The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida recently reversed a lower court's dismissal of claims made by Okaloosa Properties Management, LLC against Hoffman, Larkin & Agnetti, P.A. The case revolves around allegations of misconduct during eminent domain negotiations, which could significantly impact how legal privileges are applied in similar cases.
Okaloosa Properties Management, LLC (referred to as Okaloosa LLC) filed an appeal after a Miami-Dade County Circuit Court dismissed its claims against the law firm and one of its attorneys, John Bradley Agnetti. The court ruled that Agnetti's actions were protected by Florida's litigation privilege, which grants immunity for statements made in the course of judicial proceedings. However, the appellate court found that the lower court erred in applying this privilege.
The dispute began when Okaloosa LLC, which has owned a property in Fort Walton Beach since 2010, learned that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) intended to acquire the property through eminent domain. In May 2017, Okaloosa LLC hired attorney Joe Fixel to negotiate with FDOT. However, during the negotiations, Agnetti, representing a third party, allegedly persuaded Fixel to treat that third party as the owner of the property, sidelining Okaloosa LLC's actual owner, Dror Levy.
This situation escalated when a separate lawsuit arose in January 2021, where Levy's former business partner, Eliezer Tabib, sued him over property ownership. Agnetti represented Tabib in this case. During this time, Agnetti allegedly made phone calls to Fixel, instructing him to consult only Tabib regarding the negotiations with FDOT. This led to a rejection of a settlement offer, which Okaloosa LLC claims resulted in significant financial loss.
In February 2024, Okaloosa LLC filed a lawsuit against Agnetti and his firm, claiming aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, and conspiracy. The lawsuit argued that Agnetti's actions caused Fixel to ignore Levy, leading to detrimental outcomes for Okaloosa LLC.
After Okaloosa LLC filed its first amended complaint, Agnetti moved to dismiss the case, citing Florida's absolute litigation privilege. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, stating that Agnetti's actions were related to ongoing judicial proceedings. Okaloosa LLC then sought a rehearing, which was denied, prompting the appeal.
The appellate court's ruling focused on whether Agnetti's alleged actions occurred in the course of a judicial proceeding. The court found that the phone calls made by Agnetti to Fixel did not take place in front of a judicial officer or involve documents filed with the court, which are necessary conditions for the absolute litigation privilege to apply. The court stated, "the allegations of Okaloosa LLC’s amended complaint do not demonstrate a basis for the application of Florida’s absolute litigation privilege."
As a result, the appellate court reversed the lower court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The ruling emphasizes that the litigation privilege does not apply to actions that occur outside the formal judicial process, which could set a precedent for future cases involving similar claims.
This decision is significant as it clarifies the boundaries of Florida's litigation privilege, particularly regarding communications that do not occur in a formal court setting. It may encourage more property owners and businesses to pursue claims against attorneys or firms that they believe have acted improperly during negotiations or litigation.
Moving forward, the case will return to the lower court for further action, where Okaloosa LLC will have the opportunity to present its claims against Agnetti and his firm. The outcome of this case could influence how attorneys conduct negotiations and interactions with opposing parties in future eminent domain cases.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Agnetti plans to appeal the appellate court's decision or if there are related cases pending.