Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Party Who Obtained Litigation Support from the Law Offices of Robin Bresky

Jeremy Dicker

By Jeremy Dicker, Esq.

The Law Offices of Robin Bresky was retained for litigation support to assist a plaintiff’s attorney in federal court. Specifically, we provided assistance by drafting and preparing the Plaintiff’s Response and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for New Trial. Counsel for Plaintiff believed that hiring appellate counsel for litigation support was important because the case would likely be appealed by either party following the federal District Court’s resolution of the post-trial Motions. Fortunately for counsel and her client, the Court denied the Defendant’s post-trial Motions after considering the response drafted by our office.

Plaintiff brought the lawsuit against the Plaintiff’s former employer. Plaintiff alleged national origin discrimination and retaliation under federal and Florida law. After a weeklong trial, the jury found in favor of Plaintiff, awarding more than a quarter of a million dollars. The District Court entered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict.

In its post-trial Motions, the Defendant contended it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The Defendant’s claims included that there was no legally-sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury to have found discrimination or retaliation; that the Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence that Defendant treated a similarly-situated employee more favorably; and that a new trial should be awarded because the District Court excluded certain evidence.

After being retained, we quickly started to review the trial transcripts and other relevant documents in addition to conducting extensive legal research. Our draft of Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s post-trial Motions set out why the jury verdict should not be disturbed. We showed that the burden of proof as to each element was met by Plaintiff, that the verdict was not against the clear weight of the evidence, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. Finally, we argued that the District Court correctly excluded certain evidence.

Trial counsel for the Plaintiff commented that she admired our writing skills and was glad to see how we grasped the facts. She said our writing confirmed that hiring appellate counsel was the right decision and she advised that our firm would be hired to handle the appeal for the Plaintiff should an appeal be taken.

We were pleased to discover that the District Court denied the Defendant’s post-trial Motions and the jury verdict would not be disturbed. The denial of the Defendant’s post-trial Motions also caused the District Court to conclude that the Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. We are happy that our litigation support led to this great outcome for Plaintiff.