Alex P. Rosenthal

Meet Alex P. Rosenthal

The man, the myth, the lawyer. Founder of Rosenthal Law Group in July 2012, Alex has been helping clients navigate the murky waters of business disputes and litigation with a mix of sharp legal acumen and just enough sarcasm to keep it interesting. Born and raised in Miami, Florida, Alex decided early on to turn his love of arguing into a profession, much to the delight of his family, who are still recovering from years of spirited "debates."

The Lawyer Stuff

Alex’s practice spans a little bit of everything that keeps businesses up at night:

• Contract disputes
• Fraud cases
• Employment law
• Real estate litigation
• Complex commercial landlord-tenant disputes (because who doesn’t love a good lease fight?)

Before founding Rosenthal Law Group, Alex cut his teeth at the prestigious Stroock & Stroock & Lavan and later at Britton, Weissman, Lichtman & Dervishi, P.A. He’s litigated statewide in state and federal courts and even moonlights as a certified arbitrator in Broward County. If there’s a courtroom, Alex is comfortable in it (though he might prefer one with better snacks).

Credentials That Look Great on Paper

• Education: B.A. from the University of Virginia (1986), J.D. from the University of Florida College of Law (1989) – with honors, no less.
• Florida Supreme Court Certified Civil Circuit Court Mediator - Certification No. 43550R. Certified Circuit Court Arbitrator, 17th Judicial District, in and for Broward County, Florida.
• Trial Law Institute
• Diversity Law Institute
• Barrister, Order of Veritas
• Senior Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America
• AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell
• Named to the exclusive list of U.S. News – Best Lawyers® Best Law Firms (2018-2025)
• Selected to the Florida Super Lawyers list (2020-2025)
• Selected for Fort Lauderdale Illustrated's Top Lawyers (2020)
• Recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® in the field of Commercial Litigation (2010-2025)
• Recognized by The Best Lawyers in America® in the field of Litigation-Construction category (2016-2022)
• Business Lawyer of the Year by Corporate America (2016)
• Florida's Commercial Landlord-Tenant Litigator of the Year by Acquisition International (2016)
• 10.0 Superb rating by Avvo®
• Recognized in the Miami Herald as one of South Florida's Top Lawyers (2011-2012)
• M&A Award by Corporate Livewire for "Excellence in Business Litigation Law — FL, USA." (2017)
• Finance Monthly Global Award (2017)
• Lawyer Monthly of Legal Awards (2017)
• Named to Florida Trend Magazine's "Legal Elite" 2019
• Lawyers of Distinction (2017)
• Lawyers of Distinction (2020)
• America’s Top 100 Bet-the-Company Litigators® for 2019-2021
• "Most Outstanding Law Firm of 2016" from Wealth & Finance International
• Best Business Law Firm in Miami (2016)

If there’s a plaque, Alex probably has it.

Just a few of Alex’s Greatest Hits

Mr. Rosenthal handles trial and appellate issues before both state and federal courts where he has obtained several precedent setting decisions including:

• Venture Investment Group II, LLC v. Nurish.me, Inc., , Case No. 2020-010773-CA-01, 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, a case involving a claim for breach of two promissory notes. The firm successfully obtained summary Judgment in the amount of $7,889,660.79 for its client.
• GFA International, Inc. v Eric Trillas and Trillas Consulting Engineers, 327 So.3d 872 (3d DCA 2021), a case involving the appeal of the denial of a motion for temporary injunction. The firm represented the employer, GFA International, who sued its former employee Eric Trillas and his company, Trillas Consulting Engineers, to enforce a non-competition and nonsolicitation agreement. The trial court denied the motion for temporary injunction. The firm appealed the denial to the Third District Court of Appeal. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the denial of the temporary injunction and ordered the trial court to enter the injunction. Notably, the appellate court rejected the argument that the employee did not have a legitimate business interest to enforce the non-competition to protect the line of business because the employee claimed to have brought the line of business to the employer. The court also rejected the argument, advanced by the employee and agreed to by the trial court, that the non-compete should not be enforced so the employee could keep his new job performing storm damage and engineering services during the pandemic. In support of reversing the trial court, the Third District Court of Appeals cited Florida’s non-compete statute, Section 542.335, which provides: “In determining the enforceability of a restrictive covenant, a court … [s]hall not consider any individualized economic or other hardship that might be caused to the person against whom enforcement is sought.”
• Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v Wolfson, 299 So.3d 28 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2020), a case where the firm represented a plaintiff in the appeal of a $1.6 million verdict obtained by the firm’s client and final judgment in an underinsured motorist case. The insurer sought the reversal of the entire verdict. The appellate court affirmed the verdict and permitted the setoffs request by the insurer.
• Off the Wall & Gameroom LLC v. Gabbai, 301 So.3d 281 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2020), a case involving the appeal of an order denying arbitration filed by the firm. In a case of first impression and with wide ranging ramifications, the court reversed the order denying arbitration and held that children who procure a contract by fraud are bound by the contract and cannot involve the “infancy defense” to avoid the contract. The court also confirmed that reasonable reliance is not required in a claim for fraud.
• Fields v. Toussie, 295 So.3d 1191 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2020), a case involving the appeal of a Writ of Bodily Attachment entered against a judgment debtor. Rosenthal Law Group represented the judgment creditor who domesticated a foreign judgment exceeding $8,000,000. The judgment debtor failed to comply with discovery in aid of execution and violated multiple court orders requiring discovery. The firm successfully obtained a writ of bodily attachment against the debtor. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the issuance of the writ of bodily attachment.
• United States v. Estelle Stein, 881 F.3d 853 (11^th Cir. 2018), an en banc decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals overruling more than thirty years of precedent in the Eleventh Circuit which previously held that a taxpayer could not overcome the presumption of correctness in favor of the IRS to defeat a summary judgment motion solely by filing an uncorroborated self-serving affidavit. The Eleventh Circuit held that an otherwise admissible affidavit is sufficient to defeat summary judgment even though it is self-serving an uncorroborated.
• Inside the Art of Craftmanship Corp. v. Design Center of the Americas, 237 So.3d 378 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2018), a case where the appellate court affirmed a final judgment of possession entered against a commercial tenant who failed to deposit rent into the court registry pending the resolution of the case even though the court was closed on the due date.
• Acquisition Trust Company, LLC v. Laurel Pinebrook, LLC, 226 So.3d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), reh. denied, a successful appeal of a trial court’s dismissal with prejudice without leave to amend in a case involving a claim of an improper exercise of a right of first refusal.
• Yellow Cab Company v. Ewing by and through Jones, 225 So.2d 302 (Fla 3d DCA 2017), dismissal of an untimely appeal of an amended final judgment correcting a scrivener’s error.
• Gunter v. Sprintcom, Inc., 2016 WL 1619892 (M.D. Fla. April 15, 2016), wherein the Court granted the client’s (Sprintcom, Inc.) motion to compel arbitration and to stay the litigation based on the arbitration agreement contained in the Terms and Conditions of Service.
• Almany Investors, Ltd. V. Nextel South Corp., 2015 WL 74091 (S.D. Fla. 2015), a case which awarded summary judgment in favor of Nextel South Corp. confirming its right to terminate Communications Site Lease Agreement which contained a clause entitling Nextel to terminate the Lease if "it determined that the Premises [were] not appropriate for its operations for economic or technological reasons." Nextel exercised its right of termination after the shutdown of its iDEN network in June 2013, yet Almany disagreed with Nextel's right to terminate and filed suit. The summary judgment was granted by United State District Judge Federico A. Moreno.
• Design Center of the Americas, LLC v. Mike Bell, Inc., 254 F. Supp.3d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2014), a case which clarified that a defendant cannot seek removal to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction if the amount in the complaint is not alleged to be more than $75,000 and the sole basis for the removal is the amount at issue in the defendant's counterclaim. The decision was the first published opinion in the Southern District of Florida that clarified the rule that the counterclaim is irrelevant when determining the amount in controversy in a removal setting.
• In re Turner, 519 B.R. 354 (Bkrtcy. S.D. Fla. 2014), a case which awarded Rule 11 sanctions in favor of a creditor represented by Mr. Rosenthal and against a Chapter 13 debtor and his attorney for filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition when the debtor was not eligible for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and who filed inaccurate schedules.
• Harty v. SRA/Palm Trails Plaza, LLC, 755 F.Supp.2d 1215 (S.D. Fla. 2010), a case which clarified that an ADA plaintiff lacks standing to complain about barriers that he did not encounter and is not entitled to perform a post-filing inspection of areas within a property that were not encountered by him prior to the filing of the complaint.
• Maya v. Omnicare, Inc., 2010 WL 2889569 (S.D. Fla. 2010), a case which clarified that a defendant cannot seek removal to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction if the amount in controversy is merely based on speculation.
• Martin v. Florida Power and Light Co., 909 So.2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), the first case in Florida to establish the duty of utilities in underground damage cases.
• Briceno v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 911 So.2d 176, (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), a case involving the ability to bind parties to standard contractual terms posted on the internet.
• Watson v. Adecco Employment Services, Inc., 252 F.Supp.2d 1347 (M.D. Fla. 2003), one of the first cases ever to establish the limitation on liability of a temporary staffing firm for discrimination against a temporary employee.
• J & P Transp., Inc. v. Fidelity and Cas. Co. of New York, 750 So.2d 752 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), the first Florida case to establish the automatic trebled civil damages following a criminal conviction for theft.
• Enriquillo Export & Import, Inc. v. M.B.R. Industries, Inc., 733 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the first Florida case to clarify that payment by check does not constitute payment when mailed.

When He’s Not Lawyering

Outside the courtroom, Alex lives life at full speed. He’s a fitness enthusiast, avid gardener, amateur chef (with professional eating skills), and a globe-trotter. His true guilty pleasure? Streaming everything. Whether it’s a high-brow drama or a reality TV meltdown, Alex and his wife are there with snacks and commentary. Bravo is practically a second law firm in their house.

He also enjoys volunteering, spending time with his two daughters (who somehow inherited his wit), and spoiling the family dogs—who are likely the real bosses of the household.

In Case You Were Wondering

Alex is admitted to The Florida Bar, District of Columbia Bar, U.S. District Courts (Southern, Middle, and Northern Districts of Florida), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. Basically, if there’s a court that matters, Alex is ready to argue in it.

The Bottom Line

Alex P. Rosenthal is the lawyer you call when you need someone who’s as sharp as they are approachable. He takes his clients' cases seriously—himself, not so much.