Recent Notable Results for Clients

Hybrid Pharma LLC v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Case No. 0:24-CV-62413

A warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is a serious enforcement action that signals alleged violations of federal law and requires prompt corrective measures. For licensed professionals and regulated entities, such as pharmacies and drug manufacturers, it can trigger heightened scrutiny, follow-up inspections, and potential referrals to state licensing boards. The letter may also impact reimbursement, contracting opportunities, and overall business operations if not addressed effectively. In some cases, unresolved issues can escalate to fines, product seizures, or injunctions. Responding strategically and in a timely manner is critical to protecting both licensure and professional reputation. For decades, in the event a licensed professional or facility believed a warning letter was issued in error or was not warranted, a party could not file a lawsuit challenging the action in court as such actions were deemed not final agency action. Recently, Matthew developed a unique strategy to bypass the long-standing barrier which has opened the door for challenges and set new precedent. In this case, the FDA’s Motion to Dismiss was denied permitting judicial review of agency action.

Black Star Investment Group LLC v. Pro Quip LLC

Broward County Court Case No. COCE-24-004057
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida
Case No. 25-01349-PDR

Matthew was approached by multiple purchasers around the country that purchased heavy construction machinery from a South Florida reseller of equipment called Pro Quip LLC. Each buyer purchased the equipment based on affirmative representations made regarding the machines model year, service condition, and amount of hours reflected on the hour meter. However, unbeknownst to Matthew’s clients, the machines were purchased at public auction whereby the meters on each machine were subsequently altered and other attributes such as the model year and service condition were misrepresented in order to sell the machines for a higher purchase price. Upon discovery of the deception, Matthew has brought numerous fraud based actions against the company in which he has obtained an initial jury verdict in the favor of Black Star Investment Group LLC with future trials set for additional plaintiffs including potential punitive damage awards. Pro Quip LLC recently filed for bankruptcy attempting to discharge the debts and preserve their ill-gotten gains; however, Matthew has successfully obtained orders deeming such debts as products of fraud and thus, non-dischargeable for bankruptcy purposes.

FortiFi Financial Inc. v. MD Green Energy Builders LLC et al.

Miami-Dade County Court Case 2024-015637-CA-01

Matthew was retained by California based PACE (property assessed clean energy) administrator and lender, FortiFi Financial Inc., operating in California and Florida to seek the return of funds improperly collected by construction contractors. In the case of MD Green, the contractor was seeking to collect multiple payments from multiple lenders for the same job roof resulting in multiple liens being placed against a single homeowner’s property under Florida’s PACE program. Here, Matthew successfully worked to uncover the misconduct, evaluate damages, and hold responsible parties accountable through strategic litigation resulting in the issuance of an order for summary judgment in FortiFi’s favor for damages, court costs, and attorney’s fees.

OptacX Africa Inc. v. Sherman Brown

Orange County Case No. 2025-CC-005174

On behalf of a startup, Matthew filed a civil lawsuit alleging that one of its officers received corporate funds intended for legitimate business operations and investment activities; however, unbeknownst to the company, such officer diverted the funds for unauthorized personal use and transferred the funds through deceptive transactions intended to conceal the activity. Matthew discovered the specifics of the scheme, obtained necessary transaction information via discovery, and obtained a favorable summary judgment final order in his client’s favor for damages, court costs, and an award of attorney’s fees.

Driven Wyld Inc. v. General Motors

BBB National Programs Arbitration Case No. CHV2604694

Matthew’s client successfully prevailed against General Motors in a consumer arbitration involving claims under state lemon law protections related to a defective vehicle. The case centered on repeated mechanical and electrical issues that substantially impaired the vehicle’s use, value, and safety despite multiple repair attempts performed by an authorized dealership. Evidence presented during arbitration included repair invoices, service records, manufacturer communications, and testimony establishing that the defects persisted over an extended period of ownership. Through Matthew’s legal advocacy, the client prevailed at hearing which resulted in the manufacturer having to repurchase the vehicle.

Saintadie Alcide v. Magic Climate Control et al.

Broward County Case No. CACE-23-012441

Through high pressure tactics, an unscrupulous contractor induced an elderly homeowner to execute an agreement to make home renovations as part of an alleged “free” program for seniors when in fact no such program existed. The contractor completed the work but caused a lien for work at inflated costs to be placed against the home. Upon the homeowner’s family discovering the lien, Matthew was retained in which he located the contractor, uncovered the details of the scheme, and successfully brought action to remove the lien from the property along with obtaining a summary judgment order against the contractor for damages, court costs, and attorney’s fees. Subsequently, Matthew’s work on the case gained attention of local enforcement which led to the opening of a criminal investigation.

President Pascal v. Abel Perez

Saint Lucie County Case No. 2022-CC-001670

Cryptocurrency scam lawsuits generally involve allegations that investors were misled into transferring digital assets or funds through fraudulent investment platforms, fake token offerings, phishing schemes, or deceptive trading programs. In this case, Matthew’s client was promised insider knowledge on cryptocurrency trading strategies that turned out to be false. Matthew, supported by blockchain transaction records, dubious marketing materials and communications between the parties, filed an action and obtained a favorable settlement for his client.