Club Exploria v Aaronson
Case Number: 6-18-cv-00576
Last Updated: March 8, 2023
Menu
Status
Dismissed at summary judgment – Developer agreed to pay Defendant timeshare cancellation attorney’s fees in sum of $175,000 after magistrate recommended judge grant motion for prevailing party fees under FDUTPA and Lanham Act
Location
USDC, Middle District of FL (Orlando)
Presiding Judge
Judge John Antoon II
Date Filed
04/13/2018
Highlights
Timeshare exit attorney Austin Aaronson prevailed in defense of lawsuit brought by timeshare developer Club Exploria after court granted his summary judgment motion. In affirming trial court’s dismissal of complaint, the 11th Circuit ruled that “the mere fact a person hires a lawyer to assist him with a disputed contractual obligation and then breaches that disputed contractual obligation is insufficient to establish that the lawyer intentionally procured the breach. This is especially true when, as in this case, the client testifies without contradiction that he or she breached the contract for reasons unrelated to the lawyer’s advice or representations.” Club Exploria agreed to pay Aaronsons attorney fees in the sum of $175,000 after the magistrate recommended an order enter granting Aaronson’s prevailing party fee motion.
Case Posture
Claims:
Club Exploria asserted the following claims against Austin Aaronson and his law firm:
- Tortious Interference;
- Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA); and
- False advertising in violation of the Lanham Act; and
- Violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act
Posture:
Case dismissed after judgment on summary judgment in favor of defendant timeshare cancellation attorney; affirmed on appeal; Club Exploria agreed to pay $175,000 in attorney fees after magistate judge granted attorney’s motion for prevailing party attorney fees under FDUTPA and Lanham Act.
Summary:
Aaronson specializes in timeshare owner grievances against timeshare developers. Club Exploria asserted that Aaronson falsely advertises to timeshare owners that they can easily cancel their timeshare contracts if they hire Aaronson; and that Aaronson instructs the owners to break their timeshare contracts. The court granted Aaronson’s motion to dismiss Club Exploria’s claim that Aaronson violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) at the pleading stage.
The court granted Aaronson’s motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims, finding that Club Exploria failed to present evidence that Aaronson instructed any timeshare owner to cease paying or caused them to believe they could cease paying on their timeshare obligations.
Regarding the devolper’s claim that Aaronson violation Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), the court found that Aaronson’s advertisements were not actionable because they were not connected to “trade or commerce,” but rather the practice of law; i.e., the exercise of a legal remedy. Moreover, the advertisements truthfully represented that Aaronson would pursue a resolution of his clients’ dispute with timeshare developers. The court found that Aaronson not only sent letters to negotiate with the developers on behalf of his clients, but also pursued arbitration or civil litigation on their behalf.
Accordingly, on November 10, 2020, the court granted Aaronson’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit, rendering Aaronson the prevailing party.
On March 25, 2022, after oral argument, the 11th Circuit issued an opinion in Case No. 21-11556 denying Club Exploria’s appeal of the order granting summary judgment on the the tortious interference claim: “Assuming without deciding that Florida law authorizes a tortious interference claim against a lawyer based on his advice to a client, the mere fact a person hires a lawyer to assist him with a disputed contractual obligation and then breaches that disputed contractual obligation is insufficient to establish that the lawyer intentionally procured the breach. This is especially true when, as in this case, the client testifies without contradiction that he or she breached the contract for reasons unrelated to the lawyer’s advice or representations.”
A magistrate judge recommended the court grant Aaronson’s motion for prevailing party attorney fees under the Lanham Act and FDUPTA.
Selected Events:
Mar. 25, 2022 Opinion of 11th Cir. Affirming dismissal
March 8, 2022 Oral arguments on Club Exploria’s appeal
Nov. 10, 2020 Order [168, 169] dismissal after granting Club Exploria’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Oct 21, 2019 Order [87] granting M2D RICO, FL false advertising, decl relief
[90] Trans of Sept 13 2019 Cross M2C [54] Trans of Apr 25, 2019 hearing on D’s MPO re non-owners
- Document Links
Click on the PDF titles below to view.
Docket link
Operative Complaint
Critical Orders
Critical Briefs
Transcripts
Click on the PDF titles above to view.
Parties
Plaintiffs:
Club Exploria, LLC, Club Exploria Management, LLC formerly known as Summer Bay Management, L.C.
Plaintiffs’ counsel:
David E. Cannella, Holland & Knight, LLP – Orlando; Michael J. Chiusano, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP; William J. Moore, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP;
Defendant:
Aaronson, Austin, P.A., doing business as Aaronson Law Firm, Austin N. Aaronson
Defendant’s counsel:
Austin Neil Aaronson (pro se); Charles J. Meltz (Eide, Telan & Meltz, P.A.)
Sponsored by
Providing defense for timeshare exit companies and anti-SLAPP cases in California for over two decades. Learn more.
Game Changer Notifications
DISCLAIMER: We are not affiliated, associated, authorized, endorsed by, or in any way officially connected with any timeshare developer, or any of its subsidiaries or its affiliates. The names of any timeshare developer, attorney, and all parties involved as well as related names, marks, emblems, and images are registered trademarks of their respective owners. All names, logos, images, and brands are the property of their respective owners.
copyright © 2020 – 2023 Timeshare Law Library
Menu