WILFREDO A. DIAZ
v.
RAM INVESTMENTS OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A prevailing party in contract litigation is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs when the underlying contract contains a prevailing party fee provision.
[1] A prevailing party in an action on a contract containing a prevailing party attorney's fees provision is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRAM Investments sued Diaz seeking an injunction to enforce a non-competition agreement that contained a prevailing party attorney's fees provision. Th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Non-Compete Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 10, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-0760 Lower Tribunal No. 22-5406-CA-01
Wilfredo A. Diaz, Appellant,
vs.
RAM Investments of South Florida, Inc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.
Holland & Knight LLP, Christopher N. Bellows, Jose A. Casal and Christine Fuqua Gay, for appellant.
Fente & Fente, and Manuel G. Fente, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Wilfredo A. Diaz appeals the trial court's March 27, 2025 Final Judgment and Order Denying Defendant's Entitlement to Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Appellee RAM Investments of South Florida, Inc. (“RAM”) sued Diaz in a single-count complaint seeking an injunction to enforce the terms of a non-competition agreement. The agreement contained a provision entitling the prevailing party to attorney's fees.
The trial court denied RAM's motion for a temporary injunction¹ and ultimately entered a final judgment in Diaz's favor. In the final judgment, the trial court denied Diaz's motion seeking prevailing party attorney's fees and costs.
Because Diaz was the prevailing party in the underlying litigation brought on the contract, we reverse those portions of the final judgment denying Diaz's claim for entitlement to prevailing party attorney's fees, see Fed. Vending, Inc. v. Steak & Ale of Fla., Inc., 687 So. 2d 1366, 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and claim for costs, see § 57.041(1), Fla. Stat. (2025).
We remand with instructions to the trial court to determine the amount of fees and costs to which Diaz, as the prevailing party in the underlying action, is entitled.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fed. Vending, Inc. v. Steak & ALE OF Fla., Inc., 687 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)