HeartPoint Global, Inc., Etc v. Dragon Blue Limited, Etc.

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 27, 2026.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1481

Lower Tribunal No. 23-16924-CA-01

________________

HeartPoint Global, Inc., etc., Appellant,

vs.

Dragon Blue Limited, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko Sanchez, Judge.

Sniffen & Spellman, P.A., and Robert J. Hauser, for appellant.

Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Aleksy Shtivelman and Douglas M. Kramer, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Attorney’s Title Ins. Fund, Inc. v. Landa-Posada, 984 So.

2d 641, 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“The amount of a fee award is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.”); Florida Recovery Sols., Inc. v. Westport Recovery Corp., 420 So. 3d 632, 632 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“We will uphold a trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees so long as it is supported by substantial, competent evidence.” (quoting Effective Teleservices, Inc. v. Smith, 132 So. 3d 335, 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014))); Hotel La Petite Muse, LLC v. Verzura Constr., Inc., 395 So. 3d 574, 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“[F]indings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous.” (citing de Holguin v. Godin, 367 So. 3d 1286, 1288-89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023))); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (“[D]iscretion is abused only where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial court. If reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.” (citation omitted)); Gidwani v. Roberts, 349 So. 3d 917, 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“The record on appeal establishes that the trial court's [Final Judgment on attorney’s fees] was supported by competent, substantial evidence. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering Final Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants

3

would like this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court, but that is something this Court cannot do.”); Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Davide, 117 So. 3d 1142, 1145-46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“Based upon a review of the record and the detailed court order, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the attorney's fees…. the trial court fully analyzed the factors to be considered in determining reasonable costs and fees pursuant to the Florida Bar's Rule of Professional Conduct 4–1.5(a), as well as the required elements of [Florida Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)] and [Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)], in making the award, and made detailed findings of fact that are supported by competent substantial evidence.”).