Linkedin Instagram Facebook

Gilda M. Chavez

Partner

Miami

P | (305) 379-3686

F | (305) 379-3690

[email protected]

VCard
LinkedIn

Gilda M. Chavez is a Partner in the firm’s Miami office, where she practices in the areas of commercial, insurance, maritime, aviation, arbitration (both domestic and international), business disputes, premises, automobile negligence, personal injury protection (PIP), personal injury and wrongful death defense, hospitality, and transportation. Ms. Chavez has been practicing law since 1992 including nearly ten years as in-house legal counsel for two insurance companies. She has tried numerous bench and jury trials and handled appeals.

Ms. Chavez recently expanded her practice to include mediation services. With over 30 years of litigation experience across a range of areas, she now offers her experience to help resolve cases through mediation. Her strategy is to work closely with the parties to bring them to mutually agreeable solutions with efficiency and skill.

Ms. Chavez is bilingual in English and Spanish.

Practice Areas

Education

J.D., Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center

B.B.S., Florida International University

  • Internaves de Mex. s.a. de C.V. v. Andromeda S.S. Corp., 898 F.3d 1087 (11th Cir. 2018) – Reversal of Order Erroneously Interpreting Contract: Obtained reversal of decision ordering arbitration in Miami instead of honoring the contract’s conflicts provision which required arbitration in London under English law
  • Escobar v. Celebration Cruise Operator, Inc., 805 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1158 (2016) – addressing cost-based effective vindication defense to cruise line’s motion to compel foreign arbitration under the New York Convention and finding that seaman failed to establish that arbitration costs precluded his access to the forum.
  • Escobal v. Celebration Cruise Operator, Inc., 482 F. App’x 475 (11th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1998 (2013) – determining that the seaman’s claim against the defendant cruise line were inextricably intertwined with his claims against the contract signatory Celebration Cruise Operator. Thus, the district court properly applied equitable estoppel in requiring the seaman to arbitrate his claim against the cruise line.
  • Ringewald v. Holland America Line –USA Inc., Case No. 1:15–cv–20254, 2015 WL 4199808 (S.D. Fla. July 10, 2015) holding American seaman’s duties onboard the vessel constituted work abroad within the meaning of the New York Convention and required that she arbitrate her claims per the terms of her employment agreement. Additionally, the court held the seaman’s claims against her employer were inextricably intertwined with her claims against other defendants not parties to the contract and under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the non-signatory defendants could enforce the arbitration agreement.
  • Cardenas Gonzalez v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., Case No. 13-60225-CIV; 2013 WL 11976886 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 26, 2013) holding that the arbitration provision in the seaman’s employment agreement requiring the application of Bermuda law in arbitration was valid and enforceable where there was no showing that the remedies in Bermuda were fundamentally unfair.

  • The Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch, Commercial Litigation (2023 – Present)

  • Florida
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
  • United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
  • Supreme Court of the United States

  • Claims and Litigation Management Alliance (CLM)
  • National Association of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms (NAMWOLF)

  • Spanish