Wilfredo A. Diaz v. Ram Investments of South Florida, Inc.
This text of Wilfredo A. Diaz v. Ram Investments of South Florida, Inc. (Wilfredo A. Diaz v. Ram Investments of South Florida, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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 injunction 1 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.
1 We affirmed the trial court’s denial of RAM’s motion for temporary injunction. RAM Invs. of S. Fla., Inc. v. Diaz, 387 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).
2 Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Wilfredo A. Diaz v. Ram Investments of South Florida, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilfredo-a-diaz-v-ram-investments-of-south-florida-inc-fladistctapp-2026.