 as if fully set forth herein. 35. Pursuant to the verbal contracts, Plaintiff sent Defendant said invoices. 36. On April 16*, 2007, Plaintiff sent a final invoice to Defendant seeking payment for its professional services rendered in the Phoenix Case for the amount of $27,846.89. 37. On June 27*, 2007, Plaintiff sent a final invoice to Defendant seeking payment for its professional services rendered in the Muirhead Case for the amount of $7,460.54. 38. On June 22"", 2007, Plaintiff sent a final invoice to Defendant seeking payment for its professional services rendered in the Homerexpress Case for the amount of $12,123.95. \L 39. On December 11 *, Plaintiff sent a final invoice to Defendant seeking payment for its professional services rendered in the Williams Case for the amount of $911.69. 40. On June 22"", 2007, Plaintiff sent a final invoice to Defendant seeking payment for its professional services rendered in general legal matters for the amount of $404.12. 41. Said amounts remain due and payable as ofthe date ofthe filing ofthis Complaint. At no time between the date said invoices were mailed and the date ofthe filing ofthis Complaint has Defendant ever voiced any objection or concem over the reasonableness or accuracy of the amounts reflected in any ofthe invoices, and never indicated in any way its intention not to satisfy said invoices. 42. Accordingly, Defendant's failure to object to the amounts due on said invoices within a reasonable period of time constitutes an account stated as a matter oflaw. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter final judgment in its favor against Defendant in the principal amount of $48,747.19, plus any and all prejudgment interest permissible by law, and for any and all other reliefthis Court deems just and proper. Dated this ^ ' day ofDecember, 2007. iall Oden, Esquire Jar No. 0038172 Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Dickson, Talley & Dunlap, P.A. Post Office Box 712 Orlando, FL 32802-0712 (407)843-2111 (telephone) (407) 422-1080 (facsimile) Attomey for Plaintiff VERIFICATION Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint and the facts stated in it are tme. Jbn M^shall Oden, Esquire Florid Bar No. 0038172 Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Dickson, Talley & Dunlap, P.A. Post Office Box 712 Orlando, FL 32802-0712 (407)843-2111 (telephone) (407) 422-1080 (facsimile) Attomey for Plaintiff The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this c/l day ofDecember, 2007, by ~S.c>r\ yWoL/>s>>y\;exJZx Odg-IH , who is personally known to me of who has produced as identification and who did so declare the above verification under oath. ^ ^ Notary Public State of Floffda Notary Public f%ff r. SandiJKracht ^ My Coinmission DD516546 State of Florida \ offf^ Expires 10/23/2001 ConimissionNo."DX>,5 \^Smo My Conimission Expires /Oj QSj30CR