Diana Beaz Cluff is a Partner in the firm’s Miami office who handles a wide array of cases in both state and federal court through trial, representing various businesses, municipalities, yacht clubs and marinas. Her most significant representations with the Firm are outlined below.
Ms.Cluff was born and raised in Miami, Florida. Before law school, Ms. Cluff worked in a real estate law firm that provided title and closing services for both residential and commercial transactions. During her time there, she conducted more than 1,000 residential real estate closings, drafting closing statements, managing the policy department, and assisting in the management of the processing and post-closing departments. While in law school, she served her student body as Vice President of Trial on the Board of Advocates Executive Board. Ms. Cluff also competed as a member of both the Appellate Advocacy Moot Court and Mock Trial Teams, earning recognition in various state-wide competitions, including the Hispanic National Bar Association Moot Court Competition; the Wechsler Moot Court Competition; and the AAJ National Mock Trial Competition in Phoenix, Arizona. She was also selected to receive both the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Scholarship and the American Board of Trial Advocates Scholarship.
Before joining the Firm, Ms. Cluff worked as an Associate with a boutique litigation practice handling cases through the trial stage in the areas of personal injury, commercial disputes, professional liability, administrative proceedings, real estate litigation, and general contract disputes.
Admitted to Practice
Travelers Insurance Company, as Subrogee of G. Robert Toney & Associates, Inc. d/b/a National Liquidators and Maritech Services, Inc., v. Commercial Cool –Temp Corp. Case No. 11-61748-CIV-DIMITROULEAS/SNOW
Associate Counsel in Federal Maritime action brought by Plaintiff Subrogee alleging several causes of action against commercial subcontractor for the loss of a vessel entrusted to the Subrogor by the United States Marshals Service. Final Judgment found in favor of the Defendant, Commercial Cool-Temp Corp., with separate Order awarding attorneys’ fees in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff as sanctions for Plaintiff’s discovery violations.
Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC v. Sunset Harbour Marina, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-24469-KAM
Associate Counsel in Federal Maritime action brought by Plaintiff Subrogee alleging several causes of action against a yacht club and its marina (co-defendants) for the loss of a vessel owned by the Subrogor, which was docked at the marina. After having obtained Plaintiff’s agreement to withdraw its breach of contract claim against the marina, the Court also granted client’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, Motion to Compel Arbitration, staying the action and compelling arbitration. Thereafter, a Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees was filed against Plaintiff for having pursued its civil suit, in violation of the agreement to arbitrate, after which a favorable settlement was reached under which its attorneys’ fees and costs for defense of the matter were recuperated and the Plaintiff Subrogee waived any claims it could pursue in arbitration.
Estate of Virginia Murray v. City of Lake Worth and Palm Beach County, Case No. 502011CA005409XXXXMB, and appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Case No. 13-3958:
Summary Judgment was obtained in favor of the City of Lake Worth in a claim for wrongful death brought by the son and personal representative of a deceased automobile passenger. After several amendments to the claim brought against the City, Plaintiff ultimately alleged that the City of Lake Worth created a dangerous condition of which it was aware by controlling, operating, and maintaining its electrical power grid in a negligent manner. After summary judgment was entered in favor of the City, Plaintiff appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, claiming not only that the trial court’s ruling was incorrect but also claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment given that discovery was alleged to have been in its early stages. After reviewing the briefs on the matter, the Fourth DCA affirmed per curiam.