---
title: "Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem"
meta:
  "og:title": " Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem"
---

Jury Verdict Categories

### **Jury Verdict Articles**

Explore jury verdict articles and case studies.

## **Search**

## **Filters**

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/ST_PAULUS_EVANGELICAL_LUTHERAN.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/church-wins-verdict-against-architect-over-botched-plans)

[**Breach of Contract**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-contract-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Breach of Fiduciary Duty**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty)

March 30, 2026

###### [Church Wins Verdict Against Architect Over Botched Plans](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/church-wins-verdict-against-architect-over-botched-plans)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/church-wins-verdict-against-architect-over-botched-plans)

A twelve-member San Francisco jury ruled in favor of a nonprofit church that paid over $530,000 in architectural fees but never received a usable set of building plans. The jury found the architecture firm and its principal architect liable for breach of contract, professional negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty, awarding damages across multiple categories including recovery of all fees paid, engineering costs, and future construction losses.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/SECURITY_NATIONAL_GUARANTY.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/beachfront-resort-fraud-4625m-verdict-for-fiduciary-breach)

[**Breach of Fiduciary Duty**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty) [**Commercial Litigation**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/commercial-litigation)

March 24, 2026

###### [Beachfront Resort Fraud: $46.25M Verdict for Fiduciary Breach](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/beachfront-resort-fraud-4625m-verdict-for-fiduciary-breach)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/beachfront-resort-fraud-4625m-verdict-for-fiduciary-breach)

This complex litigation centered on the Monterey Bay Shores Resort, a 40-acre beachfront development held in trust by Security National Guaranty, Inc. (SNG) for over 25 years. The dispute erupted after SNG partnered with an investment group led by Mahender Makhijani to refinance the project. SNG alleged that once the defendants gained control, they intentionally stalled development and orchestrated a "secret" $37 million loan from Nano Banc to drain the company’s equity. Following a two-phase trial in Orange County Superior Court, the jury found that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in a conspiracy to prioritize personal financial gains over the project's viability. While the jury rejected claims of stolen property and breach of contract, they awarded $9.25 million in compensatory damages and a staggering $37 million in punitive damages, finding the defendants acted with malice, oppression, and fraud.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/International_Firearms_South1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/international-firearms-v-glatze-jury-clears-all-defendants)

[**Breach of Fiduciary Duty**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty) [**Corporate Fraud**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/corporate-fraud)

March 4, 2026

###### [International Firearms v. Glatze: Jury Clears All Defendants](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/international-firearms-v-glatze-jury-clears-all-defendants)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/international-firearms-v-glatze-jury-clears-all-defendants)

The legal battle between International Firearms South, Inc. and Glatze Militum, LLC concluded in a Miami-Dade courtroom after years of allegations involving missing funds and broken promises. International Firearms launched the lawsuit claiming that Yevgeniya Carita, acting for Glatze, had siphoned $400,000 from their joint venture bank accounts without permission. The plaintiff argued this was a clear case of conversion and a breach of fiduciary duty that crippled their business operations. However, the defense maintained that the plaintiff had failed to meet its own contractual obligations. In a sweeping decision, the jury found that International Firearms had not performed its essential duties under the agreement, nor was it excused from doing so. Consequently, the jury cleared the defendants of all charges, and the court ruled that the plaintiff would recover nothing from the suit.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Berris1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/ex-de-tomaso-ceo-gets-540k-owes-129k-in-verdict)

[**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Breach of Fiduciary Duty**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty)

March 2, 2026

###### [Ex-De Tomaso CEO Gets $540K, Owes $129K in Verdict](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/ex-de-tomaso-ceo-gets-540k-owes-129k-in-verdict)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/ex-de-tomaso-ceo-gets-540k-owes-129k-in-verdict)

The storied revival of De Tomaso Automobili culminated in a complex legal showdown in the New York Southern District Court. Ryan Berris, the former CEO and Chief Marketing Officer, alleged he was the architect of the brand's rebirth, only to be ousted by Norman Choi amidst disputes over a SPAC merger and "unethical" business practices. While Berris sought millions for lost equity and defamation, the jury's February 5, 2026, verdict painted a nuanced picture of the partnership. The jury rejected Berris’s breach of contract and defamation claims but awarded him $540,502.36 under the theory of quantum meruit for services rendered. Simultaneously, the jury found Berris liable for breaching his fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to the company, awarding De Tomaso $129,069.36 in damages. This verdict marks the end of a bitter transition for the legendary Italian marque, balancing unpaid compensation against executive misconduct.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/NADIR_ELAMRI.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/miami-jury-expels-partner-in-motoro-cars-llc-dispute)

[**Business Transaction**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/business-transaction) [**Breach of Fiduciary Duty**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty)

November 25, 2025

###### [Miami Jury Expels Partner in Motoro Cars LLC Dispute](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/miami-jury-expels-partner-in-motoro-cars-llc-dispute)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/miami-jury-expels-partner-in-motoro-cars-llc-dispute)

A Miami-Dade County jury delivered a decisive verdict in Nadir Elamri et al. v. Felix Diaz, resolving a contentious partnership dispute involving Motoro Cars I, LLC and Motoro Cars II, LLC. The Plaintiffs former business partners alleged that Defendant Felix Diaz engaged in self-dealing, breached fiduciary obligations, and destabilized the company’s operations. After reviewing testimony and evidence, the jury found Diaz responsible for wrongful conduct and persistent violations of his duties of loyalty and care. The verdict ordered the judicial expulsion of Diaz from both companies an extraordinary legal remedy rarely awarded in business litigation. The jury also awarded $7,150 in damages to Plaintiffs Nadir Elamri and Cristopher Suarez for unjust enrichment. The decision completely rejected Diaz’s counterclaims and affirmed that the Plaintiffs acted within the bounds of their legal rights. The ruling marks a significant outcome in corporate governance and partnership litigation disputes involving limited liability companies in Florida.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/OAMIC_INGREDIENTS1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/jury-hits-ex-treasurer-gu-with-367k-in-corporate-theft-case)

[**Breach of Fiduciary Duty**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty)

October 24, 2025

###### [Jury Hits Ex-Treasurer Gu with $367K in Corporate Theft Case](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/jury-hits-ex-treasurer-gu-with-367k-in-corporate-theft-case)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/jury-hits-ex-treasurer-gu-with-367k-in-corporate-theft-case)

The lawsuit Oamic Ingredients, LLC v. Steven Z. Gu (FST-CV23-6063464-S) concluded on October 7, 2025, with a powerful victory for the plaintiff. Oamic Ingredients, LLC, had sued its former Treasurer, Steven Z. Gu, for financial misconduct, including Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion, and Statutory Civil Theft. The core of the dispute revolved around Oamic’s claim that Mr. Gu had misused his trusted position to misappropriate company funds and assets. Mr. Gu, representing himself as an attorney, denied the allegations and filed counterclaims. After a full jury trial in the Stamford Superior Court, the jury found in favor of Oamic Ingredients LLC on all claims. The jury awarded $327,593.05 in compensatory damages and $40,000.00 in liquidated damages for Breach of Contract, totaling $367,593.05 in direct damages. Furthermore, the jury made a critical finding of YES for both Treble Damages (Statutory Civil Theft) and Punitive Damages (Breach of Fiduciary Duty), which significantly increased the final monetary judgment against Mr. Gu due to his intentional misconduct.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/executive-loses-wage-and-defamation-case-vs-investment-firm)

[**Defamation**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/defamation) [**Breach of Fiduciary Duty**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty)

October 10, 2025

###### [Executive Loses Wage and Defamation Case vs Investment Firm](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/executive-loses-wage-and-defamation-case-vs-investment-firm)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/executive-loses-wage-and-defamation-case-vs-investment-firm)

The case, John Malik v. Deccan Value LLC, et al., heard in the Superior Court of Stamford-Norwalk, Connecticut, pitted former business executive John Malik against the investment management entities and their principal, Vinit M. Bodas. Malik had filed a multi-count complaint, alleging breach of contract, failure to pay wages, statutory theft, unjust enrichment, and defamation, primarily stemming from disputes over his compensation and termination. The defendants, Deccan Value LLC and Bodas, denied all allegations and asserted that Malik had been properly paid and that his conduct justified their actions. After a jury trial that concluded on August 13, 2025, the jury returned a complete defense verdict. The jury considered each of Malik's 14 claims, including Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Breach of Contract, Fraudulent Inducement, and Defamation Per Se. On every single count, the jury found in favor of the Deccan entities and Bodas, relieving them of all liability for damages and punitive measures sought by Malik.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/fetes-events-prevails-in-miami-hall-dispute-verdict)

[**Breach of Fiduciary Duty**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty) [**Nuisance**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/category/nuisance)

September 15, 2025

###### [Fetes & Events Prevails in Miami Hall Dispute Verdict](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/fetes-events-prevails-in-miami-hall-dispute-verdict)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/jury-verdict/fetes-events-prevails-in-miami-hall-dispute-verdict)

In a heated Coral Gables property dispute, the Knights of Columbus Council No. 3274 sued longtime event manager Fetes & Events, Inc. over control of a historic community hall at 270 Catalonia Avenue. The Knights accused Fetes of breaching fiduciary duties, trespassing, and disrupting charitable events vital to their mission, including allegations of sabotage and unauthorized surveillance. Fetes countered that the Knights had accepted its practices for years and only objected after benefiting from the arrangement. After hearing conflicting accounts, a Miami-Dade jury on April 29, 2025, sided entirely with Fetes & Events. The verdict cleared Fetes of all claims, leaving the Knights without damages or control changes. The case underscores the importance of clear management agreements and consistent oversight in long-term business relationships.